Lance Armstrong being stripped of all titles.

Ri na hEireann · 24-08-2012 04:41PM

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 04:43PM

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 04:46PM

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 04:50PM

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 05:01PM

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 06:50PM

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 06:52PM

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 07:03PM

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 07:07PM

Fúcking cùnts.

lorrieq · 24-08-2012 07:09PM

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 07:12PM

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 07:30PM

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 07:37PM

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 08:16PM

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 08:27PM

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 08:54PM

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 08:58PM

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 09:05PM

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?

Einhard · 24-08-2012 11:37PM

It's funny. I was just sayng to my father today that there will be many, many people who will continue to support Lance Armstrong because they just don't want to believe that he's guilty. My father laughed, and pointed out the damning evidence against him. To which I replied along the lines of there's none so deaf as those who don't want to hear. And I think this thread kinda proves it.

I've no ax to grind in any of this. I'm not a cycling fan. I'm neither a fan nor a hater with regards Armstrong. I'm a neutral who is interested in this story. Having read numerous reports on the matter though, I'm convinced that Armstrong cheated, and cheated on a grand scale. I think its fairly clear to a non-partisan observed, that the only reason he won't contest the charges is because he fears having all the damning evidence rehearsed in an open forum. This way, while he loses his titles and many fans, he will still retain the support of many who just can't stomach facing what appears to many as reality.

Just to add: illegal drugs and supplements have always been one step ahead of the detection mechanisms. As soon as the authorities come up with a means to detect one drug, another, better one is synthesised or developed. The idea therefore, that passing drugs' tests is conclusive proof that one is entirely free of drugs is laughable, and so laughable indeed as to be entirely disingenuous.

Kev M · 25-08-2012 01:40AM

Einhard wrote: »

It's funny. I was just sayng to my father today that there will be many, many people who will continue to support Lance Armstrong because they just don't want to believe that he's guilty. My father laughed, and pointed out the damning evidence against him. To which I replied along the lines of there's none so deaf as those who don't want to hear. And I think this thread kinda proves it.

I've no ax to grind in any of this. I'm not a cycling fan. I'm neither a fan nor a hater with regards Armstrong. I'm a neutral who is interested in this story. Having read numerous reports on the matter though, I'm convinced that Armstrong cheated, and cheated on a grand scale. I think its fairly clear to a non-partisan observed, that the only reason he won't contest the charges is because he fears having all the damning evidence rehearsed in an open forum. This way, while he loses his titles and many fans, he will still retain the support of many who just can't stomach facing what appears to many as reality.

Then there's the people who actually have a clue, and realise that LA competed on a level playing field where everyone used something...
The guy has been a role model professional. He's done so much good in his life, it's saddening to see his name dragged through the mud like this when his only REAL crime is being the best...

Einhard · 25-08-2012 02:06AM

Kev M wrote: »

Then there's the people who actually have a clue, and realise that LA competed on a level playing field where everyone used something...

Ummm, if he competed on a level playing field wwhere everyone used something, that would mean that he also used something. You're agreeing with me...

The guy has been a role model professional. He's done so much good in his life,
it's saddening to see his name dragged through the mud like this when his only
REAL crime is being the best...

Ah now, here's the nub. If Armstrong was a complete douchebag, who hadn't survived cancer, and wasn't a genial, likeable guy, then people like you wouldn't be defending him. You're letting your emotions cloud your objectivity. I have read fairly extensively on this over the past while because it's an interesting case and, well, I like to read! It's pretty clear, IMO, that there is a huge amount of evidence against Armstrong.

Just answer me this: if Armstrong had nothing to hide, why not contest the charges? I know that if I was wrongly accused of something I would fight it like mad. More specifically, why doesn't he allow his samples taken prior to 1999 to be tested using the latest methods? Why...because he has something to hide.

Kev M · 25-08-2012 02:43AM

Einhard wrote: »

Ummm, if he competed on a level playing field wwhere everyone used something, that would mean that he also used something. You're agreeing with me...

Ah now, here's the nub. If Armstrong was a complete douchebag, who hadn't survived cancer, and wasn't a genial, likeable guy, then people like you wouldn't be defending him. You're letting your emotions cloud your objectivity. I have read fairly extensively on this over the past while because it's an interesting case and, well, I like to read! It's pretty clear, IMO, that there is a huge amount of evidence against Armstrong.

Just answer me this: if Armstrong had nothing to hide, why not contest the charges? I know that if I was wrongly accused of something I would fight it like mad. More specifically, why doesn't he allow his samples taken prior to 1999 to be tested using the latest methods? Why...because he has something to hide.

Refer back to my first sentence, you're not one of those people.

Paudee · 25-08-2012 02:58AM

Kev M · 25-08-2012 03:00AM

Einhard wrote: »

Ah now, here's the nub. If Armstrong was a complete douchebag, who hadn't survived cancer, and wasn't a genial, likeable guy, then people like you wouldn't be defending him. You're letting your emotions cloud your objectivity. I have read fairly extensively on this over the past while because it's an interesting case and, well, I like to read! It's pretty clear, IMO, that there is a huge amount of evidence against Armstrong.

.

My view would be the same no matter who it was regarding what he's being punished for. His story just adds to the disappointment in the whole situation.

Einhard wrote: »

Just answer me this: if Armstrong had nothing to hide, why not contest the charges? I know that if I was wrongly accused of something I would fight it like mad. More specifically, why doesn't he allow his samples taken prior to 1999 to be tested using the latest methods? Why...because he has something to hide.

I never said I thought he was clean.

hardCopy · 25-08-2012 10:35AM

Kev M wrote: »

Einhard wrote: »

Ah now, here's the nub. If Armstrong was a complete douchebag, who hadn't survived cancer, and wasn't a genial, likeable guy, then people like you wouldn't be defending him. You're letting your emotions cloud your objectivity. I have read fairly extensively on this over the past while because it's an interesting case and, well, I like to read! It's pretty clear, IMO, that there is a huge amount of evidence against Armstrong.

.

My view would be the same no matter who it was regarding what he's being punished for. His story just adds to the disappointment in the whole situation.

Einhard wrote: »

Just answer me this: if Armstrong had nothing to hide, why not contest the charges? I know that if I was wrongly accused of something I would fight it like mad. More specifically, why doesn't he allow his samples taken prior to 1999 to be tested using the latest methods? Why...because he has something to hide.

I never said I thought he was clean.

Most of his peers have already been caught, why should he be let off?

He's also made a point of attacking and shaming anyone who accused him for years.

I can't imagine any new winners will be appointed retrospectively as in most cases second and third are already tainted, in 2005 you'd have to go back to 8th place to find a clean winner.

Lance didn't just "level the playing field" he distributed drugs to his team-mates, encouraged their use and ran one of the most professional doping rings in the peleton. He had more money than anyone else to pump into medicine.

His team director Johan Bruyneel is still working and is on the USADA's list. We see further detail when they go after him.

The UCI have been despicable in how they've handled this, hopefully Pat McQuaid won't last long in his position.

Gipo3 · 25-08-2012 10:47AM

Still people believe Armstrong. There is some right plonkers on this forum.

goat2 · 25-08-2012 11:01AM

if he really wants t o clear his name, he should leave them retest these samples, if he does not want retesting done, then that makes it questionable to me,

Monty Burnz · 25-08-2012 11:19AM

Kev M wrote: »

Then there's the people who actually have a clue, and realise that LA competed on a level playing field where everyone used something...
The guy has been a role model professional. He's done so much good in his life, it's saddening to see his name dragged through the mud like this when his only REAL crime is being the best...

What a stupid post. It's entirely possible that the guy who should have won those races is some extremely talented but honest pro who, because he's clean, has trailed in behind 30 or 40 or 50 dopers. The fact that Armstrong was the best of the cheats does not mean that he deserves the titles. Can you imagine how good any of the clean riders have to be to compete against the dopers - to even be in the same race? And I'm afraid if you expect us to believe that every single professional rider in the world is cheating, then you are going to have to present some proof.

Lance Armstrong being stripped of all titles.

Comments