Forum home Mountain biking forum The Crudcatcher

so is lance armstrong guilty then?

welshkevwelshkev Posts: 9,690
edited August 2012 in The Crudcatcher
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19364384

i know we've talked about this before, but as he's stopped fighting the case does it mean he's guilty and doesn't want to be found so and have his former team mates testify against him?
«1

Posts

  • sheepsteethsheepsteeth Posts: 17,418 Webster
    yup, guilty as hell.

    i always thought drugs were the only explanation for those performances.
  • sheepsteethsheepsteeth Posts: 17,418 Webster
    mind you, ive never actually been bothered and couldnt care less.
  • sheepsteethsheepsteeth Posts: 17,418 Webster
    i dont actually know anything about it, i just reckon it is more fun to think he really is guilty and to be fair, he probably is, i might go and ask this question to the benders who think his sphincter is the cleanest and shiniest piece of human flesh in history over on the gay cyclist forum.
  • DirtriderDirtrider Posts: 1,611
    I think everyone wants him to be guilty due tot he fact that he's an censored .
    For Sale:

    Specialized P3 Frame

    Marzocchi Z2 Atom 80mm
  • angry_birdangry_bird Posts: 3,784
    If he did cheat then he did a good job of it, much better than some of these knobs like cuntador. Based on that they should let him off and stop pestering the bloke.

    Seems the UCI agrees with Armstrong that there's censored all the USADA can actually do anyway, breaking all their own rules, making pointless threats. Sure they have people saying he doped but he's always going to say there's no actual evidence and he was always clean... it's never going to end :roll:

    I think they should just settle it all with a duel between Armstrong and this bloke who doesn't seem to be his number one fan :lol:




    But I do think he doped. Everyone else is just jealous they weren't as good as him at it.
  • mrmonkfingermrmonkfinger Posts: 1,452
    I should add, I have read

    Test levels always bang on the legally allowed maximum. Unusual, for a chap with one little chap. I know he had TRT, but, there we are.

    EPO was not exactly uncommon at that time, neither, that's a bit more unsubstantiated.
  • bg13bg13 Posts: 4,598
    really hope he is not but the way pro cycling was at that time, he had to be!
    Loving life in rural SW France

    Orange 5 Pro
    Ribble Audax
    On One Scandal 29er
  • El CapitanoEl Capitano Posts: 13,671
    Guilty. And, from what's flying around twitter, this will be just the start of the downfall for cycling. UCI are most likely involved in covering up Armstrong's (and other team members) doping. If UCI go down, then its the end of cycling (of all forms) in the Olympics...
  • ilovedirtilovedirt Posts: 5,798
    I think the whole thing is a joke. He may have been guilty 16 years ago, but so was everyone else. Why pull him down? Ask someone else said, he was just creating a level playing field. Besides, if he passed their doping tests before, why should he be back on trial? Aside from the fact that the "indisputable evidence" that the USADA supposedly has against him is nothing but the word of some other athletes that have undoubtedly been persuaded into testifying against him, for lord knows what reason. As I said, an absolute joke.
    Production Privee Shan

    B'Twin Triban 5
  • angry_birdangry_bird Posts: 3,784
    Guilty or not, USADA have really got it in for him. Either way they're really going a long way to get him, something that the judge mentioned about their case too.

    Still... not contesting the charges, suppose it's like he's arguing over the existence of god with a religious nut, they'll never provide any proper evidence but still absolutely believe it. Whatever he does or says isn't going to make a difference.

    But he's probably guilty anyway, but as far as I'm concerned the USADA have to prove it completely, so there can't even be the shadow of a doubt.
  • GazlarGazlar Posts: 8,110
    Lance doesn't care, he can lice a life of luxury now with all those points he's earned on his Boots advantage card
    Mountain biking is like sex.......more fun when someone else is getting hurt
    Amy
    Farnsworth
    Zapp
  • jndb72jndb72 Posts: 629
    Haven't read much into it but it does seem to be a bit of a witch hunt. Someone, somewhere really seems to have it in for him.
    2011 Canyon Nerve AM 5.0
    2009 Specialized Rockhopper Disc

    I might have alzheimer's but atleast I don't have alzheimer's
  • ilovedirtilovedirt Posts: 5,798
    What's really doing my nut in is the fact that the USADA isn't any kind of official authority, but they keep saying they've 'stripped him of his 7 tour wins', when in fact they have no such authority to do so. Only the UCI is able to do that, and at this point they seem to be ignoring the USADA due to the fact that, as everyone can plainly see, they have no ACTUAL evidence.
    Production Privee Shan

    B'Twin Triban 5
  • YeehaaMcgeeYeehaaMcgee Posts: 5,740
    I find it fascinatingly juvenile how they keep insisting they have evidence, but decline to share it.
    I almost approve.
  • stubsstubs Posts: 5,001
    Everyone doped back then I bet Armstrong has had more pricks than Graham Norton. Who do you give the wins to if he is stripped of the titles another doper. Time to forget about it and move on he is history not a very charming part of history but no point in wasting any time on him.
    Fig rolls: proof that god loves cyclists and that she wants us to do another lap
  • welshkevwelshkev Posts: 9,690
    I find it fascinatingly juvenile how they keep insisting they have evidence, but decline to share it.
    I almost approve.

    Did i not hear somewhere they they are going to make it public in the near future? If so it'll make interesting reading
  • NorthwindNorthwind Posts: 15,475
    ilovedirt wrote:
    as everyone can plainly see, they have no ACTUAL evidence.

    Well, they do have some evidence. In fact, they have all the same evidence that led the US federal prosecutors to drop their case, earlier this year. Decisive!

    The difference being, USADA's rules don't require allegations to be proven beyond reasonable doubt; they only require them to be "reasonably comfortable". And since they clearly want Armstrong's head on a pike, that won't take much.

    That said, I think he's a big cheating cheat but the whole game's so screwed, it's all just become a waste of breath. USADA and WADA don't even attempt to hide their bias.
    Uncompromising extremist
  • whyamiherewhyamihere Posts: 7,397
    Some misinformation happening here...

    The reason the evidence hasn't been released is this: Had Armstrong contested the charges, it would have gone to court, and all evidence would have come out in the judicial process. Him not contesting the charges is essentially analagous to entering a guilty plea. USADA can still release the evidence if they want, but don't have to. They also have charges filed against other people who were involved with Armstrong (ex-team managers and so on) for whom much of the evidence is also relevent. They may wish to withold the evidence until after those possible trials.

    Regarding the stripping of titles: USADA's charges cover the period from 1998-2010 or 2011. The charges were not simply doping in races, there are also charges of conspiracy to supply and administering drugs to others, which carry much harsher sentences. Now, technically, USADA don't have the authority to strip Armstrong of his TDF titles, that's true. However, WADA recognise USADA as a legitimate anti-doping agency, and a part of that is that WADA will accept the findings of USADA. The UCI are signed up to follow WADA rules, and so accept USADA's findings by proxy. Technically, the UCI can reject the findings and refuse to strip Armstrong of his titles, but this puts them in direct violation of WADA rules and is the end of cycling in the Olympics, whatever happens. So that's not going to happen.

    Regarding the USADA being massively biased against Armstrong, and this all being a witch hunt, one question: Why would they bother?

    TL;DR: Guilty as sin.
  • YeehaaMcgeeYeehaaMcgee Posts: 5,740
    The way I see it, I believe there's a high chance he's guilty, and this could be a case of pandering for public sympathy.
    On the other hand, haven't these people tried over and over and over to pin something on him?
    Surely if they have proof that he was doping, then that's it, game over.

    So, they're both a bent as tentpegs in my opinion. Neither side deserves so much press, and to be able to steal the limelight form the huge successes of OUR (critish) cyclists recently. Bloody yanks.
  • bg13bg13 Posts: 4,598
    the authorities seem to struggle trying to stop these "professionals" doping so why not go the other way, let em take whatever they want, certainly would never see an old "professional"
    Loving life in rural SW France

    Orange 5 Pro
    Ribble Audax
    On One Scandal 29er
  • YeehaaMcgeeYeehaaMcgee Posts: 5,740
    bg13 wrote:
    let em take whatever they want, certainly would never see an old "professional"
    You sure? I believe most of them are taking animal-testing levels of chemicals already.
    Enough to make an early 90s rave look like an Amish church meeting.
  • whyamiherewhyamihere Posts: 7,397
    bg13 wrote:
    let em take whatever they want, certainly would never see an old "professional"
    You sure? I believe most of them are taking animal-testing levels of chemicals already.
    Enough to make an early 90s rave look like an Amish church meeting.
    I really don't think so, not any more.

    Until a few years ago, yeah, absolutely. In recent years though, it really does seem as though certain things have changed in professional road cycling. Hopefully I'm not going to be shown up as a naive fool, but my hopes are (relatively) high for the first time in many years.
  • YeehaaMcgeeYeehaaMcgee Posts: 5,740
    Well, my mate dangerous Dave said that Wiggins used to buy crystal meth and PCP from him.
    And... Vicky Pendleton had a serious addiction to Morphine and Skittles.
  • whyamiherewhyamihere Posts: 7,397
    Enough to make an early 90s rave look like an Amish church meeting.
    Also, related to this, Floyd Landis, who 'won' and was then excluded from the 2006 TDF, was raised a Mennonite.
  • YeehaaMcgeeYeehaaMcgee Posts: 5,740
    I'm sure his doctor could have got him some cream for that.
  • jay12jay12 Posts: 6,306
    comes across as guilty as he is trying to cover that up by the fact he doesn't want to waste time on this trail. but if it was me i would go to full lengths to not ruin my reputation. you can't endorse brands if you're a cheat and you will lose respect of a lot of people.

    so it's most likely he is guilty but tbh he did well not to have been caught all those years. maybe bribing was involved to keep it all a big secret as he would have had a lot of money (probably)

    i still have respect for him for what he has been through but i don't respect cheating (even if doping was common back when lance was at his top level)
  • YeehaaMcgeeYeehaaMcgee Posts: 5,740
    jay12 wrote:
    comes across as guilty as he is trying to cover that up by the fact he doesn't want to waste time on this trail. but if it was me i would go to full lengths to not ruin my reputation.
    I understand what you mean, however, the story is that he's been fighting for so, so, so long, that he's just stopped entertaining their nonsense now.
  • jay12jay12 Posts: 6,306
    jay12 wrote:
    comes across as guilty as he is trying to cover that up by the fact he doesn't want to waste time on this trail. but if it was me i would go to full lengths to not ruin my reputation.
    I understand what you mean, however, the story is that he's been fighting for so, so, so long, that he's just stopped entertaining their nonsense now.
    i was thinking that too. especially when USADA started breaking their own rules to get to him. and tbf he has been always surrounded by controversy if he was doping or not.

    either way i would be interested to see the official reports, if they do come out
  • whyamiherewhyamihere Posts: 7,397
    jay12 wrote:
    comes across as guilty as he is trying to cover that up by the fact he doesn't want to waste time on this trail. but if it was me i would go to full lengths to not ruin my reputation.
    I understand what you mean, however, the story is that he's been fighting for so, so, so long, that he's just stopped entertaining their nonsense now.
    Surely though, the only fight required is to give the lawyers a lot of money and say 'go'.

    Winning the TDF pays out a million dollars. Armstrong has to pay that back due to being stripped of the wins. If he truly believed that he could come out clean (which, if he was innocent, he would have believed), why wouldn't he instead give that seven million dollars to a team of stupendous lawyers and instruct them to take out USADA? In other words, that money's lost to him anyway, but he may as well use it to save his reputation and future earning potential rather than just handing it back and having his reputation tarnished. Unless, of course, he knows that there is evidence and that he won't win...
Sign In or Register to comment.