Lance Armstrong Banned and Stripped of TDF Titles

[E1A104]

ah so you condone revenge, vigilanteism?

 

May i ask why you used those 2 specific words?

[Lucky Fish]

I truly believe where there is smoke there is fire !

 

Cycling aside, be wary of your comment. Have YOU ever been accused and found guilty on these grounds whilst knowing your are innocent! It is not a pleasant experience.

[Jaco-fiets]

Anyody know where i can buy more LIVESTRONG bands? I want to buy every single one i come across!

[GoLefty!!]

One is righting a wrong with wrong.

 

 

The other is taking the law or rules into your own hands to suit your agenda.

ome vigilantes have a moral objective to the truth, others don't

the line between those two is very thin. At waht point does it become self serving?

 

WRT to the USADA, already there are calls for the USADA to take the lead in the fight against doping in Cycling and other sports. If that call becomes widespread ad it happens that USADA becomes the Look too body for anti doping practiceit provides its leadership with unrivalled political power within the sport, with Sponsors and with Sports bodies like the IOC.

Wiht that power centralisedc comes the opportunity for great corruption and control of cycling moves form Europe (its traditional home) to the USA (the country that gave us the sports biggest cheats).

 

at waht point does the rules become a blocker to progress? Should those rules then be changed to suit an outcome or should those rules remain aligned to the rights of the athlete.

 

In my view, knowing the truth is great, we should all knowand accept waht that is, but if your governane bodies stoops to the level of the perps, do you trust them to remain impartial. An Organisation that is willing to break its own rules in my view i notworth the paper its constitution is written on. Irrespective of the outcome.

 

Does Travis Tygart thinks he's BatMan?

[EZRider]

Anyody know where i can buy more LIVESTRONG bands? I want to buy every single one i come across!

 

You can buy mine. Price has just gone up though!

[jcza]

One is righting a wrong with wrong.

 

 

The other is taking the law or rules into your own hands to suit your agenda.

ome vigilantes have a moral objective to the truth, others don't

the line between those two is very thin. At waht point does it become self serving?

 

WRT to the USADA, already there are calls for the USADA to take the lead in the fight against doping in Cycling and other sports. If that call becomes widespread ad it happens that USADA becomes the Look too body for anti doping practiceit provides its leadership with unrivalled political power within the sport, with Sponsors and with Sports bodies like the IOC.

Wiht that power centralisedc comes the opportunity for great corruption and control of cycling moves form Europe (its traditional home) to the USA (the country that gave us the sports biggest cheats).

 

at waht point does the rules become a blocker to progress? Should those rules then be changed to suit an outcome or should those rules remain aligned to the rights of the athlete.

 

In my view, knowing the truth is great, we should all knowand accept waht that is, but if your governane bodies stoops to the level of the perps, do you trust them to remain impartial. An Organisation that is willing to break its own rules in my view i notworth the paper its constitution is written on. Irrespective of the outcome.

 

Does Travis Tygart thinks he's BatMan?

 

Should WADA not have the authority?

 

I know one thing for sure - the UCI cannot do it.

[E1A104]

One is righting a wrong with wrong.

 

 

The other is taking the law or rules into your own hands to suit your agenda.

ome vigilantes have a moral objective to the truth, others don't

the line between those two is very thin. At waht point does it become self serving?

 

WRT to the USADA, already there are calls for the USADA to take the lead in the fight against doping in Cycling and other sports. If that call becomes widespread ad it happens that USADA becomes the Look too body for anti doping practiceit provides its leadership with unrivalled political power within the sport, with Sponsors and with Sports bodies like the IOC.

Wiht that power centralisedc comes the opportunity for great corruption and control of cycling moves form Europe (its traditional home) to the USA (the country that gave us the sports biggest cheats).

 

at waht point does the rules become a blocker to progress? Should those rules then be changed to suit an outcome or should those rules remain aligned to the rights of the athlete.

 

In my view, knowing the truth is great, we should all knowand accept waht that is, but if your governane bodies stoops to the level of the perps, do you trust them to remain impartial. An Organisation that is willing to break its own rules in my view i notworth the paper its constitution is written on. Irrespective of the outcome.

 

Does Travis Tygart thinks he's BatMan?

 

Fair enough and in your opinion, have USADA taken that approach/stance?

[EZRider]

One is righting a wrong with wrong.

 

 

The other is taking the law or rules into your own hands to suit your agenda.

ome vigilantes have a moral objective to the truth, others don't

the line between those two is very thin. At waht point does it become self serving?

 

WRT to the USADA, already there are calls for the USADA to take the lead in the fight against doping in Cycling and other sports. If that call becomes widespread ad it happens that USADA becomes the Look too body for anti doping practiceit provides its leadership with unrivalled political power within the sport, with Sponsors and with Sports bodies like the IOC.

Wiht that power centralisedc comes the opportunity for great corruption and control of cycling moves form Europe (its traditional home) to the USA (the country that gave us the sports biggest cheats).

 

at waht point does the rules become a blocker to progress? Should those rules then be changed to suit an outcome or should those rules remain aligned to the rights of the athlete.

 

In my view, knowing the truth is great, we should all knowand accept waht that is, but if your governane bodies stoops to the level of the perps, do you trust them to remain impartial. An Organisation that is willing to break its own rules in my view i notworth the paper its constitution is written on. Irrespective of the outcome.

 

Does Travis Tygart thinks he's BatMan?

 

Whether USADA followed due process or twisted rules is open to debate and that debate is taking place.

 

What is worrying is that cyclists and cycling fans, such as yourself, seem to be far more outraged by the potentially flawed process of exposing and excising a fraud and a cheat than the fraud and the cheat himself.

Why?

Surely your moral compass should be spinning for the many clean athletes, sponsors, and fans that were hard done by and in some cases destroyed by LA (Greg Lemond and Simeoni amongst others).

Leave the validity of the process up to those who determine and marshal the process or get involved in formulating policy yourself.

You outrage against USADA comes across as desperate. LA stank and someone cut out the rot.

The stink can't be disguised by asking:

 

Why aren't the others punished?

Why did you change the rules?

It isn't fair! Now he has to give back some of his many, many millions!

Boo Hoo!

[DaLoCo]

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.

 

Just voicing the same concerns as Judge Sam Sparks....you know, the judge that threw the whole thing back to USADA. One of his key comments were that though LA has no defense at the time of the case due to the fact that the court cannot rule on hypothetical situations, he might have recourse in the future if USADA does decide to follow a different set of rules where he is concerned. Un-ostrich enough for you?

 

Here is the link: http://leastthing.blogspot.com/2012/08/notes-from-sparks-ruling-on-armstrong.html

 

You will find a link to the full pdf of the judgement with footnotes on the second line.

[Andrew Steer]

He never tested positive, out of like 696 tests! Most tested athlete in the universe, ever, ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

It's a witch hunt!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh, I killl you!

 

 

 

 

Just kidding, have a good weekend folks! And ride your bikes and forget about this doping a-hole!

[GoLefty!!]

Not yet and it remaisn to be seen what they do next.

the whole thing smells of political thriller...

 

I was talking to a preacher pal in the gym on tuesday night. He drew a similarity of the whole saga to a popular event in the bible. I sort of raised an eyebrow at that but after a the shock had died down and I realised I was talking to a preacher not a cycling lunatic I figured there is a lot of truth in his pov. He ended his cycle session with "never judge beause you too will be judged one day.

[DaLoCo]

Whether USADA followed due process or twisted rules is open to debate and that debate is taking place.

 

What is worrying is that cyclists and cycling fans, such as yourself, seem to be far more outraged by the potentially flawed process of exposing and excising a fraud and a cheat than the fraud and the cheat himself.

The thing is, they have now created precedent to used this flawed process again....I would be very nervous if I was a top rider, knowing that a governing body is willing to bend the rules to reach a desired outcome.

 

LA doped....no argument

[Wyatt Earp]

Whether USADA followed due process or twisted rules is open to debate and that debate is taking place.

 

What is worrying is that cyclists and cycling fans, such as yourself, seem to be far more outraged by the potentially flawed process of exposing and excising a fraud and a cheat than the fraud and the cheat himself.

Why?

Surely your moral compass should be spinning for the many clean athletes, sponsors, and fans that were hard done by and in some cases destroyed by LA (Greg Lemond and Simeoni amongst others).

 

 

 

 

Hi TZ.

 

You really think Le Mond never doped ? (sorry if it appears I am looking for an argument, just a question )

The way I see Le Mond.

 

Once great cyclist who fell out of the limelight and had sub-standard quality bikes.

Instead of actually getting involved and trying to get academy's going, he rather became one angry little man who tries to walk around as the archangel of the cycling world.

[Lucky Luke.]

Just voicing the same concerns as Judge Sam Sparks....you know, the judge that threw the whole thing back to USADA. One of his key comments were that though LA has no defense at the time of the case due to the fact that the court cannot rule on hypothetical situations, he might have recourse in the future if USADA does decide to follow a different set of rules where he is concerned. Un-ostrich enough for you?

 

Here is the link: http://leastthing.bl...-armstrong.html

 

You will find a link to the full pdf of the judgement with footnotes on the second line.

 

I like the later, more enlightened posts by this blogger, especially this one which deals with Armstrong's attempts to get Washington lobbyists to derail USADA's charges at the congressional level, charges he opted not to contest. http://leastthing.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-us-congress-and-lance-armstrong.html

 

Also this one http://leastthing.blogspot.com/2012/10/lance-armstrong-and-usadas-reasoned.html

which ends with the obvious question

It is ironic to see Armstrong complaining about a violation of due process when he gave up his right to contest the charges via the USADA arbitration process.

 

Presumably any athlete innocent of doping charges would go to arbitration and easily demonstrate as such.

[dracs]

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.

Are you not able to separate the 2 issues. 1 is doping the other a pseudo legal process. I was commenting on the latter not the former.

 

Your argument would then apply to theft, rape, fraud, murder etc etc etc. None of thos crimes are fair but we (well me anyway) would like to live in a society that judges and sanctions those accused of them in a consistent way. thats all.

[DaLoCo]

I like the later, more enlightened posts by this blogger, especially this one which deals with Armstrong's attempts to get Washington lobbyists to derail USADA's charges at the congressional level, charges he opted not to contest. http://leastthing.bl...-armstrong.html

 

Also this one http://leastthing.bl...s-reasoned.html

which ends with the obvious question

 

 

Presumably any athlete innocent of doping charges would go to arbitration and easily demonstrate as such.

The machinations behind the scenes were wild, but what concerns me most is what Judge Sparks said regarding LA future recourse if USADA followed the route they did.

 

Could it be that LA expected this and withdrew tactically so he can now return and attack the case against him. I do not see his refusal to arbitrate as submission. The effect of the USADA sanctions have created precedent whereby LA can now turn to the justice system claiming unfairness and have a chance to win it, which in return will discredit WADA. I am probably just verbalizing what Sparks foresee during the case.