i'll be curious as to who the former teammate is who confirmed landis' accuasations. hamilton already spoke. levi is now being called out by his former gerolsteiner team manager. would hincapnie talk? is it one of the non-americans. knowing who this is would be very telling.
The Unrighteous wrote:
You must be a doper too just wrote:You must be a doper too just like Lance Armstrong !
Oh yeah! I'm a 200-pound 60-minute 10K guy. I have doping written all over my resume!
Valid point sir, but if a 200 pound guy got himself down to 140 pounds and ran 26 20 for 10k would you suspect him of doping.
For lance to achieve what he did clean, it's the exact same performance.
Count me among those who think this is a waste of taxpayer money, with basically zero public benefit as a result. (And there's a big, convincing argument that any conviction of Lance would do the greater public more harm than good). All that a conviction would do, aside from undermine Lance's philanthropic work, would be to give a bunch of TdF titles to the 2nd place guys who, by the way, also doped.
I can't see how this is a good way to spend our tax money.
You've got to be kidding. That is your rationale? So if crimes have been committed, they shouldn't be prosecuted if there is "zero public benefit?" Possible tax evasion, but it's not a problem because it's Lance? We shouldn't worry about fraud? We're talking millions of dollars worth of possible fraud, including the USPS sponsorship. His philanthropic work, if guilty, is all based on lies. His sold his image on being a clean rider who overcame cancer. What if prior drug use caused the cancer? How much financial gain has Lance himself earned from Livestrong? How much of what they've brought in has actually been used for cancer work? How do they rate among non-profit cancer organizations? Until recently, not very well. What about all the money he earned as a "clean rider?" Don't you think those compananies that paid out big bucks in bonuses have a right to know the truth?
So, if he doped, we shouldn't care because 2nd place also doped? Is that your opinion about track results as well? What about the equally or more talented rider that never doped and lost out on potential earnings? Nothing wrong with a payment to UCI that might have led to a coverup of a positive drug test or gave him a head's up to upcoming drug tests? I assume you don't have a problem if some elite distance runner sends a nice chunk of money to the USADA? What about coericion? So if Lance (and Bruyneel), as leaders of USPS/Discovery, put pressure on the other riders to dope (dope or find another team), they shouldn't be held accountable?
Please differeniate among crimes our government should pursue and those we shouldn't because I'm having a real hard time buying the Lance spin that his crimes are victimless.
Lance and his teams operated within the limits of testing and to maximize performance/results.....JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER TEAM! Lance is the GOAT!!!!
A complete waste of tax payer dollars on something the tax payers don't give a crap about, all so a government attorney can make a name for himself investigating and potentially prosecuting a crime that no one in America REALLY cares about.
Let the French pay for it.
Here's the other thing, the entire sport of cycle has been dirty so long, and so thoroughly...that to find anyone guilt guarantees that some ahole's get off scott free.
Wast of time and money, Americans don't care.
what the heck wrote:
Please differeniate among crimes our government should pursue and those we shouldn't because I'm having a real hard time buying the Lance spin that his crimes are victimless.
I think you are letting your emotion get in the way of rational thought. Haven't you ever heard of prosecutorial discretion? Our government (well, the attorneys in the government) make decisions all the time on which crimes to pursue and which not to based on strength of evidence, severity, public benefit, and cost. You can disagree about the particulars of the benefits of pursuing the Armstrong case, which is completely legitimate particularly as many of the facts are not in evidence. That doesn't mean that somebody is against all law and order and decency and morality.
Some of the things that have been suggested, such as Armstrong's titles being voided, are very very unlikely results of a federal prosecution.
ahole's?
This all comes down to who talks. I don't think LA is getting anything more than a legal slap on the wrist for this either way (legal/PR team too good), but if the right people talk, Lance will rest pretty definitely in the doper category.
By "right people" I mean not Landis, not Hamilton, etc. Someone clean and without any historical bone to pick with Lance.
Get Real Real wrote:
... get off scott free.
Scot free. In this context, a scot is a kind of tax. To get off scot free means to be exempt from paying the tax.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
I think you are letting your emotion get in the way of rational thought.
Perhaps. But I also think many are blinded by their admiration for Armstrong... he overcame cancer, did the impossible, yada, yada. His decade long PR campaign has worked and many people don't want to see their "inspiration" go down in flames, even though it's looking more and more like a huge case of fraud (in my opinion).
I agree that the results of the feds will have little to do with his Tour titles, although some on the cycling forums think they might try to strip the most recent wins(the first 4? have passed the statue of limitations from what I understand).
what the heck wrote:
Perhaps. But I also think many are blinded by their admiration for Armstrong... he overcame cancer, did the impossible, yada, yada. His decade long PR campaign has worked and many people don't want to see their "inspiration" go down in flames, even though it's looking more and more like a huge case of fraud (in my opinion).
I agree that the results of the feds will have little to do with his Tour titles, although some on the cycling forums think they might try to strip the most recent wins(the first 4? have passed the statue of limitations from what I understand).
I think Armstrong doped, so it has nothing to do with not wanting to see him go down in flames in my case. If it came out that he definitely doped, quite frankly I would shrug.
I think federal hearings into sports leagues and federal investigations of PED use are given way more publicity, time, attention, and money than they deserve.
Scoutmaster wrote:Valid point sir, but if a 200 pound guy got himself down to 140 pounds and ran 26 20 for 10k would you suspect him of doping.
For lance to achieve what he did clean, it's the exact same performance.
Unless the 26:20 10K runner tested positive for PEDs, then I'd assume nothing more than the possibility that he stopped eating crap, backed off the beers, and trained his freaking arse off.
I understand why people are skeptical of LR, but the bottom line is they KNOW nothing for certain. Unless the man is PROVEN guilty, all thoughts on the matter are weak speculation. That is a fact.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
what the heck wrote:Perhaps. But I also think many are blinded by their admiration for Armstrong... he overcame cancer, did the impossible, yada, yada. His decade long PR campaign has worked and many people don't want to see their "inspiration" go down in flames, even though it's looking more and more like a huge case of fraud (in my opinion).
I agree that the results of the feds will have little to do with his Tour titles, although some on the cycling forums think they might try to strip the most recent wins(the first 4? have passed the statue of limitations from what I understand).
I think Armstrong doped, so it has nothing to do with not wanting to see him go down in flames in my case. If it came out that he definitely doped, quite frankly I would shrug.
I think federal hearings into sports leagues and federal investigations of PED use are given way more publicity, time, attention, and money than they deserve.
I respectfully disagree. I think this is very import not simply to Armstrong's image, but to the image of sport in american culture today. In cycling, for example, there is great unevenness in the application and commitment to anti-doping policing and clean riding. American riders are seen as among the dirtiest and it's difficult to argue with that perception when americans generally say Armstrong is either clean, the victim of a witchhunt, or - if he did dope - then he was just the best doper. This ignores the fact that many Euro riders (again, unevenly. Spain and Germany being prominent exeptions until recently) are subject to more stringent oversight and cleaner team policies that Postal/Disco was. Like it or not, the teams that were winning more after Festina in 1998 were teams with systematic doping policies registered in countries (i.e., Not French) where they could hide. The french assertion of a two-speed peloton was very real! And Armstrong was favored by that corrupt system. The sheer number of people on this very board (who should know better) who think that an inquiry into that time period is a waste of time demonstrates how necessary it is for us to go through it.
what the heck wrote:
Please differeniate among crimes our government should pursue and those we shouldn't because I'm having a real hard time buying the Lance spin that his crimes are victimless.
When resources are finite, decisions need to be made about how to allocate those resources. And, given all of the challenges facing US society, I would hope that the government would allocate its resources towards more important issues where it can impact future outcomes. If you think that focusing on one single rider out of a peloton where the overwhelming majority of riders were doping is a smart use of your money, then feel free to let the government know that you support their investigation. But don't get your hopes up that a conviction would actually accomplish anything anyways. It's not like sport cleans itself up when agencies crack down...athletes just find alternative ways to gain an advantage or do a better job masking their existing ways.
fuc k you guys lance is the man and he is clean so feel it
I've got to go a step beyond others who think this is a waste of taxpayer money. I find it to be a disgusting and frankly terrifying abuse of prosecutorial power. The intent is to cook up federal charges based on a conspiracy to defraud his sponsors through doping-enhanced performances? Under that logic anyone who has ever intentionally misrepresented themselves or broken a rule for monetary gain is guilty of federal conspiracy charges. Bill Belichek? Sure. George O'Leary, and for that matter anyone who has ever embellished a resume? Lock em up.
This is the way I see it. Some prosecutor wants a big fat notch in his belt in being the one who finally pinched Lance Armstrong. He digs through the massive federal code and finally comes up with a giant overreach that also puts every doping cyclist out there on notice that they're liable to face the same charges. Then he goes out and offers immunity to this legion of terrified small time dopers so long as they tell him what he wants to hear. It's virtually impossible not to come up with enough material to indict under this circumstance. And based on the charges I wouldn't be surprised to see them initiate asset forfeiture proceedings. Even if they fail to convict, this prosecutor will gets his rocks off raking Lance over the coals, costing him millions in legal fees and convicting him in the court of public opinion.
I'm pretty confident that Lance doped. Any public shame, loss of titles, maybe even civil liability to his sponsors would be well deserved. But conspiracy to commit fraud? Give me a break. This investigation has nothing to do with justice.
I whole heartedly agree with you on this. Unfortunately, it sends the message to would be dopers that the truth doesn't matter so long as you don't get caught and can manipulate how the politics are played out.
As for Lance being dirty, note the times up the Col du Tourmalet during thus Tour. Armstrong and Ullrich did it in 44 minutes (2000? don't remember the year). This year the fastest climbers were OVER 50 MINUTES. Saying Lance is clean is akin to saying Barry Bonds' head didn't grow it's own solar system.
jjjjjjjj wrote:
what's the point of this witchhunt? why waste federal money to go after him? if he doped, then he won the all drug olympics over a bunch of other dopers. if he didn't, then this is all staining the reputation of an innocent man.
I cringed. You've clearly been listening to Lances PR firm. Are you going to start going after Lemond also? For those who realise Lance doped or are unsure about it I would highly recommend the Cyclingnews.com forums and go to the clinic. These are the people that have read the facts. For those who continue to argue he was clean... I recommend the Disney forums.
There is also tax evasion and bribes being looked into. CyclingNews.com forum, then "The Clinic" is a good place for info.
The bribes/donation to the UCI part is interesting as far as his legacy is concerned. To win 7 times against a mostly dirty field is pretty incredible no matter what, but if he had preferential treatment (it appears that he did) from the testers, it still wasn't a level playing field. It's not out of the realm of possibility that with no drugs or equal drugs, Jan takes the 7 tours.