GrumpyOldGuy Posted July 14, 2012 Share Bruyneel's intention to go to arbitration is telling. Obviously he lacks the funds of LA to fight this elsewhere. Radioshack is up the creek. His career is in tatters. He seems to have been abandoned by the dude he led to seven Tour wins. Even after betraying his erstwhile other Tour winner in Lance's favour. Interesting times indeed. JB and LA are intricately linked. What is brought up in the former's arbitration will be interesting indeed. Indeed, that was my first thought after I saw LA had NOT included Bruyneel in his legal action to get an injunction against USADA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOldGuy Posted July 14, 2012 Share Emphatic denial is sometimes a sign of guilt. What will happen now if the cyclists mentioned in the press as witnesses stand up and say we did the drugs, and witnessed Lance doing the same? they cant all be lying. That will be damning. No one took Floyd seriously since he is such a liar. Contrast to how Dave Millar handled it: Admission without a fuss. And repentance. Good on you m8. Well, thats exactly the crux of it. Ten witnesses all saying "we saw this", "we did that", is very hard evidence to overcome. Well, was Floyd such a liar really?. I think he pretty much told the truth AFTER he admitted guilt, before that he just did what most athletes in that situation do,......... he denied and denied and denied until it was just no longer possible to deny any more, its not new, most of them do it, but I think Floyd was too close to home, and was smeared by a very good PR programme designed to vilify and segregate him, which left him vulnerable and easy to manipulate. There's actually a very interesting story I had saved in my history here somewhere from back in 2010 where Floyd talks about his relationship at the team, maybe its a little old hat now, but sometimes its just good to remind ourselves of the history, missing bikes turning up in the retail market, blood stored in refrigerators...........! A lot of what was considered back then to be fabrications by Floyd, are looking more and more like they could be true. http://online.wsj.co...3200584006.html Edited July 14, 2012 by GrumpyOldGuy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squier Posted July 17, 2012 Share Bruyneel's reposnse: http://www.johanbruyneel.com/news/johan-bruyneels-statement-regarding-usada-proceedings zeabre 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted July 17, 2012 Share Livestrong lobbying? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303612804577531353567249064.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Luke. Posted July 17, 2012 Share Livestrong lobbying? http://online.wsj.co...=googlenews_wsj It is sick what people get away with under the guise of doing good for cancer research. I watched the Burzynski Movie the other day which was a huge eye opener, especially with regard to the FDA and how entrenched their collusion with big pharmaceutical companies has become. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zBBfN5mQa8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissVan Posted July 18, 2012 Share Friendship testing....will be interesting to learn what GH really said http://www.nytimes.c...tml?ref=cycling “There have been times when I’ve practically lived out of the same suitcase with George Hincapie,” Armstrong said in “Every Second Counts.” “In cycling, we’re on the side of a mountain for weeks, in small hotel rooms, sharing every ache, and pain, and meal. You get to know everything about each other, including things you’d rather not.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted July 20, 2012 Share USADA files to dismiss: http://www.cbc.ca/sp...ping-usada.html More stuff to read: http://nyvelocity.co...%28Chart%29.pdf http://www.bigcityde...567100.33.5.pdf http://online.wsj.co...3199762652.html Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive! Edited July 20, 2012 by Tumbleweed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted July 21, 2012 Share The only title Ben Johnson retains is "the most reviled drugs treat in history". Will the current USADA case strip him of that too? petatodd 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOldGuy Posted July 21, 2012 Share USADA files to dismiss: http://www.cbc.ca/sp...ping-usada.html More stuff to read: http://nyvelocity.co...%28Chart%29.pdf http://www.bigcityde...567100.33.5.pdf http://online.wsj.co...3199762652.html Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive! Yeah, long read but very interesting. What is most interesting is the charges, because in addition to "Possession of prohibited substances" they have added "Trafficking in prohibited substances" in their actions against Bruyneel, Armstrong and Co, this strengthens their case considerably and, to me anyway, opens the door to further action (possibly even criminal) if they secure a guilty verdict and a banning. Possession of a prohibited substance is one thing, "Trafficking" in it changes the ball park immensely. But either way, this, to me is the damaging bit in the charge sheet because its new evidence, its recent, and the tests are modern and accepted - "Lance Armstrong's doping is further evidenced by the data from blood collections obtained by the UCI from Lance Armstrong in 2009 and 2010. This data is fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and / or blood transfusions" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petatodd Posted July 22, 2012 Share http://www.nydailynews.com/lance-armstrong-offensive-u-s-anti-doping-agency-fight-life-article-1.1119356 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heckflosse Posted July 22, 2012 Share http://www.nydailynews.com/lance-armstrong-offensive-u-s-anti-doping-agency-fight-life-article-1.1119356Nice article, can't wait for the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zook Posted July 22, 2012 Share I've generally defended Armstrong, but he deserves to be nailed. You can't say you're for cleaning the sport up, and then be against a mechanism that works for that. He's been aggressively defensive, making life hell for anyone who's not with him. He's had his time, now cycling needs him to go down, if he's truly in the wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaco-fiets Posted July 22, 2012 Share Personally i hope that Lance is found not guilty even if it just is for the sake of what he did for the sport and what he is doing for cancer awareness. Lets face it, he did do allot to put the sport on the map outside of Europe. I would like my memory of the guy to be one of admiration and respect. Having said all this, if he is guilty he should be punished accordingly.............. goya-goya 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zook Posted July 22, 2012 Share Jaco - agreed, I'll still remember how he demolished some fields, and even with dope he managed to do an incredible thing, staying in form, injury-free and doing everything almost perfectly right for seven TDF's. That's almost impossible even if you have all the advantages - look at Schleck and Contador. But he's made life hard for many people in this world, who were only doing their job. So I won't feel too sorry for him as long as he stays as aggressive as he is. If he's innocent, that'll come out. No way he'll leave a stone unturned in this fight. But I'm pretty damned sure he's guilty, so all he's doing is obstructing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted July 25, 2012 Share It would appear that Mr. Armstrong is cool with the USADA having exclusive jurisdiction over him when it results in the receipt of a $5 million payout, but not cool with this jurisdiction when it could potentially jeopardize his multiple Tour de France victories. I know how Captain Obvious that sounds, but seriously, this is not how rules are applied. The fancy people do not get to choose when the rules apply to them. So which one is it, Mr. Armstrong? Does the USADA have exclusive jurisdiction to decide anti-doping violations or not? It may sound crazy, but generally speaking, courts like to uphold legally valid contracts because the entire point of a contract is to create an enforceable expectation for every party involved. The simple fact is that Mr. Armstrong contracted, directly and implicitly, with the USADA and agreed to be governed by their rules. One of those rules was to resolve disputes using binding arbitration. http://150wattsofawesome.blogspot.com/ Also, scroll down and see the twitter exchange between the author and Armstrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissVan Posted July 26, 2012 Share Wot?No Anti LA propoganda today...press must have something else to pick on :-) 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