Lance Armstrong Banned and Stripped of TDF Titles

[scotty]

Well the most tested Armstrong is Kristin. She is the most tested US cyclist.

 

Do you perhaps have a reference

 

Web search "most tested us cyclist/athlete" or "most tested athlete" makes no mention

 

Surely there must be some record of who the most tested athlete is, so we can scoff with contempt at LA's claim.

[Wyatt Earp]

The most tested athlete ever was Ron Jeremy.

 

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2008/0808/ron_jeremy_0825.jpg

[goya-goya]

*Ahem*

"I've read what they've said but as they're not licence holders so I don't know how they can ban them or what they can be banned for," in reference to the lifetime bans handed down to Celaye, Del Moral, Ferrari and Marti.

 

haha... you only read what fits your contrived story...

 

snack...snack... chew-chew

[dracs]

Do you perhaps have a reference

 

Web search "most tested us cyclist/athlete" or "most tested athlete" makes no mention

 

Surely there must be some record of who the most tested athlete is, so we can scoff with contempt at LA's claim.

google hints he may have gotten this from another cycling forum, so it MUST be true

 

 

 

http://justcycling.myfastforum.org/archive/so-who-is-the-most-tested-athlete__o_t__t_3133.html

>> I believe USADA has information about who has been tested and how many times on their website.

 

Thanks. They do indeed. There's some amazing information on there, albeit only relating to tests done by USADA from 2000 onwards. There isn't a listing in order of number of tests, so you have to pick a name and look them up.

 

From 2000-2008, we have the following:

 

Marion Jones - 24 tests

Maurice Greene - 27

Jeremy Wariner - 30

Apolo Ohno - One of the speekskaters who wiped out in the infamous 2002 OG short track crash - 47

Jacqueline Berube - weightlifter - 81

Michael Phelps - 89 - 36 of them in 2008!

Cheryl Haworth - weightlifter - 108

 

Lance isn't even the most tested Armstrong! Kristin was nabbed 64 times (24 times in 2008 and 21 times in 2006) with Lance only being nabbed a feeble 12 times.

[SwissVan]

Do you perhaps have a reference

 

Web search "most tested us cyclist/athlete" or "most tested athlete" makes no mention

 

Surely there must be some record of who the most tested athlete is, so we can scoff with contempt at LA's claim.

 

Wot? You want something that can be backed by real hard evidence...

That would eliminate a lot of stuff that gets mentioned here....

[SwissVan]

Hands up those who have in the last few minutes googled "most tested athlete" or something like...

[scotty]

12 times only that Lance has been tested ?, Since 2000, assuming that for every TDF race he is tested once that will make it only 6 other times (excluding the 1999 win) that he is tested in and out of competition ?

[scotty]

12 times only that Lance has been tested ?, Since 2000, assuming that for every TDF race he is tested once that will make it only 6 other times (excluding the 1999 win) that he is tested in and out of competition ?

 

See now it only applies to USADA.

 

Global stats would be more relevant

[fandacious]

See now it only applies to USADA.

 

Global stats would be more relevant

 

you forgot: "Go Lance!"

[dracs]

Hands up those who have in the last few minutes googled "most tested athlete" or something like...

me.

 

about as useful as googling "worlds best athlete" though. quickly lost interest

[scotty]

you forgot: "Go Lance!"

Ta

 

Go Lance

[petatodd]

Do you perhaps have a reference

 

Web search "most tested us cyclist/athlete" or "most tested athlete" makes no mention

 

Surely there must be some record of who the most tested athlete is, so we can scoff with contempt at LA's claim.

http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/07/the-legend-of-the-500/

 

Also USADA asked Armstrong to validate his claim of "500-600" tests. I guess it'll be in his response filed Friday night by his lawyers.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

I now gonna get my popcorn... go Lance!!!

 

UCI say that USADA have no juristriction because they are not licence holders... :clap:

 

The UCI are on thin ice here, I doubt very much they will be able to bring a successful legal application to overrule USADA.

 

The USADA have never lost a legal challenge on jurisdiction ever, so I am fairly sure they would have all their ducks in a row here, as Tygart has publicly said their jurisdiction extends as follows - " its jurisdiction extended not only to license holders for UCI but also USA CYCLING as well as to any person, who, with or without being a holder of a license, participates, in the framework of a club, trade team, national federation or any other structure participating in races, in the preparation or support of riders for sports competitions.

 

Personally I think the UCI needs to tread carefully, they have an unhealthily friendly relationship with LA and have benefited to the tune of some $200.000.00 dollars in support from LA or his companies in the past and I think USADA could very easily argue that the UCI has a serious conflict of interest here, especially in exposing any practices that bring about negative publicity in the LA case.

[goya-goya]

The UCI are on thin ice here, I doubt very much they will be able to bring a successful legal application to overrule USADA.

 

The USADA have never lost a legal challenge on jurisdiction ever, so I am fairly sure they would have all their ducks in a row here, as Tygart has publicly said their jurisdiction extends as follows - " its jurisdiction extended not only to license holders for UCI but also USA CYCLING as well as to any person, who, with or without being a holder of a license, participates, in the framework of a club, trade team, national federation or any other structure participating in races, in the preparation or support of riders for sports competitions.

 

Personally I think the UCI needs to tread carefully, they have an unhealthily friendly relationship with LA and have benefited to the tune of some $200.000.00 dollars in support from LA or his companies in the past and I think USADA could very easily argue that the UCI has a serious conflict of interest here, especially in exposing any practices that bring about negative publicity in the LA case.

 

I do not think the UCI do not understand their rules... its gonna be great!

[Tumbleweed]

haha... you only read what fits your contrived story...

 

 

As opposed to your conflated version?

 

The licence issue does not involve Armstrong:

 

USADA said its jurisdiction extended not only to license holders for UCI and USA Cycling but also to "any person, who, without being a holder of a license, participates, in the framework of a club, trade team, national federation or any other structure participating in races, in the preparation or support of riders for sports competitions."

 

http://www.usatoday....ance/56760022/1

 

Hope you don't break a tooth on an unpopped kernel…

 

I do not think the UCI do not understand their rules... its gonna be great!

 

Not their rules. WADA's rules.

 

 

Personally I think the UCI needs to tread carefully, they have an unhealthily friendly relationship with LA and have benefited to the tune of some $200.000.00 dollars in support from LA or his companies in the past and I think USADA could very easily argue that the UCI has a serious conflict of interest here, especially in exposing any practices that bring about negative publicity in the LA case.

 

Agreed. What changed? Why did McQuaid originally refuse to comment on the issue? And now he's fighting against the action? Methinks someone called in a marker…

Edited August 7, 2012 by Tumbleweed

[Tumbleweed]

More brilliant analysis from Miss Zimmerman: http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/08/lets-play-jurisdiction-hot-potato/