Lance Armstrong Banned and Stripped of TDF Titles

[Tumbleweed]

Kimmage files his own complaint.

 

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/11/news/paul-kimmage-takes-offense-against-uci-files-own-legal-complaint_263264

 

Go Kimmage

[Lucky Luke.]

Quite a solid return on investment for all of that EPO, shown in part here:

http://www.luxist.com/2009/01/11/lance-armstrongs-texas-ranch-estate-of-the-day/

 

Kind of puts my league Cyclelab vouchers into perspective.

[Azonic]

Has this been posted?

 

Shouldn't Bobby Julich also be flagged?

Edited November 2, 2012 by Azonic

[DaLoCo]

The sports law experts seem to have an issue with the process followed by USADA. This is them looking at it from legal perspective.

 

http://bicycling.com/blogs/dailylance/2012/11/01/armstrong-ban-flouted-anti-doping-law-experts/

 

Some expert and professors saying that the impact of not sticking to the 8 - year statute of limitation can damage both their and WADA's credibility.

 

They are NOT defending LA!!! (for those who like to personally insult anybody the questions the process)

[Mellow]

The sports law experts seem to have an issue with the process followed by USADA. This is them looking at it from legal perspective.

 

http://bicycling.com...ng-law-experts/

 

Some expert and professors saying that the impact of not sticking to the 8 - year statute of limitation can damage both their and WADA's credibility.

 

They are NOT defending LA!!! (for those who like to personally insult anybody the questions the process)

 

Also read an similar article on cycling news. Though I'm all for a process that punish guilty even if its 100 years in the past.

[GoLefty!!]

told you so

[Tumbleweed]

The list of cheating techniques he used included organ transplants, voodoo, cloning, doppelgangers, selling his soul to the devil and human sacrifice. Armstrong’s entire team has also been implicated, including his barber, publicist, guru, accountant and proctologist. (Those bicycle seats are hard.)

http://chestnuthilllocal.com/blog/2012/11/01/even-his-proctologist-was-implicated-no-one-tooting-lance-armstrongs-bicycle-horn-any-more/

[dracs]

The sports law experts seem to have an issue with the process followed by USADA. This is them looking at it from legal perspective.

 

http://bicycling.com...ng-law-experts/

 

Some expert and professors saying that the impact of not sticking to the 8 - year statute of limitation can damage both their and WADA's credibility.

 

They are NOT defending LA!!! (for those who like to personally insult anybody the questions the process)

This is the issue I have. When laws/rules whatever are applied selectively this is by definition not a fair process. Only emotion / popular sentiment / hysteria can convince you otherwise - and emotion has its time and place but not in arbitrating people's legal fate.

[Lucky Luke.]

Please. Fairness has nothing to do with this. Is anybody seriously suggesting that road cycling is / was more fair the way Armstrong and his contemporaries played it, than the process that seeks to change that modus operandi?

 

Blood transfusions, drug use regarded as 'professionalism' and doctors winning the team MVP award every single year is not a sport I will support.

 

Is anybody seriously suggesting that either this was / is not the case, or perhaps you mean to say that this is all fine and dandy and we must be nicer to Lance and leave him and all his teammates and doctors alone to carry on?

 

As you were guys. Sorry the US anti drugs agency did it's job. That really wasn't fair at all.

 

Lets start a fairness fund to buy some more EPO for the peloton and make a few more donations to Fat Pat and Hein the Swein.

[GoLefty!!]

ah so you condone revenge, vigilanteism?

[Lucky Luke.]

ah so you condone revenge, vigilanteism?

 

How did you arrive at that conclusion? I condone the agency that Armstrong signed up to be subject to, doing it's job.

 

I condone all of the legal processes that are burning down the lies and flushing out the truth after years and years of cheating so entrenched in the culture of the sport, that to not take drugs at the tour was considered unprofessional or just plain stupid.

[E1A104]

ah so you condone revenge, vigilanteism?

 

well if we looked at the way he treated Simeoni and Bassons, it seems la did.

[Lucky Luke.]

If you want to do something significant for cycling, donate to the Kimmage fairness fund so that when he takes Fat Pat and Hein to court, they get the royal shafting they deserve and are never allowed to work in cycling again.

 

Here's the link : http://www.chipin.co...db2e4ecaa6ad4fd

Context here: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13195/Kimmage-counter-attacks-by-suing-Verbruggen-and-McQuaid-in-Swiss-courts.aspx

 

Crying crocodile tears for Lance over legal process will get you, me and everybody else on two wheels absolutely nowhere.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Lucky Luke.

[DaLoCo]

How did you arrive at that conclusion? I condone the agency that Armstrong signed up to be subject to, doing it's job.

 

I condone all of the legal processes that are burning down the lies and flushing out the truth after years and years of cheating so entrenched in the culture of the sport, that to not take drugs at the tour was considered unprofessional or just plain stupid.

Morally I agree with you

 

The thing is, USADA had to apply a different set of rules to get to this conclusion. By doing this they have placed their moral standing on shaky ground. Their legal process only pertains to the sport of cycling, and whilst everybody is threatening to sue for sponsorship money and prize money to be returned, it will be far harder to get a justice system to feel satisfied that the evidence is conclusive. Had USADA applied the same rules to everyone and the same conclusion is reached then there would be no question mark over their methodology. The texas judge only ruled that USADA were within their own procedural rights to proceed, not whether there was sufficient evidence of doping.

 

You cannot break your own moral code to reveal immorality, and then claim to stand on the other side untarnished. The compromise they chose will come back to haunt them in future. The impact on the UCI and WADA could irreparable and from a anti-doping point of view could put the sport in a far worse situation than when LA was chief of the doping ring. Some clever legal eagles will use this to find loopholes for their future doping client.

 

Contador has a marginal case to claim back his TdF victory, because by implication the Anti-drug movement is corrupt...just an example.

[DaLoCo]

well if we looked at the way he treated Simeoni and Bassons, it seems la did.

You cannot claim to have the moral high road whilst using the same tactics...

[Lucky Luke.]

Morally I agree with you

 

The thing is, USADA had to apply a different set of rules to get to this conclusion. By doing this they have placed their moral standing on shaky ground. Their legal process only pertains to the sport of cycling, and whilst everybody is threatening to sue for sponsorship money and prize money to be returned, it will be far harder to get a justice system to feel satisfied that the evidence is conclusive. Had USADA applied the same rules to everyone and the same conclusion is reached then there would be no question mark over their methodology. The texas judge only ruled that USADA were within their own procedural rights to proceed, not whether there was sufficient evidence of doping.

 

You cannot break your own moral code to reveal immorality, and then claim to stand on the other side untarnished. The compromise they chose will come back to haunt them in future. The impact on the UCI and WADA could irreparable and from a anti-doping point of view could put the sport in a far worse situation than when LA was chief of the doping ring. Some clever legal eagles will use this to find loopholes for their future doping client.

 

Contador has a marginal case to claim back his TdF victory, because by implication the Anti-drug movement is corrupt...just an example.

 

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you a lawyer or a cyclist? Please provide a link to a non-partisan, non-ostrich, non-livestrong groupie, non LAF PR minion who is actually concerned about the legality of USADA's actions and the impact on the future of anti-doping efforts. I'd be interested to see that.

 

Quite the opposite, what we're seeing now is a major bowel loosener for anybody relying on drugs to compete and that's a great, great thing.

 

The culture of the sport is under major scrutiny right now and I'm quite pleased about that. I will not lose any sleep over legal wranglings or sponsors taking flight. The truth has been there for all to see for many many years and it's finally reached a tipping point.