GrumpyOldGuy Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Thanks Well I suppose being EXPECTED to comply is better than nothing. So i guess some of those "former friends" of Lance with brother (Stefano?) will be thanking their parents LOL LA is one of those people who must have had pleeeenty of associates and he's one of those guys who you either like or dont like, it would be easy to find witnesses against and for him. Would the judicial process cater for a defence counter with witnesses who could testify "I never saw him dope, but saw him training like mad" ? WRT to perjury, how do you prove perjury if something is based only on eye witness accounts (i saw him) but cannot physicaly proove it? Not sure if anything can save him now, the damage is already done and based on the already passed judgements (Ferrari and Co) they cannot judge any different with LA. IMO its a a good thing for sport, until they introduce 1st offence life time bans nothing else will discourage doping. - Hee. Hee, Yeah, of course, and I guess LA will include some "Good character references" in his defense, but getting someone to say "I never saw anything except him training at 4am" doesn't prove much either way, so I am not sure it will hold much water. I think maybe the LA case has re-concentrated people on the doping side of the sport, which is always negative, but I guess clearing out the dead wood and showing publicly that they will chase down all suspected doping activity no matter who it is, puts a clear message out there, "If you dope, sooner or later we will catch you" and I agree, thats good.
goya-goya Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 ahhh... with age does not always come experience...
GrumpyOldGuy Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 If the witnesses where coerced into testifying against Lance, by being offered immunity if they witnessed the alleged events... and they were guilty[sic].. it stinks dude! In my humble opinion, we will see Lance vindicated... and UCI and WADA will stop the witch-hunting on past alleged transgressors... very quietly. Well if it go's against LA I am pretty sure he will appeal and it will go to arbitration and possibly even to CAS so the outcome is not going to be confirmed soon. On the other hand its hard to believe USADA would have bought the case if they didnt believe it was strong enough or true enough to stand up to the cold letter of the law, so we will see, but to me the weight of evidence is firmly against him.
GrumpyOldGuy Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 ahhh... with age does not always come experience... Whats that mean? goya-goya 1
goya-goya Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Whats that mean? Sounds like you are on the same page me!
GrumpyOldGuy Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Sounds like you are on the same page me! I still dont quite understand the comment, but I have no axe to grind regarding LA or anyone else, I just look at the process and the letter of the law and make a deduction, I personally think LA has been a stalwart model for cancer and he was a superb athlete, however I also think he has something to hide, and if he cheated, in my opinion he negates all that hard work and deserves to be exposed.
E1A104 Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 No evidence will convince the disciples that la doped. Even if the doctor that prepared the dope and injected la testifies to that fact, the disciples will say he cannot be believed as he is "guilty" of supplying and therefore his testimony is not to be believed. petatodd 1
Tumbleweed Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Give someone one of your yellow jerseys and call in the favour later? http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/07/news/u-s-lawmaker-requests-probe-of-usada-over-armstrong-case_229472
GrumpyOldGuy Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Give someone one of your yellow jerseys and call in the favour later? http://velonews.comp...ong-case_229472 I dont know for sure, but I would be willing to bet a few dollars LA is a Republican. Most wealthy Americans are and his association with the George Bush administration would seem to reaffirm this. I wonder if he is not maybe rallying his political buddies to his cause, ........an election year, donations are required, ...."but ya know Pat, them thar pesky folk from USADA spending hard earned congress funds on chasing me around, now I just done got a huge legal bill I need to look at, not sure I can look at that there donation right now". Tumbleweed 1
Tumbleweed Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 I dont know for sure, but I would be willing to bet a few dollars LA is a Republican. Most wealthy Americans are and his association with the George Bush administration would seem to reaffirm this. I wonder if he is not maybe rallying his political buddies to his cause, ........an election year, donations are required, ...."but ya know Pat, them thar pesky folk from USADA spending hard earned congress funds on chasing me around, now I just done got a huge legal bill I need to look at, not sure I can look at that there donation right now". Hahahahahahahaha! Lance's politics seem to be more left-leaning, but that hasn't stopped him from cosying up to Republicans. He's shrewd enough to have friends on both sides.
mazambaan Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 A chortle about the "cold coffee" comments - Froome "disappearing for 2 years" isn't my belief - it's the type of comment you hear from people who believe that all pro cyclists "dope" and take doping, and the avoiding of getting caught, very seriously as part of the "sport". Yesterday a few people were agreeing that all the pro's dope - but not all the time and avoiding a positive test was part of the science of their training. As for LA; look at the balance of probabilities. He stayed with, or beat, a host of fellow competitors, manyof whom were shown, or admitted, to have been doping. It's not impossible that he wasn't doping; but seems unlikely. Maybe he had more natural ability than his competitors so didn't need as much or as often?? I think what makes it a vendetta is what is seen as his arrogance, having forced all sorts of accusers to eat humble pie or retract. But the opposition re-grouped and re-thought and now they are back, again. But I believe that none of this is good for pro cycling. It's an old vendetta and the effort and maney should be spent to clean and promote pro cycling and cyclists now. I'll stick my neck out and say that what is happening to LA now isn't much of a deterrent to a junior cyclist at say, provincial level who wants to improve by any means possible. More day to day testing would be. Rant over. I had to chuckle at someone who commented while we were chatting; "Dope testing? why only test for dope? What about all the steroids and stuff?" (an offroad motor cyclist).
SwissVan Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) Give someone one of your yellow jerseys and call in the favour later? http://velonews.comp...ong-case_229472 Like almost every successful business person, Politian there is “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” agreements and friendships Edited July 13, 2012 by SwissVan
Tumbleweed Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Like almost every successful business person, Politian there is “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” agreements and friendships And the senator has a point there, using up 70% of their annual budget does seem a bit irresponsible and should result in some sort of backlash / follow up requirements from their funders. No matter how good the cause, bean counters remain bean counters.... Sorry, I missed this part. The only reference I saw to budget is that Congress provides close on 70% of it.
SwissVan Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Sorry, I missed this part. The only reference I saw to budget is that Congress provides close on 70% of it. Yeah your only on real time, I'm a few hours ahead...LOL My mistake I had it in my head that the 9 mil was the costs of the USADA case against LA and Co. I'll edit my post and have some pie for lunch... Still a point though, wonder what its going to cost.....
Tumbleweed Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) Yeah your only on real time, I'm a few hours ahead...LOL My mistake I had it in my head that the 9 mil was the costs of the USADA case against LA and Co. I'll edit my post and have some pie for lunch... Still a point though, wonder what its going to cost..... Hahahahaha! yeah, it is a good point. I tried to have a look here http://www.usada.org/annual-report to see where the money goes, but the PDF won't load. Maybe you'll have better luck with it? Edit: it loaded http://www.usada.org/uploads/2011annualreport.pdf Edited July 13, 2012 by Tumbleweed
JGR Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Well if it go's against LA I am pretty sure he will appeal and it will go to arbitration and possibly even to CAS so the outcome is not going to be confirmed soon. On the other hand its hard to believe USADA would have bought the case if they didnt believe it was strong enough or true enough to stand up to the cold letter of the law, so we will see, but to me the weight of evidence is firmly against him.Like the previous cases which have failed ....
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