Lance Armstrong being stripped of all titles.

The Guvnor · 24-08-2012 11:37am #1

Not read up on this yet but still a bit of a surprise to be stripped of all titles etc.

http://www.parade.com/celebrity/news/2012/08/23-lance-armstrong-to-be-stripped-of-medals.html

Hanley · 24-08-2012 2:52pm

Dont get me started. It's a ****ing disgrace.

USADA have no authority to tell UCI what to do anyway.

ferike1 · 24-08-2012 3:10pm

I haven't really looked into the statements and what not, I do feel for the guy but like any rational person would think, if he is innocent, why not fight it? Dude beat cancer for crying out loud! Its just a bunch of idiot bureaucrats.

Hanley · 24-08-2012 3:21pm

ferike1 wrote: »

I haven't really looked into the statements and what not, I do feel for the guy but like any rational person would think, if he is innocent, why not fight it? Dude beat cancer for crying out loud! Its just a bunch of idiot bureaucrats.

He's fought it 3 times. The French went on a witch hunt 2x, THE US FEDERAL COURT F*CKING TOOK HIM ON AND LOST, there is nothing left to prove. He's beaten cancer, the world's best athletes, and the US and French justice system. The only thing that's "beaten" him is a committee which has decided to convict him with no evidence. You can't prove a negative. Complete bullsh*t.

ferike1 · 24-08-2012 3:24pm

That's fair enough. I didn't know all that. Does sound like it is a major witchhunt!

mattser · 24-08-2012 3:24pm

Hanley wrote: »

He's fought it 3 times. The French went on a witch hunt 2x, THE US FEDERAL COURT F*CKING TOOK HIM ON AND LOST, there is nothing left to prove. He's beaten cancer, the world's best athletes, and the US and French justice system. The only thing that's "beaten" him is a committee which has decided to convict him with no evidence. You can't prove a negative. Complete bullsh*t.

+1

The Guvnor · 24-08-2012 3:28pm

Thanks H - I just heard and was not upto speed on what went on.

Basically some members of a committee don't like him?

seamus · 24-08-2012 3:31pm

Hanley wrote: »

USADA have no authority to tell UCI what to do anyway.

Actually the contention here isn't that clear.

If USADA find Armstrong guilty of doping at one event, then they can apply a retrospective ban which automatically disqualifies all results obtained during this "ban". So if they declare him guilty of doping in 2000 and impose a lifetime ban, then all of his professional results from 2000 on are automatically disqualified. The UCI do not have the power to block it.

I suspect Armstrong is preparing a case at the moment to take to WADA rather than dealing directly with USADA, as I'd be surprised if he let it all go after fighting for so long.

Jerrica · 24-08-2012 3:32pm

Hanley wrote: »

He's fought it 3 times. The French went on a witch hunt 2x, THE US FEDERAL COURT F*CKING TOOK HIM ON AND LOST, there is nothing left to prove. He's beaten cancer, the world's best athletes, and the US and French justice system. The only thing that's "beaten" him is a committee which has decided to convict him with no evidence. You can't prove a negative. Complete bullsh*t.

There's an interesting thread on AH about it. According to that thread the evidence against him is compelling, and his former team mates were lined up to speak against him (although their motivation may be questionable depending on what they had to lose).

This link was posted which describes a tester having proof that he has doped in the past.

I wouldn't be able to say either way what the real story is, but he's neither squeaky clean or tarred dirty. Is it possible for an athlete to be somewhere in the middle??

Ri na hEireann · 24-08-2012 3:36pm

Hanley wrote: »

He's fought it 3 times. The French went on a witch hunt 2x, THE US FEDERAL COURT F*CKING TOOK HIM ON AND LOST, there is nothing left to prove. He's beaten cancer, the world's best athletes, and the US and French justice system. The only thing that's "beaten" him is a committee which has decided to convict him with no evidence. You can't prove a negative. Complete bullsh*t.

Are you actually for real?

Hanley · 24-08-2012 3:39pm

Ri na hEireann wrote: »

Are you actually for real?

No. I'm a spam bot. would you like to buy some cheese.

If there was evidence, it would be EVERYWHERE by now. And by "evidence", I mean actual hard test results. A and B samples testing negative. But there isn't. Why is that...? The silence is deafening.

Do I believe he's fully clean? Probably. Has he operated in line with the system of detection and the rules at hand? 100%.

mattser · 24-08-2012 3:39pm

Ri na hEireann wrote: »

Are you actually for real?

Is the ' evidence ' against L.A. real ?

ferike1 · 24-08-2012 3:40pm

Hanley · 24-08-2012 3:40pm

seamus wrote: »

Actually the contention here isn't that clear.

If USADA find Armstrong guilty of doping at one event, then they can apply a retrospective ban which automatically disqualifies all results obtained during this "ban". So if they declare him guilty of doping in 2000 and impose a lifetime ban, then all of his professional results from 2000 on are automatically disqualified. The UCI do not have the power to block it.

I suspect Armstrong is preparing a case at the moment to take to WADA rather than dealing directly with USADA, as I'd be surprised if he let it all go after fighting for so long.

As far as I'm aware the UCI are considering a legal challenge against the USADA on it?! I'd expect to see it go thru WADA and CAS for sure.

Jerrica · 24-08-2012 3:44pm

Hanley wrote: »

If there was evidence, it would be EVERYWHERE by now. And by "evidence", I mean actual hard test results. A and B samples testing negative. But there isn't. Why is that...? The silence is deafening.

Haven't a number of athletes been permanently banned from cycling without any concrete tests though? I do see what you're saying, but do you think there's a case that athletes are extremely clued in as to how to avoid positive testing and other evidence has to be relied on (like the personal accounts and previous history)?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here btw, I'd love to believe that LA is 100% innocent, but that belief is unfortunately in the minority at the moment.

ferike1 · 24-08-2012 3:47pm

This isn't directly linked to LA but it makes for depressing reading

http://www.pendlayforum.com/showthread.php?t=6611

Interview from a couple years back on doping of top athletes.

Hanley · 24-08-2012 3:52pm

Jerrica wrote: »

Haven't a number of athletes been permanently banned from cycling without any concrete tests though? I do see what you're saying, but do you think there's a case that athletes are extremely clued in as to how to avoid positive testing and other evidence has to be relied on (like the personal accounts and previous history)?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here btw, I'd love to believe that LA is 100% innocent, but that belief is unfortunately in the minority at the moment.

If someone beats the system, then the system is f*cked. Superior performance and enemies with an axe to grind shouldn't be grounds for the presumption of guilt. I'd have been screwed in PL if that was the case considering how many times I was tested.

The amount of tests and processes LA underwent were rigourous. He's either the smartest and most careful man alive with the best lab techs in the world, the system is brutal, or he is clean. Any way, he hasn't tested positive.

Jerrica · 24-08-2012 4:01pm

Hanley wrote: »

If someone beats the system, then the system is f*cked.

The system is completely f*cked. If it weren't the use of PEDs would be such a problem

Hanley wrote:

Superior performance and enemies with an axe to grind shouldn't be grounds for the presumption of guilt.

Good point but not all of those claiming to have witnessed LA in dubious practices are sworn enemies. Landis? Sure. Emma O'Reilly? Not so much.

Hanley wrote:

But I'd have been screwed in PL if that was the case considering how many times I was tested.

It's interesting you say that, there is - and I genuinely mean no disrespect here - the possibility that there is an emotive component of your argument given that you've faced this battle yourself. Unfortunately there is genuine evidence stacked against LA, albeit older tests, but still. I'm assuming you never had any dubious testing at all so you really were fighting against grinding axes.

Hanley wrote:

The amount of tests and processes LA underwent were rigourous. He's either the smartest and most careful man alive with the best lab techs in the world, the system is brutal, or he is clean. Any way, he hasn't tested positive.

It's entirely possible that he really is an exceptionally smart and careful man. There were a lot of people who were set to benefit financially in a big way following LA's success. I'd love to believe he was clean during his career, but it just doesn't add up.

nice_guy80 · 24-08-2012 4:03pm

he is guilty

just accept it and move on

eyescreamcone · 24-08-2012 4:04pm

New Rules

You're guilty if:
1. Your A+B samples test positive (in or out of competition) - EVIDENCE
or
2. Some lads SAY you took illegal substances - HERESAY

Maybe the 'witnesses' took photos of Lance 'shooting up'
AND had a sample of the substance he took (and this substance when tested was on the banned list)
AND they could somehow prove that this was the substance he was taking in the photo
This would be like EVIDENCE to me.

Otherwise... get out the gate!!!

Hanley · 24-08-2012 4:05pm

nice_guy80 wrote: »

he is guilty

just accept it and move on

I still believe innocent until proven guilty is the way forward. There's no proof.

That doesn't mean I believe he was fully clean.

Hanley · 24-08-2012 4:10pm

Jerrica wrote: »

It's interesting you say that, there is - and I genuinely mean no disrespect here - the possibility that there is an emotive component of your argument given that you've faced this battle yourself. Unfortunately there is genuine evidence stacked against LA, albeit older tests, but still. I'm assuming you never had any dubious testing at all so you really were fighting against grinding axes.

This is a possibility I fully acknowledge

allybhoy · 24-08-2012 4:15pm

Hanley wrote: »

He's fought it 3 times. The French went on a witch hunt 2x, THE US FEDERAL COURT F*CKING TOOK HIM ON AND LOST, there is nothing left to prove. He's beaten cancer, the world's best athletes, and the US and French justice system. The only thing that's "beaten" him is a committee which has decided to convict him with no evidence. You can't prove a negative. Complete bullsh*t.

Eh...have you even read the facts in this case? USADA has a book of evidence against him as long as your arm. They had ten former teammates all ready to testify against him in court. They had his former massouse, Emma O'Reilly (irish girl by the way) ready to testify that she disposed of syringes, collected drugs and also helped him use concealer on syringe marks. His litigation team have tried to intimadate and scare her into keeping quiet but she didnt ...

"I've got a nice quiet life here and I know what I've said is going to cause a lot of controversy, but I just felt that with the way the sport had become, it was time to speak out,"

Why would all these people be willing to testify against him if he was innocent? Maybe one or two you could say it was out of begrudgery etc but 10 former teammates? And lets not forget, they all state that LA pushed doping on them, he wasnt just naively doping the way you could argue Ben Johnson might have been etc. He actively pushed them on his teammates. 10 of them will testify to this, including Landis.

Why did he use Ferrari as his doctor ? A man who's career has been constantly linked with doping and bloodwork and who has had his medical license revoked?

And as for the UCI? Dont get me started on that bunch of immoral cnts. Its openly known that LA provides annual funding to the UCI. Why would the UCI try and fight USADA against taking this case? Why would they try and protect another body from discovering a drug cheat in their sport? Why? Because they colluded in it and helped he covered up.
Quote from Travis Tygart head of USASA investigation..

"UCI and the participants in the conspiracy who cheated sport with dangerous performance enhancing drugs to win have a strong incentive to cover up what transpired, The participants in the conspiracy have lashed out in the press, gone to Congress and filed a lawsuit to avoid a public display of the evidence before neutral judges. Efforts to intimidate, scare or pressure us to conceal the truth will not stop us from doing the job we are mandated to do."

Do you honestly believe that LA didnt want to go any further because he was "tired" of fighting?" and he was "finished with this nonsense" So he just lets them strip away his 7 TDF's and possibly an olympic bronze medal instead? If LA had of tried to fight this he easily could have, but he didnt. Why not? Because he knew that in court the world would have heard the dirty details of his career and like any rat he tried to jump a sinking ship. If he was innocent he would have gone to the ends of the earth to prove his innocence, but he's notinnocent.

Hopefully though it looks like USADA will release their findings and evidence regardless. The man is a fraud....do your research.

Jerrica · 24-08-2012 4:16pm

Hanley wrote: »

This is a possibility I fully acknowledge

I think it's an instinctual reaction that any athlete who has been wrongly accused would have! When you're involved in a tested sport (especially one that's mired with accusation from the general public) and you know how hard it really is to get the top (PEDs or not) it's frustrating to see mud slinging. You (pl.!) don't want to believe that someone has been lying because it undermines clean athletes.

Monty Burnz · 24-08-2012 4:19pm

ferike1 wrote: »

I haven't really looked into the statements and what not, I do feel for the guy but like any rational person would think, if he is innocent, why not fight it? Dude beat cancer for crying out loud! Its just a bunch of idiot bureaucrats.

Except the balance of probabilities at this stage suggests it's 99.9% certain that he cheated his way to all those wins.

nice_guy80 · 24-08-2012 4:24pm

Michelle Smith de Bruin has come out in support of Lance Armstrong.

fair play to her.

***********
actually no she hasn't.
But wouldn't it be funny if she did?

Hanley · 24-08-2012 4:25pm

allybhoy wrote: »

Eh...have you even read the facts in this case? USADA has a book of evidence against him as long as your arm. They had ten former teammates all ready to testify against him in court. They had his former massouse, Emma O'Reilly (irish girl by the way) ready to testify that she disposed of syringes, collected drugs and also helped him use concealer on syringe marks. His litigation team have tried to intimadate and scare her into keeping quiet but she didnt ...

"I've got a nice quiet life here and I know what I've said is going to cause a lot of controversy, but I just felt that with the way the sport had become, it was time to speak out,"

Why would all these people be willing to testify against him if he was innocent? Maybe one or two you could say it was out of begrudgery etc but 10 former teammates? And lets not forget, they all state that LA pushed doping on them, he wasnt just naively doping the way you could argue Ben Johnson might have been etc. He actively pushed them on his teammates. 10 of them will testify to this, including Landis.

Why did he use Ferrari as his doctor ? A man who's career has been constantly linked with doping and bloodwork and who has had his medical license revoked?

And as for the UCI? Dont get me started on that bunch of immoral cnts. Its openly known that LA provides annual funding to the UCI. Why would the UCI try and fight USADA against taking this case? Why would they try and protect another body from discovering a drug cheat in their sport? Why? Because they colluded in it and helped he covered up.
Quote from Travis Tygart head of USASA investigation..

"UCI and the participants in the conspiracy who cheated sport with dangerous performance enhancing drugs to win have a strong incentive to cover up what transpired, The participants in the conspiracy have lashed out in the press, gone to Congress and filed a lawsuit to avoid a public display of the evidence before neutral judges. Efforts to intimidate, scare or pressure us to conceal the truth will not stop us from doing the job we are mandated to do."

Do you honestly believe that LA didnt want to go any further because he was "tired" of fighting?" and he was "finished with this nonsense" So he just lets them strip away his 7 TDF's and possibly an olympic bronze medal instead? If LA had of tried to fight this he easily could have, but he didnt. Why not? Because he knew that in court the world would have heard the dirty details of his career and like any rat he tried to jump a sinking ship. If he was innocent he would have gone to the ends of the earth to prove his innocence, but he's notinnocent.

Hopefully though it looks like USADA will release their findings and evidence regardless. The man is a fraud....do your research.

If he was such a good doper and forcing it on his teammates, why did they test positive/get caught?

It's funny that athletes who have been caught are now trying to wash their hands of it and blame Armstrong for "making" them do it.

As for Emma O'Reilly, I could be REALLY cynical and say her "nice quiet life" has become boring and she wants some publicity.

Aren't a lot of his blood tests still held? Now that they apparently know what they're looking for can they not test retrospectively?

How many times has he been tested over his career and not provided positive As and Bs?

I don't want to put my fingers in my ears and go "la-la-la", but why is there no evidence. If I committed a murder, but a body, weapons or footage was never found, could I be convicted based off what people were saying?!

Monty Burnz · 24-08-2012 4:26pm

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Michelle Smith de Bruin has come out in support of Lance Armstrong.

fair play to her.

***********
actually no she hasn't.
But wouldn't it be funny if she did?

Well they have something in common - a conspiracy (for some reason) against them to make it look like they were cheating feckers while neither of them ever (officially) failed a test. Of course, if De Bruin had the swimming authorities eating out of her hand the way Armstrong does the UCI, she probably would have won a dozen Olympic medals before she finished.

Monty Burnz · 24-08-2012 4:28pm

Hanley wrote: »

If he was such a good doper and forcing it on his teammates, why did they test positive/get caught?

It's funny that athletes who have been caught are now trying to wash their hands of it and blame Armstrong for "making" them do it.

So you think Armstrong was SOOOO good that he beat all the other top guys over a decade even though they were all doping and he wasn't? :rolleyes:

Good god man. We all wish he was clean - it was an amazing story. He isn't, unfortunately, and the stories that we are expected to believe at this stage are a bit too amazing.

allybhoy · 24-08-2012 4:34pm

Hanley wrote: »

If he was such a good doper and forcing it on his teammates, why did they test positive/get caught? Not all of them got caught but the majority of them did, he also bet them all...

Aren't a lot of his blood tests still held? Now that they apparently know what they're looking for can they not test retrospectively?

Yes they can and they offered, but Armstrong refused..... what would his motives be for refusing to test the samples? AFLD said there is no way they could be contaminated but Armstrong knows better yeh?

"In October 2008, the AFLD gave Armstrong the opportunity to have samples taken during the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France retested.[97] Armstrong immediately refused, saying, "the samples have not been maintained properly." Head of AFLD Pierre Bordry stated: "Scientifically there is no problem to analyze these samples – everything is correct" and "If the analysis is clean it would have been very good for him. But he doesn't want to do it and that's his problem."[98]"

Hanley · 24-08-2012 4:34pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So you think Armstrong was SOOOO good that he beat all the other top guys over a decade even though they were all doping and he wasn't? :rolleyes:

Good god man. We all wish he was clean - it was an amazing story. He isn't, unfortunately, and the stories that we are expected to believe at this stage are a bit too amazing.

You obviously aren't actually reading my posts.

Ri na hEireann · 24-08-2012 4:41pm

Hanley wrote: »

If there was evidence, it would be EVERYWHERE by now. And by "evidence", I mean actual hard test results. A and B samples testing negative. But there isn't. Why is that...? The silence is deafening.

Do I believe he's fully clean? Probably. Has he operated in line with the system of detection and the rules at hand? 100%.

There is evidence. So much evidence in fact I find it bemusing that there's still people like yourself with the wool pulled firmly over their eyes. Even in terms of satisfying the criminal burden of beyond reasonable doubt there's plenty of evidence. Just because his doping programme in the late 90s to mid2000s was far ahead of the testers at the time shouldn't mean that we just accept his word for what it is. Your definition of 'evidence' isn't useful in this sort of case but even at that there's reason to believe that there are positive tests linked to Armstrong's samples.

In any case he did test positive on the 99 tour but the UCI (wrongly) accepted back-dated prescriptions(possibly forged as Emma O'Reilly would argue, who has no axe to grind with Lance) and allowed him continue on the tour and subsequently win it. Even the 2005 l'Équipe story confirms what everyone suspected and I'm sure this would satisfy a jury as to evidence.

Testimony at least 10 former team mates would be put forward at arbitration.
The like of Hincapie, Landis, Hamilton and others were willing to testify. You may question the bona fides of some of these as witnesses but surely the sheer amount of them coupled with the reality that most of those he was beating were caught for doping, as were a significant number of team mates.

Then there's the Dr. Ferrari connection and all his baggage dating back to the mid-90s and the Gewis team. As Jan Ullrich once said "Whoever still can't put one and one together about what happened in cycling is beyond my help." The same applies to LA.

He refuses to allow retrospective testing on the samples due to issues regarding chain of custody. Convenient for him really. The UCI are as much a part of the problem...this could have all been stopped if the foot was put down in 1999 especially following the previous year's Festina debacle. Even now UCI is showing how it's a part of the doping problem instead of part of the cure.

I hope all the evidence can be made public in some way for some actual closure. Given his consistent and unwavering claim that he hasn't doped not contesting seems to say all that needs to be said.

Antisocialiser · 24-08-2012 4:43pm

When a conclusive test for the use of EPO was first developed in 2000, Lance's preserved urine samples from 1999 tested positive.

He was cleared on the basis that the samples may have been handled incorrectly. It's noteworthy that he was defended by the a high profile lawyer with lots of experience with other doping athletes.

Monty Burnz · 24-08-2012 4:46pm

Hanley wrote: »

You obviously aren't actually reading my posts.

You obviously haven't been following the story - 'no evidence'. :rolleyes:

Ri na hEireann · 24-08-2012 4:50pm

Antisocialiser wrote: »

When a conclusive test for the use of EPO was first developed in 2000, Lance's preserved urine samples from 1999 tested positive.

He was cleared on the basis that the samples may have been handled incorrectly. It's noteworthy that he was defended by the a high profile lawyer with lots of experience with other doping athletes.

I'll give him this much, he was certainly the most shrewd doper. He did and does use his vast wealth to bat away accusations through using the best lawyers and finding the most technical legal route to avoid any retrospective testing that would put the final nail in his legacy's rotting coffin whilst managing to maximise the cancer-slaying victimisation of Lance Armstrong.

He also had the UCI salivating between his arsecheeks and they've done their level best to protect him, so much so that it has taken the USADA to grab the bull by the horns.

hardCopy · 24-08-2012 5:01pm

eyescreamcone wrote: »

New Rules

You're guilty if:
1. Your A+B samples test positive (in or out of competition) - EVIDENCE
or
2. Some lads SAY you took illegal substances - HERESAY

Maybe the 'witnesses' took photos of Lance 'shooting up'
AND had a sample of the substance he took (and this substance when tested was on the banned list)
AND they could somehow prove that this was the substance he was taking in the photo
This would be like EVIDENCE to me.

Otherwise... get out the gate!!!

You mean like eye-witness testimony? From multiple unconnected sources? Yeah, that would never be admissible in court.

The feds dropped the case because they couldn't prove he brought drugs over borders or misused federal funding to buy drugs.

The guy is guilty as hell and he's a dickhead to boot.

Scuba Ste · 24-08-2012 6:50pm

Hanley wrote: »

I don't want to put my fingers in my ears and go "la-la-la", but why is there no evidence. If I committed a murder, but a body, weapons or footage was never found, could I be convicted based off what people were saying?!

Murder, probably not but the Special Criminal Court could convict you based on that kind of evidence.

Personally I think he's guilty but I think it's a very dangerous precedent to ban an athlete that hasn't failed a test.

It's also likely that most of those he beat were using something too. Will they be all chased down?

eyescreamcone · 24-08-2012 6:52pm

hardCopy wrote: »

eyescreamcone wrote: »

New Rules

You're guilty if:
1. Your A+B samples test positive (in or out of competition) - EVIDENCE
or
2. Some lads SAY you took illegal substances - HERESAY

Maybe the 'witnesses' took photos of Lance 'shooting up'
AND had a sample of the substance he took (and this substance when tested was on the banned list)
AND they could somehow prove that this was the substance he was taking in the photo
This would be like EVIDENCE to me.

Otherwise... get out the gate!!!

The guy is guilty as hell and he's a dickhead to boot.

Have you evidence that he's a dickhead or is this just more opinion/heresay!

To beat drugged up athletes consistently you would probably need to be on something yourself (in my opinion).
However, he jumped through all the testing hoops put in his way.
It seems the rules can be changed when necessary.

squod · 24-08-2012 7:03pm

I'm annoyed at the cheek of that committee trying to over-rule the governing body. Smacks of desperation. Members trying to ride this gravy train a little longer by making some finding or another.

Many mentions of EPO on here. I'm confused. Aren't the USADA accusing him of blood doping?

Typically, an athlete has up to four units of blood removed a month or more before competition. Technicians then use a centrifuge to separate the red blood cells from this sample; the RBCs are placed in cold storage, only to be reinfused shortly before the big race.

lorrieq · 24-08-2012 7:07pm

Fúcking cùnts.

lorrieq · 24-08-2012 7:09pm

squod wrote: »

I'm annoyed at the cheek of that committee trying to over-rule the governing body. Smacks of desperation. Members trying to ride this gravy train a little longer by making some finding or another.

Many mentions of EPO on here. I'm confused. Aren't the USADA accusing him of blood doping?

Typically, an athlete has up to four units of blood removed a month or more before competition. Technicians then use a centrifuge to separate the red blood cells from this sample; the RBCs are placed in cold storage, only to be reinfused shortly before the big race.

I think his teammates said he used EPO but he's charged over blood doping?

Monty Burnz · 24-08-2012 7:12pm

Scuba Ste wrote: »

It's also likely that most of those he beat were using something too. Will they be all chased down?

They already have been - most of his top competitors have already been caught for doping.

hardCopy · 24-08-2012 7:30pm

eyescreamcone wrote: »

hardCopy wrote: »

eyescreamcone wrote: »

New Rules

You're guilty if:
1. Your A+B samples test positive (in or out of competition) - EVIDENCE
or
2. Some lads SAY you took illegal substances - HERESAY

Maybe the 'witnesses' took photos of Lance 'shooting up'
AND had a sample of the substance he took (and this substance when tested was on the banned list)
AND they could somehow prove that this was the substance he was taking in the photo
This would be like EVIDENCE to me.

Otherwise... get out the gate!!!

The guy is guilty as hell and he's a dickhead to boot.

Have you evidence that he's a dickhead or is this just more opinion/heresay!

To beat drugged up athletes consistently you would probably need to be on something yourself (in my opinion).
However, he jumped through all the testing hoops put in his way.
It seems the rules can be changed when necessary.

Yes, I've read his books and followed him on twitter for a long time.

The tests will never be up to the latest doping technology, the guy has been seen doping and enabling/encouraging doping by at least 10 team-mates, including his former best mate and his former protege.

Scuba Ste · 24-08-2012 7:37pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

They already have been - most of his top competitors have already been caught for doping.

Fair enough. Hang the b@stard then.

aloyisious · 24-08-2012 8:16pm

RTE Radio sports ran an item on Lance losing his TDF medals. It seem's that Lance lost his case in Federal Court for an injunction against USADA re the allegations, so after he threw in the towel, an existing code within the cycling world rules agreed to by the UCI and National Federations, came into play.

This code seem's to state that medals or awards won by a cyclist in races or competitions abroad can be stripped from him/her by his/her home country for offences abroad, and this includes if the cyclist chooses not to take/or loses court action against his/her national federation or (in this case - USADA) to stop charges/proceedings advancing. In Lance's case, as he opted not to oppose USADA taking action against him, the code can be used against him (by default - so to speak).

I had assumed that only the TDF or LCL could take his TDF medals away from Lance, but it seem's I was wrong.

seamus · 24-08-2012 8:27pm

aloyisious wrote: »

I had assumed that only the TDF or LCL could take his TDF medals away from Lance, but it seem's I was wrong.

Strictly speaking they didn't specifically take his results away, they were lost by default, like you say.

The anti-doping code gives any of the national anti-doping authorities the power to test their athletes and make findings of guilt and impose sanctions. These findings and sanctions then apply worldwide. It makes sense, otherwise you would have local authorities fighting with WADA, or athletes could change jurisdiction to avoid a ban.

Findings and bans can be backdated to the alleged date of the offence(s), so we've seen cases of athletes banned for two years but only serving six months because the offence occured 18 months previous.
One consequence of a backdated ban is that any medal/win achieved in any competition during the ban is instantly declared null.
This is automatic and applies to all events and competitions run by organisations who are signatories to the code.

USADA have found that LA's doping offence was committed in 1998 and applied a lifetime ban. This has the automatic effect of disqualifying any and all results he achieved after that date.

It's a little bit crap, but it's a sound idea in theory. A bit of a landmark though applying it 14 years later and declaring a lifetime ban.

Brian? · 24-08-2012 8:54pm

Hanley wrote: »

ferike1 wrote: »

I haven't really looked into the statements and what not, I do feel for the guy but like any rational person would think, if he is innocent, why not fight it? Dude beat cancer for crying out loud! Its just a bunch of idiot bureaucrats.

He's fought it 3 times. The French went on a witch hunt 2x, THE US FEDERAL COURT F*CKING TOOK HIM ON AND LOST, there is nothing left to prove. He's beaten cancer, the world's best athletes, and the US and French justice system. The only thing that's "beaten" him is a committee which has decided to convict him with no evidence. You can't prove a negative. Complete bullsh*t.

There is evidence which will be releases in due course now that he's decided not to contest the case.

He's not contesting. He's entitled to due process like anyone else but has chosen not to take up that right. I have no idea why you're so vociferous in your defence of Armstrong, he's as dirty as they come.

Brian? · 24-08-2012 8:58pm

Hanley wrote: »

Jerrica wrote: »

Haven't a number of athletes been permanently banned from cycling without any concrete tests though? I do see what you're saying, but do you think there's a case that athletes are extremely clued in as to how to avoid positive testing and other evidence has to be relied on (like the personal accounts and previous history)?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here btw, I'd love to believe that LA is 100% innocent, but that belief is unfortunately in the minority at the moment.

If someone beats the system, then the system is f*cked. Superior performance and enemies with an axe to grind shouldn't be grounds for the presumption of guilt. I'd have been screwed in PL if that was the case considering how many times I was tested.

The amount of tests and processes LA underwent were rigourous. He's either the smartest and most careful man alive with the best lab techs in the world, the system is brutal, or he is clean. Any way, he hasn't tested positive.

Also, he did indeed test positive in 1999 he magically produced a prescription that was back dated and the UCI let him off. He should have had a 2 year ban for that but dodged a bullet because in 1999 the UCI still hadn't fully committed to an anti doping crusade.

hardCopy · 24-08-2012 9:05pm

briankeating wrote: »

Also, he did indeed test positive in 1999 he magically produced a prescription that was back dated and the UCI let him off. He should have had a 2 year ban for that but dodged a bullet because in 1999 the UCI still hadn't fully committed to an anti doping crusade.

As they say in France, "plus ca change..."

jive · 24-08-2012 11:16pm

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence against Armstrong. Anyone who has followed the story knows this. Even if he didn't produce any positive samples, which he did, the testing was/is shít. Anyone who believes that none of these athletes are dirty is naive. I'm not sure why people give Lance such an easy time, maybe it's because he overcame cancer and is a good role model; if this was anyone else they'd have served a ban during the years he was most successful.

Hanley you know your shít but it's obvious you haven't followed his case(s) all that closely. As the saying goes "beyond reasonable doubt" which at this point it might be. It's not something you usually see in sport though so is quite a dangerous precedent so I'm torn in that regard but having such an interest in drugs in sport.... I'm not all that disappointed by the outcome. Again, cycling has been dragged through the mud but I guess that's what they get for tackling the issue unlike the vast majority of other sports. I do think the various proceedings have been very unfair on Armstrong but I find it hard to feel sorry for him.

Lantus · 24-08-2012 11:30pm

Sport at this level is much the same as war. Whatever defence you create someone will create something to circumnavigate it. The spoils are simply too great to not attempt to bend the rules or enhance your chances even a little bit if the risk is perceived as acceptable.

An average of 200km cycled at a performance level every day for 20 days with only 2 rest days and people have to even question whether drugs are being taken?

Lance Armstrong being stripped of all titles.

Comments