Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped
Comments
-
No tA Doctor wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:In more surprising news, Merckx actually says something quite sensible
http://www1.skysports.com/cycling/news/ ... -Armstrong
Merckx is an utter hypocrite.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/merckx- ... -armstrong
I know, I know. We COULD give him the benefit of the doubt that the welter of the full report has made him see the error of his ways.
Or we could just say that he's a hypocrite who's picked up the zeitgeist
Well given that Lance didn't deny ("I dont recall") that Merckx introduced him to Ferrari, but acknowledged Merckx and Ferrari were friends, I'm going with my original call.
Not entirely unfamiliar with doping charges himself, is he? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_Merckx#Doping
But to be absolutely fair to him, the links from No tA Doctor and Richmond Racer above are two months apart, and the USADA report came out in that period.I have a policy of only posting comment on the internet under my real name. This is to moderate my natural instinct to flame your fatuous, ill-informed, irrational, credulous, bigoted, semi-literate opinions to carbon, you knuckle-dragging f***wits.0 -
Above The Cows wrote:Do neither Indurain or Valverde realise they don't actually have to say anything?
We all know why neither of them think Lance should be stripped of his titles, so at least say nothing and people might think you're a fool rather than open your mouth and confirm it.
Yes, I'm sure they know that they have a choice.
But let's talk fools for a second. Most people posting on this thread claim to know all about pro racing and doping. You all know all about, and followed, doping through the 90's to Festina and beyond. Most of you claimed to be outraged back then, had your faith shattered, said fcuk pro racing. Now here it is 2012 and you've all been fooled again and your faith is again shattered, you're outraged, again, etc. "Fool me once , shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." would seem to apply here. I'm also betting that you are all getting ready to be fooled again in round #3. You forgot your history once before and I'm pretty sure you'll forget it again.0 -
white noise, white noise...0
-
Meanwhile, in the alternative-reality known as "dennisworld", where black is white and up is down :-dennisn wrote:Now here it is 2012 and you've all been fooled again and your faith is again shattered, you're outraged, again, etc. "Fool me once , shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." would seem to apply here. I'm also betting that you are all getting ready to be fooled again in round #3. You forgot your history once before and I'm pretty sure you'll forget it again.
0 -
Cue for a song... We won't get fooled again0
-
Which goes on ... Meet the new boss, same as the old boss0
-
mfin wrote:
Can anyone imagine the scale of heckling he would have got on appearing at the Worlds and the Olympics ceremonies if they were about to happen now and weren't a few weeks ago, particularly at the Worlds, being rammed with cycling fans.
What he doesn't seem to realise is that through his actions and words Im pretty sure he's lost all respect from any well-read cycling fan, and what he should be doing is looking at those words and actions and starting to do something about them, if he did, we'd begin to think better of him.
I gave pat a HUGE boo when he was announced at the medal ceremony for the women's MTB at the Olympics...
...however, sadly, I didn't really hear anyone else....
0 -
So, I believe most of the people on here had their better judgement taken for a couple of train rides. The first one pulled out in the early 90's and finally derailed with Festina. So did they learn anything from this? Not really. They jumped right back on the next train leaving, The LA Express. It had it's problems staying on the track for years yet no one got off. You all hung on till the crash. You've let your emotions rule instead of good judgement. Don't feel bad. Happens all the time.rdt wrote:Meanwhile, in the alternative-reality known as "dennisworld", where black is white and up is down :-dennisn wrote:Now here it is 2012 and you've all been fooled again and your faith is again shattered, you're outraged, again, etc. "Fool me once , shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." would seem to apply here. I'm also betting that you are all getting ready to be fooled again in round #3. You forgot your history once before and I'm pretty sure you'll forget it again.0 -
Dennis, most people on here have been saying a certain rider was probably a doper while you've been saying they're making an incorrect judgement. That certain rider has now been revealed to be a doper and you take the opportunity to say how gullible most other people on here are.
Planet Dennis is a weird old place...0 -
Surprised no-one has posted this yet (unless I missed it) - UCI's "reasoned decision".
In which they take multiple pops at the USADA investigation before accepting it
Reasoned decision: http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=MTYzMDQ&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=ODE5MjI&LangId=1
Tygart's response: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/23/lance-armstrong-appeal-usada-uci0 -
dennisn wrote:Yes, I'm sure they know that they have a choice.
But let's talk fools for a second. Most people posting on this thread claim to know all about pro racing and doping. You all know all about, and followed, doping through the 90's to Festina and beyond. Most of you claimed to be outraged back then, had your faith shattered, said fcuk pro racing. Now here it is 2012 and you've all been fooled again and your faith is again shattered, you're outraged, again, etc. "Fool me once , shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." would seem to apply here. I'm also betting that you are all getting ready to be fooled again in round #3. You forgot your history once before and I'm pretty sure you'll forget it again.
:?: To be fair Dennis, I joined this forum on Friday, so you don't know what I was thinking in 1998 or before for that matter. None of us probably knew what others were thinking like we do now because the internet hadn't been invented. But enough of being pedantic. As I said you don't know what I was thinking. I will say however that I have never been blind to the presence of doping in cycling, having a father who almost raced as a pro way back when. But this doesn't mean I have not been disgusted at the whole sorry episode of Lance Armstrong's cycling career and most of my disgust has nothing to do with doping and everything to do with him being massive shyster, with a messiah complex and a cynical cancer exploiter. What you seem to be suggesting with your post is that we should all just shut up about what is coming out now because we must have either known about it or have wanted to be duped? It seems none of us are allowed to have an opinion on anything in the present in case we may (or may not) have thought something different in the past. People can change their minds and people can change their behaviour, it doesn't make them fools, it makes them attuned to the changing forces in the world.Correlation is not causation.0 -
no he is just a trollFleshTuxedo wrote:Dennis, most people on here have been saying a certain rider was probably a doper while you've been saying they're making an incorrect judgement. That certain rider has now been revealed to be a doper and you take the opportunity to say how gullible most other people on here are.
Planet Dennis is a weird old place...0 -
dennisn wrote:
So, I believe most of the people on here had their better judgement taken for a couple of train rides. The first one pulled out in the early 90's and finally derailed with Festina. So did they learn anything from this? Not really. They jumped right back on the next train leaving, The LA Express. It had it's problems staying on the track for years yet no one got off. You all hung on till the crash. You've let your emotions rule instead of good judgement. Don't feel bad. Happens all the time.rdt wrote:Meanwhile, in the alternative-reality known as "dennisworld", where black is white and up is down :-dennisn wrote:Now here it is 2012 and you've all been fooled again and your faith is again shattered, you're outraged, again, etc. "Fool me once , shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." would seem to apply here. I'm also betting that you are all getting ready to be fooled again in round #3. You forgot your history once before and I'm pretty sure you'll forget it again.
the prince of platitudes is back.0 -
r0bh wrote:Tygart's response: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/23/lance-armstrong-appeal-usada-uci
Anyone in their right mind who reads that and thinks the UCI or at least its leadership shouldn't be ripped to shreds would be daft.
Its disgusting really that they held the press conference they did, upholding the decision, then come out with all this cr*p yet again, with more cr*p on top. The UCI needs seriously investigating, the independent review is a great idea.
McQuaid is doing a great job of f**king the sport up more with this kind of idiocy. Lance is a doper, they should be grateful to USADA.
Hopefully WADA will kick back at these UCI McQuaid statements.0 -
Just caught up with the indurain and co comments. Genuine laugh out loud. These Spaniards are nuts!0
-
-
There's a lot of bad wind in Ohio.
Have I told you the story of my uncle's old Labrador called Dennis? Yes; I believe I did (page 124). The most putrid farts you've ever smelled...
Anyway, I think it's about time we had a sing-song. Billy Bragg Ok with everyone...Dennis?
This one's called Tender Comrade
What will you do when the war is over, tender comrade
When we lay down our weary guns
When we return home to our wives and families
And look into the eyes of our sons
What will you say of the bond we had, tender comrade
Will you say that we were brave
As the shells fell all around us
Or that we wept and cried for our mothers
And cursed our fathers
For forgetting that all men are brothers
Will you say that we were heroes
Or that fear of dying among strangers
Tore our innocence and false shame away
And from that moment on deep in my heart I knew
That I would only give my life for love
Brothers in arms in each other arms
Was the only time that I was not afraid
What will you do when the war is over, tender comrade
When we cast off these khaki clothes
And go our separate ways
What will you say of the bond we had
Tender comrade0 -
OCDuPalais wrote:
There's a lot of bad wind in Ohio.
Have I told you the story of my uncle's old Labrador called Dennis? Yes; I believe I did (page 124). The most putrid farts you've ever smelled...
Anyway, I think it's about time we had a sing-song. Billy Bragg Ok with everyone...Dennis?
This one's called Tender Comrade
What will you do when the war is over, tender comrade
When we lay down our weary guns
When we return home to our wives and families
And look into the eyes of our sons
What will you say of the bond we had, tender comrade
Will you say that we were brave
As the shells fell all around us
Or that we wept and cried for our mothers
And cursed our fathers
For forgetting that all men are brothers
Will you say that we were heroes
Or that fear of dying among strangers
Tore our innocence and false shame away
And from that moment on deep in my heart I knew
That I would only give my life for love
Brothers in arms in each other arms
Was the only time that I was not afraid
What will you do when the war is over, tender comrade
When we cast off these khaki clothes
And go our separate ways
What will you say of the bond we had
Tender comrade
Strangely enough those tornados came really close to our house and caused a good deal of damage with one person dying as the result of an uprooted tree crashing on his car. I was on my back poorch when it all came through. Common sense told me to go to the basement but I was transfixed by winds that seemed to blow impossibly strong. I watched as my next door neighbor had four good sized trees literally flattened and a few houses further down 3 monstrous oak trees lost the battle with the wind. It was like nothing I've ever seen. Sort of like watching a train wreck. Ya can't take your eyes off it.
Thanks for the poem. What will I do when it's over? Same thing I did when the last war was over. Lay down the gun. It's been 40 years and I don't miss a thing about it, save for a few people. Please don't take that as a comparison to a forum.0 -
perhaps like the Tornado, this thread has run its course.0
-
Curious language the UCI uses:
a) Jurisdiction
For the UCI jurisdiction is no longer an issue at this stage.
Prior to the decision taken by USADA on 24 August 2012 and imposing a sanction
upon Mr Armstrong, the UCI had claimed jurisdiction for results management. The
UCI had requested USADA to send a copy of the file to UCI so that UCI as
responsible organization for results management would have submitted the file to an
independent body in order to take the decision whether there was enough evidence
warranting the opening of disciplinary proceedings against Mr Armstrong.
Even apart from any discussion on jurisdiction it would have been better that the
evidence collected by USADA had been assessed by a neutral body or person who
was not involved in collecting the evidence and prosecuting the defendant.
This would have avoided both the criticism of witch hunt against Mr Armstrong and the
criticism that the UCI had a conflict of interest. Also the on occasion animated or
overstated language of the reasoned decision as well as incorrect and incomplete
statements made in relation with the UCI reflect USADA’s intense involvement in the
prosecution which not always serves the degree of detachment that one may expect
from a disciplinary decision.
Apart from this technical explanation and more importantly, there should be no doubt
that if USADA had provided UCI with the case file – which USADA refused to do – for
results management purposes, UCI would have come to the conclusion that Mr
Armstrong had a case to answer indeed and that UCI would have asked USA Cycling
to open disciplinary proceedings against Mr Armstrong.
b) Statute of limitations
If UCI would have taken the decision at the end of results management, it would have
limited disciplinary proceedings to violations asserted to have occurred during the
eight years preceding the opening of such proceedings.
The UCI is of the opinion that the Code is very clear in this respect:
No action may be commenced against an Athlete or other Person for an
anti-doping rule violation contained in the Code unless such action is
commenced within eight (8) years from the date the violation is asserted
to have occurred.
The Code does not provide for any possibility for an anti-doping organization to take
away from the athlete or other person the benefit of this clause.
It is UCI’s view that USADA’s reference to national law is not appropriate.
c) The evidence gathered by USADA
The evidence against Mr Armstrong gathered by USADA in the wake of a federal
investigation consists mainly of statements by witnesses, a number of which had
already testified before the grand jury.
The UCI notes that these statements have been made under penalty of perjury.
The circumstance that the witnesses have not been submitted to cross-examination
follows from the decision of Mr Armstrong not to enter into arbitration.
Even if, purely as an assumption, some statements made against Mr Armstrong
would be incorrect, vague or confusing, the UCI does not have the elements to show
that this would be the case.
2. Recognition and implementation of the USADA decision
UCI will recognize and implement the decision of USADA, which implies that all
competitive results achieved by Mr Armstrong in cycling since August 1, 1998 will be
disqualified, including his seven Tour de France wins.
This recognition is subject to the following:
a. The recognition does not alter UCI’s position on the issue of the statute of
limitations as exposed above;
b. The recognition also depends on whether Mr Armstrong or WADA will appeal
USADA’s decision to CAS. If Mr Armstrong or WADA appeals to CAS, the UCI
must wait until CAS delivers its award: the USADA decision might be overruled in
whole or in part by CAS.
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getOb ... I&LangId=1
Seems to me like the UCI are setting the grounds for an appeal by LA.0 -
Why would he appeal when he chose not to fight on/go to CAS?0
-
What I don't get about the Jurisdiction bit is that the UCI said they wanted the case file from USADAto decide if there was enough evidence for USADA to start investigating and putting a case file together..?
Did they proof read that bit?We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Why would he appeal when he chose not to fight on/go to CAS?
God knows frankly.
As I understood it he chose not to go to CAS to keep the evidence out of the public eye, but now its out there anyway, why not?
Just struck me as odd wording.
Anyway I'm, speculating wildly on little or no evidence.0 -
Are the people at the UCI just actually really stupid.
Right now, they've alienated everyone. They have to pick a side. Armstrong or USADA. They've attacked both and yet have no real defence.
Originally I thought the UCI would make it through this, but now I'm not sure. There's a long winter ahead.
0 -
Funny they talk about what the code says - When WADA have stated it's all being done correctly.
I think this is just a case of the UCI looking at what they said in the past, and trying to cover off what people may or may not say.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Nick Fitt wrote:Why would he appeal when he chose not to fight on/go to CAS?
Armstrong going to CAS would likely just be a stunt, since under the USADA Protocol, his earlier decision not to go to an arbitration hearing with USADA means he now has no grounds to appeal their sanction.
See this post:-
viewtopic.php?f=40012&t=12874141&p=17845062&hilit=USADA#p17845062
Section 11. e. of the USADA Protocol ( http://www.usada.org/files/pdfs/usada-protocol.pdf ), which I quoted in that post, continues:-... Such sanction shall not be reopened or be subject to appeal unless the Athlete or other Person can demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence in a subsequent appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) that he or she did not receive either actual or constructive notice of the opportunity to contest the sanction.
So under the USADA Protocol (11. e.), Armstrong's earlier failure to contest USADA's sanctions at an arbitration hearing set himself on a specific path and closed the door on any subsequent appeal of those sanctions. Hence Tygart's comments in that Guardian article, "Armstrong has waived his right to any appeal," he said. "He does not have any right to appeal at this time."0
