Lance Armstrong Banned and Stripped of TDF Titles

[ThaStig]

A: A jury makes up it's mind on the evidence presented to them. That's all we're doing. Lance could save all the presumption, and tell us the truth.

 

B: I'm not allowed on the road until at least the 5th of September.

not to sound like a stuck record but there has not been any proper evidence (aside from media reports and heresay,) presented here and according to him he has told the truth. Telling you what you want to know does not always equate to the "truth".

 

and my condolences with your not being on the road but that is your tough luck (or are you only a fair weather cyclist) don't take it out on poor lance.

[Zook]

At the risk of repeating something that's been said in the last 60 pages ...

 

It's not Lance who loses here (though I'm behind him - this whole thing smacks of McCarthyism).

 

Obviously, cycling loses. How many more stupid comments are we going to have to hear from non-cyclists?

 

Second, I think it has the potential to destroy the TdF. What point will there be to the race? Every single winner will be in doubt.

 

I think everything's got out of hand. Cycling must be the most tested sport of all, and the poor buggers can't even take Vicks Medi-nite if they've got a cold. All bloody silly. Very, very silly.

 

It's highly tested because people are still doping. The people trying to clean it up would have nothing to do if nobody was doing it. The only people who can stop this are the participants. If nobody gets caught for five years, the conversation will change.

 

Whenever Armstrong has been challenged, he's gone out super-aggressive and tried to destroy his accusers, so he's become a lightning-rod for the issue and has likely antagonised many on the anti-drug side. I'd love it if he were innocent, but these are not the actions of an innocent man.

[TNT1]

not to sound like a stuck record but there has not been any proper evidence (aside from media reports and heresay,) presented here and according to him he has told the truth. Telling you what you want to know does not always equate to the "truth".

 

 

 

Um, that's the job of the jury? To look at what both sides represent, and make a decision? The whole point of a jury is to act in the absence of "truth".

[TNT1]

Were you banned for doping? :clap: :clap:

 

I never tested positive, and I was never found guilty.

[ThaStig]

Um, that's the job of the jury? To look at what both sides represent, and make a decision? The whole point of a jury is to act in the absence of "truth".

i meant to say telling you what you want to hear does not always equate to the truth.So according to your view; until he has said that he has doped (even if he hasn't) then he is not telling the truth? so what would be the point of going to trial?

[TNT1]

i meant to say telling you what you want to hear does not always equate to the truth.So according to your view; until he has said that he has doped (even if he hasn't) then he is not telling the truth? so what would be the point of going to trial?

 

No, I meant to say, both sides are holding their cards very close. So, we, poor little jury of public opinion, has to make do with the sh1tty little scraps they feed us. And yes, we, as little humans, do form a judgement on those scraps.

[eddy]

not to sound like a stuck record but there has not been any proper evidence (aside from media reports and heresay,) presented here and according to him he has told the truth. Telling you what you want to know does not always equate to the "truth".

 

 

Stig, that is your opinion and I may have a different one, so lets move away from opinions and look at some facts:

 

Fact 1: The USADA yesterday said:

 

"The evidence against Lance Armstrong arose from disclosures made to USADA by more than a dozen witnesses who agreed to testify and provide evidence about their first-hand experience and/or knowledge of the doping activity of those involved in the USPS Conspiracy as well as analytical data. As part of the investigation Mr. Armstrong was invited to meet with USADA and be truthful about his time on the USPS team but he refused.

 

Witnesses also provided evidence that Lance Armstrong gave to them, encouraged them to use and administered doping products or methods, including EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone and cortisone during the period from 1999 through 2005. Additionally, scientific data showed Mr. Armstrong’s use of blood manipulation including EPO or blood transfusions during Mr. Armstrong’s comeback to cycling in the 2009 Tour de France."

 

Now the witnesses may all have been lying, and the scientists all wrong, but the place to answer those allegations was at the arbitration hearing. If he was innocent he would have been totally vindicated forever.

 

Fact 2: Lance chose not to face those witnesses.

Edited August 25, 2012 by eddy

[E1A104]

Stig, that is your opinion and I may have a different one, so lets move away from opinions and look at some facts:

 

Fact 1: The USADA yesterday said:

 

"The evidence against Lance Armstrong arose from disclosures made to USADA by more than a dozen witnesses who agreed to testify and provide evidence about their first-hand experience and/or knowledge of the doping activity of those involved in the USPS Conspiracy as well as analytical data. As part of the investigation Mr. Armstrong was invited to meet with USADA and be truthful about his time on the USPS team but he refused.

 

Witnesses also provided evidence that Lance Armstrong gave to them, encouraged them to use and administered doping products or methods, including EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone and cortisone during the period from 1999 through 2005. Additionally, scientific data showed Mr. Armstrong’s use of blood manipulation including EPO or blood transfusions during Mr. Armstrong’s comeback to cycling in the 2009 Tour de France."

 

Now the witnesses may all have been lying, and the scientists all wrong, but the place to answer those allegations was at the arbitration hearing. If he was innocent he would have been totally vindicated forever.

 

Fact 2: Lance chose not to face those witnesses.

 

+1

[TNT1]

+1

Me three.

 

I'll be jury foreman.

[ThaStig]

No, I meant to say, both sides are holding their cards very close. So, we, poor little jury of public opinion, has to make do with the sh1tty little scraps they feed us. And yes, we, as little humans, do form a judgement on those scraps.

I've a feeling that we will never know the incontrovertible truth until the evidence and witnesses are tested before a court which might never happen.

It's like being called out to fight and the opponent refuses to come out and fight, can the "caller" claim to have won or proved he is right?

[eddy]

I've a feeling that we will never know the incontrovertible truth until the evidence and witnesses are tested before a court which might never happen.

 

Yes, I think you may be right because by refusing to arbitrate the claims, LA prevents the witnesses from taking the stand to testify against him and the truth stays buried forever.

 

Or maybe not; the USADA have said they will publish the evidence they have at the appropriate time which I suspect will be after the Bruyneel cases.

 

 

 

It's like being called out to fight and the opponent refuses to come out and fight, can the "caller" claim to have won or proved he is right?

 

In this case yes, the WADA rules allow for a non-attendance to be deemed a guilty verdict with all the consequences therof.

[Tumbleweed]

It's like a technical knockout. When you get in the ring, you fight according to the rules. If you don't come out of your corner because you can't continue to fight, you forfeit. You lose.

[Tumbleweed]

To balance things, here's a nice pro piece: http://rittecycles.com/lance-armstrong

['Dale]

@eddy

 

Cool posts.

Makes all sense to me.

And procedurally fair to LA.

[ThaStig]

To balance things, here's a nice pro piece: http://rittecycles.com/lance-armstrong

Nice article.

[Lucky Luke.]

Best 'never tested positive' rebuttal I've seen, nicely summarised

 

 

 

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interv...chael-ashenden

 

 

3 Positives 1993 - 1996 (thanks to RR)

 

Testosterone-Epitestosterone ratios:

 

9.0-to-1 June 23, 1993;

7.6-to-1 from July 7, 1994;

6.5-to-1 from June 4, 1996.

 

Most people have a ratio of 1-to-1.

Prior to 2005, any ratio above 6.0-to-1 was considered abnormally high and evidence of doping;

in 2005 that ratio was lowered to 4.0-to-1.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...#ixzz24bjqqsrY

 

8 to 10 positives 1999 - 2005

 

1. '99 Corticosteroids (illegimate backdated prescription without a TUE)

 

http://m.si.com/news/to/to/detail/3775061

 

2. '99 EPO 6 of 15 Samples (Suppressed by UCI)

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2005....tourdefrance1

 

3. '01 EPO 1-3 Samples (Paid off UCI)

 

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ashe...-investigation

 

So... 11 to 13 Positives and Counting...

 

LA must have gotten tired of getting nailed... after 2001, he took definitive action:

 

Lance Armstrong was tipped off 20 minutes before he was tested, claims French anti-doping official

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/oth...-official.html

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by frenchfry http://forum.cyclingnews.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif

 

http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-r...s-tests/308442

 

A scientific consultant to the ALFD says that Armstrong was warned before each control. He also mentions techniques that can be used in 20 minutes or less to avoid positives.Not a lot of detail, but no ambiguity about the statement. He also states the UCI and IOC were involved in the warnings. ..." warned before all the checks , "says scientific advisor to the French Agency for the fight against doping Agency (AFLD ) in Le Monde dated 26 and 27 August. "We did not know until the last minute which hotel it was installed" said Michel Rieu before explaining how, according to him, the American could mislead physicians: " The samplers have struggled to carry out spot checks without Lance Armstrong can benefit from a period of twenty minutes (...) His entourage has accumulated pretenses and palaver to get this famous time. "

 

"In twenty minutes, a lot of manipulations are possible, says Michel Rieu, giving details that were not all in the act of acusation U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (Usada ). (LA) was conducting infusions of saline to dilute the blood. He replaced his own urine by an artificial urine. It is administered EPO in small doses. The substance was undetectable."

 

 

 

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=998716&postcount=10

 

...anyone who went to the 1999 Tour de France with their eyes open would have come to the conclusion that Armstrong was doping.. how did Armstrong get away with this for so many years. Who was complicit in helping him.. because one thing is certain, he didn't do this without help"

 

http://www.steephill.tv/players/720/qt/?title=Lance+Armstrong+Analysis,+interviews+w/+David+Walsh+&+Doug+Ullman&dashboard=&id=velorooms.com/files/bbc_radio_five_live_ullman_slater_walsh_240812.mp3&yr=2012