'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

supackofidiots

Yes, but he's still great

why did lance never get subpoenaed by the FDA when they subpoenaed everyone else - landis hamilton etc??

Leroy42

Have they actually found anything concrete on LA at this stage? (this is not a troll post btw, I am curious, and this is not meant in any way to claim he is innocent etc).

He seems from the USADA report that they have loads of witness testimony, lots of circumstantial evidence and all roads lead to one clear conclusion (the movements of money etc). But why not go back and retest his samples? The now know exactly what they are looking for. Retest the samples and take away even the slightest bit of doubt that a small number of people still seem to have.

If I was a top athlete, I would be pretty worried that I can be sentenced without any actual evidence (I do understand that circumstantial is evidence but in this context I mean a positive test result).

WADA don't come out of this well at all. Despite all the money being pumped into the organisation over the years, their position in the sports world etc, they completely missed this whole thing. What is the point in all these drug tests if they can't even catch the biggest drug cheat in the world (has that been trademarked yet?)

Could that elaveit open to the next person being caught calling into question the ability of WADA and the testers to be relied upon?

buffalo

No

Armstrong nominated for Texan of the Year award

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13576/Armstrong-nominated-for-Texan-of-the-Year-award.aspx#ixzz2GL58sRlR

I thought it was a joke...

hardCopy

No

buffalo wrote: »

Armstrong nominated for Texan of the Year award

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13576/Armstrong-nominated-for-Texan-of-the-Year-award.aspx#ixzz2GL58sRlR

I thought it was a joke...

It's not really a complimentary award though.

“Now the Armstrong brand will forever be that of a fighter, a survivor and a cunning, steely-eyed liar.”

The final verdict on the award will be announced in the coming days. The newspaper underlines that the winner may be decided more on notoriety than on success.

“The Dallas Morning News Texan of the Year is a distinction we bestow for impact, be it for better or for worse. It reflects the prominence of what Texans do, not what we’d prefer them to do.”

hardCopy

No

Leroy42 wrote: »

Have they actually found anything concrete on LA at this stage? (this is not a troll post btw, I am curious, and this is not meant in any way to claim he is innocent etc).

He seems from the USADA report that they have loads of witness testimony, lots of circumstantial evidence and all roads lead to one clear conclusion (the movements of money etc). But why not go back and retest his samples? The now know exactly what they are looking for. Retest the samples and take away even the slightest bit of doubt that a small number of people still seem to have.

If I was a top athlete, I would be pretty worried that I can be sentenced without any actual evidence (I do understand that circumstantial is evidence but in this context I mean a positive test result).

WADA don't come out of this well at all. Despite all the money being pumped into the organisation over the years, their position in the sports world etc, they completely missed this whole thing. What is the point in all these drug tests if they can't even catch the biggest drug cheat in the world (has that been trademarked yet?)

Could that elaveit open to the next person being caught calling into question the ability of WADA and the testers to be relied upon?

Testimony from multiple eye-witnesses is concrete enough for just about any court in the world.

You don't need to find the murder weapon when everyone saw him do it.

Lumen

Leroy42 wrote: »

Have they actually found anything concrete on LA at this stage? (this is not a troll post btw, I am curious, and this is not meant in any way to claim he is innocent etc).

He seems from the USADA report that they have loads of witness testimony, lots of circumstantial evidence and all roads lead to one clear conclusion (the movements of money etc). But why not go back and retest his samples? The now know exactly what they are looking for. Retest the samples and take away even the slightest bit of doubt that a small number of people still seem to have.

If I was a top athlete, I would be pretty worried that I can be sentenced without any actual evidence (I do understand that circumstantial is evidence but in this context I mean a positive test result).

I've read that samples are only kept for eight years.

Your last sentence is a bit confused w.r.t "actual evidence". Eyewitness testimony is "actual evidence", as is circumstantial evidence (as you state yourself). So what's the problem?

tfrancer

[QUOTE=MPFG;. … However Armstrong did not create the doping system in cycling…he simply exploited it and he was not alone…He did it with the acquiescence of other cyclists, managers, teams, UCI , many fans and probably some sponsors…..[/QUOTE]

Yes, but every pantomime has to have a villain!

Leroy42

The eight year idea is redundant. He won his last tour in 2005, so that gives them at least 2004 & 2005. Hell, he was back in the sport in 2009 & 2010. Why not go back to test these again?

hardcopy, it is of course possible to get a conviction without a weapon, or even the victim, but it is incredibly difficult. Any police force will try to back up the eye witness claims with hard evidence as they know that eye witness testimony is the least reliable.

Given the serious nature of this case, for each of LA, UCI and sport in general, I would have expected that given the detailed evidence of Tyler and others they would have gone after the hard evidence. The fact that they haven't found any is worrying (worrying for drug testing)

A lot is made of athletes being ahead of the testers, but in this case the testers know exactly who to look for, where to look, how it was hidden and when, yet they still can't find it?

RobFowl

No

Leroy42 wrote: »

A lot is made of athletes being ahead of the testers, but in this case the testers know exactly who to look for, where to look, how it was hidden and when, yet they still can't find it?

The tests are quite limited in what they can detect and for how long after taking something it can be detected. Also they have to be very strongly positive so as to stand up in court.
LA had multiple "suspicious" tests which indicated drug use but were not at the level required to be legally infallible. The Bo Hamburger case where the EPO tests failed in court (he later admitted taking it) made the UCI very wary of the level required.

That is why drug testing is only part of the array of tools the anti doping authorities use.

Also LA has decided not to contest the findings so the evidence was enough to convince him at least even if not you

Chips Lovell

No

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why not go back to test these again?

They did and found that he'd been blood doping.

Flandria

No

^^^

What he said...

Mr. Bileka and Mr. Bertagnolli confirm Dr. Ferrari’s involvement in doping, including through advice regarding the use of EPO and blood doping, in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.448 Thus, in combination with Mr. Simeoni, the witness statements described by Mr. Ferranted and the U.S. riders from whom USADA has obtained affidavits USADA has first hand eyewitness evidence establishing Dr. Ferrari’s involvement in doping in each year relevant to the case involving Mr. Armstrong as follows: 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010.

Halloween Jack

Leroy42 wrote: »

The eight year idea is redundant. He won his last tour in 2005, so that gives them at least 2004 & 2005. Hell, he was back in the sport in 2009 & 2010. Why not go back to test these again?

hardcopy, it is of course possible to get a conviction without a weapon, or even the victim, but it is incredibly difficult. Any police force will try to back up the eye witness claims with hard evidence as they know that eye witness testimony is the least reliable.

Given the serious nature of this case, for each of LA, UCI and sport in general, I would have expected that given the detailed evidence of Tyler and others they would have gone after the hard evidence. The fact that they haven't found any is worrying (worrying for drug testing)

A lot is made of athletes being ahead of the testers, but in this case the testers know exactly who to look for, where to look, how it was hidden and when, yet they still can't find it?

I don't understand why they aren't kept indefinitely................

If we acknowledge that the cheats are ahead of the testers, then hold the sample for future use, when the testers catch up??

Didn't Armstrong test positive for EPO years after the fact?

Surely that is one thing that might deter athletes? The idea that even if they get away with it now, they may be exposed at a later date?

Before this story broke i was completely ignorant of doping, but since it broke ive read everything i could find on the subject, it seems to me that cycling has a bad name for doping merely because there have been positive tests. From my reading there is no doubt in my mind that all other sports are rife with cheating and that this is an open secret at the highest level in some of them.

I know this will sound daft, but cycling as a sport is lucky it has heavyweights like Kimmage and walsh willing to dig deep and take on the powers that be. There seems to be no comparable figures in the likes of football, tennis or golf...

tfrancer

At least one US legal expert has said that it would be have been almost impossible for Armstrong to have defended himself against USADA's process.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2012/08/28/the-kafkaesque-trial-of-lance-armstrong-a-former-federal-prosecutor-on-the-us-anti-doping-agencys-disregard-for-due-process/

Flandria

No

tfrancer wrote: »

At least one US legal expert has said that it would be have been almost impossible for Armstrong to have defended himself against USADA's process.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2012/08/28/the-kafkaesque-trial-of-lance-armstrong-a-former-federal-prosecutor-on-the-us-anti-doping-agencys-disregard-for-due-process/

Yet another variation on the witch hunt theme... It's difficult to take the views seriously of a 'legal expert' who trots out the tired 500 tests nonsense, especially when that particular myth has long been exploded

tfrancer

Flandria wrote: »

Yet another variation on the witch hunt theme... It's difficult to take the views seriously of a 'legal expert' who trots out the tired 500 tests nonsense, especially when that particular myth has long been exploded

You don't think a former Federal Prosecutor is a legal expert?!

He acknowledges in the follow-up article that he, like many, was fooled by the 500 tests claim but he sticks to his main point that athletes in general deserve better than USADA's "kangaroo court" process.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2012/10/24/clear-guilt-but-kafkaesque-procedures-the-armstrong-case-revisited/

RobFowl

No

Halloween Jack wrote: »

I don't understand why they aren't kept indefinitely................

Firstly the samples degrade over time, secondly there is a logistical problem storing an ever increasing number of samples.
Some selected ones are saved long term but often for research purposes.

Flandria

No

tfrancer wrote: »

You don't think a former Federal Prosecutor is a legal expert?!

He acknowledges in the follow-up article that he, like many, was fooled by the 500 tests claim but he sticks to his main point that athletes in general deserve better than USADA's "kangaroo court" process.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2012/10/24/clear-guilt-but-kafkaesque-procedures-the-armstrong-case-revisited/

Sh1t, I only got this troll-o-meter a couple of days ago and you've already broken it with your 'kangaroo court';)

Dermot Illogical

No

tfrancer wrote: »

At least one US legal expert has said that it would be have been almost impossible for Armstrong to have defended himself against USADA's process.

Guilt can have that effect.

supackofidiots

Yes, but he's still great

why wasn't armstrong subpoenaed for the federal case?

wonderfullife

No

supackofidiots wrote: »

why wasn't armstrong subpoenaed for the federal case?

Even until recently Federal Prosecutors are debating joining the Landis whistleblower lawsuit.

Anybody still questioning his guilt should ask yourself this: Why did Armstrongs lawyers attempt to settle with SCA (the insurers) recently? The myth of Armstrong is that he's a fighter, if either he or his lawyers genuinely believed in his innocence they would fight every lawsuit. The notion he is giving up for an easy life/no stress simply doesn't wash when these lawsuits are going to decimate his finances. It's a much easier life with your $150 million in the bank than losing most of it.

Bottom line he's guilty as sin. He knows it, they know it. His Twitter absence says it's all. Prolific tweeter pre-USADA report, resigned to a couple of retweets every few weeks. Yeah, probably on legal advice to shut up, but still an "innocent man" would continue to plead his innocence.

This whole episode reminds me of the scene in the original American Pie movie, when Shermanators lies are exposed at the dance to brutal embarrassment. All the swagger, confidence, brashness just drains away and your left looking like a tool.

supackofidiots

Yes, but he's still great

is Landis still suing Tailgate?

tbf, guys like Landis and Hamilton have ample reason to lie about Lance.

dave2pvd

No

wonderfullife wrote: »

Anybody still questioning his guilt should ask yourself this: Why did Armstrongs lawyers attempt to settle with SCA (the insurers) recently?

I wouldn't read too much into that. Most litigation cases in the US do not end up in court - they are settled out of court. For civil cases, the figure is over 90%, IIRC. It's simply a path to conclude a legal action, not an acknowledgement of guilt. Often, the path is chosen as it is the least wasteful of the defendant's (and plaintiff's) resources.

wonderfullife

No

dave2pvd wrote: »

I wouldn't read too much into that. Most litigation cases in the US do not end up in court - they are settled out of court. For civil cases, the figure is over 90%, IIRC. It's simply a path to conclude a legal action, not an acknowledgement of guilt. Often, the path is chosen as it is the least wasteful of the defendant's (and plaintiff's) resources.

You're quite right - and that would be fine if this was the sole lawsuit but when settlement out-of-court on a lawsuit will undoubtedly lead to a floodgate opening of suits, then it's not the course of action an innocent man would take.

You've got SCA, the Sunday Times, the Whistleblower lawsuit on behalf of the government by Landis, then you've got a steady stream of possibles - from anybody who paid out libel money, organisations looking for prize money returned + interest, you could easily argue that Emma O' Reilly, the Andreus, David Walsh etc have a defammation case to bring, any ex-sponsor who had a robust contract in place,

If he settles with one, he'll settle with them all. Yeah that may well be more prudent than fighting them all and ruining himself in legal fees and court cases. It's not an admission of guilt. But if he fought the SCA case it may deter others from pursuing him. He's in damage limitation mode but the attempt to settle is not going to limit the damage but expose him to a flurry of lawsuits. I would not be surprised to see in the region of 20 lawsuits against him in 2013.

wonderfullife

No

supackofidiots wrote: »

is Landis still suing Tailgate?

tbf, guys like Landis and Hamilton have ample reason to lie about Lance.

People like to sling mud about those 2. I quite like Hamilton, seems affable and repentent. Yeah he might be a duplicitous snake, i don't know him personally.

George Hincapie? Emma O' Reilly? Betsy Andreu? Stephen Swart? These guys generally speaking gained nothing in coming out against Lance.

tfrancer

Flandria wrote: »

Sh1t, I only got this troll-o-meter a couple of days ago and you've already broken it with your 'kangaroo court';)

Always wondered what a "troll" was. It's someone who makes a reasonable point you don't agree with!

Dermot Illogical

No

supackofidiots wrote: »

why wasn't armstrong subpoenaed for the federal case?

Is the answer "Because he's a suspect, not a witness"?

Beasty

No

Flandria wrote: »

Sh1t, I only got this troll-o-meter a couple of days ago and you've already broken it with your 'kangaroo court';)

tfrancer wrote: »

Always wondered what a "troll" was. It's someone who makes a reasonable point you don't agree with!

Accusing other posters of trolling is back-seat modding - if anyone has an issue with someone else's post(s) report it and leave it to the mods to deal with as appropriate - do not respond in-thread

Thanks

Beasty

LeftBlank

An apologist article from Graham Watson.

http://www.grahamwatson.com/view/viewmain.html

Bluefoam

No

LeftBlank wrote: »

An apologist article from Graham Watson.

http://www.grahamwatson.com/view/viewmain.html

If he cheated, he cheated the other cheats of that era, even if by doing so he also cheated an adoring public. He didn’t kill anyone along the way, and as a father of five, he’s no child molester either.

That's not necessarily true... 8 young riders died due to steroid use (that we know of), & you would have to question whether Lance was culpable in their deaths...

Flandria

No

https://twitter.com/GreyManrod/status/76379733880868864

What he said;)