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

prawny

DDD, do you accept that Al Capone was a gangster?

vermin

Don't know how many of you have read the 200 page summary document. I've only read section IV, on witness suppression / intimidation (don't know why; just drawn to it) and it's shockingly poor. Any half - witted lawyer could tear through it in minutes. I suppose it would make more sense read alongside the full version.

SteppenHerring

prawny wrote:

DDD, do you accept that Al Capone was a gangster?

IIRC he was prosecuted for tax evasion. He never once tested positive for gansterism.

bompington

vermin wrote:

Don't know how many of you have read the 200 page summary document. I've only read section IV, on witness suppression / intimidation (don't know why; just drawn to it) and it's shockingly poor. Any half - witted lawyer could tear through it in minutes. I suppose it would make more sense read alongside the full version.

This is in fact damning evidence against Armstrong - after all the fuss he made about USADA doing it all wrong, why did he throw in the towel when, apparently, it would be really easy to fight it?

By now there have been a lot of comments of the "any lawyer could tear this apart" variety, but I haven't actually seen anyone do the tearing yet.

Besides, you final sentence is the relevant part. The 200 pages is not supposed to be a legal document.

jzed

Think Dowsetts in for an uncomfortable day.

And how can Brailsford be shocked and staggered. Even I'm not shocked and staggered even though I'm looking in from the outside. As far as I can tell from the 100 pages so far, there isn't anything much more than Hamilton revealed, only more corraboration.

prawny

SteppenHerring wrote:

prawny wrote:

DDD, do you accept that Al Capone was a gangster?

IIRC he was prosecuted for tax evasion. He never once tested positive for gansterism.

My point excactly. Therefore, Al Capone is not a gangster. Bit of a stretch comparing the two I accept, but you get what I mean non?

rebs

It's not suppose to be a balanced report though? It's the verdict of why USDA came to the conclusion they did which is why it is so 1 sided.

pitchshifter

vermin wrote:

Don't know how many of you have read the 200 page summary document. I've only read section IV, on witness suppression / intimidation (don't know why; just drawn to it) and it's shockingly poor. Any half - witted lawyer could tear through it in minutes. I suppose it would make more sense read alongside the full version.

Simeoni intimidation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taWGQNKUgQQ

Read Levi's testimony here, Lance was sending threatening texts to his wife. Classy:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/109638682/Lev ... -Affidavit

cjcp

Wonder if other sports will follow suit...

bigmat

cjcp wrote:

Wonder if other sports will follow suit...

Didn't they reopen Puerto? That could take down some major names in footbal, tennis, athletics (although being Spain, it probably won't...)

cjcp

BigMat wrote:

cjcp wrote:

Wonder if other sports will follow suit...

Didn't they reopen Puerto? That could take down some major names in footbal, tennis, athletics (although being Spain, it probably won't...)

Don't know, tbh, but I'd be surprised if footballers doped. They seem not to run; more fall over and act and stuff.

Couldn't resist that one.

gabriel959

BigMat wrote:

cjcp wrote:

Wonder if other sports will follow suit...

Didn't they reopen Puerto? That could take down some major names in footbal, tennis, athletics (although being Spain, it probably won't...)

You said it won't, if Operación Galgo didn't take down Marta Dominguez and co there is no chance for Operación Puerto although it will be interesting to hear what it comes out, the fans are pretty good these days to figure out what is / was really happening anyway!

tailwindhome

cjcp wrote:

Wonder if other sports will follow suit...

See the problem is that in his case 'Cycling' didn't do anything to uncover the truth about Lance and USPostal it was external agencies such as the USADA. If anything the UCI seem hell bent on preventing the truth from emerging.

They may live to regret taking Kimmage to court.



As for other sports it would seem that tennis and football (specifically Barca) have the most mud being slung their way.

rolf_f

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

Just give everything in the last 10 years to David Moncoutie then. But whatever, surely you must accept that someone who can fight their way out of cancer and fight their way to 7 TdF victories is going to struggle to convince anyone that he hasn't got the fight to sit back and pay his lawyers to fight for him to keep his victories. It's not as though he has to do much himself.

What Lance is complaining is 'too much' is nothing. There is only one logical explanation for why he isn't fighting the charges and that is that by not fighting them he can transform a clear guilt into what he hopes will be a degree of uncertainty. No innocent person would choose not to fight.

As a matter of interest DDD, why do you have so much faith in Armstrong. I read a very pro Armstrong book earlier this year (The Worlds Greatest Champion) and that changed me from being sceptical about his guilt to pretty convinced about his guilt. I just can't understand why anyone would expect him not to dope given his personality and known behaviour.

daviesee

Rolf F wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

Just give everything in the last 10 years to David Moncoutie then. But whatever, surely you must accept that someone who can fight their way out of cancer and fight their way to 7 TdF victories is going to struggle to convince anyone that he hasn't got the fight to sit back and pay his lawyers to fight for him to keep his victories. It's not as though he has to do much himself.

What Lance is complaining is 'too much' is nothing. There is only one logical explanation for why he isn't fighting the charges and that is that by not fighting them he can transform a clear guilt into what he hopes will be a degree of uncertainty. No innocent person would choose not to fight.

As a matter of interest DDD, why do you have so much faith in Armstrong. I read a very pro Armstrong book earlier this year (The Worlds Greatest Champion) and that changed me from being sceptical about his guilt to pretty convinced about his guilt. I just can't understand why anyone would expect him not to dope given his personality and known behaviour.

Quite.
Anyone who nows anything about Lance's character will know that he is not one to simply give up.
He has a strategy. We just don't know what it is yet.

SteppenHerring

Well I have read of links between FC Barca and Operation Puerto. And I can say that from watching one match at the Nou Camp, that drug use was pretty blatant. I never knew it was possible to turn a 100k+ seat stadium into a giant bong.

DonDaddyD

Rolf F wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

Just give everything in the last 10 years to David Moncoutie then. But whatever, surely you must accept that someone who can fight their way out of cancer and fight their way to 7 TdF victories is going to struggle to convince anyone that he hasn't got the fight to sit back and pay his lawyers to fight for him to keep his victories. It's not as though he has to do much himself.

No, I take what is presented in front of me and consider it. People lose the will to fight all the time. People give up all the time. This in and of itself isn't unusual, it is part of the human condition. You cannot take a person's life, one that you haven't lived, and claim to truly know their convicitions beyond what is there to see, read and what they say.

There is only one logical explanation for why he isn't fighting the charges and that is that by not fighting them he can transform a clear guilt into what he hopes will be a degree of uncertainty. No innocent person would choose not to fight.

That's an assumption and you cannot substantiate it. For every person who says 'I'd fight' its not Lance and its anecdotal. All we know is that he has chosen not to fight and he has given his reasons for it.

As a matter of interest DDD, why do you have so much faith in Armstrong.

Interestingly there is no where in this thread where I have said that he didn't dope/cheat. What my post alluded to is that I do not believe he was the master mind or 'lead' the most sophisticated doping operation the sport has seen. Lance was a cyclist, not an evil genius.

Wallace1492

I think Lance started as a cyclist, then as the drug use increased, he became ever more obsessed with winning at all costs. He built up a team behind him, both of cyclists and backroom staff that shared this ideal. He is am immense personality, and used his influence to corrupt others. He became the driving force for the doping and made others do it, while being protected "allegedly" by the organisation that should have been stopping it. He became that eveil genius. Oh yes, many others were involved too, but he was "the man". Adolf started out as a public speaker and politician, that kinda changed......

EKE_38BPM

Wallace1492 wrote:

I think Lance started as a cyclist, then as the drug use increased, he became ever more obsessed with winning at all costs. He built up a team behind him, both of cyclists and backroom staff that shared this ideal. He is am immense personality, and used his influence to corrupt others. He became the driving force for the doping and made others do it, while being protected "allegedly" by the organisation that should have been stopping it. He became that eveil genius. Oh yes, many others were involved too, but he was "the man". Adolf started out as a public speaker and politician, that kinda changed......

Godwin invoked. Lock the thread.

Wallace1492

Never heard of Godwin, till now...... Was going to use Jimmy, but that would be inappropriate. Just trying to show that people change, albiet in a rather extreme way.

rolf_f

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Just give everything in the last 10 years to David Moncoutie then. But whatever, surely you must accept that someone who can fight their way out of cancer and fight their way to 7 TdF victories is going to struggle to convince anyone that he hasn't got the fight to sit back and pay his lawyers to fight for him to keep his victories. It's not as though he has to do much himself.

No, I take what is presented in front of me and consider it. People lose the will to fight all the time. People give up all the time. This in and of itself isn't unusual, it is part of the human condition. You cannot take a person's life, one that you haven't lived, and claim to truly know their convicitions beyond what is there to see, read and what they say.

So do I. And you are right - people do lose the will to fight all the time. People do give up. But when the one thing that defines your character is your ability to fight then it starts to look odd. And when what you are fighting for is effectively everything you have done in the last 15 to 20 years including your earnings, your credibility and your liberty, it looks odder still. And when you have the financial wherewithal to not actually have to do much of the fighting yourself but to leave 95% of it to your lawyers, it starts to look slightly bizarre. If you are innocent.

Read up on him. His personality (a very unpleasant one) comes across even in pro Lance books and it comes across as one where seems unsurprising that he would regard taking drugs (at least himself) as a logical way to go. The only thing about the present charges that is a revelation for me is just how far he seems to have taken it with regard to fellow team members. And that of course is the justification for the 'witch hunt'.

Lets not forget that the first thing that the average mass murdering dictator does when placed infront of a war crimes tribunal in the Hague is to denounce it as a Kangaroo court. It's the last defence of the hopelessly guilty.

DonDaddyD wrote:

Interestingly there is no where in this thread where I have said that he didn't dope/cheat. What my post alluded to is that I do not believe he was the master mind or 'lead' the most sophisticated doping operation the sport has seen. Lance was a cyclist, not an evil genius.

Cunning cross thread referencing on my part. On the other thread, you were completely confident he didn't dope (I hope I'm not mis-representing you there!). Now I think you imply that maybe he did dope but he didn't steer US Postal etc down an enforced drug taking regime. Are you open to the possibility you may be mistaken here as well?

rjsterry

Can't help but be struck by the parallels between Armstrong and Savile: both seem to have used their charity work to set themselves above investigation or criticism.

tailwindhome

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/others ... acked.html

woodnut

rjsterry wrote:

Can't help but be struck by the parallels between Armstrong and Savile: both seem to have used their charity work to set themselves above investigation or criticism.

It's only last week that a bike shop was proudly showing the ex Savile bikes they'd bought at auction. Dare say they are in a skip now.....

il_principe

cjcp wrote:

BigMat wrote:

cjcp wrote:

Wonder if other sports will follow suit...

Didn't they reopen Puerto? That could take down some major names in footbal, tennis, athletics (although being Spain, it probably won't...)

Don't know, tbh, but I'd be surprised if footballers doped. They seem not to run; more fall over and act and stuff.

Couldn't resist that one.

I wouldn't be surprised at all. They don't appear to be tested nearly as much as cyclists, and look at the money in the game. Financially there is so much more at stake. Midfielders can cover a lot of miles during a game. How often do teams score last minute goals thanks to defensive errors brought on by tiredness. If you can run longer & recover quicker than the oppo then you have a better chance of scoring that winning goal. That goal might mean millions for your club and £1000's for you in bonus terms- it could mean winning a league/cup, staying up, or qualifying for Champions League etc. With stakes that high (and millions invested in medical facilities) there is bound to be temptation. Just look at the problems the US have had with Baseball.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Is American Football tested? Those guys look like serial steroid abusers.

SimonAH

I'm really disappointed that this has all come up.

TBH I'd rather that he got away with it and pillowed off into the sunset rather than all this murky plegm get coughed up all over the prime time news.

Did he dope? Obviously
Was everyone at the time doping? Yup, pretty much
Has he also done a lot of good stuff? Yes, yes he has
Will all these revalations hurt the sport, and all the good stuff? Yes, yes it will/has

Things are a lot tighter now, we really didn't need this.

il_principe

SimonAH wrote:

I'm really disappointed that this has all come up.

TBH I'd rather that he got away with it and pillowed off into the sunset rather than all this murky plegm get coughed up all over the prime time news.

Did he dope? Obviously
Was everyone at the time doping? Yup, pretty much
Has he also done a lot of good stuff? Yes, yes he has
Will all these revalations hurt the sport, and all the good stuff? Yes, yes it will/has

Things are a lot tighter now, we really didn't need this.

I dunno. As depressing as all this is, I hope it triggers the catharsis that cycling needs. My main concern is that it'll just stop at Armstrong and co, and not sweep up the other offenders.

Hopefully it'll make riders think longer & harder about doping as well. But yeah, watching the sport get dragged back into the mire when there has been so much good publicity this year =

TheStone

SimonAH wrote:

Was everyone at the time doping? Yup, pretty much

I always thought this, but now I'm not sure. After the Festina affair in '98, I think most teams came to the '99 TdF clean. Postal did not. The later EPO tests seem to back this up. Apparently Ulrich was even clean in '00. After that, it became an arms race. And that's without going into the careers of clean riders Lance destroyed if they spoke out. Before there was silence, but from Lance there was loud bullying.

SimonAH wrote:

Has he also done a lot of good stuff? Yes, yes he has

There's no doubt he's given a lot of people a lot of hope, but I think his charity is a scam and I expect the major press to start picking up on this over the next week or so.

SimonAH wrote:

Will all these revalations hurt the sport, and all the good stuff? Yes, yes it will/has
Things are a lot tighter now, we really didn't need this.

Yeah, it hurts the sport, but I'd rather just get everything out of the way now and restart. I want to be able to watch races and be sure that everyone's clean (or at least there's a good chance of people getting caught, with the right punishment).

DonDaddyD

Rolf F wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Just give everything in the last 10 years to David Moncoutie then. But whatever, surely you must accept that someone who can fight their way out of cancer and fight their way to 7 TdF victories is going to struggle to convince anyone that he hasn't got the fight to sit back and pay his lawyers to fight for him to keep his victories. It's not as though he has to do much himself.

No, I take what is presented in front of me and consider it. People lose the will to fight all the time. People give up all the time. This in and of itself isn't unusual, it is part of the human condition. You cannot take a person's life, one that you haven't lived, and claim to truly know their convicitions beyond what is there to see, read and what they say.

So do I. And you are right - people do lose the will to fight all the time. People do give up. But when the one thing that defines your character is your ability to fight then it starts to look odd. And when what you are fighting for is effectively everything you have done in the last 15 to 20 years including your earnings, your credibility and your liberty, it looks odder still. And when you have the financial wherewithal to not actually have to do much of the fighting yourself but to leave 95% of it to your lawyers, it starts to look slightly bizarre. If you are innocent.

Read up on him. His personality (a very unpleasant one) comes across even in pro Lance books and it comes across as one where seems unsurprising that he would regard taking drugs (at least himself) as a logical way to go. The only thing about the present charges that is a revelation for me is just how far he seems to have taken it with regard to fellow team members. And that of course is the justification for the 'witch hunt'.

Lets not forget that the first thing that the average mass murdering dictator does when placed infront of a war crimes tribunal in the Hague is to denounce it as a Kangaroo court. It's the last defence of the hopelessly guilty.

There is a possiblity you are right and there is a possiblity that Armstrong is telling the truth and he doesn't want to fight it in court because he is tired and it is a Kangaroo Court. Armstrong did what he had to do to win, it may be that those actions are now being twisted to make him look like the Corleone of organised doping.

No matter how much we argue either side. The fact remains that he chose not to fight it, it does make him look guilty, it doesn't mean he is.

On to the evidence:

Rolf wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Interestingly there is no where in this thread where I have said that he didn't dope/cheat. What my post alluded to is that I do not believe he was the master mind or 'lead' the most sophisticated doping operation the sport has seen. Lance was a cyclist, not an evil genius.

Cunning cross thread referencing on my part. On the other thread, you were completely confident he didn't dope (I hope I'm not mis-representing you there!). Now I think you imply that maybe he did dope but he didn't steer US Postal etc down an enforced drug taking regime. Are you open to the possibility you may be mistaken here as well?

Lol on the mis-representing reference as well and skillfull cross referencing. Maybe he did dope, it seems likely doesn't it? I won't lie a part of me still hopes Lance pulls out bone marrow tests for each of the years he won a tour and the results prove - somehow - that he could never have taken the drugs he is accused of taking.

Cycling teams are lead by Directors, supported by Doctors and other people by and large more versed in the subject of biology, drugs and drug taking than Lance could ever hope to be. I doubt he was the point man. The face, the road dog, the foot soldier, yes, maybe. But the guy at the top? I dunno.

Spider-man did something similar, he made a deal with the devil to save his Aunt May's life he had to give up his love to Mary Jane. Perhaps Lance made the same kind of deal with some super evil doctor: Save him from cancer but he has to suffer humiliation beyond anything that has been seen before.

Here we are.