Lance Armstrong being stripped of all titles.

The Guvnor

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

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

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

ferike1

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

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

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

mattser

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ri na hEireann wrote: »

Are you actually for real?

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

ferike1

Hanley

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

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

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

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

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

he is guilty

just accept it and move on

eyescreamcone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.