Lance Armstrong Banned and Stripped of TDF Titles

[ThaStig]

im sure some people her also believe that the easter bunny and santa are real... no one has proven that they are not real and its only hearsay if its said that they are not.

WHAT!!!! Santa's not real???

[ThaStig]

When did I or anyone else suggest that you condone doping?

 

When did I or anyone else suggest that you condone doping?

 

when you stated that with "this attitude. there is f**kall hope of this sport ever being clean".

so then what did you mean?

['Dale]

Really looking forward to seeing how the UCI takes this forward...

 

Legal matters have its own course.

By its nature, often deviates from moral and ethical views.

Edited October 14, 2012 by ' Dale

[TNT1]

when you stated that with "this attitude. there is f**kall hope of this sport ever being clean".

so then what did you mean?

 

I meant pretty much this:

 

Cheese n rice. Are you for real? I cannot believe that you are allowed to procreate. I have never met such ostriches in my life. Wtf is wrong with you

 

As long as you ostriches are out in the wild, the sport will never move beyond this.

 

Wake up, stiggy.

[Jaco-fiets]

My own opinion after reading the book and many French papers.

The French don't like LA much

 

and most don't like the French much! He absolutely dominated their race and put "their" sport on the map. Doped or not doped, don't really give a ****. I am sure if we all had to put down our 10 favorite cyclists they would probably all be dopers but i guess that is fine because Lance did not bully them into doping. Let the law run its course and may Lance give them all a fat toffee (or not) in the end. All i can see coming out of this is allot of sponsers pulling from the sport

[ThaStig]

Cheese n rice. Are you for real? I cannot believe that you are allowed to procreate. I have never met such ostriches in my life. Wtf is wrong with you

Whoa Tiger! I could tell you to **** Right off (oh wait....I just did)...But i will choose the high road and say...

Despite your feelings of inadequacy and the need to lash out and be unnecessarily personal...I do so value your opinion

Edited October 14, 2012 by ThaStig

[TNT1]

Whoa Tiger! I could tell you to **** Right off...But i will choose the high road and say...

Despite your feelings of inadequacy and the need to lash out and be unnecessarily personal...I do so value your opinion

 

The high road?

 

You started the personal attacks. Parenthesis aside, you went straight for the name calling and person bashing.

[ThaStig]

The high road?

 

You started the personal attacks. are you serious??? Parenthesis aside, you went straight for the name calling and person bashing.

Sarcasm seems to be lost on you.

I only did it because every-one else is doing it and if I didn't do it I wouldn't succeed on the hub

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Edit: in The Observer this Sunday morning in the Uk...

 

Shooo, thats a strong headline poster. Leaves no doubt about where they stand.

[Mellow]

WHAT!!!! Santa's not real???

 

yes, but no proof of that... only hear-say

[GoLefty!!]

......I think the UCI is more concerned about the alleged "gifts" from LA of $100 +k and the fall out from that. Should they not sanction LA (and I think they will) they will immediately be seen as been complicit in the scandal, the weight of the testimony is overwhelming, the information was gathered largely by federal investigation and the testimony is further supported and strengthened by the threat of perjury over the witnesses should they have concealed, lied about or manipulated evidence.

 

We have to remember LA chose NOT to defend himself at arbitration, so we cant say he wasn't given the opportunity, he was, he just chose to reject it, plus of course this is not a judicial court action, so they do not need to prove guilt beyond doubt to convict LA, all they need to show is that by a balance of probabilities (the testimony) LA doped and enforced a culture of doping on his team. In my opinion no legal office will reject the testimonies of so many close accomplices, friends and fellow riders, given under oath, during a federal investigation, with the threat of perjuring themselves and been convicted criminally as untruthful or inadequate, .......... people have gone to jail in civil courts with less evidence against them.

 

 

errrm firstly, people don't got to jail in civil cases....

 

Some Friends and other have given affidavits to a federal court proceeding which was withdrawn due to Lack of Evidence. Nike have not walked yet because of a lack of evidence.

 

So explain how a lack of evidence in federal proceedings leads to jail time after a USADA enquiry in which the accused was never given the opportunity to challenge the "evidence". He was given an opportunity to make a statement (not the same as being presented with evidence).

 

USADA has a lot of circumstantial evidence and needs a legal perspective on what their next statement and move should be.

 

USADA will claim they acted against their own processes and rules because LA is a big fish and they feared he walked slip the noose through effective witness intimidation. LA has and will continue to claim that USADA conducted a witch hunt and that they intimidated the witnesses. At the end of the day, it is the USADA that has a greater control and effect on the careers of some of those who provided affidavits and that is the intimidation that LA's lawyers will argue.

 

I think there is a lot of sensationalism around the revelations now because a lot of people have been muttering similar things under their breath but now USASA has had the courage to actually place it in the public domain as an official protest against LA and have offered a recommendation that he be sanctioned for life.

 

The issue I have is that by not following their own rules, they will allow LA to fight the charges in civil court.

[TNT1]

errrm firstly, people don't got to jail in civil cases....

 

Some Friends and other have given affidavits to a federal court proceeding which was withdrawn due to Lack of Evidence. Nike have not walked yet because of a lack of evidence.

 

So explain how a lack of evidence in federal proceedings leads to jail time after a USADA enquiry in which the accused was never given the opportunity to challenge the "evidence". He was given an opportunity to make a statement (not the same as being presented with evidence).

 

USADA has a lot of circumstantial evidence and needs a legal perspective on what their next statement and move should be.

 

USADA will claim they acted against their own processes and rules because LA is a big fish and they feared he walked slip the noose through effective witness intimidation. LA has and will continue to claim that USADA conducted a witch hunt and that they intimidated the witnesses. At the end of the day, it is the USADA that has a greater control and effect on the careers of some of those who provided affidavits and that is the intimidation that LA's lawyers will argue.

 

I think there is a lot of sensationalism around the revelations now because a lot of people have been muttering similar things under their breath but now USASA has had the courage to actually place it in the public domain as an official protest against LA and have offered a recommendation that he be sanctioned for life.

 

The issue I have is that by not following their own rules, they will allow LA to fight the charges in civil court.

 

Shame. I really feel sorry for you trying to live a lie.

[Thor Buttox]

errrm firstly, people don't got to jail in civil cases....

 

Some Friends and other have given affidavits to a federal court proceeding which was withdrawn due to Lack of Evidence. Nike have not walked yet because of a lack of evidence.

 

So explain how a lack of evidence in federal proceedings leads to jail time after a USADA enquiry in which the accused was never given the opportunity to challenge the "evidence". He was given an opportunity to make a statement (not the same as being presented with evidence).

 

USADA has a lot of circumstantial evidence and needs a legal perspective on what their next statement and move should be.

 

USADA will claim they acted against their own processes and rules because LA is a big fish and they feared he walked slip the noose through effective witness intimidation. LA has and will continue to claim that USADA conducted a witch hunt and that they intimidated the witnesses. At the end of the day, it is the USADA that has a greater control and effect on the careers of some of those who provided affidavits and that is the intimidation that LA's lawyers will argue.

 

I think there is a lot of sensationalism around the revelations now because a lot of people have been muttering similar things under their breath but now USASA has had the courage to actually place it in the public domain as an official protest against LA and have offered a recommendation that he be sanctioned for life.

 

The issue I have is that by not following their own rules, they will allow LA to fight the charges in civil court.

Actually, as much as I believe the bugger is guilty as sin, from a a purely legal stand point, you probably do have a valid points. Then again OJ Simpson was taken down in civil court, not criminal.

 

However, I totally disagree about the sensationalism issue. His defenders go to great lengths to highlight those who "bore a grudge", etc, etc... But there was no need for any of his old Team (even if you exclude Landis, etc) to give any evidence other than their own threat of perjury. Look at Marion Jones... that's how she got done. Precedent, and jail time, is a remarkable thing.

 

And civil court is based on a prEPOnderence of evidence, not "guity until proven"...

[Danger Dassie]

errrm firstly, people don't got to jail in civil cases....

 

Some Friends and other have given affidavits to a federal court proceeding which was withdrawn due to Lack of Evidence. Nike have not walked yet because of a lack of evidence.

 

So explain how a lack of evidence in federal proceedings leads to jail time after a USADA enquiry in which the accused was never given the opportunity to challenge the "evidence". He was given an opportunity to make a statement (not the same as being presented with evidence).

 

USADA has a lot of circumstantial evidence and needs a legal perspective on what their next statement and move should be.

 

USADA will claim they acted against their own processes and rules because LA is a big fish and they feared he walked slip the noose through effective witness intimidation. LA has and will continue to claim that USADA conducted a witch hunt and that they intimidated the witnesses. At the end of the day, it is the USADA that has a greater control and effect on the careers of some of those who provided affidavits and that is the intimidation that LA's lawyers will argue.

 

I think there is a lot of sensationalism around the revelations now because a lot of people have been muttering similar things under their breath but now USASA has had the courage to actually place it in the public domain as an official protest against LA and have offered a recommendation that he be sanctioned for life.

 

The issue I have is that by not following their own rules, they will allow LA to fight the charges in civil court.

errrm firstly, people don't got to jail in civil cases....

 

Some Friends and other have given affidavits to a federal court proceeding which was withdrawn due to Lack of Evidence. Nike have not walked yet because of a lack of evidence.

 

So explain how a lack of evidence in federal proceedings leads to jail time after a USADA enquiry in which the accused was never given the opportunity to challenge the "evidence". He was given an opportunity to make a statement (not the same as being presented with evidence).

 

USADA has a lot of circumstantial evidence and needs a legal perspective on what their next statement and move should be.

 

USADA will claim they acted against their own processes and rules because LA is a big fish and they feared he walked slip the noose through effective witness intimidation. LA has and will continue to claim that USADA conducted a witch hunt and that they intimidated the witnesses. At the end of the day, it is the USADA that has a greater control and effect on the careers of some of those who provided affidavits and that is the intimidation that LA's lawyers will argue.

 

I think there is a lot of sensationalism around the revelations now because a lot of people have been muttering similar things under their breath but now USASA has had the courage to actually place it in the public domain as an official protest against LA and have offered a recommendation that he be sanctioned for life.

 

The issue I have is that by not following their own rules, they will allow LA to fight the charges in civil court.

 

Civil court he said, the point does stand though. People have had criminal records and civil rulings against them, with less for greater offences.

26 people, is a hell of a lot more than "some friends" not all of them are former cyclists with a career to lose either.

This USADA evidence in the report is heavily propped by what was already gathered by the federal investigation itself.

 

The opportunity would have presented itself with CAS, LA opted not to go with that option post the federal investigation.

The rebuke has continuously been one of a "witch hunt" and USADA not following processes. So why not take the opportunity which was there to provide evidence of this in defence?

To date no reasoning or anything near that.

 

I don't see much happening in civil due to the fact that LA himself chose not to defend against the USADA action and carry through to the CAS, which is the legally recognised body for arbitration.

[scotty]

Opinions are not equal and yours, as expressed, is one of the lesser ones. Mellow the **** out is also not very mellow.

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

[GrumpyOldGuy]

errrm firstly, people don't got to jail in civil cases....

 

Some Friends and other have given affidavits to a federal court proceeding which was withdrawn due to Lack of Evidence. Nike have not walked yet because of a lack of evidence.

 

So explain how a lack of evidence in federal proceedings leads to jail time after a USADA enquiry in which the accused was never given the opportunity to challenge the "evidence". He was given an opportunity to make a statement (not the same as being presented with evidence).

 

USADA has a lot of circumstantial evidence and needs a legal perspective on what their next statement and move should be.

 

USADA will claim they acted against their own processes and rules because LA is a big fish and they feared he walked slip the noose through effective witness intimidation. LA has and will continue to claim that USADA conducted a witch hunt and that they intimidated the witnesses. At the end of the day, it is the USADA that has a greater control and effect on the careers of some of those who provided affidavits and that is the intimidation that LA's lawyers will argue.

 

I think there is a lot of sensationalism around the revelations now because a lot of people have been muttering similar things under their breath but now USASA has had the courage to actually place it in the public domain as an official protest against LA and have offered a recommendation that he be sanctioned for life.

 

The issue I have is that by not following their own rules, they will allow LA to fight the charges in civil court.

 

Well, actually you can, but thats not the issue, what I meant was the evidence in any civil action could lead to further criminal proceedings and jail time, however I didnt say there was a criminal proceeding against LA, or even civil proceedings, just that USADA is using the testimonies from the federal investigation to prove their case, testimonies that were taken under oath by federal investigators and as I said, unlike a judicial court, USADA do not have to prove beyond the balance of probabilities that he is guilty to make their case stick. I am not sure Nike is a good measure to determine much, they no doubt have their own reasons or issues to look at first, lets see if they are still there a year from now - personally, I dont think so.

 

I dont know that USADA has gone against their own process either, somehow I doubt it and I am pretty sure in a litigious country like the USA dealing with a highly contentious individual like LA, the Federal investigation and USADA would have had every document looked over twice by their respective legal teams and then once again for luck before they made a decision, or made the document public, I have no doubt the UCI's lawyers will do likewise, so I cant see why they should come to a different conclusion.

Edited October 14, 2012 by GrumpyOldGuy