Lance Armstrong

[Roundabout]

Question

How does the US governing body have any standing in stripping wins of a France run race?

 

[Jake]

Here's the proof - doing what Armstrong is doing does nothing but hurt him. The only thing that could hurt him more would be facing the allegations and having them be proven true. An innocent man doesn't just stop defending himself against such reputation-destroying allegations. He has too much to lose. The dude has done a ridiculous amount of good for the world, I understand the crusade to defend him. He was dominant in a sport full of cheaters. That should've been evidence enough. This just puts the nail in the coffin.

It sucks, but it's pretty obvious what's going on here. Damage control.

That's like saying anyone who takes a plea bargain is proven guilty. That's ridiculous, and at odds with the law for good reason.

Sometimes your best option is to cut your losses because even though the evidence does not convict you people believe they "know" otherwise, so you can't win. Reactions like yours are WHY he said fuck it, and threw in the towel.

I don't know what he did or didn't do, and you don't either. I do know he never failed a test. If the tests don't mean shit then why bother doing them?

 

[ScriptOhio]

This just in.....

Former Wisconsin Senator reincarnated and heads up the USDA:

 

[BayBuck]

Lance didn't dope like Roger Clemens didn't dope.

Got nothin' on me, got nothin' on me, right?

 

[Brutus1]

Do I think he doped? Sure. I don't care either.

If the Commission was so concerned with getting him, they had their
chance when he submitted dozens of samples when he was winning against
the Frenchies. They never found anything. Thay had their chance. Too bad.

It's not a lie, if you believe it.

 

[bassbuckeye07]

I would still drink a Mich Ultra with him

 

[3074326]

That's like saying anyone who takes a plea bargain is proven guilty. That's ridiculous, and at odds with the law for good reason.

Sometimes your best option is to cut your losses because even though the evidence does not convict you people believe they "know" otherwise, so you can't win. Reactions like yours are WHY he said fuck it, and threw in the towel.

I don't know what he did or didn't do, and you don't either. I do know he never failed a test. If the tests don't mean shit then why bother doing them?

"Fuck it, I'll take a big PR hit and lose my reputation."

That doesn't sound like something Lance Armstrong would do unless he had to. That actually goes against everything he's ever done/said. I don't care if you disagree with me or the others, but don't act like we're doing it based on nothing.

 

[knapplc]

Huge Lance Armstrong fan. Watched as much coverage of his Tour wins as I could here in the states.

I think it's more than highly likely he cheated.

Just like everyone else in cycling. That's not an excuse for his cheating, but it bears mentioning.


Also bears mentioning:

All Seven Of Lance Armstrong's Tour De France Wins Would Now Go To Cyclists With Doping Scandals Of Their Own


1999: Alex Zulle (confessed to EPO use)
2000: Jan Ullrich (suspended from 2006 Tour; banned this year and stripped of all results from 2005 on)
2001: Jan Ullrich
2002: Joseba Beloki (kept out of 2006 Tour while under doping investigation, later cleared)
2003: Jan Ullrich
2004: Andreas Klöden (accused of illegal blood transfusion in the 2006 Tour)
2005: Ivan Basso (confessed to attempted doping, suspended)

 

[Jake]

By the way, I am not arguing that Armstrong is innocent. His performance after beating cancer was superhuman and he may well have been doing something against the rules. It certainly seems more likely than not.

My point is two-fold:

First, just because someone decides to cut their losses and put an unpleasant episode behind them it is not prima facie evidence of an admission of guilt. Again, the legal system is full of examples contradicting that notion.

Second, if passing all of the tests is irrelevant compared to the testimony of other people, then why bother with the testing at all? Apparently, it isn't reliable. At least, it's not as reliable as the words of people who got their asses kicked by Armstrong and probably didn't like it.

 

[knapplc]

Jake, I'm right there with you on your analysis. The only thing about point #2 you make there is - if Armstrong fought every other allegation, every time, no matter who brought it, why stop this time?

My guess - and again I'm a huge fan of his and this is admittedly pure speculation - modern tests of his past samples reveal evidence of doping or EPO or something.

That's all I can think of. Who cares if Floyd Landis and some medical experts testify against him? Like you said, if the testimony was that important, why test at all? The answer has to be that they have more than just the testimony. There must be some physical evidence or a career fighter, not old by any means, with decades left to defend his career, would still fight.

I don't believe for a second that he's just tired of the fight. The man is a born competitor. No way does he just walk away.


It's also galling in the extreme that Jan Ullrich would now be given Armstrong's titles. I will never forget The Look:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F94TCxLYZew"]Lance Armstrong Alpe D'Huez - YouTube[/ame]

 

[AuTX Buckeye]

Jake, I'm right there with you on your analysis. The only thing about point #2 you make there is - if Armstrong fought every other allegation, every time, no matter who brought it, why stop this time?

My guess - and again I'm a huge fan of his and this is admittedly pure speculation - modern tests of his past samples reveal evidence of doping or EPO or something.

That's all I can think of. Who cares if Floyd Landis and some medical experts testify against him? Like you said, if the testimony was that important, why test at all? The answer has to be that they have more than just the testimony. There must be some physical evidence or a career fighter, not old by any means, with decades left to defend his career, would still fight.

I don't believe for a second that he's just tired of the fight. The man is a born competitor. No way does he just walk away.


It's also galling in the extreme that Jan Ullrich would now be given Armstrong's titles. I will never forget The Look:

Lance Armstrong Alpe D'Huez - YouTube

yeah the problem with that is there is a lot of issues of who stored the samples and how they were stored... Testing old samples is cool as long as they are controlled. If i was on a jury and they'd have to convince me that they treated those samples the way the CDC treats viruses they study.

and btw that was, if i remember correctly, a French Lab driven by a French cycling paper, with a history of questionable storage techniques.

In all of this, the French were the most adamant about his guilt... yet they gave up a while ago...

 

[knapplc]

Yeah, that French rag always trying to dig up dirt on Armstrong is L'Equipe.

Check out their front page. They're not just a little excited about this.

 

[OH10]

My point is two-fold:

First, just because someone decides to cut their losses and put an unpleasant episode behind them it is not prima facie evidence of an admission of guilt. Again, the legal system is full of examples contradicting that notion.

I agree it isn't prima facie evidence of guilt. I do think it's appropriate to question why he would drop the fight now before he had an opportunity to confront his accusers at a hearing. If they're lying (as he has suggested), then you should confront them.

My guess (and that's all anyone can do) is that it would have caused his image even further damage going through with a hearing and risking that the damning testimony would be reported in the media. It does seem doubtful he would have won anyway. Dropping it was probably the lesser of two bad choices. But no, it doesn't prove he's guilty.

If we're talking about proof, then absent a hearing, it's going to be difficult convince the most ardent Armstrong supporters.

Second, if passing all of the tests is irrelevant compared to the testimony of other people, then why bother with the testing at all? Apparently, it isn't reliable. At least, it's not as reliable as the words of people who got their asses kicked by Armstrong and probably didn't like it.

Passing the tests wouldn't be irrelevant. The quality and quanitity of each piece of evidence gets weighed accordingly. Positive drug tests may be the best evidence, but it is certainly not the only type of evidence. Corroborated eyewitness testimony from several witnesses who would have had an opportunity to observe the alleged conduct would seem to be quite persuasive.

 

[Buckeye513]

Jake, I'm right there with you on your analysis. The only thing about point #2 you make there is - if Armstrong fought every other allegation, every time, no matter who brought it, why stop this time?

My guess - and again I'm a huge fan of his and this is admittedly pure speculation - modern tests of his past samples reveal evidence of doping or EPO or something.

That's all I can think of. Who cares if Floyd Landis and some medical experts testify against him? Like you said, if the testimony was that important, why test at all? The answer has to be that they have more than just the testimony. There must be some physical evidence or a career fighter, not old by any means, with decades left to defend his career, would still fight.

At the moment, I - and I don't really give a shit about Lance, cycling, the TdF, or doping - believe his statement about not wanting to indulge the USADA in their witch hunt by participating in a kangaroo trial. After coming this far, they would probably find him guilty based on the testimonies alone.

If there's actually physical evidence, that information should be released or leaked shortly.

 

[7 Heismans]

Post #62:

He did, over $500 Million. Thats legendary in the human race. Screw what the USDA thinks.

Post #65:

Its a witch hunt bro. If you got it, show it. They are the USDA with nothing to hide or gain from hiding any evidence.

Post #72:

It may be odd that he is backing down but its not too off when you think about it. The courts agreed that there are flaws in the USDA's argument and that there is little evidence. The problem is that after fighting off the witch hunt, the courts still allowed this crap to continue. If he went to court and tried to defend himself against both public opinion as well as the USDA and somehow loses, he will then be a deemed a cheater via law - something that can't be reversed. At least by backing out he can save face. Also, going to court is expensive, the USDA has deep pockets that Lance doesnt have.

Post #77:

This was his shining moment or the moment in which the USDA could get some cheaters on stage to point fingers and use the public opinion against him? How do you know what he had to hide, or are you speculating?

Why you are insistent that the United States Department of Agriculture is/was involved in the Lance Armstrong doping scandal[FONT=&quot][/FONT]?