Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped
Comments
-
What happens to the 10 (?) witnesses now?
And the UCI evidence ?0 -
Lichtblick wrote:
Thank you, I'm pretty certain no-one on here will have ever seen that before.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:What happens to the 10 (?) witnesses now?
USADA have made clear the evidence will come out. There are other arbitrations that are going forward.
UCI have requested information from USADA, so it seems likely they might say they want the evidence before applying the nullification of the wins... whether they get given it god knows, I think its pretty definite the other Arbitrations will happen before they provide anything (which they probably don't have to anyway).
...or, do you mean what happens regarding their bans etc??0 -
David Walsh on Armstrong and USADA's charges
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/david-w ... as-charges“For me it’s a good day in at least that some guy who has been incredibly cynical has his just desserts. But the investigation should really be much deeper than Lance Armstrong. Who are the people who protected him? Are they still in cycling, are they still controlling cycling? Even the most neutral observer would say that cycling has been incredibly badly served by its leadership.”“It’s just wrong that guys who were riding the race clean and never appeared in the top 20 were screwed by a corrupt system and in my view a system that couldn’t not have remained corrupt without the complicity of the people who run the sport, the race organisers, the sponsors, the cycling journalists. Too many people turned a blind eye to something that was obviously wrong and they did it for all the wrong reasons.”
And on complicit journos...“When you think of all the nonsense we had to listen to about Armstrong being faster than Pantani in '98. Armstrong goes and rides a faster Tour a year later and you have all these idiot journalists saying, well the roads and the bikes are better, it’s logical. It was all completely illogical and if they were being honest they would have known this.”
“You still see it today. There are still some journalists going out from England to cover the Tour who half believe that Armstrong is innocent, who have been defending him. Complete buffoons.”0 -
mfin wrote:TailWindHome wrote:What happens to the 10 (?) witnesses now?
USADA have made clear the evidence will come out. There are other arbitrations that are going forward.
UCI have requested information from USADA, so it seems likely they might say they want the evidence before applying the nullification of the wins... whether they get given it god knows, I think its pretty definite the other Arbitrations will happen before they provide anything (which they probably don't have to anyway).
...or, do you mean what happens regarding their bans etc??
Here we go...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/104065500 -
jim453 wrote:Lichtblick wrote:
Thank you, I'm pretty certain no-one on here will have ever seen that before.
Then I am happy to help.0 -
Lichtblick wrote:jim453 wrote:Lichtblick wrote:
Thank you, I'm pretty certain no-one on here will have ever seen that before.
Then I am happy to help.
Brilliant.0 -
Thank you.
I've just been asked if LA will have to give all his prize money back.
Will he?0 -
Lichtblick wrote:Thank you.
I've just been asked if LA will have to give all his prize money back.
Will he?
Unlikely.0 -
mfin wrote: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.
But if the 10 people who saw the murderer were confirmed murderers who stood to gain from their evidence (reduced sentences) ... and that is the only evidence against the prime murderer then it starts to look a bit shakey.
From what I've read here and other reports it does look like LA was doping yet having clean tests. All this claim and counter claim is just annoying though ... I bet that even if someone produces a positive re-test there will be a claim that it's been falsified ...
I bet Jesus didn't really die on the cross either .. he was just dehydrated and fell unconscious.... woke up in the tomb and drank the water left there ...
0 -
I meant the TdF prize money specifically.
Contrary to what someone posted earlier, Wiki still shows those seven 1sts.0 -
prize money was awarded by the ASO so depends on what they decide0
-
That's already happened. Kinda. The French doping agency re-tested some of Armstrong's samples from the 1999 tour and found EPO. The friendly UCI paid for a report that effectively said that the tests could not be relied upon because the samples were old and could have been degraded. They didn't however explain what chemical process could cause clean urine to produce EPO.Slowbike wrote:From what I've read here and other reports it does look like LA was doping yet having clean tests. All this claim and counter claim is just annoying though ... I bet that even if someone produces a positive re-test there will be a claim that it's been falsified ...0 -
Slowbike wrote:
But if the 10 people who saw the murderer were confirmed murderers who stood to gain from their evidence (reduced sentences) ... and that is the only evidence against the prime murderer then it starts to look a bit shakey.
Sounds very much like a standard mafia case in the US used for successful prosecutions.0 -
Why do people still involved in cycling really tweet sh*t like this? http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-case-reactions-from-around-pro-cycling
Have none of them any balls? Do none of them want the sport to change?0 -
TailWindHome wrote:What happens to the 10 (?) witnesses now?
they sleep with the fishes.
Ave busted crime ring :shock:0 -
LeicesterLad wrote:Why do people still involved in cycling really tweet sh*t like this? http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-case-reactions-from-around-pro-cycling
Have none of them any balls? Do none of them want the sport to change?
Funniest line in that was the chairman and co-founder of THE LANCE ARMSTRONG FOUNDATION expressed his and the foundations support!!!!! Of course the foundation bearing his name is going to support him! Durh!
Man, I need to go for a ride.. Anyone got anyone undetectable drugs for that edge?0 -
It'll be interesting to see what Nike does in the longer runLeicesterLad wrote:Why do people still involved in cycling really tweet sh*t like this? http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-case-reactions-from-around-pro-cycling
Have none of them any balls? Do none of them want the sport to change?0 -
dsoutar wrote: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."
+1
Hinault isnt a "hard man", or cool or a role model, he just constantly comes across as a primitive buffoon - Just IMO ... thats all.**************************************************
www.dotcycling.com
***************************************************0 -
Some very deluded members of the public today. A sample of opinion from the Daily Fail.I don't know whether Armstrong is guilty or not, but I don't understand how this action can be taken when he has passed all of the drug tests he was given. What is the evidence against him? I have yet to hear anything released by this "doping" agency that lists any evidence of any kind against him.
- Dan, St. Louis USA, 24/8/2012 5:05
Click to rate Rating 1783
Report abuse
The USADA is acting as accuser, judge, jury, and executioner. Due process does not apply with them.
- SwampFox, Palmetto, FL, USA, 24/8/2012 4:16
Click to rate Rating 1535
Report abuse
If true, his doping doctor must be an alien. The most tested athlete in the world EVER and never tested positive. Huh?
- Eduamk, everywhereandaround, 24/8/2012 5:09
Click to rate Rating 1501
Report abuse
A wise man once tweeted, "What a great break for all of those who got second place also by doping."
- Kate , USA , 24/8/2012 4:22
Click to rate Rating 945
Report abuse
They can take his titles, but we always I don't think he's disgraced at all. I think he's disgusted and fed up. If he passed all the tests, then leave him alone.
- Susan, California, 24/8/2012 7:57
Click to rate Rating 938
Report abuse
What a joke... this has witch hunt written all over it. As Lance has said, he has been tested more than any athlete in history and doesn't have one positive test against him. Where is the proof? How can there not be one shred, other than that he owned the rest of them while he was racing? To be accused, and have the supposed proof and the sources of the allegations held back under the cover of anonymity is just crazy to me. He hasn't admitted anything, he's only said "enough is enough, I'm tired of dealing with this farce and these tools.. go away". What a joke.
- Irish1, US, 24/8/2012 4:34
Click to rate Rating 848
Report abuse
USADA's Travis Tygart has won his witch-hunt, he sounds like a horrible, jealous little man. There's no evidence of any doping, and the only thing he has clung to is hearsay evidence from people who were offered deals to change their previous "I didn't see anything wrong at all" statements. USADA has gone against its own guidelines, broken its own rules and made a mockery of the whole organisation but, no doubt, the little twerp will smugly say "I told you so" from now on. A sad day for sport, the USA and the true path of justice.
- Matt Burnett, London , 24/8/2012 7:56
Click to rate Rating 674
Report abuse
If Armstrong's wins are vacated, the entirety of the race field will need to be disqualified as nobody else has undergone the same scrutiny. Either stand by the anti-doping tests or not. Once a ruling has been made, you can't keep going back and readjudicating. It goes against the very foundation of our justice system. What a farce. If you can't prove Armstrong didn't dope after all of his testing, how could you possibly prove someone else didn't dope.
- David, Houston, 24/8/2012 7:46
Click to rate Rating 663
Report abuse
You have to wonder how much it was costing him in money and time to fight the charges. I'd like to believe he was a clean athlete. He still is a 7 time champion in my books.
- That Girl, USA, 24/8/2012 4:35
Click to rate Rating 603
Report abuse
If one believes in the infallability of substance testing, then the group's moves against Lance are valid. On the other hand, if you doubt the test's validity, as I do, then Lance is innocent. You can't re-write history, he will always be a seven time winner of the most celebrated bike race in the world.
- Bob De Rey, Hilton Head, South Carolina, 24/8/2012 4:14
Click to rate Rating 5910 -
Hope they remake the documentary "The Science of Lance Armstrong"0
-
If that's going to be the result on the Armstrong question then we're only just beginning.
It'll be interesting to see how UCI handle this, will they strip Armstrong of his titles.
The fact is that the battle ground now moves from the anti doping bodies v various riders, most notably Armstrong, onto everyone v UCI and what where they doing running the sport during that period.0 -
LeicesterLad wrote:Why do people still involved in cycling really tweet sh*t like this? http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-case-reactions-from-around-pro-cycling
Have none of them any balls? Do none of them want the sport to change?
A number of the tweets published in the CN article seem to be about the idiocy of awarding the 7 titles to anyone else, which to be fair is what most of the BR posters are also saying...0 -
Surely Pat mcQuaid CANT continue as UCI chief and while were on the subject what about Hein Verbruggen as well....there should be a vote of NO confidence by some folk who have some clout.0
-
No ones ever going to really know if he took the sauce or not. On one side you have ex-team mates who are saying he did because they got done for it and on the other hand you have Lance who says he never did and there's never been a failed test against his name.
Fact is, as is life, its all made more complicated than it needs to be. The ex-team mates you could argue, are simply jealous of his success. If you dont believe that then you only have to read Mark Cavendishs book 'Boy Racer" to see how he and Griepel didnt get on, both believing they were better than each other and underhand tactics. Its life. Armstrong ex-team mates could easily come forward now, at the end of their careers and go 'hell yeh, he took drugs' whilst thinking 'f*ck him" in their heads.
Also, because Lance has said 'thats it enough, i dont care anymore' doesnt mean he's admitting anything. Have none of you lot spent time on something that keeps coming back, even an injury that wont go away and you eventually think 'f*ck this..ive had enough..im giving up 'x' sport'. its no different mentally. I bet most people reading this have been on diets for months on end, not seen results and thought 'f*ck it" and headed for the jam donuts. You see life isnt as easy as everyone likes to make out, its never black and white. There are always three parts to a story, not two, there that persons side, the other persons side and the bit in the middle.
Another thing, the Guardian article states at the bottom of its article that "if something looks too good to be then it probably is...in this case Armstrong was better than everyone else so must have been taking something'. Well if thats the case they must all being doing. Even WIGGINS! because he looked better than everyone at the TFD, so he must be on the sauce yes? and Cavendish for being the worlds fastest sprinter? also on the sauce, Chris Hoy? on the sauce. Als, while we are at it does it mean Eddy Mercxx was on the sauce and too good to be true? afterall he wiped the floor with everyone for years.
No, it does not. Sometimes, some people are just better than the rest, thats life and none of us will really know if Armstrong was or not.
Do i think LA was taking drugs? i dont know, but if he was it wouldnt surprise me as at that time half the peloton was. it wasnt exactly a minority, even Cav in his book says he was offered them. So why is everyone so bloody shocked if LA did? its not like he was the only one.
All this talk of the American governing agencies with there retoric about making the world a 'drug free' place and clean is pathetic at best, youve only got to Youtube 'Chip Tatum' a former CIA black operative working for George Bush to know the US gov actually paid for drugs and distributed it like sweets among the populace, so to parade this charade of 'we're clean and ethical' is absolute b*ll*cks.
IM not condoning drug takers or LA but dont be blind to think this is all one sided, life never is, and only the people directly in the middle will ever know, everything else, including this forum is pure speculation.
N0 -
And what about team mates who haven't been caught but would implicate themselves in giving testimony against him?Gladiator wrote:No ones ever going to really know if he took the sauce or not. On one side you have ex-team mates who are saying he did because they got done for it and on the other hand you have Lance who says he never did and there's never been a failed test against his name.
Fact is, as is life, its all made more complicated than it needs to be. The ex-team mates you could argue, are simply jealous of his success. If you dont believe that then you only have to read Mark Cavendishs book 'Boy Racer" to see how he and Griepel didnt get on, both believing they were better than each other and underhand tactics. Its life. Armstrong ex-team mates could easily come forward now, at the end of their careers and go 'hell yeh, he took drugs' whilst thinking 'f*ck him" in their heads.
Also, because Lance has said 'thats it enough, i dont care anymore' doesnt mean he's admitting anything. Have none of you lot spent time on something that keeps coming back, even an injury that wont go away and you eventually think 'f*ck this..ive had enough..im giving up 'x' sport'. its no different mentally. I bet most people reading this have been on diets for months on end, not seen results and thought 'f*ck it" and headed for the jam donuts. You see life isnt as easy as everyone likes to make out, its never black and white. There are always three parts to a story, not two, there that persons side, the other persons side and the bit in the middle.
Another thing, the Guardian article states at the bottom of its article that "if something looks too good to be then it probably is...in this case Armstrong was better than everyone else so must have been taking something'. Well if thats the case they must all being doing. Even WIGGINS! because he looked better than everyone at the TFD, so he must be on the sauce yes? and Cavendish for being the worlds fastest sprinter? also on the sauce, Chris Hoy? on the sauce. Als, while we are at it does it mean Eddy Mercxx was on the sauce and too good to be true? afterall he wiped the floor with everyone for years.
No, it does not. Sometimes, some people are just better than the rest, thats life and none of us will really know if Armstrong was or not.
Do i think LA was taking drugs? i dont know, but if he was it wouldnt surprise me as at that time half the peloton was. it wasnt exactly a minority, even Cav in his book says he was offered them. So why is everyone so bloody shocked is LA did?
All this talk of the American governing agencies with there retoric about making the world a 'drug free' place and clean is pathetic at best, youve only got to Youtube 'Chip Tatum' a former CIA black operative working for George Bush to know the US gov actually paid for drugs and distributed it like sweets among the populace, so to parade this charade of 'we're clean and ethical' is absolute b*ll*cks.
IM not condoning drug takers or LA but dont be blind to think this is all one sided, life never is, and only the people directly in the middle will ever know, everything else, including this forum is pure speculation.
N0 -
Oh my goodness, the tin foil hats are coming out of the woodwork!
Do you suppose maybe Tygart is working secretly for the Illuminati?0 -
Slim Boy Fat wrote:
And what about team mates who haven't been caught but would implicate themselves in giving testimony against him?Gladiator wrote:No ones ever going to really know if he took the sauce or not. On one side you have ex-team mates who are saying he did because they got done for it and on the other hand you have Lance who says he never did and there's never been a failed test against his name.
Fact is, as is life, its all made more complicated than it needs to be. The ex-team mates you could argue, are simply jealous of his success. If you dont believe that then you only have to read Mark Cavendishs book 'Boy Racer" to see how he and Griepel didnt get on, both believing they were better than each other and underhand tactics. Its life. Armstrong ex-team mates could easily come forward now, at the end of their careers and go 'hell yeh, he took drugs' whilst thinking 'f*ck him" in their heads.
Also, because Lance has said 'thats it enough, i dont care anymore' doesnt mean he's admitting anything. Have none of you lot spent time on something that keeps coming back, even an injury that wont go away and you eventually think 'f*ck this..ive had enough..im giving up 'x' sport'. its no different mentally. I bet most people reading this have been on diets for months on end, not seen results and thought 'f*ck it" and headed for the jam donuts. You see life isnt as easy as everyone likes to make out, its never black and white. There are always three parts to a story, not two, there that persons side, the other persons side and the bit in the middle.
Another thing, the Guardian article states at the bottom of its article that "if something looks too good to be then it probably is...in this case Armstrong was better than everyone else so must have been taking something'. Well if thats the case they must all being doing. Even WIGGINS! because he looked better than everyone at the TFD, so he must be on the sauce yes? and Cavendish for being the worlds fastest sprinter? also on the sauce, Chris Hoy? on the sauce. Als, while we are at it does it mean Eddy Mercxx was on the sauce and too good to be true? afterall he wiped the floor with everyone for years.
No, it does not. Sometimes, some people are just better than the rest, thats life and none of us will really know if Armstrong was or not.
Do i think LA was taking drugs? i dont know, but if he was it wouldnt surprise me as at that time half the peloton was. it wasnt exactly a minority, even Cav in his book says he was offered them. So why is everyone so bloody shocked is LA did?
All this talk of the American governing agencies with there retoric about making the world a 'drug free' place and clean is pathetic at best, youve only got to Youtube 'Chip Tatum' a former CIA black operative working for George Bush to know the US gov actually paid for drugs and distributed it like sweets among the populace, so to parade this charade of 'we're clean and ethical' is absolute b*ll*cks.
IM not condoning drug takers or LA but dont be blind to think this is all one sided, life never is, and only the people directly in the middle will ever know, everything else, including this forum is pure speculation.
N
What about them? you mean the same ones who are retired, got their millions and are happy to smear themselves in order to have a pop at LA because they dont like him. Those ones? what? you think they give a stuff about being labelled a druggie for a month or so before they go back to their big mansions?
Youve just proved how blinkered most people are in life.0 -
Gladiator wrote:Another thing, the Guardian article states at the bottom of its article that "if something looks too good to be then it probably is...in this case Armstrong was better than everyone else so must have been taking something'. Well if thats the case they must all being doing. Even WIGGINS! because he looked better than everyone at the TFD, so he must be on the sauce yes? and Cavendish for being the worlds fastest sprinter? also on the sauce, Chris Hoy? on the sauce. Als, while we are at it does it mean Eddy Mercxx was on the sauce and too good to be true? afterall he wiped the floor with everyone for years.N
Yeah, but the argument for that is that Wiggins wasn't always the best - he won the overall but other guys (even his teammate) had days where they looked better.
And it's pretty undeniable that Merckx was on what they were using back then - he was even thrown out of a race (the Vuelta?) for a positive test.I'm left handed, if that matters.0 -
"because he looked better than everyone at the TFD" ..........no he didn't. Froome was better in the mtns, but had to follow team orders. Wiggins won largely becuase SKy (colelctively) were too strong for everyone else.
"No ones ever going to really know if he took the sauce or not. On one side you have ex-team mates who are saying he did because they got done for it " - I suspect there are witnesses (e.g. Hincapie) who haven't been done for it, but were still going to testify.
"it wouldnt surprise me as at that time half the peloton was." - they were.0
