Lance Armstrong Banned and Stripped of TDF Titles

[Joe Low]

I hope you not suggesting that opinions, if they duffer to to others should not be expressed.

Course not Scotty - the quality of an opinion is down to how much thought, research and discussion has gone into arriving at it. Not "i've always liked the fella therefore i reckon he didnt do it" or similar.

 

Express all opinions but if someone holds out that the moon is made of cheese then they need to be prepared to back it up or take some flak.

 

And its probably best to hold most opinions lightly - we're a long way from the action on most things we talk about esp on the Hub.

 

On this one, I currently think he and the UCI are bang to rights, but there's a lot more to play out.

[Myra]

So, if I saw Lance with a needle in his arm and a bag strapped to the wall and I say so, that is evidence not hearsay and will be assessed as described above.

 

Yes. And if I say Eddy told me that he saw Lance with a needle in his arm and a bag strapped to the wall, its hearsay and isn't evidence. Eddy would have to testify about it.

[GoLefty!!]

There unfortunately appears to be a misunderstanding of 'hearsay' by some participants in this thread. The word has popped up a couple of times in relation to the testimony by Armstrongs former teammates etc.

Statements under oath = evidence.

Statements about what someone else said = hearsay.

 

To clarify, if I say under oath that I did something, my statement is evidence. A judge will decide, with reference to all the other evidence, whether it proves something or not. If X says, even under oath, that Y told him that Y did something it is hearsay. It can't be evidence because Y could have lied to X.

 

 

Agreed, but just because it was said under oath does not make it the truth either. Hence cross examination and a Judge decides whether the evidence is in fact representative of the truth or not.

Unfortunately a Judge does into account WHO is saying WHAT. Most of those 26 witnesses are not very credible unfortunately.

Most of those witnesses were riders who did not achieve a heck of a lot therefore it could be argued they needed to dope to keep up. (and this is an argument Armstrong's lawyers will use.

I'll say it again. The only material evidence is locked up in the UCI's sample vault. The USADA's report will either force the UCI to break confidentiality with the owner (Lance Armstrong) or their lawyers will advise them to maintain confidentiality (or risk being sued if its found the samples are negative). The UCI's lawyers would be looking at this risk and advising a path forward.

This saga is far from over and it's only going to get interesting once the UCI publishes their official statement.

[Danger Dassie]

By what assertion are the witnesses not credible, and most?

11 of the 26 are former pro's, so all 11 (less than half) aren't credible?

 

If that's the argument any defence lawyers run, it's a weak and spurious one at best. Especially in lieu of any material evidence of their own.

 

Guaranteed, the UCI are going to look at the effect on them very closely. Sample vault or not, the UCI cannot restrict access to samples if they come under pressure.

 

Indeed, the issue is far from over, and it sure as hell isn't all about LA.

The sport is bigger than any individual or group ever will be.

[GoLefty!!]

sanctioned dopers ,all claiming they were inncent then suddenly they fund their salvation in repenting..

So when were hey telling the truth? When they didn't dope or when they did?

 

try and look at all of this unemotionally. seems fans are finding it hard to separate emotion from the reality.

For the UCI to break policy is going to require a change in constitution I guess. When can they do that?

[Danger Dassie]

sanctioned dopers ,all claiming they were inncent then suddenly they fund their salvation in repenting..

So when were hey telling the truth? When they didn't dope or when they did?

 

try and look at all of this unemotionally. seems fans are finding it hard to separate emotion from the reality.

For the UCI to break policy is going to require a change in constitution I guess. When can they do that?

 

Well that's a broad speculation, it's still a weak legal argument without a sound basis.

 

That's half the problem, there are plenty fans out there not separating emotion.

 

Well the policy/constitution is about to come under severe scrutiny, or rather the application of it. More so if the Kimmage case falls apart.

[tombeej]

Folks are going round in circles saying the same thing

[Danger Dassie]

The call for lie detectors.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/14/lance-armstrong-lie-detector-usada?CMP=twt_gu

 

But then,

 

"Asked if Armstrong would take a lie detector test himself, Herman said: "We might do that, you never know."

He added later: "I don't know if we would or we wouldn't. We might."

Asked what reason there could be for not submitting to a test, Herman added: "Because he's moved on. His name is never going to be clear with anyone beyond what it is today. People are fans, most of the people that I've talked to, this is their opinion, it is: 'We don't care whether he did or he didn't'."

Hmm, much double talk and contradiction.

[GoLefty!!]

exactly, hence I see a very rocky road ahead for cycling.

If there is corruption at the UCi then its going to blow things apart. Where will the balance of power rest after the dust settles? USADA and USAC controlling matters?

Why would these bodies be interested in controlling cycling, a Multi Billion dollar industry.

It seems the US, if the USADA files are found to be completely factual, has been able to structure the most deceptive doping program in the history of the sport. I don't think JB is smart enough to devise this devious scheme all on his own. would we want these folks running the sport? Whats in it for them?

[Danger Dassie]

Not sure I follow.

 

If the UCI, or people within the UCI are corrupt is becoming clearer by the week.

 

How could USADA or any anti-doping authority take the reigns of a governing body?

Is it being suggested that Travis Tygart has designs on being appointed at the head of the UCI?

 

The investigation is into US Postal, which has broader ramifications than JB or LA, we're seeing that already.

[GoLefty!!]

lets see how the politics plays out....

[petatodd]

Fat Pat has now said he is pretty appalled at what he has read in the USADA submission leading to speculation that the UCI won't wait the full 21 days to endorse the findings and carry out the lifetime ban of big Tex.

[Wyatt Earp]

lets see how the politics plays out....

 

I have been humming that legislation tune for ages now.

[dracs]

Fat Pat has now said he is pretty appalled at what he has read in the USADA submission leading to speculation that the UCI won't wait the full 21 days to endorse the findings and carry out the lifetime ban of big Tex.

And the doper's spokesman Millar has suddenly become a big Pat fan....

['Dale]

Read on velonation that Oakley will stick with Armstrong until they hear a 'guilty' verdict.

Guess that's Nike's position too.

[fandacious]

Read on velonation that Oakley will stick with Armstrong until they hear a 'guilty' verdict.

Guess that's Nike's position too.

 

USADA already proved him guilty. So who are they waiting to hear from?