Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped
Comments
-
RichN95 wrote:Can we please stop trying to make out that Simeoni was some sort of victim who was hounded out of the sport. He was 38 when he retired, which is a damn good run, especially for a convicted doper.
But he's "not Lance" which gives his a free pass.
(See also Jan Ullrich, Floyd Landis..........)'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
Yup, there's plenty of gullible people in the world who'll buy yellow plastic wristbands to perpetuate the 'myth' - Lance's Fairness Fund (LaFF) anyone?Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Jez mon wrote:Why does he lose money if the UCI get taken down, I'm confused!
Shame that he didn't fight it though, or give an admission of guilt
He took out insurance that paid out $1m every time he won a Tour.
Right, so what does that have to do with the UCI?"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Dorset Boy wrote:Oh, i don't know. I work in financial services, and the FSA hates IFAs and has been trying to destroy them for a number of years, based on nothing more than dislike........
Didn't USADA turn a blind eye to PEDs in the US Olympic programmes for many years, and could now be out to prove their worth? (Or am I incorrect in that?)
I'm not saying he's innocent, because there is clearly a stack of evidence to prove otherwise.
And there was me thinking IFAs were unpopular because of all those years of selling products designed to make them more than their clients.0 -
It was always the nearly impossible task holding LA to account.
The UCI or whoever would never have had the inclination or firepower to follow it through.
Everyody would have thought through the scenarios and the prospect of getting bogged down in endless expensive legal minefields and losing in the court of public opinion and financial loss was always enough to conclude it was not worth starting something you can't finish.
So I think Tygart deserves a lot of credit here for coming up with strategy that was thought through and workable.
Yes, the from one angle the approach looks borderline obessesive, ruthless, focused and uncompromising, but that was the only way it was ever going to work taking on Armstrong.0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Jez mon wrote:Why does he lose money if the UCI get taken down, I'm confused!
Shame that he didn't fight it though, or give an admission of guilt
He took out insurance that paid out $1m every time he won a Tour.
Right, so what does that have to do with the UCI?
Nothing.0 -
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12122 ... rvice.aspxRick Chasey wrote:
He took out insurance that paid out $1m every time he won a Tour.Jez mon wrote:Why does he lose money if the UCI get taken down, I'm confused!
Shame that he didn't fight it though, or give an admission of guilt
Is a fairly short explanation of the situation0 -
Hinault's reaction
https://twitter.com/dnlbenson/status/238946307316793345
Hinault: "I don't fucking care. It's his problem not mine. It's a problem that should have been solved 10 or 15 years ago and wasn't."0 -
dougzz wrote:Dorset Boy wrote:Oh, i don't know. I work in financial services, and the FSA hates IFAs and has been trying to destroy them for a number of years, based on nothing more than dislike........
Didn't USADA turn a blind eye to PEDs in the US Olympic programmes for many years, and could now be out to prove their worth? (Or am I incorrect in that?)
I'm not saying he's innocent, because there is clearly a stack of evidence to prove otherwise.
And there was me thinking IFAs were unpopular because of all those years of selling products designed to make them more than their clients.
The banks did that far, far more than a small minority of IFAs. Anyway, look at the complaints histories of IFAs vs the Banks, and then ask why the FSA has persistently set out to destroy IFAs, yet have for years cosied up to the banks...
Sorry for going well O/T!0 -
dougzz wrote:
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12122 ... rvice.aspxRick Chasey wrote:
He took out insurance that paid out $1m every time he won a Tour.Jez mon wrote:Why does he lose money if the UCI get taken down, I'm confused!
Shame that he didn't fight it though, or give an admission of guilt
Is a fairly short explanation of the situation
SCA I have no sympathy for. They're just a glorified bookie. They took a bet. They lost. And that's that.Twitter: @RichN950 -
''The moral of the story is that if a cyclist looks too good to be true, then he probably is. But if a cyclist looks too good to be true and has an entourage of lawyers, press flaks, doctors and bodyguards, then he definitely is.'' the end passage from the Guardians' take on things0
-
RichN95 wrote:dougzz wrote:
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12122 ... rvice.aspxRick Chasey wrote:
He took out insurance that paid out $1m every time he won a Tour.Jez mon wrote:Why does he lose money if the UCI get taken down, I'm confused!
Shame that he didn't fight it though, or give an admission of guilt
Is a fairly short explanation of the situation
SCA I have no sympathy for. They're just a glorified bookie. They took a bet. They lost. And that's that.
God, Simeoni and now bookies. Bad day at Chez Rich0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Jez mon wrote:Why does he lose money if the UCI get taken down, I'm confused!
Shame that he didn't fight it though, or give an admission of guilt
He took out insurance that paid out $1m every time he won a Tour.
Right, so what does that have to do with the UCI?
Nothing.
Not quite - if, the allegations that the UCI have been covering up positive tests and generally minding his back are shown to be true, then they are fraudulent insurance claims.'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
I feel sorry for his children. Daddy's not a hero any more.
Can't think which smiley is appropriate: :? or :roll:
Oh, and I've read somewhere this morning a quote from LA wrt the Tour, containing "....there are no short cuts...." Oh really? There's a U-Tube clip of him doing precisely that. (across a field)0 -
LangerDan wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Jez mon wrote:Why does he lose money if the UCI get taken down, I'm confused!
Shame that he didn't fight it though, or give an admission of guilt
He took out insurance that paid out $1m every time he won a Tour.
Right, so what does that have to do with the UCI?
Nothing.
Not quite - if, the allegations that the UCI have been covering up positive tests and generally minding his back are shown to be true, then they are fraudulent insurance claims.
They already are, he's refused to contest charges from the anti doping authority that policed his license during those wins"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9496632/Lance-Armstrong-doping-case-by-USADA-needed-to-be-above-criticism-but-too-many-questions-left-unanswered.html
Seriously, why do the Telegraph pay Brendan Gallagher to write about cycling, his every utterance is in diametric opposition to the facts in front of him? Complete refusla to engage in the actual allegations (conspiracy, floyd etc) and a loud of what-abouteryThere has been a long litany of allegations but precious little supporting evidence.It's still a moot point legally if USADA have the authority to do that, the UCI are the world governing body and it is the UCI who oversaw the drug testing during Armstrong's comeback years and declared all the tests he undertook during that period to be clean.Who does cycling "go after" next? Indurain, Hinault, Merckx. Does cycling now 'go after' every serial winner in its history?So what have we got now? None of these testimonies, it would seem, will now be tested by an independent or objective third party and presumably now that USADA will simply rubber stamp their own allegations there is no need to even identify who these anonymous riders giving testimony are.
USADA aren't independent?!"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Come on, this is better than another 200 pages of the same old Lance crap. Obviously some good and some bad, but there were a LOT of IFAs selling products that were more about their commission than the client's interest. The banks pull a lot of crap, but they're also a convenient target for many people being too stupid to run their own lives. If the government thought they could extract the same sort of cash from IFAs they do from banks they'd be all over them too.Dorset Boy wrote:The banks did that far, far more than a small minority of IFAs. Anyway, look at the complaints histories of IFAs vs the Banks, and then ask why the FSA has persistently set out to destroy IFAs, yet have for years cosied up to the banks...
Sorry for going well O/T!0 -
Slim Boy Fat wrote:Unfortunately I think he has still won. Checking the none cycling forums I frequent, and the overwhelming attitude seems to be that Lance is the victim and USADA are the bad guys. So whilst within cycling he may be seen for what he is, the general populous would appear to think very differently. The coward he is, he had a chance to come clean and do some good for a sport that has given him so much wealth and fame. Instead he hides behind this BS like a coward. Chapeau.
Not neccassarily:
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more- ... -1.1143443
Lance Armstrong's worldwide lie is exposed as he opts not to challenge doping charges brought to him0 -
I have no problem with bookies. They're generally pretty honest. It's the bookies that pretend that they're insurance companies and adopt their weasely ways that I object to.dougzz wrote:RichN95 wrote:dougzz wrote:
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12122 ... rvice.aspxRick Chasey wrote:
He took out insurance that paid out $1m every time he won a Tour.Jez mon wrote:Why does he lose money if the UCI get taken down, I'm confused!
Shame that he didn't fight it though, or give an admission of guilt
Is a fairly short explanation of the situation
SCA I have no sympathy for. They're just a glorified bookie. They took a bet. They lost. And that's that.
God, Simeoni and now bookies. Bad day at Chez RichTwitter: @RichN950 -
How differently would things have turned out if the UCI had rejected that back-dated TUE for saddle sore cream all those years ago?Neil McC wrote:Hinault's reaction
https://twitter.com/dnlbenson/status/238946307316793345
Hinault: "I don't ******* care. It's his problem not mine. It's a problem that should have been solved 10 or 15 years ago and wasn't."0 -
I'd forgotten about that. Now I'm even more depressed. And its a Friday. Thanks RCRick Chasey wrote:
FCN3: Titanium Qoroz.0 -
The main thing in what Lance has chosen to do at this point means the evidence is yet to come out. USADA say the evidence will become public.
When the evidence is aired, and up to 10 cycling team mates may have stated they knew he doped, doped with him, or saw him dope (amongst all the other evidence), the perception of some of the fans might change.
Seeing the story on BBC News, its clearly apparent that the evidence and when it will come out is not talked about, its just really reported that Lance has given up the fight, and that's all Lance would want reported.
The wider public will only condemn him when the BS stops and the evidence comes out.
The test side of things is irrelevant. If someone stabbed someone to death in the street and legged it and 10 people saw it, that person wouldn't get away with murder charges if no knife was recovered, plus if the knife was disposed of by someone else and never recovered, the murderer wouldnt get away with it and the knife disposal would be investigated and relevant.0 -
Wrath Rob wrote:
I'd forgotten about that. Now I'm even more depressed. And its a Friday. Thanks RCRick Chasey wrote:
Probably the only time I'm like to say that....0 -
0
-
Lichtblick wrote:I feel sorry for his children. Daddy's not a hero any more.
Can't think which smiley is appropriate: :? or :roll:
They may have already cottoned on...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-OkFKJBSbw0 -
rdt wrote:Lichtblick wrote:I feel sorry for his children. Daddy's not a hero any more.
Can't think which smiley is appropriate: :? or :roll:
They may have already cottoned on...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-OkFKJBSbw
Poor girl, she was probably really looking forward to giving her dad that medal0 -
Neil McC wrote:Hinault's reaction
https://twitter.com/dnlbenson/status/238946307316793345
Hinault: "I don't ******* care. It's his problem not mine. It's a problem that should have been solved 10 or 15 years ago and wasn't."
+10 -
http://news.yahoo.com/armstrong-arrogan ... 00635.html?ARMSTRONG ARROGANT EVEN AFTER ADMITTING DOPING, ASSERTS FORMER WHITE HOUSE AND WADA SPOKESMAN ROBERT WEINER;
"Lance Armstrong's arrogance even now after admitting doping – his belief he knows more than the enforcement system and can beat it – is what finally brought him down," asserted Robert Weiner, the former White House Drug Policy spokesman and former WADA Olympics spokesman. Weiner, who was the spokesman for the Office of National Drug Policy and worked to help create WADA and USADA, said, "Armstrong conceded only because he would be beaten by over ten witnesses' testimony in arbitration who saw him dope and who had spoken with investigators. His statement that 'Everyone knows who won' is outrageous and wrong. Everyone now knows who cheated. This is a sad but huge victory for clean sport, and for WADA and USADA's ongoing mission to end drug cheating and assure youth that they will have an even playing field without drugs determining the champion."
"The real victory in Armstrong's concession is children who can believe that even the most famous athletes can get caught if they cheat," Weiner stated.0 -
The correspondent on BBC is making out that all of this case comes about from USADA picking up on the evidence from the Federal 'funds investigation'... thats not accurate.
One example of how the general public don't really get an accurate view if the press doesn't give it.0 -
What happens to the 10 (?) witnesses now?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
