I don't believe Lance Armstrong and I never will...

t4tomo

We wondered whether the evidence they had was compelling enough, well from what's coming out I think it's safe to say the French were right about him all along.

pitchshifter

http://www.scribd.com/doc/109619079/Reasoned-Decision

Get reading believers ...

Gussio

Thanks for the link - skimming through it now. Makes for compelling reading...usada don't seem to have left any stone unturned.

asprilla

To whom do I apply for a refund on my books?

twoshots

Ugh, bottom of page 4 reads like he wouldn't play ball so we decided to strip him of his titles. It sounds very much like an opening statement from the laywer for the prosecution. Not quite a 'reasoned decision' as I would understand it.

Don't get me wrong, I think he doped, but the tone of the opening pages sends shivers down the spine. I think all the critism Lance et al. have thrown at the USADA for having a vendetta is probably right. But then, they are probably right about the general facts at the centre of the case. A thoroughly unsatisfying conclusion to a bit of a farce.

iPete

Live Guardian feed..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oc ... rect=false

DonDaddyD

Linford Christie did not cheat.

As for Lance, well, as the assumption goes if the team did then he must have. In fact with no experience or real knowledge of biochemistry and drug testing procedures he masterminded the most sophisticated doping operation. He was one of the most heavily tested athletes in one of the most heavily scrutinised sports - at the time. I dunno, maybe he came across a wonder drug when fighting cancer that made him a super evil genius. Still, arise 'Don Armstrong' as the USDA would have you believe.

So Armstrong was infectious to be near him, on the same team, meant you had to cheat. Extend this further, does that mean Contador and Astana cheat/ed as well, RadioShack? What about all the other teams around Lance at the time? Schleck has been banned, does that mean Andy is a cheat, after all it is his brother. Wiggins, he rode for Cofidis, they cheated.

Show me the actual pee cup and the blood vial. Ask Armstrong the question and if without doubt he is lying then perjury his ass and if you can't sue him.

Even then, debunking the myth - I'm not sure what this achieves. It certainly doesn't enhance cycling as a sport. That no one can declare a clear winner in any Grand Tour for a decade and people tell me that dark cloud hanging over head doesnt cast doubt over future winners. I cite the recent Vuelta.

Win something in cycling, you must be a cheat. Wiggins. Froome did pretty managing to challenge GC in two major tours and compete in two Olympic competitions oh and the World Championships.

Cavendish's thighs have grown.

TheStone

DonDaddyD wrote:

Linford Christie did not cheat.

As for Lance, well, as the assumption goes if the team did then he must have. In fact with no experience or real knowledge of biochemistry and drug testing procedures he masterminded the most sophisticated doping operation. He was one of the most heavily tested athletes .........

I blame Seb Coe.

.... or you could read the document.

EKE_38BPM

TheStone wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Linford Christie did not cheat.

As for Lance, well, as the assumption goes if the team did then he must have. In fact with no experience or real knowledge of biochemistry and drug testing procedures he masterminded the most sophisticated doping operation. He was one of the most heavily tested athletes .........

I blame Seb Coe.

.... or you could read the document.

You know that will never happen. It would taint his opinion with fact.
I've read a bit of the Reasoned Decision and though it is one sided because Lance picked up his ball and walked off saying "I'm not playing this game", it is very damning. If he was innocent, I think that he would defend that with every fibre of his being rather than having the biggest successes of his professional career wiped out.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Hincapie's affidavit is here: http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Hi ... idavit.pdf

Interesting stuff. Plenty of damning material, and plenty of generalities that a defence lawyer could turn inside out in cross examination. But on balance enough of the former to do the job in a fight, I suspect. Doesn't portray Armstrong as the man forcing other riders on the team to take drugs, as the USADA would have it.

dhope

TheStone wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

.... or you could read the document.

tailwindhome

Greg66 wrote:

Interesting stuff. Plenty of damning material, and plenty of generalities that a defence lawyer could turn inside out in cross examination. But on balance enough of the former to do the job in a fight, I suspect. Doesn't portray Armstrong as the man forcing other riders on the team to take drugs, as the USADA would have it.

Have you read the report yet Greg?

If you were on Lance's legal team today would you be regretting throwing in your hand?

tailwindhome

DDD, I don't really know what to say.

Read the report. Then post something worth discussing.

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Interesting stuff. Plenty of damning material, and plenty of generalities that a defence lawyer could turn inside out in cross examination. But on balance enough of the former to do the job in a fight, I suspect. Doesn't portray Armstrong as the man forcing other riders on the team to take drugs, as the USADA would have it.

Have you read the report yet Greg?

If you were on Lance's legal team today would you be regretting throwing in your hand?

No, I haven't. I may do over the weekend. Put it this way. I have read plenty of investigator-cum-prosecutor reports that precede civil proceedings. Without exception, they brook of no doubt. They always put the case as high as it can be put. They weave the materials together in an almost seamless fashion. They argue the case. It's a conceit to pretend that they are reports, or decisions in reality.

Then you go to the source material. Sometimes that's a depressing exercise. But it's unusual if you can't go through that material and start to see where the big cracks have been skilfully papered over, and how you'd run your lines of attack (Vinnie in "My Cousin Vinnie" illustrated the potential misdirection in a prosecution case with a bricks and playing cards).

If I was on the legal team, would I regret my client's decision? Well maybe - I'd want to trawl the source material to come to a proper view - but all that statement of possible regret means is that as a lawyer maybe I could see a way to give my client a good run at this. Ultimately, do I think I could have won? Well, that's a very different question. And ultimately, had I won, would that have been the "right" outcome? Again, a different question again.


ETA: by way of further clarification, many will see the report as giving finality; the truth at last laid bare, if you will. As a lawyer, I see it as the opening salvo in what would have been a long battle. Now there isn't going to be a battle, because one side's decided they don't want to fight. But experience tells me that whilst parts of the truth may be in the opening salvo, it is very unusual for the opening salvo to be 100% accurate without embellishment or mistake. Every lawyer knows that their case will take some hits, and they armour plate it accordingly.

MonkeyMonster

Ooof, wee bit more damming that most were thinking/suspecting... I can hear the gnashing in road from here

bigmat

I mean seriously, how do you defend that?

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Interesting stuff. Plenty of damning material, and plenty of generalities that a defence lawyer could turn inside out in cross examination. But on balance enough of the former to do the job in a fight, I suspect. Doesn't portray Armstrong as the man forcing other riders on the team to take drugs, as the USADA would have it.

Have you read the report yet Greg?

If you were on Lance's legal team today would you be regretting throwing in your hand?

No, I haven't. I may do over the weekend. Put it this way. I have read plenty of investigator-cum-prosecutor reports that precede civil proceedings. Without exception, they brook of no doubt. They always put the case as high as it can be put. They weave the materials together in an almost seamless fashion. They argue the case. It's a conceit to pretend that they are reports, or decisions in reality.

Then you go to the source material. Sometimes that's a depressing exercise. But it's unusual if you can't go through that material and start to see where the big cracks have been skilfully papered over, and how you'd run your lines of attack (Vinnie in "My Cousin Vinnie" illustrated the potential misdirection in a prosecution case with a bricks and playing cards).

If I was on the legal team, would I regret my client's decision? Well maybe - I'd want to trawl the source material to come to a proper view - but all that statement of possible regret means is that as a lawyer maybe I could see a way to give my client a good run at this. Ultimately, do I think I could have won? Well, that's a very different question. And ultimately, had I won, would that have been the "right" outcome? Again, a different question again.


ETA: by way of further clarification, many will see the report as giving finality; the truth at last laid bare, if you will. As a lawyer, I see it as the opening salvo in what would have been a long battle. Now there isn't going to be a battle, because one side's decided they don't want to fight. But experience tells me that whilst parts of the truth may be in the opening salvo, it is very unusual for the opening salvo to be 100% accurate without embellishment or mistake. Every lawyer knows that their case will take some hits, and they armour plate it accordingly.

So in short, they've (USADA have) presented what they've got in the best possible light. Presumably they wouldn't be doing their job properly if they didn't, but it is a bit odd that they appear to simultaneously present themselves as some sort of neutral arbitrator and active prosecutor.

greg66_tri_v2.0

BigMat wrote:

I mean seriously, how do you defend that?

Maybe in the end you can't. Maybe you pull up witnesses to controvert the USADA's witnesses. Maybe you aim to discredit their witnesses. Maybe you do no more than aim for a "not proven to the relevant standard approach". There are lots of strategies, but they all require you to go through the USADA's source materials carefully, collate and assess your own materials, and then formulate a strategy based on your best lines of attack. Or throw the towel in.

But one side of the story always seems intimidating when it drops on your desk at all once, in apparently apple-pie order, done up with a bow.

iPete

You can choose not to believe any or all of the witnesses. You can choose to disregard the flashing neon arrows among the test results. You can somehow construe the $1 million in payments Armstrong made to the Swiss-based company of discredited trainer Michele Ferrari as legitimate medical expenses, or remarkably generous gifts. To discount all three elements of USADA's case, and the way they overlap and intersect, is nothing less than being willfully blind.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/ ... ther-doped

DonDaddyD

None are so blind as those that assume.

I skimmed part of the report (1000 pages, seriously) and read in detail other parts of it.

What case bought against someone has ever been reasoned and balanced? Its weighted in favor of the claimant. If we are to believe this report without question, then to remain impartial and unbiased we are to believe Armstrong's reasons not to fight the case. Whether we think it was the right or wrong decision.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, between the defence and claimant. Clearly there was something wrong with USPostal, but no single outsider can claim to know the absolute truth.

vermin

Greg66 wrote:

But one side of the story always seems intimidating when it drops on your desk at all once, in apparently apple-pie order, done up with a bow.

Intimidating?! MTFU - that's the best part!

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

None are so blind as those that assume.

I skimmed part of the report (1000 pages, seriously) and read in detail other parts of it.

What case bought against someone has ever been reasoned and balanced? Its weighted in favor of the claimant. If we are to believe this report without question, then to remain impartial and unbiased we are to believe Armstrong's reasons not to fight the case. Whether we think it was the right or wrong decision.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, between the defence and claimant. Clearly there was something wrong with USPostal, but no single outsider can claim to know the absolute truth.

Obviously, the report needs to read with a sceptical mind, but (without having read it) the impression I get is that while elements of the case may be somewhat less than incontrovertible, the shear volume of material suggests that "something was wrong at USPostal" is a massive understatement.

Stretch0212

Of course it's one sided, Armstrong was given the option of defence & put his side across, he chose not to take it, he's forgone the right of reply in that one simple act & would now be best shutting up.
Other wise he's just gong to look like a kid moaning for his ball back.

And for those still in denial I'll point you in the direction of this:

"Odds are Armstrong ultimately will be stripped of his Tour de France titles, but the extent of doping in that era renders moot who would inherit them. Forfeiting prize money and results? A pittance compared to the millions Armstrong made off the road, which he is under no obligation to return. Inability to compete in elite sports? Armstrong will always find a place to race and people who want to race with him, or at least come to watch. He is stubborn enough to be capable of existing indefinitely in a sort of parallel universe where he is still who he purported to be -- a purveyor of hope on wheels.

And there will always be people who loved those three-week travelogues every July and don't want to give up on their longtime protagonist, either. Sunflowers and lavender and Alpine switchbacks are far more appealing images than syringes and blood bags and a cult of personality channeled into coercion. Armstrong's legacy lies now not only in the eye of the beholder but in the willingness of that beholder to take off the blinders and see."

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/ ... ther-doped

bigmat

DDD, you must have skim read it pretty quickly to not even realise its a 200 page summary rather than the 1000 page full document. Can't you just admit you called this one all wrong?

Wrath Rob

Wow. Not got the time to read the summary doc but have read through Cyclingnews, Inrng and Road.cc's reports, it appears pretty damning. Testimony of 26 team-mates and associates, financial records detailing payments to Dr Ferrari, analysis of blood tests indicating a very high likelihood of blood doping, a threat to hold the UCI to ransom for failing to pick up testicular cancer is all in there. Less a body of evidence and more an entire population.

Another sad day in our sport

dhope

Stretch0212 wrote:

Other wise he's just gong to look like a kid moaning for his ball back.

Intentional reference to testicular cancer?

asprilla

Wrath Rob wrote:

Another sad day in our sport

I don't see it as sad. Quite the opposite.

We all know that the 90s and 00s were about dope getting it out in the open is the first step to dealing with it. It's like standing up at an AA meeting and saying 'Hi, my name is Pro Cycling and I'm an addict.'

This is a good thing.

pitchshifter

Asprilla wrote:

This is a good thing.

It is a good thing in the long term, but today it portrays cycling as a joke to those with limited knowledge of the sport... Which leaves us lot on the defensive to the casual observer ..

My opinion on what I have read so far? Heads should certainly roll at the UCI.

rubertoe

pitchshifter wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

This is a good thing.

It is a good thing in the long term, but today it portrays cycling as a joke to those with limited knowledge of the sport... Which leaves us lot on the defensive to the casual observer ..

My opinion on what I have read so far? Heads should certainly roll at the UCI.

I agree that it is a good thing as well - short term pain for long term benefit - a line needs to be drawn under that period and this hopefully can be it.

Currently reading "the worlds Greatest Champion" - wish i wasnt now.

Kieran_Burns

I see it as cycling lancing a particularly rancid boil

Messy and smelly now but the wound will heal.

(pun intended, as always)

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

but no single outsider can claim to know the absolute truth.

Hincapie and Leipheimer aren't outsiders, they were there.

According to Inner ring, every American who rode for US Postal in that era has now confessed to using PEDs, except one.

We are also forgeting that this evidence will be challenged when Bruyneel goes to arbitration.




It's always fun to argue the minority opinion on here DDD, but honestly mate you're starting to look a bit silly now.