Indurain says he still believes Armstrong is innocent

[andydude]

"Despite USADA’s findings, despite the 1000 pages of evidence, despite the sworn testimony of 26 people, and amongst them eleven of his Lance Armstrong’s former team-mates, Miguel Indurain has said that he doesn’t consider the Texan to be guilty of the charges made against him. “So far I believe in his innocence, he has always complied with all the rules,” he told Marca, saying that he couldn’t understand how Armstrong was sanctioned without a positive test. “I'm a little surprised. It is a bit odd that it was done only with testimonies. The standards were one way and now it seems that they have changed.” Armstrong’s former team-mates explained in their testimonies how the US Postal Service team avoided testing positive. The accounts include statements saying that general manager Johan Bruyneel appeared to be tipped off in advance of surprise controls, as well as testimony about how riders would avoid EPO positives by microdosing, hiding from testers if necessary and also traveling to remote locations where they were less likely to be checked. Those sworn statements also included details of undetectable blood transfusions which were used by the team’s top riders; a decade later, there is still no working test to detect when riders have injected their own blood. However Indurain still doesn’t appear to register why a lack of positives aren’t proof that Armstrong was clean. “He followed all the rules there were at the time and had no problem. Every [legal] case he took, he won them. In sports they have seized upon the testimony of fellow riders to take away the Tours.” The Spaniard does admit that he’s surprised at one aspect, though: Armstrong’s decision not to contest USADA’s charges, and to instead walk away despite knowing that he would lose his Tour titles and face a lifetime ban. “He has always been a fighter. What surprises me is he doesn’t fight any more, even when the regulations are not followed. There is a regulation that says you can only appeal within eight years [the statute of limitations].” He concluded by saying that he thinks Armstrong will appeal, although that avenue appears to be closed to him as he elected not to follow the standard process for fighting anti-doping cases. The usual arbitration process was deemed to be binding by Texas federal judge Sam Sparks on August 20th, thus giving Armstrong one clear path of defence. He elected not to follow that path, and now appears to have exhausted all options" Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13131/Indurain-says-he-still-believes-Armstrong-is-innocent.aspx#ixzz2A8Dtg2WF

technically he is correct. You can't change the rules to suit an agenda. But its been done and the sport is now ******. Thats what the cycling world wanted its what we got. Live with it.

 

Somehow I think this article is relevant from the sport science guys, http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/10/uci-uphold-usada-findings-surprised.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed:+blogspot/cJKs+(The+Science+of+Sport)&m=1

 

It's a rule violation, not an illegal activity

 

A common argument that keeps coming up from supporters is that there is no "evidence" to support the sanction, or cries that the information provided by USADA hardly passed for evidence. This is amusing since witness testimony contributes to the body of evidence in legal cases, so I don't think that argument really works.

 

But more importantly, we have to be clear that USADA did not evaluate whether or not Armstrong broke a law. Instead, they evaluated whether or not he broke a rule, specifically as outlined in the rule books for cycling and triathlon during the years in question. Whether or not Armstrong is charged with a crime in the United States remains to be seen. Currently people are murmuring about the possibility of a perjury charge, since on at least one occasion during the SCA hearings he testified under oath. Can a prosecutor prove he lied? We don't know---that is not our area here, you have to visit our sister site The Law of Sport to read about that.

 

No human rights, constitutional rights, or any other rights have been violated. USADA operated within its responsibilities as an anti-doping organisation. And for anyone whose doping paradigm is still stuck in last century, sanctioning athletes in the absence of an "analytical finding" is entirely acceptable, and in this case Armstrong is just another athlete on the growing list of those who have in fact been sanctioned without ever testing positive (officially).

 

So don't bemoan the process. If you want to support him as a cancer survivor, please do. By some accounts it's a near miracle he survived such an advanced case of cancer that had spread throughout his body. But it has now become patently obvious that at least since 1998, all of his cycling success was achieved by breaking the rules. Was the era fraught with doping? Absolutely, and the UCI more than anyone else is to blame for t hat. But that does not make it ok that anyone broke the rules. And worse, he and his foundation benefited immensely as a direct result of his sporting success, which was fraudulent. His net worth is estimated upwards of $125 million, and does anyone reading think it would be that high had he not won seven tours?

[JGR]

You make an interesting point.

 

Say team Sky is fed up with Wiggo's arrogance, they bunch together and say that they saw Wiggo take gummiberry juice. Will the UCI convict him- and if not, it opens the gap for a LA appeal.

 

(PS not a Lance fanboy!)

Appearance - fixed

[Lamber]

Appearance - fixed

 

[DaLoCo]

No but that's because speeding fines work differently... However it 26 people testified that you had murdered someone, then guess what? You going to prison buddy... The fact that he never tested positive is completely irrelevant, other cyclists who never never tested positive (including some of Lance's teammates) have admitted that they used drugs during the same period.

 

So unless you can prove that the tests were effective (which you can't because hundreds of negative tests came up on doping cyclists) then the testimony of 26 people (all under subpeona) is more than sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Armstrong was guilty. It's unfortunate, as I was an Armstrong fan, but sometimes reality sucks...

Then why are they still testing if this is so unreliable....

[andydude]

and I can concur with you on this - correct me if I am wrong but he never actually failed a dope/drugs test EVER. am I right? he fought cancer and was the best cyclist in the world. Feel sorry for him that this has happened to him - therefore I wont judge him.

 

Uhmm so to have a lot of other riders doped but never tested positive. You're point you're making is actually proving Lance's guilt. The tests and systems didn't and isn't working and it's actually quite easy to beat them. And on the failed tests for Lance, go read a bit more regarding cover ups and payments, etc.

 

He fought cancer and won - correct!

 

He was the best cyclist in the world - can be debated, go contribute to the other thread trying to ascertain that.

 

Why would your feelings of being sorry for him make you not judgemental? If you didn't feel sorry, would you have judged him then?

[williamric]

Then why are they still testing if this is so unreliable....

 

Because the testing has improved dramatically in the last 6 years...

[andydude]

Then why are they still testing if this is so unreliable....

 

I don't think the point is that it's unreliable, more that the success rate is low, because it can be cheated. But I'd rather take low than nothing.

[surferchickie]

Uhmm so to have a lot of other riders doped but never tested positive. You're point you're making is actually proving Lance's guilt. The tests and systems didn't and isn't working and it's actually quite easy to beat them. And on the failed tests for Lance, go read a bit more regarding cover ups and payments, etc.

 

He fought cancer and won - correct!

 

He was the best cyclist in the world - can be debated, go contribute to the other thread trying to ascertain that.

 

Why would your feelings of being sorry for him make you not judgemental? If you didn't feel sorry, would you have judged him then?

 

so if the tests are so easily to beat - why have them? wasnt he like tested everyday during one TDF?

[Roneblack46]

26 people can say you did something, it does not mean you are guilty!

 

If there was any substance to these 26 so called "witnesses" testimonies then why did the Federal Prosecutors drop the investigation in February?

 

The FBI, Dept of Justice and USPS Inspector General formed a task team to investigate LA. They even had these witnesses testify before a special Grand Jury.

 

After all this and 2 years of investigation they dropped the case.

 

WHY?

 

They could not prove the case against LA by using the established rules designed to ensure the reliability and credibility of evidence.

 

26 people can say you did something but there needs to be corroboration.

 

From what I have read, and I stand to be corrected, it seems that there was always only one of these 26 present when making these allegations. Never 2 or more present. So the " single witness" rule to prove credibility comes into play.

 

Adding to that there is no physical evidence to corroborate ( no positive lab results or tests, even though he was tested over 500 times) these witnesses , and these witnesses admitted to committing an offense but they were never charged criminally themselves it is clear there are holes in these allegations.

 

I am a huge LA fan and am disappointed as to what has happened but to me the fact that the Federal Prosecution dropped the investigation due to lack of evidence far outweighs the findings of a Civilian body as the USADA.

 

I will still wear my Livestrong kit at races with pride.

[Roneblack46]

 

 

and I can concur with you on this - correct me if I am wrong but he never actually failed a dope/drugs test EVER. am I right? he fought cancer and was the best cyclist in the world. Feel sorry for him that this has happened to him - therefore I wont judge him.

 

 

Go Surferchickie. I am with you on that.

[williamric]

and I can concur with you on this - correct me if I am wrong but he never actually failed a dope/drugs test EVER. am I right? he fought cancer and was the best cyclist in the world. Feel sorry for him that this has happened to him - therefore I wont judge him.

 

As I said, lots of cyclists never failed dope tests and later confessed to taking drugs. Further the UCI and WADA has admitted that testing up to 2006 had very limited success. Therefore, the fact that he never failed a drug test is not proof he never doped. Just proof he never got caught. However the testimony of 26 people (who were under subpeona, i.e. they didn't volunteer, they were legally obliged to testify) is real, and is more than sufficient to imply (read "prove") guilt.

 

You cannot assert with any confidence that he was the best cyclist in the world at the time. Numerous tests have been done on the effect of doping on the human body and proven that the effect of drugs varies from person to person. In certain case studies the variation of the improvement experienced by cyclists was between 2% and 20%. Therefore some cyclists gained alot more from drug usage and others gained very little. This dispells the "they were all on drugs and therefore the playing fields were equal" argument. So in fact you cannot assert he was the best cyclist, only that he was the best doper, or that his body reacted best to the drugs.

 

Lots of people have survived cancer. It doesn't mean they deserve special treatment.

[Roneblack46]

 

 

As I said, lots of cyclists never failed dope tests and later confessed to taking drugs. Further the UCI and WADA has admitted that testing up to 2006 had very limited success. Therefore, the fact that he never failed a drug test is not proof he never doped. Just proof he never got caught. However the testimony of 26 people (who were under subpeona, i.e. they didn't volunteer, they were legally obliged to testify) is real, and is more than sufficient to imply (read "prove") guilt.

 

You cannot assert with any confidence that he was the best cyclist in the world at the time. Numerous tests have been done on the effect of doping on the human body and proven that the effect of drugs varies from person to person. In certain case studies the variation of the improvement experienced by cyclists was between 2% and 20%. Therefore some cyclists gained alot more from drug usage and others gained very little. This dispells the "they were all on drugs and therefore the playing fields were equal" argument. So in fact you cannot assert he was the best cyclist, only that he was the best doper, or that his body reacted best to the drugs.

 

Lots of people's have survived cancer. It doesn't mean they deserve special treatment.

 

Whose subpoena? And to who did they testify?

 

See my post earlier. Their testimony to a Special Grand Jury obviously was not deemed reliable or credible as the Federal Prosecution decided not to prosecute. That normally means that there was insufficient evidence.

[surferchickie]

26 people can say you did something, it does not mean you are guilty!

 

If there was any substance to these 26 so called "witnesses" testimonies then why did the Federal Prosecutors drop the investigation in February?

 

The FBI, Dept of Justice and USPS Inspector General formed a task team to investigate LA. They even had these witnesses testify before a special Grand Jury.

 

After all this and 2 years of investigation they dropped the case.

 

WHY?

 

They could not prove the case against LA by using the established rules designed to ensure the reliability and credibility of evidence.

 

26 people can say you did something but there needs to be corroboration.

 

From what I have read, and I stand to be corrected, it seems that there was always only one of these 26 present when making these allegations. Never 2 or more present. So the " single witness" rule to prove credibility comes into play.

 

Adding to that there is no physical evidence to corroborate ( no positive lab results or tests, even though he was tested over 500 times) these witnesses , and these witnesses admitted to committing an offense but they were never charged criminally themselves it is clear there are holes in these allegations.

 

I am a huge LA fan and am disappointed as to what has happened but to me the fact that the Federal Prosecution dropped the investigation due to lack of evidence far outweighs the findings of a Civilian body as the USADA.

 

I will still wear my Livestrong kit at races with pride.

 

EXCELLENT ARGUMENT!!!

[rudi-h]

26 people can say you did something, it does not mean you are guilty!

 

If there was any substance to these 26 so called "witnesses" testimonies then why did the Federal Prosecutors drop the investigation in February?

 

The FBI, Dept of Justice and USPS Inspector General formed a task team to investigate LA. They even had these witnesses testify before a special Grand Jury.

 

After all this and 2 years of investigation they dropped the case.

 

WHY?

 

They could not prove the case against LA by using the established rules designed to ensure the reliability and credibility of evidence.

 

26 people can say you did something but there needs to be corroboration.

 

From what I have read, and I stand to be corrected, it seems that there was always only one of these 26 present when making these allegations. Never 2 or more present. So the " single witness" rule to prove credibility comes into play.

 

Adding to that there is no physical evidence to corroborate ( no positive lab results or tests, even though he was tested over 500 times) these witnesses , and these witnesses admitted to committing an offense but they were never charged criminally themselves it is clear there are holes in these allegations.

 

I am a huge LA fan and am disappointed as to what has happened but to me the fact that the Federal Prosecution dropped the investigation due to lack of evidence far outweighs the findings of a Civilian body as the USADA.

 

I will still wear my Livestrong kit at races with pride.

 

I get what you are saying, and I also have a soft sport for my cycling heroes throughout the years, which happen to include Armstrong, Contador, Valverde, Basso, Vini, Rasmussen and a tonnes of other guys that have tested positive.

 

However, I think your position on the legal system regarding witnesses VS hard evidence would have been different had it been a more "serious" crime. I mean I would have been pissed off beyond any measure if a family member was raped / murdered / assaulted violently with nobody being held accountable despite 26 people who had witnessed and testified in some way or another

[Wyatt Earp]

 

If there was any substance to these 26 so called "witnesses" testimonies then why did the Federal Prosecutors drop the investigation in February?

 

 

 

I am only saying this (no tongue in cheek) because I am a bitter and twisted South African hubber wannabe-cyclist.

The Feds are scared of Armstrong and all his money, even the Illuminati fear that name ........... Lance Armstrong.

[surferchickie]

EXCELLENT ARGUMENT!!!

Whose subpoena? And to who did they testify?

 

See my post earlier. Their testimony to a Special Grand Jury obviously was not deemed reliable or credible as the Federal Prosecution decided not to prosecute. That normally means that there was insufficient evidence.

 

and I have to agree with you on this! some people simply refuse to admit this is the sham that it is. after YEARS of being randomly tested, in addition to the tests administered during the Tour, he never turned up positive, ever. His performance never suddenly peaked or changed. It steadily improved over the years which is exactly the way someone who DOESNT DOPE performs.