goya-goya Posted July 11, 2012 Share Go lance-go!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agteros Posted July 11, 2012 Share http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-comments-on-usada-lifetime-bans McQuaid: "“I’ve read what they’ve said but as they’re not licence holders so I don’t know how they can ban them or what they can be banned for” Edited July 11, 2012 by RoboCyclist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaLoCo Posted July 11, 2012 Share All of this smells too much of witch-hunt, and will most probably swing more 'votes' towards Armstrong than USADA/WADA. I for one actually hopes he sticks it to USADA as the whole of the USADA things smells too much of dirty doings. You cannot sully your own hands to proof somebody else's is dirty... But that is just my opinion. 2. He is most likely to have doped (within the 'rules' of the tests available at the time) like most, if not everybody, (for the lawyers: a lot of riders) in the pro peloton. Agreed Here is the piece on the USADA extension: http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/8156926/lance-armstrong-gets-30-day-extension Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrackmind Posted July 11, 2012 Share So in the end...if USADA is successful, they will prove that LA was part of a systematic doping ring. They still cannot prove that he doped, and no testimony to that extent has been made public. It is clear that there was massive doping where he was involved...but even if they strip him, he is still able to maintain that he has always been clean. In any case...USADA backed down today, allowing for a thirty day period before arbitration. Does not look all that comfy anymore Alongside proving the doping ring stuff, they are proving he doped too. Witness testimony is enough to convict, there does not have to be a positive test. This has been made clear numerous times, both in the mainstream media and the knowledgeable Hub. There are plenty of precedents. "Part of a systematic doping ring"? I think what they are getting at is that he was pretty much the mainstay of it. The man is guilty of doping. Of that there is no doubt (he has even begun to allude to it by asking why he is the only one from that era they are chasing), and he must be brought to book for that. He is also, it would appear, gulity of influencing other riders on his team into doping, and supplying them with the junk himself. That is revolting. You might argue they would have anyway, but if just one was forced into doing so by Lance, he deserves everything he gets. Backed down? I don't see it that way at all. USADA is saying " get your ducks, whatever breed you want them to be, in a row" and will then continue as before. Finally - the world has come to terms with the fact that pro cycling was a rolling pharmacy in the late 90s/early 2000s. From the riders of that era, to commentators and journalists, and even the head of the UCI saying today that times have changed. There is only one idiot left claiming anything different. How stupid does he think we are? Chop. petatodd 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goya-goya Posted July 11, 2012 Share @onetrackmind: nah... you are full of opinions... none of them truly based on fact I cant wait till he is acquitted... remember rules are rules... and when he is acquitted - it never happened! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted July 12, 2012 Share @onetrackmind: nah... you are full of opinions... none of them truly based on fact I cant wait till he is acquitted... remember rules are rules... and when he is acquitted - it never happened! Fact: Former teammates have spoken about an organised doping programme in which LA was involved.Fact: USADA has charged LA with that.Fact: That's enough to find a guilty verdict.Opinion: Whether or not the panel will see it as sufficient. I agree - we make the call ourselves. Vaughters hinted he retired early at the age of 29, for a reason he did not mention... Here's a fake interview, although tumbleweed was there! Hahahahaha! I can confirm that it is a genuine fake interview! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNT1 Posted July 12, 2012 Share I agree - we make the call ourselves. Vaughters hinted he retired early at the age of 29, for a reason he did not mention... Remember when he abandoned because he wouldn't take a cortisone shot for the wasp sting (maybe it was a bee?)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted July 12, 2012 Share Remember when he abandoned because he wouldn't take a cortisone shot for the wasp sting (maybe it was a bee?)? Not to mention the "hot sauce" convo… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christie Posted July 12, 2012 Share Fact: Former teammates have spoken about an organised doping programme in which LA was involved.Fact: USADA has charged LA with that.Fact: That's enough to find a guilty verdict.Opinion: Whether or not the panel will see it as sufficient. Plus fact: two doctors and a trainer (who courierd their dope) that formed part of the core staff of Postal, Discovery and Astana have been baned for life from all sport for being part of a doping syndicate. Tumbleweed 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted July 12, 2012 Share Plus fact: two doctors and a trainer (who courierd their dope) that formed part of the core staff of Postal, Discovery and Astana have been baned for life from all sport for being part of a doping syndicate. I wonder if Ferrari is still a lifelong friend of LA's… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goya-goya Posted July 12, 2012 Share "Fact: Former teammates have spoken about an organised doping programme in which LA was involved.Fact: USADA has charged LA with that.Fact: That's enough to find a guilty verdict.Opinion: Whether or not the panel will see it as sufficient." @tumbleweed:Some more facts for you:a) your "Fact" 1) the fact that someone spoke out against him is one of the reason for his claim - or did you not read the facts?secondly B) Your "Fact" 3) it may only be enough if it was not done properly The people @christie spoke about could not be bothered with the process... that does not make Lance guilty... I think we all wanna be right here... kinda like religion... you have to right else...OOPS! So you protect your belief with anything to feel better... mmm... is that what I am doing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted July 12, 2012 Share @tumbleweed:Some more facts for you:a) your "Fact" 1) the fact that someone spoke out against him is one of the reason for his claim - or did you not read the facts? I am not sure what you are saying here. Not someone, but up to 10 former teammates. What "facts" are you referring to? secondly B) Your "Fact" 3) it may only be enough if it was not done properly Are there "facts" to say it wasn't "done properly"? Nope, only Lance's - and your - opinion. He was informed of the charges. Given time to answer them in terms of USADA regulations, which he agreed to when he competed under a USAC licence. Who needs the "read the facts"? Edited July 12, 2012 by Tumbleweed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted July 12, 2012 Share Lance has been granted a 30-day extension. What of Bruyneel and Celaya? Edited July 12, 2012 by Tumbleweed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bianchisti Posted July 12, 2012 Share I agree - we make the call ourselves. Vaughters hinted he retired early at the age of 29, for a reason he did not mention... Here's a fake interview, although tumbleweed was there! http://www.cyclismas...incapie-reacts/ EXCLUSIVE: George Hincapie reacts to latest on the USADA case against Lance I am just disappointed that this has been brought up again. I feel like I have always tried to do the right thing for the sport,” [What exactly does he mean by that?] he said, in response to questions. “Right now I am here to do my job and I am just going to try to focus on that. BMC has nothing to do with this. [nothing to do with doping in the past perghaps?] Cadel obviously is focussed on winning the Tour and I am here to try to help him do that. I am going to continue to do that and to try not to let anything get in my mind beside that.”[/indent]…pauseI would like to take this opportunity to say that once my career ends this August my whole cycling career will be in the past and furthermore what happened in the past happened in the past. What we should do is concentrate on the present (which is in the present) and the future. I will also say for the sake of completeness that the future is in the future.” there is clearly a lot that happened in the past and he is nothing to satisfy the questions raised before. It's like he completely missed the point, people don't want to move on, they want answers to all their questions.… long pauseI can fully one hundred percent confirm to everyone gathered here today that I used to be Lance Armstrong’s teammate.” DUH!… another pauseCycling is a sport in which some people have been known to possibly take drugs perhaps, although I’m not sure. Thank you.” Thats just raises more questions… yet another pause“I think that cycling is a good sport and that we should encourage as many people to do it as possible.”…Lance Armstrong is a cyclist.”…Bad news about cycling is bad.” … at this pause, a tumbleweed appeared from nowhere and rolled past the gathered press.One plus one equals two, this is an undoubted fact.”…Drugs are bad.”…Lance Armstrong is a person.”… *tolling bells*This is a sentence that I am saying now.”…Thank you.” The only reporters in the press conference who appeared excited by the “revelations” were those from Bicycling Magazine, who have managed to turn the release into a fourteen page feature for their next issue. This statement just causes more problems for everybody. He should've just said nothing. The fact that there is NO flat-out denial of doping in there will get the vultures circling over the entire saga. Very poorly thought out release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agteros Posted July 12, 2012 Share I am not sure what you are saying here. Not someone, but up to 10 former teammates. What "facts" are you referring to? Are there "facts" to say it wasn't "done properly"? Nope, only Lance's - and your - opinion. He was informed of the charges. Given time to answer them in terms of USADA regulations, which he agreed to when he competed under a USAC licence. Who needs the "read the facts"? However they do not provided sources, and full investigation results. Kinda like me telling you that you've done heinous things over the span of a decade and you will be executed if you do not proof otherwise within five days.... Ohh, and I won't provide my evidence... He is set up for failure, and I agree with him/his lawyers. he is being set up to fail. The problem here is not whether he has doped or not, it is the procedural unfairness of the whole debacle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted July 12, 2012 Share This statement just causes more problems for everybody. He should've just said nothing. The fact that there is NO flat-out denial of doping in there will get the vultures circling over the entire saga. Very poorly thought out release. "Here's a fake interview…" 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