Armstrong filling a suit has nothing to do with the USADA Kangaroo Kourt.
Ah, the "We are combating SPAM message." Hello Rojo aka Uncivil Engineer.
Armstrong filling a suit has nothing to do with the USADA Kangaroo Kourt.
Ah, the "We are combating SPAM message." Hello Rojo aka Uncivil Engineer.
This is what USADA wastes their money on? A Retired cyclist champion that had his reign during one of the dirtiest times in cycling? They grabbed his former teammates, that have nothing to lose from testifying against him? They can so easily lie for a under the table paycheck and not lose any face because its not like Lance is still their leader.
It seems incredibly fishy that everyone steps forward AFTER the fact that he retired the second time around, pretty convient for USADA to attack him when his income is less than what it was when he was competing and financially able to drag out a court hearing of this magnitude against a well funding drug testing association.
I don't care if he is actually guilty or not, cycling isn't my sport never will be, but the fact that his teammates throw him under the bus after he stopped benefiting them is low, the fact that he is banned for life after retirement and they get to compete on now that he is gone and shamed is completely asinine. If USADA had so much evidence they should have investigated and done this years ago not waited till after he hung up the competitive bike and became a casual marathon/triathlete.
But then again, I'm just spouting skepticism, good for them shaming a former 7 time champion, doesn't matter, he still won and everyone knows that, nobody will ever win 7 again with or without drugs. He is retired, let him retire, don't kick him when he has walked away and wag your finger.
Don't you think perhaps its ethical to expose those who accumulate wealth, fame and personal power based upon a fraud, based upon rule breaking? Most humans like the witnesses they had lined up are cowards, but just because they finally ratted Lance out after many years of keeping a lie holed up, it doesn't mean that an ethical outcome wasn't ultimately achieved. Truth was achieved.
Thats generally a good thing.
The more I hear these weak defenses of Armstrong, the less I feel any sympathy for the guy.
O.o wrote:
It seems incredibly fishy that everyone steps forward AFTER the fact that he retired the second time around
No, actually it makes perfect sense. If he and his teammates were all dirty, how could any of them come forward when they were all in the midst of their active careers? And it's not as though anyone (Landis aside) *wanted* to rat him out (if they did, he could have burned them as many are still racing and he isn't); they became part of USADA's comprehensive investigation of Armstrong. You think any cyclist would willingly thrust himself into the middle of that mess?
O.o wrote:
pretty convient for USADA to attack him when his income is less than what it was when he was competing and financially able to drag out a court hearing of this magnitude against a well funding drug testing association.
Oh, I get it now. A conspiracy theorist. Yeah, I bet Armstrong has been hurting for cash ever since he crossed the TdF finish line for the final time.
AMEN gonchar... and let's not forget that the charges weren't just against Lance, but against four other higher ups:
- Johan Bruyneel, team manager
- Luis Garcia del Moral, team doctor
- Michele Ferrari, consulting doctor
- Jose "Pepe" Marti, team trainer
Those four were active in cycling until USADA's decision. And Lance very well may have become a TdF team manager or trainer in the future. If you're trying to clean up cycling, how can you move forward when five "big dogs" who readily participated in the EPO era are in leadership roles moving forward? Who's to say they wouldn't condone the next PED (sophisticated micro-dosing, next designer blood enhancer, etc.), in fact you'd expect them to condone the next PED based on their track record. It's not a waste of tax payers money or a witch hunt if you're really trying to root out cancerous behavior and move forward with clean leadership at the top.
Excellent post.
Tor wrote:
I'm shocked at the number of Lance apologists on letsrun. As information comes out, it will become obvious that Lance was one of the biggest sporting frauds in history.
If this was an agency bringing charges to Usain Bolt there would be none of this level of support. Or, can you imagine the response if this were GAYlen Rupp and Salazar being charged for doping by USADA? It would be a blood bath. But too many bought into the Armstrong myth for too long. It's difficult to know where to start, but a few items:
USADA: Just 18 months ago, Lance welcomed the USADA investigation into doping allegations against him. "I look forward to being vindicated by USADA." It sure sounds like someone who believed the process. Sucks when you don't get the results you want. Do the Lance apologists really want the governing body of the sport (UCI or IAAF) to have control over doping violations? Has it worked in the past? I certainly don't remember anyone crying foul when USADA sanctioned Eddy H., Marion Jones, or Mary Slaney. BTW, one of Lance's best buddies helped write the USADA code that he is now complaining isn't legitimate. Funny stuff.
coach d, are you really that ignorant? 3-person arbitration with each side picking 1 arbitrator and the 2 sides agreeing on the 3rd. Courts in the U.S. have long supported the arbitration process in civil cases. Now because people don't like the outcome, it's a "kangaroo court."
Everyone is doping: Not so. Many are afraid to speak out or lose their jobs (rider, team management, etc). Look what happened to Bassons and Simeoni.
Level playing field: Lance was a obviously a great responder; had exclusive access to one of the best doping doctors in the world; had exclusive friends in the UCI that may have covered up positive tests; how many of his ex-teammates tested positive yet none of them ever tested positive while riding for USPS or Discovery.
Most tested athlete: biggest joke of all; any bit of research will prove that this has been one of Lance's best talking points, but far from the truth.
"NEVER proven guilty": well, I think USADA had a slam dunk case and Lance knew it. As others have said, if he's innocent, fight the charges. It should be easy to discredit the witnesses.
Witnesses: easy to dismiss Landis and Hamilton, but what about Big George? Lance fanboys used to always say when George admits it, it's over. Well, apparently George was likely one of the witnesses. Now those same fanboys claim the process is unfair. Betsy Andreu has never gained anything for speaking the truth, actually hurt her husband's career in cycling. Lance did a good job of calling her fat, ugly, and jealous, but in reality she appears to be someone with a very high moral fiber. I'm damn curious about some of the other witnesses.
It's actually fu*kin' hilarious to see all of the excuses and rationale. His entire story is a myth. Many allegations that he was using pre-cancer; PED use probably let to cancer; he recovers; starts a sophisticated doping program; becomes a legend; destroys the careers of anyone who challenges the myth; but, unfortunately for Lance, he got too greedy. He should have walked away after 7 wins. Indurain was smart. Tied the TdF record and retired. Lance's ego was far too big. He couldn't stand not being in the limelight.
Lance is done. He's a coward. His ball is between a rock and hard place and the rock was just shoved a bit closer to the hard place.
OK, this is kinda awesome...
Uncivil Engineer wrote:
USADA may indeed consist of hyperaggressive dickwhackers whose chief motivation for pursuing Armstrong is not cleaning up the sport, but shaming Armstrong and ruining his life. Doesn't matter, because his actions are those of a guilty man and he KNEW what would happen if he rolled over. Knew it fully. Think about it -- if you tell me 2 + 2 = 5 for sufficiently large values of 2 and I tell you that your mom's a fat ugly whore and punch you in the face and rape your sister and say "actually it's 4," I'm still right; my attitude and actions have no bearing on the outcome.
The triathlons' governing body should overrule that rouge organization USADA ruling by allowing LA to compete. LA should be given a rubber stamp to continue his triathlon pursuits, he's one of the very few specimens for aging athletes to prove themselves. You know this thread (situation) kind of reminds me of a meeting in an auditorium where a riot breaks out with the chairs flying. I'm only nine years old and I like LA because of his goals.
9yrs olds wrote:
that rouge organization USADA
Are you suggesting they're communists?
it's time to take the gloves off and go after Flo Jo! Take her medals, WR's, and her money! Why not?...Everyone knows she is guilty, no need in pusssy footing around! Let's get them all!
Tour of colorado news anchors said they have evidence from 2009-2010 as well as 10 eye witnesses...Thats their evidence
Every single major news outlet carrying this story mentions the WADA statement about Armstrong's blood sample from 2009 showing clear signs of manipulation and EPO use. Everyone here saying he's never tested positive needs to get off the frigging AD/HD train and read through the entirety of one of these stories. USADA is clearly very confident in its case, and Armstrong is aware they have good reason for this.
All of the aggrieved Armstrong defenders howling about USADA acting in the absence of evidence need to shut the hell up and acknowledge that they simply do not have all of the facts. As others have said, a week or two from now at most, everyone complaining about an unfounded witch hunt are going to either humbly join the reality community or slink away silently into the shadows of this forum.
This
Uncivil Engineer wrote:
9yrs olds wrote:that rouge organization USADA
Are you suggesting they're communists?
If you red what he wrote you'd understand. Come on, "9yrs olds," will you respond or not? Quit stalin!
Thank you, there are some delusional people here. He tested positive, I am not sure why people keep glossing over that minor detail.
If the Lance case were a murder case, it would be as if the police found the murder weapon, his fingerprints on the weapon, a matching ballistics test and ten eyewitnesses who saw him pull the trigger.
gonchar wrote:
Don't you think perhaps its ethical to expose those who accumulate wealth, fame and personal power based upon a fraud, based upon rule breaking?
Exactly! One of the charges was that Lance got positive tests covered up. He "donated" well over a hundred thousand dollars to the agency in charge of the testing. That is a nice perk, knowing you can never test positive. We got a hint of the corruption of this agency when Alberto Contador's positive test was originally covered up. It was uncovered by a reporter. Then we found out this agency actually contacted Alberto and told him he had tested positive and most likely it was probably due to a contaminated food or supplement. That was their excuse for the nearly one month delay in reporting the positive. They needed to do more research on why this rider would test positive and then contact him.
When was the last time a cop gave you advice on how to beat the ticket he just wrote you? That's what the UCI did. If the reporter never uncovered the failed test would Alberto given them a nice $100,000 donation too? there is far more to this than the casual cycling fan realizes. There is Emma O reilly, Betsy Andreu, Oh and Greg Strock. Lances teammate from his amateur days who sued their coach Chris Carmichael for doping him with EPO and other drugs without his knowledge. Strock almost died from that. Mr Carmichael(still Lances coach) quickly settled the case out of court. Lance still made payments to the well know Dr Ferrari who once said "EPO is no more dangerous than orange juice" Lance said he cut him lose as his doctor a long time ago but still maintained a "friendship" with him. Recently large payments from Lance through a company Ferrari owns had been discovered in the federal investigation. George Hincapie a former sprinter magically transformed as a rider when he joined Lances team. Famous for field sprints and flat one day classics, he was often seen leading Lance high in the mountains. In fact he won the most prestigous climbing stage of them all the stage to Alp D Huez in the tour! Sort of like if Wallace Spearmon started training with Salazaar and ends up beating Rupp in the 10K. Hmmmmmmm
Uncivil Engineer wrote:
Every single major news outlet carrying this story mentions the WADA statement about Armstrong's blood sample from 2009 showing clear signs of manipulation and EPO use. Everyone here saying he's never tested positive needs to get off the frigging AD/HD train and read through the entirety of one of these stories. USADA is clearly very confident in its case, and Armstrong is aware they have good reason for this.
All of the aggrieved Armstrong defenders howling about USADA acting in the absence of evidence need to shut the hell up and acknowledge that they simply do not have all of the facts. As others have said, a week or two from now at most, everyone complaining about an unfounded witch hunt are going to either humbly join the reality community or slink away silently into the shadows of this forum.
Not an apologist, just someone who values the rule of law and wants to see it applied evenly. You've decided he's guilty because he's not fighting anymore. That's not a criterion for guilt. You mention the strong case the USADA has. Well, ladeeda, anybody can say anything they want to the press. WHEN the evidence becomes public knowledge, and 8 of the 10 witnesses are no longer anonymous, and we see the results of the 2009 tests everyone is talking about, THEN you can stone him in the town square. Until then, I'd like to believe the law protects people no matter how many of you Monday-morning legal experts are convinced of guilt.
Answer Challenged wrote:
Questions if anyone knows:
1. Is the ICU limited to the punishment imposed/recommended by the USADA? In other words can the ICU deviate from the punishment set forth by USADA?
Yes, the ICU has agreed to abide by the WADA code, so unless the CAS rules differently, they must recognize the punishment of USADA.
2. Can Lance be subpoenaed to testify under oath at Bruyneel's arbitration hearing?
I believe the arbiters have subpoena power, but I am not 100% sure.
3. Is it accurate that the USADA decision precludes Lance from participating as an Ironman triathlete? I am trying to understand how the ban works, in other words, would Melky Cabrera's MLB suspension preclude him from competing in basketball? Just seems to me triathlon is a different sport, maybe I am overthinking or just do not understand. [\quote]
Both USA Triathlon and the World Triathlon Corporation (which owns the Ironman trademark) are signatories to the WADA code. As such they are bound to recognize the USADA suspension. WTC could in theory choose to unenlist, since they are not an Olympic sport.
I think no Lance hearing means we avoid the spectacle of Lance looking at Hincapie like Clemens looked at Pettite at trial. And vice versa.
In fact, George Hincapie didn't win the stage to L'Alpe D'Huez, he won the stage to Pla D'Adet. They didn't even use L'Alpe D'huez in 2005. And he won from a breakaway which he sat on the whole stage. Anything else you're not quite remembering right?