I think that Armstrong has it hard enough these days. He has been punished enough now, he really struggles
Now we learn from it so it never happens again. He says he began to dope in the mid-90s, and this is SO long ago by now.
Kav0777 wrote: » Jens Voigt's reaction:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/voigt-armstrong-has-been-punished-enough Edit to say: oh and the obligatory
Hermy wrote: » And by times they are queueing up to be hoodwinked.
greenmat wrote: » I lasted 3 mins 55 secs before turning off, a lying cheating b**tard. Why believe what he has to say now?
Lumen wrote: » He admitted doping for his entire career up to 2005. Whilst I don't think that gets him off the hook for further legal action, I don't believe it either. Why would he stop completely?
morana wrote: » must be denying doping in 09/10 because of statute of limitations or something. His blood profiles from the giro and tour are indicative of doping.
The image of cycling suffered in that era, today it is totally different
letape wrote: » And this Basso's response: What a joke - has never come clean or shown any remorse himself.
petethedrummer wrote: » '...I could be winning TDFs if everyone was clean".
Thomas Weisel who bankrolled and owned Lance Armstrong's former cycling team, also managed assets for the then-head of cycling's governing body, according to a broker who handled the accounts.
Lusk Doyle wrote: » This thread is going to surpass the good doctor's camper van in terms of views and posts in no time at all. Good auld Lance!
Raam wrote: » Images of Beauty is still miles out in front.
Beasty wrote: » If you aggregate this with the other Lance threads though ...
Raam wrote: » What if we aggregate all the other pics of bike threads...
robs1 wrote: » I know alot of people are saying that he should have gone into more detail about the drug taking and the uci money. but surely if he wants to do a deal with usada and wada he has to wait to go under oath because if tells all the details he will have no bargaining tool
WADA Code wrote: Substantial Assistance in Discovering or Establishing Anti-Doping Rule Violations An Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility for an anti-doping rule violation may, prior to a final appellate decision under Article 13 or the expiration of the time to appeal, suspend a part of the period of Ineligibility imposed in an individual case where the Athlete or other Person has provided Substantial Assistance to an Anti- Doping Organization, criminal authority or professional disciplinary body which results in the Anti-Doping Organization discovering or establishing an anti-doping rule violation by another Person or which results in a criminal or disciplinary body discovering or establishing a criminal offense or the breach of professional rules by another Person. After a final appellate decision under Article 13 or the expiration of time to appeal, an Anti-Doping Organization may only suspend a part of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility with the approval of WADA and the applicable International Federation. The extent to which the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended shall be based on the seriousness of the anti-doping rule violation committed by the Athlete or other Person and the significance of the Substantial Assistance provided by the Athlete or other Person to the effort to eliminate doping in sport. No more than three-quarters of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended. If the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime, the non-suspended period under this section must be no less than eight (8) years. If the Anti-Doping Organization suspends any part of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility under this Article, the Anti-Doping Organization shall promptly provide a written justification for its decision to each Anti-Doping Organization having a right to appeal the decision. If the Anti-Doping Organization subsequently reinstates any part of the suspended period of Ineligibility because the Athlete or other Person has failed to provide the Substantial Assistance which was anticipated, the Athlete or other Person may appeal the reinstatement pursuant to Article 13.2.
Comment to Article 10.5.3: The cooperation of Athletes, Athlete Support Personnel and other Persons who acknowledge their mistakes and are willing to bring other antidoping rule violations to light is important to clean sport. Factors to be considered in assessing the importance of the Substantial Assistance would include, for example, the number of individuals implicated, the status of those individuals in the sport, whether a scheme involving Trafficking under Article 2.7 or administration under Article 2.8 is involved and whether the violation involved a substance or method which is not readily detectible in Testing.
The maximum suspension of the Ineligibility period shall only be applied in very exceptional cases. An additional factor to be considered in connection with the seriousness of the anti-doping rule violation is any performance-enhancing benefit which the Person providing Substantial Assistance may be likely to still enjoy. As a general matter, the earlier in the results management process the Substantial Assistance is provided, the greater the percentage of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended.
If the Athlete or other Person who is asserted to have committed an anti-doping rule violation claims entitlement to a suspended period of Ineligibility under this Article in connection with the Athlete’s or other Person’s waiver of a hearing under Article 8.3 (Waiver of Hearing), the Anti-Doping Organization shall determine whether a suspension of a portion of the period of Ineligibility is appropriate under this Article. If the Athlete or other Person claims entitlement to a suspended period of Ineligibility before the conclusion of a hearing under Article 8 on the anti-doping rule violation, the hearing panel shall determine whether a suspension of a portion of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is appropriate under this Article at the same time the hearing panel decides whether the Athlete or other Person has committed an anti-doping rule violation. If a portion of the period of Ineligibility is suspended, the decision shall explain the basis for concluding the information provided was credible and was important to discovering or proving the anti-doping rule violation or other offense. If the Athlete or other Person claims entitlement to a suspended period of Ineligibility after a final decision finding an anti-doping rule violation has been rendered and is not subject to appeal under Article 13, but the Athlete or other Person is still serving the period of Ineligibility, the Athlete or other Person may apply to the Anti-Doping Organization which had results management responsibility for the anti-doping rule violation to consider a suspension in the period of Ineligibility under this Article. Any such suspension of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall require the approval of WADA and the applicable International Federation. If any condition upon which the suspension of a period of Ineligibility is based is not fulfilled, the Anti-Doping Organization with results management authority shall reinstate the period of Ineligibility which would otherwise be applicable. Decisions rendered by Anti-Doping Organizations under this Article may be appealed pursuant to Article 13.2. This is the only circumstance under the Code where the suspension of an otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is authorized.
Neeson wrote: » Is it on 2am Irish time again?
Spindle wrote: » That's it I am done with following Cycling for good, there is no way that this interview "cleans up" Cycling, it is just rinse repeat. Cycling will be here again......
