dracs Posted June 19, 2012 Share Do you guys really think the USADA gives a f*&k what the WTC does or doesn't do in instituting these proceedings?Personal opinion not based on any facts - yes. I don't think they would be so motivated if LA wasn't competing and winning and gaining plaudits etc. Again, in case I sound like an LA apologist, I agree there is probably some fire with all the smoke around - but I don't like the way they have gone about it or the timing. Edited June 19, 2012 by dracs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dracs Posted June 19, 2012 Share http://coversmaster.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/6.pngI was going to try quote this post in one of those SA is f'd type threads, but then thought lets rather just keep on singing kumbaya while it lasts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted June 19, 2012 Share dracs, okay, so you admit that your position is based on personal opinion rather than facts - which has Dangle (who self-admittedly scans articles) salivating (kinda odd because he normally reserves that for tits and tats, but we digress) - the fact remains USADA didn't impose a sanction on the athlete. We have two conspiracies here. USADA used that term. LA's team has used it in its defence. Remember the "our truth, their truth, we think our truth is better" attack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyatt Earp Posted June 19, 2012 Share dracs, okay, so you admit that your position is based on personal opinion rather than facts - which has Dangle (who self-admittedly scans articles) salivating (kinda odd because he normally reserves that for tits and tats, but we digress) - the fact remains USADA didn't impose a sanction on the athlete. We have two conspiracies here. USADA used that term. LA's team has used it in its defence. Remember the "our truth, their truth, we think our truth is better" attack? Waff, waff, waff as usual . USADA can't impose criminal penalties against Armstrong but they certainly asked for him to be banned.You are arguing semantics, sounding a little to me like that other dude you are always arguing with. Edited June 19, 2012 by Dangle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted June 19, 2012 Share When the Feds first stated they were investigating LA, comments were his time had come, the Feds could not be bought, there was no way he could get off that ...etc.etc.The Feds thought they had enough to swap his yellow Livetsrong band for a pair of metal ones , alas not Now USADA state they are investigating , again similar comments. Let the investigation go ahead, play by the rules so that no one pro or anti can claim dirty tricks and less conspiracy theories and thumb sucking. Like with the Feds, i could accept a guilty verdict, can his critics accept a not or insufficient evidence one. Doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dracs Posted June 19, 2012 Share dracs, okay, so you admit that your position is based on personal opinion rather than facts - which has Dangle (who self-admittedly scans articles) salivating (kinda odd because he normally reserves that for tits and tats, but we digress) - the fact remains USADA didn't impose a sanction on the athlete. We have two conspiracies here. USADA used that term. LA's team has used it in its defence. Remember the "our truth, their truth, we think our truth is better" attack? Well we are all expressing opinions based on limited facts aren't we? For one the case against LA as published to date is quite thin on facts - names places times etc. My understanding is the LA legal guys have requested these details so they can be addressed - doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me considering that in the interim his competitive life is on hold while the clock is ticking. Edited June 19, 2012 by dracs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted June 19, 2012 Share For sure, dracs, I raised that concern some pages back. I felt the ban was a bit weird considering the vague questions the LA camp has been asked to answer. No one - me included - wants to see an athlete sidelined on anecdotes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Showtime Posted June 19, 2012 Share Like with the Feds, i could accept a guilty verdict, can his critics accept a not or insufficient evidence one. Doubt it. He said it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyatt Earp Posted June 19, 2012 Share When the Feds first stated they were investigating LA, comments were his time had come, the Feds could not be bought, there was no way he could get off that ...etc.etc.The Feds thought they had enough to swap his yellow Livetsrong band for a pair of metal ones , alas not Now USADA state they are investigating , again similar comments. Let the investigation go ahead, play by the rules so that no one pro or anti can claim dirty tricks and less conspiracy theories and thumb sucking. Like with the Feds, i could accept a guilty verdict, can his critics accept a not or insufficient evidence one. Doubt it. Not even the FEDS could win against The Strong, as for USADA, I reckon if push comes to shove their legal practices will be challenged.They NEED him to give an admission of guilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy Posted June 19, 2012 Share Not even the FEDS could win against The Strong, as for USADA, I reckon if push comes to shove their legal practices will be challenged.They NEED him to give an admission of guilt. Just a speculative thought. To the best of my knowledge this is the first time LA is not the sole focus of the charges. I suspect the USADA believe that they have sufficient credible evidence from team members of systematic doping by the doctors, trainers and JB himself, People who will say something along the lines of " i was given XYZ by Dr So-and-so and this was how we avoided testing positive ". They have said that they are relying on first person eye witness evidence, which (if accepted by the court) may even in criminal cases be sufficient to get a conviction even in the absence of foresnsic evidence..Once they have "proven" the case against members of the team managment, it wil become very difficult for LA to avoid the conclusion being drawn that he too must have been involved, I don't know what the burdon of proof will require but if the test is a balance of probability one, they may well be able tp prove their case without a positive test from LA. . Edited June 19, 2012 by eddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cav' Posted June 19, 2012 Share Fignon - In my day, doping methods were derisory and the riders´exploits were massive.For the last 15 years or so it has been the other way rond: there is a huge number of ways in which riders can dope, and any exploits are derisory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted June 20, 2012 Share Digging in for the long-run: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/sports/cycling/us-anti-doping-agency-braces-for-legal-battle-in-lance-armstrong-case.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubehunter Posted June 20, 2012 Share Comrades winner this year just been given a 72 hour notice to appeal by having his B sample tested as he has a positive on a banned substance from the A sample. Guess he could not get his levels correct eh?? Professional sport is rife with everyone looking for an edge. The irony of WADA's system is that it does make all athletes equal in terms of physiological levels within the blood and the way in which energy is produced related to this. Anyone with a genetic advantage in this area would simply have others on cocktails to enhance theirs, making the competitive edge move beyond mostly conditioning and far more into mental toughness and skill as the defining variables. These are the primary reasons we spectate and watch professionals compete.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velouria Posted June 20, 2012 Share Another interesting Lance graphic. Talk about fingers in many different pies (or tarts): http://cyclismas.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/full-LA-chart-graphic.jpg From http://cyclismas.com/2012/06/lance-armstrongs-business-links-a-flowchart-by-dimspace/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted June 20, 2012 Share And he still gets time to ride his bike ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now