Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped

1…6263656768…239

Comments

  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,463
    nathancom wrote:
    The troll's posts display no shared interest, in fact they take up a position outside the community formed within the thread in order to engender as much response from the other members as possible, to maintain the troll's place at the centre of the discussion.

    I can't think of anyone on here that is doing anything like that though.



    Oh, wait a minute............
  • tarzan13
    tarzan13 Posts: 78
    nathancom wrote:
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    I just don't understand why people get so upset about internet "trolling". He's not being abusive or threatening, he isn't bullying anyone. He's either on the windup or consistent in a view. Either way, you don't have a right not to be irritated.
    No but I have the right to be irritated and express it if I wish without French trying to make people play nice like a kindergarten. To be honest, that annoyed me multiple times more than Dennis ever does. After that I was just defending my claim that he is a troll, which he is.

    This thread would be so much better if we could stick to the topic.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    ratsbeyfus wrote:

    Dennisn you were wrong about Lance in the past, and you are wrong about this now. (And yes, I'm involved with cycling at the grass-roots level - volunteering, blah, blah, blah.)

    Not sure how I have been wrong about LA in the past. I'm thinking that I never said he did or didn't do anything. Mostly it's been simply telling people that if they themselves have all this proof then out with it. Otherwise you're all just sheep following whatever journo happens to be blasting Lance at the moment and believing pretty much anything and everything that is being said.
    Glad to hear you're involved with cycling at the grass roots. Seriously, good for you. That's what's important.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    Otherwise you're all just sheep following whatever journo happens to be blasting Lance at the moment and believing pretty much anything and everything that is being said.

    What journo? The USADA journos?
  • timoid.
    timoid. Posts: 3,133
    RichN95 wrote:
    niedermeyer wrote:
    Timoid. wrote:
    andy_wrx wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Hein says there is no evidence Lance tested positive.


    Different arguments. All the above you mention show that he doped. Hein is stating the he never tested positive. If he tested positive and Hein took a bribe to make it go away, then Hein is screwed.

    All we have to go on the positive test is Landis' statement. And he is the most unreliable of all 20 odd witnesses due to his previous falsehoods and difficult relationship with Armstrong.

    You are ignoring the 1999 samples tested by Malabry as revealed by L'equipe. Only the most preposterous sophistry can argue that not being prima facie evidence.
    He's not ignoring them. They weren't positive tests because they weren't proper tests. They were done purely for research purposes and not according to the required protocols. Evidence of doping - yes, admissible evidence of doping - no. So not a proper positive test.


    Indeed. There are not admissable (by WADAs own rules) positive dope tests associated with Armstrong.

    The L'Equipe samples do not count from a sanctioning point of view, nor does the cortisone positive from 1999. By the letter of the rules he has not tested positive. So Hein is technically right, unless the Tour of Switzerland cover up story is true. But so far (to my knowledge) we have only Landis' word for that and a highly suspicious money transfer to buy a non-existent centerifuge.
    It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.
  • nathancom
    nathancom Posts: 1,567
    coriordan wrote:
    Otherwise you're all just sheep following whatever journo happens to be blasting Lance at the moment and believing pretty much anything and everything that is being said.

    What journo? The USADA journos?
    Don't feed the troll.
  • tarzan13
    tarzan13 Posts: 78
    UCI president Pat McQuaid told to act on Lance Armstrong scandal or quit in order to save world cycling
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... cling.html
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Expensive day yesterday.

    Someone's saying yesterday will have cost Armstrong around $30m in future earnings.
    _
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    tarzan13 wrote:
    UCI president Pat McQuaid told to act on Lance Armstrong scandal or quit in order to save world cycling
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... cling.html


    Yes, yes, more of this please, sponsors....
  • dsoutar
    dsoutar Posts: 1,746
    Apologies if this (or similar) posted already but not spotted it

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/16/sport/ten ... index.html
  • bigdawg
    bigdawg Posts: 672
    If it happens Oakley will be a bitter break - LA is a personla friend of the founder, James Jannard, and has been since before his cancer, to the point that Jannard included LA as an employee so he would be picked up under Oakley's health cover for payment of his cancer treatment, as LA didnt have any and his previous team turned their back on him...
    dont knock on death\'s door.....

    Ring the bell and leg it...that really pi**es him off....
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    bigdawg wrote:
    If it happens Oakley will be a bitter break - LA is a personla friend of the founder, James Jannard, and has been since before his cancer, to the point that Jannard included LA as an employee so he would be picked up under Oakley's health cover for payment of his cancer treatment, as LA didnt have any and his previous team turned their back on him...


    Not forgetting that it was an Oakley employee who perjured herself at the SCA hearing...
  • sherer
    sherer Posts: 2,460
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    bigdawg wrote:
    If it happens Oakley will be a bitter break - LA is a personla friend of the founder, James Jannard, and has been since before his cancer, to the point that Jannard included LA as an employee so he would be picked up under Oakley's health cover for payment of his cancer treatment, as LA didnt have any and his previous team turned their back on him...


    Not forgetting that it was an Oakley employee who perjured herself at the SCA hearing...

    No forgetting LA threatened to get her and her husband who both worked there sacked if she didn't
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    sherer wrote:
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    bigdawg wrote:
    If it happens Oakley will be a bitter break - LA is a personla friend of the founder, James Jannard, and has been since before his cancer, to the point that Jannard included LA as an employee so he would be picked up under Oakley's health cover for payment of his cancer treatment, as LA didnt have any and his previous team turned their back on him...


    Not forgetting that it was an Oakley employee who perjured herself at the SCA hearing...

    No forgetting LA threatened to get her and her husband who both worked there sacked if she didn't


    Yes, totally, my comment came across badly.
  • symo
    symo Posts: 1,743
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    sherer wrote:
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    bigdawg wrote:
    If it happens Oakley will be a bitter break - LA is a personla friend of the founder, James Jannard, and has been since before his cancer, to the point that Jannard included LA as an employee so he would be picked up under Oakley's health cover for payment of his cancer treatment, as LA didnt have any and his previous team turned their back on him...


    Not forgetting that it was an Oakley employee who perjured herself at the SCA hearing...

    No forgetting LA threatened to get her and her husband who both worked there sacked if she didn't


    Yes, totally, my comment came across badly.

    Comes across well doesn't he? Lovely human being and all that.
    +++++++++++++++++++++
    we are the proud, the few, Descendents.

    Panama - finally putting a nail in the economic theory of the trickle down effect.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    bigdawg wrote:
    If it happens Oakley will be a bitter break - LA is a personla friend of the founder, James Jannard, and has been since before his cancer, to the point that Jannard included LA as an employee so he would be picked up under Oakley's health cover for payment of his cancer treatment, as LA didnt have any and his previous team turned their back on him...

    I'm thinking that real friends tend to stay friends reguardless of what friends do(within limits of course). The break from Oakley, if it happens, will most likely be strictly business. If the two are, in fact, good friends. Key word "if".
  • Gazzetta67
    Gazzetta67 Posts: 1,890
    symo wrote:
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    sherer wrote:
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    bigdawg wrote:
    If it happens Oakley will be a bitter break - LA is a personla friend of the founder, James Jannard, and has been since before his cancer, to the point that Jannard included LA as an employee so he would be picked up under Oakley's health cover for payment of his cancer treatment, as LA didnt have any and his previous team turned their back on him...


    Not forgetting that it was an Oakley employee who perjured herself at the SCA hearing...

    No forgetting LA threatened to get her and her husband who both worked there sacked if she didn't


    Yes, totally, my comment came across badly.

    Comes across well doesn't he? Lovely human being and all that.


    Once they start (or it has started already) getting the e-mails.facebook.twitter complaints that NOBODY will buy Oakley products until they have severed their links with the texan messiah they might act ! - We have seen it in football FAN POWER - wont buy season tickets etc etc until the manager's sacked .
  • Lichtblick
    Lichtblick Posts: 1,434
    Canadian (?) sports website reports that

    UCI may rule Friday on Lance Armstrong doping allegations

    http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2012/10/ ... gency.html
    UCI spokesman Enrico Carpani told The Associated Press from Milan, Italy on Thursday its decision "could happen as early as tomorrow."
  • Lichtblick
    Lichtblick Posts: 1,434
    According to this site http://www.hindustantimes.com/sports-ne ... 46758.aspx

    Armstrong is set to speak at a gala fundraiser on Friday in Austin, Texas, to celebrate Livestrong's 15th anniversary, in what could prove to be an emotional first appearance in the spotlight since the scandal emerged.

    His speech will be witnessed by a nominally friendly crowd of Livestrong backers, with organisers releasing a video recording afterwards on YouTube -- so there will be no tough questions about his fall from grace.

    Gotta admire his balls. Er....... :?
  • symo
    symo Posts: 1,743
    Cor the Hinustan Times! He really is newsworthy now.
    +++++++++++++++++++++
    we are the proud, the few, Descendents.

    Panama - finally putting a nail in the economic theory of the trickle down effect.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Lichtblick wrote:
    Canadian (?) sports website reports that

    UCI may rule Friday on Lance Armstrong doping allegations

    http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2012/10/ ... gency.html
    UCI spokesman Enrico Carpani told The Associated Press from Milan, Italy on Thursday its decision "could happen as early as tomorrow."

    While the UCI must do something to at least regain a bit of credibility, I'm not sure that whatever they may or may not say Friday will add anything new to an already fairly hopeless "scandal", if you will.
  • symo
    symo Posts: 1,743
    Gazzetta67 wrote:
    symo wrote:
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    sherer wrote:
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    bigdawg wrote:
    If it happens Oakley will be a bitter break - LA is a personla friend of the founder, James Jannard, and has been since before his cancer, to the point that Jannard included LA as an employee so he would be picked up under Oakley's health cover for payment of his cancer treatment, as LA didnt have any and his previous team turned their back on him...


    Not forgetting that it was an Oakley employee who perjured herself at the SCA hearing...

    No forgetting LA threatened to get her and her husband who both worked there sacked if she didn't


    Yes, totally, my comment came across badly.

    Comes across well doesn't he? Lovely human being and all that.


    Once they start (or it has started already) getting the e-mails.facebook.twitter complaints that NOBODY will buy Oakley products until they have severed their links with the texan messiah they might act ! - We have seen it in football FAN POWER - wont buy season tickets etc etc until the manager's sacked .

    Err Janner doen't own Oakley anymore does he? Luxottica do, and they probably don't want the shtestorm blowing their brands way will they?
    +++++++++++++++++++++
    we are the proud, the few, Descendents.

    Panama - finally putting a nail in the economic theory of the trickle down effect.
  • fidgetyphil
    fidgetyphil Posts: 80
    Armstrong is set to speak at a gala fundraiser on Friday in Austin, Texas, to celebrate Livestrong's 15th anniversary, in what could prove to be an emotional first appearance in the spotlight since the scandal emerged.

    His speech will be witnessed by a nominally friendly crowd of Livestrong backers, with organisers releasing a video recording afterwards on YouTube -- so there will be no tough questions about his fall from grace.

    Ideal time to confess.
    My name is lance and I'm an addict
  • Lichtblick
    Lichtblick Posts: 1,434
    dennisn wrote:
    While the UCI must do something to at least regain a bit of credibility, I'm not sure that whatever they may or may not say Friday will add anything new to an already fairly hopeless "scandal", if you will.

    :?: :?: :?:

    AFAICS, we're all waiting for the UCI to actually strip Armstrong of those titles, since they are in their gift and not USADA's. (Then Wiki will finally be updated..........). We're also all waiting for UCI to say something about a whole raft of other relevant issues on this subject, including striking his name through and that's that for the Tours de France between 1999 and 2005. Then, we're all waiting to hear what Prudhomme will do or say dependent on that.

    The Tour organiser pointed out that he and his organisation do not have the power to remove Armstrong's name from the Tour's official records: that lies with the International Cycling Union, which is currently studying the 1000-page dossier drawn up by Usada. "As astonishing as it may seem, the Tour de France is not the master of its record books. That goes through the UCI rather than the race organisers." The UCI has yet to comment on the report or to indicate how it will react.
  • k-dog
    k-dog Posts: 1,652
    The bit that is definitely witch-hunty is the fact that the only years they're talking about "vacating" are the ones where Lance won. Clearly there are plenty of other guilty riders who have won and they should be investigated too.
    I'm left handed, if that matters.
  • nathancom
    nathancom Posts: 1,567
    k-dog wrote:
    The bit that is definitely witch-hunty is the fact that the only years they're talking about "vacating" are the ones where Lance won. Clearly there are plenty of other guilty riders who have won and they should be investigated too.
    What American based cycling doping conspiracy is there left to investigate? All the witnesses will lose their tiles for the years they admit to doping as well...how is that a witch hunt?
  • ocdupalais
    ocdupalais Posts: 4,317
    nathancom wrote:
    k-dog wrote:
    The bit that is definitely witch-hunty is the fact that the only years they're talking about "vacating" are the ones where Lance won. Clearly there are plenty of other guilty riders who have won and they should be investigated too.
    What American based cycling doping conspiracy is there left to investigate? All the witnesses will lose their tiles for the years they admit to doping as well...how is that a witch hunt?

    They're all witches.
  • slim_boy_fat
    slim_boy_fat Posts: 1,810
    k-dog wrote:
    The bit that is definitely witch-hunty is the fact that the only years they're talking about "vacating" are the ones where Lance won. Clearly there are plenty of other guilty riders who have won and they should be investigated too.
    Which other years did a doped American with the tour?
  • mike6
    mike6 Posts: 1,199
    k-dog wrote:
    The bit that is definitely witch-hunty is the fact that the only years they're talking about "vacating" are the ones where Lance won. Clearly there are plenty of other guilty riders who have won and they should be investigated too.

    Its the "American" anti doping agency, investigating an American athlete, on an American team. What do you expect????
  • sherer
    sherer Posts: 2,460
    Slim Boy Fat wrote:
    k-dog wrote:
    The bit that is definitely witch-hunty is the fact that the only years they're talking about "vacating" are the ones where Lance won. Clearly there are plenty of other guilty riders who have won and they should be investigated too.
    Which other years did a doped American with the tour?

    or any other big races for that matter.

    It's a shame there isn't some kind of body above USADA that governs all of cycling that could look into matters in other countries :wink:

Categories