L.A. Stripped
Comments
-
MattC59 wrote:Guilty or not guilty, that is somewhat irrellavent. The USADA appear to be intent on ignoring their own procedures and rules, one man is acting as judge jury and executioner, and they (he) are going to find LA guilty without providing evidence or a trial.
I'd place money on the fact that the USADA never release their evidence.
Armstrong has been offered a trial where the evidence would have been shown. He refused that offer. Why are you ignoring that fact? It's pretty straight forward.0 -
Why are they now "coming forward" ? What's in it for them ...bartman100 wrote:So the fact that folks from all walks of the cycling fraternity are lined up and ready to testify means nothing?
If there is one man hearing the evidence and he is USADA then yes - USADA have brought the charges - it's onesided ...bartman100 wrote:Still 'one man acting as judge, jury and executioner'?'
Because, innocent or guilty he feels (or has been advised) that he will loose this war anyway.bartman100 wrote:Why do you think Lance has given up? He can afford the best legal team money can buy.0 -
MattC59 wrote:Guilty or not guilty, that is somewhat irrellavent. The USADA appear to be intent on ignoring their own procedures and rules, one man is acting as judge jury and executioner, and they (he) are going to find LA guilty without providing evidence or a trial.
No they're not.
This is a factually incorrect post.0 -
Plea bargaining?Slowbike wrote:
Why are they now "coming forward" ? What's in it for them ...bartman100 wrote:So the fact that folks from all walks of the cycling fraternity are lined up and ready to testify means nothing?
USADA is a big organisation - it has one man at the head, but it's not a one man decision.Slowbike wrote:
If there is one man hearing the evidence and he is USADA then yes - USADA have brought the charges - it's onesided ...bartman100 wrote:Still 'one man acting as judge, jury and executioner'?'
That's one angle, but why does he feel he will lose? If he has nothing to hide, and the evidence will prove him innocent, then he has nothing to fear, no?Slowbike wrote:
Because, innocent or guilty he feels (or has been advised) that he will loose this war anyway.bartman100 wrote:Why do you think Lance has given up? He can afford the best legal team money can buy.Cannondale Synapse 105, Giant Defy 3, Giant Omnium, Giant Trance X2, EMC R1.0, Ridgeback Platinum, On One Il Pompino...0 -
I think that he *may* have taken drugs. There is supposed evidence to prove this but he has never been tested positive. I was genuinely interested to see how the court case was going to go. It was maybe the only way to get closure on drug use.bartman100 wrote:sorry, so you *don't* think he took performance enhancing drugs then?
Back to my original post where I said that I didn't take drugs. That was written incorrectly. I don't think that the majority of his performance increase was down to drugs. I am fairly convinced that it will have been gene therapy - which can't be tested for.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
So - they'll get a leaner sentence if they say LA cheated .. great - that's reliable evidence !TommyEss wrote:
Plea bargaining?Slowbike wrote:
Why are they now "coming forward" ? What's in it for them ...bartman100 wrote:So the fact that folks from all walks of the cycling fraternity are lined up and ready to testify means nothing?
Hmm - depends if there's been a decision that LA must be guilty - taken high up ...TommyEss wrote:
USADA is a big organisation - it has one man at the head, but it's not a one man decision.Slowbike wrote:
If there is one man hearing the evidence and he is USADA then yes - USADA have brought the charges - it's onesided ...bartman100 wrote:Still 'one man acting as judge, jury and executioner'?'
I'd be more comfortable if it didn't appear that the USADA had any benefit from the outcome ...
"An innocent man has nothing to fear" ... unless the "evidence" is tainted .. but he might be guilty - but only found guilty from equally tainted evidence ... would that be fair?TommyEss wrote:
That's one angle, but why does he feel he will lose? If he has nothing to hide, and the evidence will prove him innocent, then he has nothing to fear, no?Slowbike wrote:
Because, innocent or guilty he feels (or has been advised) that he will loose this war anyway.bartman100 wrote:Why do you think Lance has given up? He can afford the best legal team money can buy.
I'd like to see the evidence ... but I think LA has got one thing right ...
it's time to draw a line - UCI should do this - draw a line and say "No More" ...
I understand that cycling is the most dope tested sport these days - I wish it weren't necessary as it brings a suspicion of guilt to anyone who outperforms others - but if the officials are happy that this is the fairest contest we can achieve then lets race ...0 -
tim wand wrote:This isn't just about Lance and the Livestrong organisation.
This is about the man who was a poster boy for our sport for over a decade and inspired a generation of new cyclists.
By not going into open court and fighting the USADA and these charges he's betraying the sport and opening it up for the likes of Wiggo to have to face questions about doping from fool journalists in every post race interview he does.
Armstrong has the money, the legal team and the expertise to dismiss these allegations, He also has a duty to the sport and all those who believed in him to do so.
Very well said. I actually felt sad when I heard the news. As I posted earlier I've been expecting it but I so wanted him to fight every step of the way. I've had arguments with friends down the pub where I've defended him and this strange sport of getting dressed up in Lycra and then trying to ride a bicycle as fast as you can up a hill or along the road. I wanted him to fight for everyone who has cheered him on, for everyone who has bought into the dream and for everyone who loves cycling. I actually feel quite down about this..
He states he is tired of fighting and wants to concentrate on his charity. Surely with no reputation there is no charity, he's just another caught and exposed drug cheat like so many others? Which companies are going to stick by him now? I'm sure Nike are reading the small print of their contracts even as i type this.. I certainly wouldn't donate to a charity headed by a drugs cheat when there are so many others.
Oh Lance.. I'm angry and sad with you at the same time.
:evil: 0 -
tim wand wrote:This isn't just about Lance and the Livestrong organisation.
This is about the man who was a poster boy for our sport for over a decade and inspired a generation of new cyclists.
By not going into open court and fighting the USADA and these charges he's betraying the sport and opening it up for the likes of Wiggo to have to face questions about doping from fool journalists in every post race interview he does.
Armstrong has the money, the legal team and the expertise to dismiss these allegations, He also has a duty to the sport and all those who believed in him to do so.
+1. Good point, well presented.“Training is like fighting with a gorilla. You don’t stop when you’re tired. You stop when the gorilla is tired.”0 -
Is there any chance this thread could be moved into one big boring 'Lance' thread with all the others over on Pro race. Or even just rename prorace 'the big boring Lance thread'.
It's very tedious and I fear it is certain to reach one million pages long.
Who cares?????0 -
jim453 wrote:
Who cares?????
Obviously a lot of people0 -
ShutUpLegs wrote:jim453 wrote:
Who cares?????
Obviously a lot of people
Ok, fair enough. Can those people not read and contribute to one of the myriad threads already open and active on the pro bore forum?0 -
I always hoped he was innocent,but common sense says he isnt.
Ive read enough books.
The problem with the evidence is it has been obtained from liars and cheats,
Id love the evidence to come out so we can all stop worrying ourselves to death.
I always thought the French would get him, not one of his own ADA's.0 -
It's a sad day for me as his books were bought for me a few years back and that's the reason I got a bike.
I suppose the rumours circulating for years have been correct but I can't help feel that this has put a massive dent in the publics perception of pro cycling, just as it was getting some mainstream coverage.
I just hope people move on quickly from this and can enjoy and celebrate the achievements of British cyclists this past year.Scott Foil - viewtopic.php?f=40044&t=129827790 -
So do I send my Nissan Radioshack shirt back to end my association with him and Schleck?
My wife is now asking for the truth as why I beat her up the hills0 -
In the US perhaps. As for Europe - I don't think there has ever been a "Tour great" who was so universally disliked as Armstrong.tim wand wrote:This is about the man who was a poster boy for our sport for over a decade and inspired a generation of new cyclists.You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
jim453 wrote:Is there any chance this thread could be moved into one big boring 'Lance' thread with all the others over on Pro race. Or even just rename prorace 'the big boring Lance thread'.
It's very tedious and I fear it is certain to reach one million pages long.
Who cares?????
Good one Jim. Keep 'em coming!None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
daviesee wrote:To be fair, I don't think that he has taken performance enhancing drugs, which is why he never tested positive.
On the other hand, search the internet for the following subjects and draw your own conclusions.
Gene Therapy + Cancer
Gene Therapy + Athletes
Gene Therapy + Lance Armstrong
Gene Therapy + Livestrong
He states in his book that he was given EPO for his chemotherapy, because chemotherapy pretty much kills you and that's exactly what the EPO drug was designed for.
It is a shame and appears to have been a witch hunt for L.A.
It seems many other athletes get caught, serve a short ban and are back competing without any shame. I guess this must mean it's kind of accepted nowadays?
You only have to look at the Olympics and their "anti doping" policies to understand that 'doping' in all forms of sport is only considered a slap on the wrist offence.
With the Olympics it's only a two year ban. So with the current doping policies, British athletes could now start doping as much of their like for the next two years - and if they get caught - they will still be able to compete in the next Olympics.Simon0 -
I'm staggered by how many people are either
1. Still convinced he's not done anything wrong.
2. Surprised/let down/disappointed at this late stage with this result.
Does anyone seriously think that he won seven TdF's on the bounce against many self confessed dopers (who were also exceptionally gifted riders) absolutely clean and on nothing more than good old Texan true grit?
Come on, some of you need to have a word with yourselves.
He's running out of places to crawl.
Shame. It would've been a good story if it'd been true. But it isn't.
I hope I don't sound like I care.0 -
Oddly enough, I am an NHS GP and I have never seen EPO used in cancer treatment to recover blood cells, only in kidney failure.
Sounds well dodgy0 -
Gregger wrote:Oddly enough, I am an NHS GP and I have never seen EPO used in cancer treatment to recover blood cells, only in kidney failure.
Sounds well dodgy
That's what he states in his book and it's use seems to be backed up by Macmillan:
http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Cancerinfor ... ietin.aspx
And it's use is partly approved by NICE - see text. His chemo was platinum based, but can't remember the other details and I'm not a medic!Simon0 -
jim453 wrote:Gregger wrote:Oddly enough, I am an NHS GP and I have never seen EPO used in cancer treatment to recover blood cells, only in kidney failure.
Sounds well dodgy
In fairness, mate. He had cancer, not an ear infection. They probably got some type of specialist in.
Ouch that hurts.Nurse,the screens.Whats the solution? Just pedal faster you baby.
Summer B,man Team Carbon LE#222
Winter Alan Top Cross
All rounder Spec. Allez.0 -
jim453 wrote:
Does anyone seriously think that he won seven TdF's on the bounce against many self confessed dopers (who were also exceptionally gifted riders) absolutely clean and on nothing more than good old Texan true grit?
This is what I've been trying to get across to my non-cycling friends/family when they ask about this story. I can understand them not grasping it so readily but I always thought anyone with half an interest in pro-cycling for the last 20yrs must surely be able to work it out.0 -
Doh !
I thought this thread was about Prince Harry ( "stripped of all his titles...." ) All the gear, but no idea...0 -
tim wand wrote:This isn't just about Lance and the Livestrong organisation.
This is about the man who was a poster boy for our sport for over a decade and inspired a generation of new cyclists.
By not going into open court and fighting the USADA and these charges he's betraying the sport and opening it up for the likes of Wiggo to have to face questions about doping from fool journalists in every post race interview he does.
Armstrong has the money, the legal team and the expertise to dismiss these allegations, He also has a duty to the sport and all those who believed in him to do so.
Like wot Tim says.
With all his wealth you'd think LA would say see you in court (if innocent).
That is what p1sses me off, he may be stripped of his titles but, the wealth getting those titles has enabled him to amass is his. A bit like a criminal being allowed to keep his ill gotten gains.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:No they're not.
This is a factually incorrect post.
The USADA has an 8 year limit but brings charges for 1998 onwards. Thats 14 years by my maths, so how was it factually incorrect? USADA seem to make the rules up as they go along.
Anyway Rick - are you actually Travis Tygart in disguise?? Seems that you know for a fact that L.A. is guilty regardless of what the evidence that we dont know about says too!!! Why would L.A. fight charges brought by an agency that he doesnt recognise, given that the UCI also say USADA dont have authority? Seems to me that USADA are using L.A with their witch-hunt to justify themselves.
Whatever USADA say today - from what i've read this is far from over. Over to those now at the UCI (who said USADA have no jurisdiction) and the ASO.
PS anyone know what bribes the USADA give for those prepared to testify against L.A.? A 2 year Federal investigation got nowhere, and suddenly this kangaroo court manages to come up with a dozen "witnesses"? Really?? Hmmm
The whole thing stinks of corruption (and not by L.A.).0 -
Wirral_Paul wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:No they're not.
This is a factually incorrect post.
The USADA has an 8 year limit but brings charges for 1998 onwards. Thats 14 years by my maths, so how was it factually incorrect? USADA seem to make the rules up as they go along.
Anyway Rick - are you actually Travis Tygart in disguise?? Seems that you know for a fact that L.A. is guilty regardless of what the evidence that we dont know about says too!!! Why would L.A. fight charges brought by an agency that he doesnt recognise, given that the UCI also say USADA dont have authority? Seems to me that USADA are using L.A with their witch-hunt to justify themselves.
Whatever USADA say today - from what i've read this is far from over. Over to those now at the UCI (who said USADA have no jurisdiction) and the ASO..
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/judge-s ... trong-suit
Did you not see this? An impartial judge said that USADA had jurisdiction.
It's all very well saying Armstrong doesn't recognise them, but you have to wonder why he signed up to their code in the first place.
Either way, it's a bit like me not recognising the police's jurisdiction. It's a little beside the point since they have jurisdiction. Not sure what Lance 'recognises' matters, though again, he recognised them when he signed up to the WADA code to compete.
The reason they can do him now is because of the type of charge they're bringing forward. Take a look at the leaked document which states what the charges are to all 5 accusees. Conspiracy to cover up, traffic, persuade others to use, as well as posession and use.
Lance has previously recognised USADA in the past in court when it suited him. Somewhere buried in the USADA thread there's plenty of examples.
USADA don't make the rules up. They're clearly set in stone, and their governing body, WADA, have said they have done it by the book.
http://www1.skysports.com/cycling/news/ ... acks-USADA
Anyway, the evidence will be made available soon. Then we call bask in it's grittiness.0
