Lance Armstrong Banned and Stripped of TDF Titles

[Wyatt Earp]

Because of his access to research labs and experimental drugs - something he proudly claims in "It's not about the bike" - he was always one step ahead of the testers and could "recklessly us(e) banned doping methods" without risk of getting caught by the tests at the time.

 

The development of new tests and more sophisticated methods of detection appear to have tripped him up.

 

I don't see a contradiction and look forward to the USADA evidence so we can have the definitive answers.

 

I just can't understand why people are so de-moer-in with him.

He did say from the start that it never was about the bike.

[eddy]

this is what smells a bit... Usada are preparing their "reasoned" report for UCI - and have refused all along to date (and it seems going forward) to simply open up their files to the UCI. but a very valid question to ask, why not now? Why do they need to wordsmith a report?

 

Nothing smelly.

 

The USADA is required to make a case against LA. They will share all the evidence they needed to prove their case. They will put all of that evidence in a report.

 

Between conducting an investigation and preparing a charge, there is a significant assessment and weighing of evidence to ensure that contradictions are eliminated, evidence that may not stand up to scrutiny is discarded etc.

 

What LA is asking for is everything the USADA discovered in their investigation. Whether relevant or not.

 

I can see how they could focus on the contradictions or irrelevant evidence gathered but discarded in the prosecution to muddy the waters in the court of public opinion that they are driving. Much better for LA than facing the charges and answering to the relevant evidence in arbitration.

[scotty]

I am actually getting confused about what is being sent to who. I thought the whole report was being sent to the UCI, and other details were being relased to the public.

Seems simple call LA's bluff, UDSADA to provide everything they have whether they feel it's relevant or not, who knows their might be stuff there implicating other people. That way no one can cry foul.

[andydude]

As far as I understand, LA distanced himself from USADA by not going to arbitration... why does he then still attack and confront them? It's his usual modus operandi where he claims to be the victim in the public space and trying to make it sound "official" by going through lawyers.

 

Lance is an enigma in that he's a great athlete, but a horrible human being.

[rattlesnake]

 

Lance is an enigma in that he's a great athlete, but a horrible human being.

That about sums it up.

[gtr1]

As far as I understand, LA distanced himself from USADA by not going to arbitration... why does he then still attack and confront them? It's his usual modus operandi where he claims to be the victim in the public space and trying to make it sound "official" by going through lawyers.

 

Lance is an enigma in that he's a great athlete, but a horrible human being.

 

Maybe you should edit it to say " Lance is an enigma in that he's a great athlete on drugs, but a horrible human being " The question has to be just how great he would have been without the meds ?

 

And ok I agree before I get shot down in flames, same can be said about many athletes, not just cyclists.

[SwissVan]

These values have been questioned before. Remember the results he took of his site?

 

Yes and yes

Do u think he would post values in the first place if there was a remote chance of them being used as evidence against him?

 

Because of his access to research labs and experimental drugs - something he proudly claims in "It's not about the bike" - he was always one step ahead of the testers and could "recklessly us(e) banned doping methods" without risk of getting caught by the tests at the time.

 

The development of new tests and more sophisticated methods of detection appear to have tripped him up.

 

I don't see a contradiction and look forward to the USADA evidence so we can have the definitive answers.

 

Yes, it will be interesting to see if their is new evidence (of failed tests) as a result of better detection methods.

 

Nothing smelly.

 

The USADA is required to make a case against LA. They will share all the evidence they needed to prove their case. They will put all of that evidence in a report.

 

Between conducting an investigation and preparing a charge, there is a significant assessment and weighing of evidence to ensure that contradictions are eliminated, evidence that may not stand up to scrutiny is discarded etc.

 

What LA is asking for is everything the USADA discovered in their investigation. Whether relevant or not.

 

I can see how they could focus on the contradictions or irrelevant evidence gathered but discarded in the prosecution to muddy the waters in the court of public opinion that they are driving. Much better for LA than facing the charges and answering to the relevant evidence in arbitration.

 

Well thats the defences job, just as it is USADA's to present the evidence that suits them best.

When LA decided not to go to arbitration the anti LA crowd whinged about him not wanting the world to see all the evidence, now he wants it all to be revealed its ok to see just the part of it thats relevant to the prosecution...LOL

[andydude]

Maybe you should edit it to say " Lance is an enigma in that he's a great athlete on drugs, but a horrible human being " The question has to be just how great he would have been without the meds ?

 

And ok I agree before I get shot down in flames, same can be said about many athletes, not just cyclists.

 

I actually think he's a great athlete without drugs too! Not the greatest, but he has the determination and grit of a champion.

 

Maybe he should revisit his quote "This is my body, and I can do whatever I want to it. I can push it. Study it. Tweak it. Listen to it. Everybody wants to know what I'm on. What am I on? I'm on my bike busting my ass six hours a day. What are you on?" As quoted in Lance Armstrong Ruined My Gym by Neal Pollack, in Slate (1 July 2005)

[JGR]

I actually think he's a great athlete without drugs too! Not the greatest, but he has the determination and grit of a champion.

 

Maybe he should revisit his quote "This is my body, and I can do whatever I want to it. I can push it. Study it. Tweak it. Listen to it. Everybody wants to know what I'm on. What am I on? I'm on my bike busting my ass six hours a day. What are you on?" As quoted in Lance Armstrong Ruined My Gym by Neal Pollack, in Slate (1 July 2005)

That was origionally from a Nike ad ... quite interesting they are sticking with him. They dropped Tiger like a hot potatoe

[Tumbleweed]

Well thats the defences job, just as it is USADA's to present the evidence that suits them best.

When LA decided not to go to arbitration the anti LA crowd whinged about him not wanting the world to see all the evidence, now he wants it all to be revealed its ok to see just the part of it thats relevant to the prosecution...LOL

 

But, that's the point: There is no defence. He chose not to offer one.

[eddy]

 

 

But, that's the point: There is no defence. He chose not to offer one.

 

I suspect it was not a choice.

 

LA has never walked away from anything he could win, even if he had to break all rules to do so.

 

I think he was advised that he could never win this if he needed to answer the prosecution case, and so decided to take the battle to a forum he could manipulate without having to deal with the facts.

 

He can now happily spend the money the yellow arm bands raised to talk to the people who have drunk the cool-aid and for whom the facts won't ever matter

[SwissVan]

But, that's the point: There is no defence. He chose not to offer one.

 

Genau!

I guess they need something to argue with, how do you defend against allegations when you dont have access to the prosecutions evidence?

[petatodd]

Genau!

I guess they need something to argue with, how do you defend against allegations when you dont have access to the prosecutions evidence?

That's weak. Even by your doper loving standards.

[eddy]

 

 

Genau!

I guess they need something to argue with, how do you defend against allegations when you dont have access to the prosecutions evidence?

 

You follow the rules of evidence which require discovery to take place at the appropriate time of the procedings.

 

LA would have been provided with all of the evidence during the discovery phase of the procedings. Of course he chose not to go that route.

[Tumbleweed]

Genau!

I guess they need something to argue with, how do you defend against allegations when you dont have access to the prosecutions evidence?

 

But, Lance's legal team have claimed to know who said what to Usada. They did so in their attempt to discredit the agency in federal court.

[Squier]

There is no defence, agreed, but he still is being charged and subsequently banned. Being provided with the details of the charges against you surely isn't too much to ask?

Edited October 10, 2012 by Squier