To be honest I’m not really interested in reading any old articles.
When I see proof from the USADA I’ll make up my mind.

Just reading John Fahey’s comments and tbh if that’s what WADA consider to be an impartial response, I can see why Armstrong wouldn’t want much to do with them… “Yeah, I’m not going to attempt to understand why he would do this. Though in the next sentence, I will totally say it can only be because he’s a cheat. Cheat cheat cheat. Also, USADA- LOVE YOUR WORK! Let’s do lunch” The comment about how there’s been no previous tribunal/hearing, therefore this is the first part of the process and there’s nothing for him to be tired of- that just seems absurd tbh.

Don’t get me wrong- the logical assumption for many reasons does seem to be that he was a doper. But that’s not enough, and the ruling bodies should be acting and talking based on the evidence not on “well it stands to reason” And tbh, stuff like this does make me slightly sympathetic to him- there’s bull**** on both sides.

so what’s the point of him carry on with this trial?
So they can prove him guilty?
Why don’t they just do that anyway without him?

they sent him the charges and he refused to defend them- should they find him innocent?
He could have proved his innocence – or that the charges were incorrect- by facing them in court.
His refusal to fight the charges will be taken by them as an admission of the charges which, he will , of course, deny.

I suspect in time the evidence will come out but I do not know what the actual process is tbh. One of those accused is fighting so i assume it will be during or after that trial

the ruling bodies should be acting and talking based on the evidence not on “well it stands to reason”

they are they charged him with offences and he did not defend them. If the Crown prosecution Service charge you with an offence because they feel they have enough evidence to convict you and you choose not to defend it what would you expect them to say ? Oh drop the charges they must be innocent?
Why is this any different?
it should be taken as an admission of guilt. FFS he is drained …..Yes LA is deffo a quitter 🙄

Junkyard – Member

If the Crown prosecution Service charge you with an offence because they feel they have enough evidence to convict you and you choose not to defend it what would you expect them to say ? Oh drop the charges they must be innocent?

No- but neither do they say “Oh you must be guilty then, stands to reason!” Declining to defend yourself isn’t a good idea, but it’s not an admission of guilt.

Now guilt would be an obvious motivation, but not the only possible one. Armstrong’s claimed motivation seems less credible to me, but still plausible. There’s certainly room for doubt, unfortunately.

At the end of the day- “I’m loaded, I’m retired, I’m fed up of this, I don’t like or trust you lot, and I’ve got other **** to do” might not be the best response, but I don’t think you can just dismiss it outright.

And having the chief of the world governing body speak like this before the dust has settled is not encouraging, IMO. I’m left trusting neither.

There is no comparison with the crown prosecution service charging us. There are simply no issues of jurastiction in that case. If you were charged in britain you would not be told that failing to attend would lead to an assumption of guilt.

I’m very suspicious of LA but that doesn’t mean that the way he is being dealt with is fair

I’m interested to know whwther this sentence is true..

“Given the assertion of jurisdiction and authority by the Union Internationale Cycliste (“UCI”), and its mandate that no one associated with UCI or USA Cycling should participate in such an arbitration, which was confirmed by USA Cycling, Mr. Armstrong cannot proceed into the arbitration.”

OK a bit of googling found this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/24/lance-armstrong-uci

It looks like the next step is for usda to submit stuff to UCI….

Oh you must be guilty then, stands to reason!” Declining to defend yourself isn’t a good idea, but it’s not an admission of guilt.

But you would be found guilty and he /you would know this. Of course, from the LA plausible deniability is not the worst outcome

Armstrong’s claimed motivation seems less credible to me, but still plausible.

I am sure he thought long and hard about coming up with something plausible he could spin- that not a troll I am sure he did

it is damage limitation with a plausible denial angle and well thought out by his team

If you were clean why would you stop? Like I say whatever anyone thinks of LA we all know he is no quitter

There is no comparison with the crown prosecution service charging us. There are simply no issues of jurastiction in that case

from your link

But the Usada chief executive, Travis Tygart, is confident that is not the case. He told velonation.com: “They [Armstrong and his legal team] have already taken legal action and the federal judge told them we do have authority and our process is the process where those complaints can be made.

Still more of the LA spin.

Junkyard – Member

If you were clean why would you stop?

As above- if you don’t have faith in the process or the judges, you may not wish to submit to them. You may even believe that this would give them credibility- “no smoke without fire” Even if you win, it won’t be fun, and you can look forward to news headlines of all the allegations.

I don’t think there was any way he’d get through this without having his name muddied, even if found innocent. And it’d have a major impact on his life in the meantime. So again- reasonable doubt.

And frankly, it’s all such a total mess, there’s plenty of room for grey areas. And the responsibility for that lies with the governing bodies, who we’re now supposed to put total faith in to resolve it?

I don’t think we can trust or rely on either party tbh.

Which is the best[reasonable doubt] LA could achieve once charged so job done IMHO

Many will side with him or remain unsure and it will be a greater number than if he had been found guilty so damage limitation with plausible deniability.

LA is not a quitter though and I was very surprised by this and really did take it as both an admission of guilt and defeat tbh or as good/close as we will ever get from him.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/lance-armstrong-lets-down-single-person-who-still,29313/

Isn’t refusing to defend yourself the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going “La la la la la”?

Whatever happens, there’s a book or two in this, probably being written now by people claiming to have the full story.

How would he prove it?

He could undermine the evidence against him. It seems he has realised he can’t.

I think the criminal analogy is reasonable, just the stakes are lower.

I don’t get this “he can’t prove a negative” defence. Read the charging letter… This is about so much more than just his own alleged doping. A dozen or more witnesses, testifying that there was a big conspiracy including riders persuaded/cajoled into doping. Are you seriously saying he shouldn’t need to respond to that because it’s hard to disprove?

I am saddened by the whole thing whether he’s guilty or not. Armstrong was an inspiration to millions and helped to make road cycle racing into the global sport it is today. Whatever the outcome this is not good for the sport in my opinion.

Every few generations a phenomenal athlete comes along in any sport. Looks like we’ll never know for certain if it was Armstrong in the cycling world. 🙁

Interview with usada CEO
http://www.danpatrick.com/2012/08/24/usadas-tygart-comments-on-decision-to-strip-armstrong-of-tour-de-france-titles/

Are you seriously saying he shouldn’t need to respond to that because it’s hard to disprove?

I think the point was that it’s logically impossible to prove a negative. So nothing to do with the case just a point of logic.

It’s no different to any other such proceeding. Evidence and witnesses are presented, challenged, and the whole thing is decided on a defined balance

Tygart has said that they will release the evidence when the time is right.

I don’t get this “he can’t prove a negative” defence

What spin said it was reference to how he would prove he is clean now not how he would refute the charges.

As I said I think it is an admission of guilt and and proof that he wont ever actually admit it.
he has done the best he can so he can keep up the myth BS that he never failed a drug test [ lie] , most tested athlete [ unlikely to be true and certainly not 500-600 tests he claims] and say it was all a witch hunt etc and that was why he did not defend himself

LA is not a quitter and he just quit
I am sure h ha s strategy ready for LA the martyr stripped of titles without a fair trial etc to continue this spin of what he is like
What he is is a cheat and a liar and we can all be certain now he will never admit it nor seek redemption

Whatever the outcome this is not good for the sport in my opinion.

What this does to cycling is up to cyclists and fans IMO.

Another drugs cheat – the biggest, most sanctimonious, and now hypocritical ever – has been found.

This can only be a giood thing.

This ^ I really don’t understand why rooting out drugs cheats is not good for sport? They either need to be rehabilitated ( millar, vaughters) or ostracised ( Armstrong ) depending on their admission of guilt. Vino is one who lacked contrition and im glad to see the back of him (and Armstrong) but the sport needs more people to come clean and explain why this all happened and what measures should be done to make sure it doesn’t happen again, would like some dirt to stick to McQuaid though, all the time he is there is proof that the governing body is able to be manipulated by those with money.

LA comes over as a fairly nasty piece of work which is a shame as there is no doubt he’s done a lot of good for cancer sufferers over the years.

From what I’ve read I’m left with no doubt in my mind that LA was guilty over doping. I’m also certain that the only way he’s now decided to stop fighting it is because it still leaves that very slim get-out that he might still be innocent to those few still gullible enough to believe him. Given what we’ve seen over the years I’m certain LA would fight this (and enjoy doing so) in court if he felt he had a chance.

The US governing bodies have previous for covering up for their own drug cheats even after they’ve failed multiple drug tests (e.g. Carl Lewis and some 100 or so others). That, plus the acrimonious history with LA, seems to mean that the US authorities are now going out of their way to prove they’re not covering up this time.

We need Quincy on the case, he’ll solve it in less than an hour, probably ending with a dramatic confession from Lance as he’s led away in handcuffs!

Very interesting that LA MUST be guilty I thought it was innocent until PROVEN guilty?

If the USADA have evidence and witnesses (allegedly) why are they not prepared to disclose this information to LA’s defence team prior to the ‘hearing’?

In any other court of law/arbitration system the defence have the right to full disclosure of the ‘prosecution’ evidence to enable them to prepare a case but USADA deem that they do not have to follow this?

So did LA dope or not? I don’t know either way and neither does the rest of the world as there has been no PUBLISHED and VERIFIED evidence. If this was in the UK it wouldn’t even get to court as it’s so blatantly biased against the accused.

SO is LA guilty because he’s no longer fighting this? No he’s not guilty because he’s not been PROVEN to be so, he may be but he may not.

So in a nutshell if you think he’s guilty say that but if you know he’s guilty show us the legally binding evidence so we can judge LA fairly.

I hope that the evidence will be made public so we can all judge for ourselves based on real hard data and not speculation, hype and media manipulation.

As a former cancer patient (testicular and skin cancer) I still wear my LiveStrong band with pride as I believe even if LA is guilty raising $500 million to help fight cancer is the real news here not the drugs stuff.

there has been no PUBLISHED and VERIFIED evidence. If this was in the UK it wouldn’t even get to court

pay attention at the back.
it’s not going to court. that’s an intrinsic part of the LA defence and why he is now ‘giving in’.

and as for “media hype and media manipulation”?

“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” Mark Twain.

I haven’t read all three pages of this thread so someone might aleady have said something like this but…..

Like or loathe Lance Armstrong, what is the point in chasing sportsmen from the past? They’re not chasing all those who were probably on amphetamines and god knows what else in the 60s?? Then what about Indurain? Merkcx? Pantani? Lemond? Fignon?

Its likely that the majority of the top half of the pro peleton was taking some kind of performance enhancement.

Does it not destroy people’s memories of epic battles up Alp d’huez and all the other Alpine climbs? Nobody was watching the (clean?) stragglers trying to stay away from the autobus, it was at the front end where people were trying to rip each others legs off – drugs or no drugs.

Why are they wasting their money on court costs and investigations? Howsabout spend the money on preventing drug use now?

If Lance wasn’t clean, no one will ever know who should have won those tours he won.

Seems like its just a personal vendetta. Lance pissed someone off and now they’re after him.

If the USADA have evidence and witnesses (allegedly) why are they not prepared to disclose this information to LA’s defence team prior to the ‘hearing’?

I SAID PAY ATTENTION AT THE BACK.

it’s a usada panel not a courtroom, he tried to get it to go to federal court where his legal money can come into play,but failed.
read up on the story on any reputable cycling website and you will have the facts that people on STW seem to have trouble grasping instead of jumping to conclusions on what is really going on in the LA case, you will glean more than some soundbite from the BBC news or from naive questions and theories posted on STW

Seems like its just a personal vendetta. Lance pissed someone off and now they’re after him.

Lance also successfully sued a number of people for accusing him of doping, so we might not have seen the end of this in the courts – no matter what he wants.

Err if he sued other people the surely he decides if it goes to Court…

Seems like its just a personal vendetta. Lance pissed someone off and now they’re after him.

Doesn’t hold up for me at all. Even if wrongdoing is widespread, it’s totally correct to go after the most significant perpetrators

if anyone knows about vendettas it will be LA- he has dished out a few over the years.

Its not a vendetta it is an attempt to catch a cheat who has avoided the authorities for years.

Err if he sued other people the surely he decides if it goes to Court…

He sued and won. I suspect the people he took money off might look for a way to get it back, given he’s pretty much admitted doping and also perjuring himself.

Good article here

http://www.wired.com/playbook/2012/08/lance-armstrong-doping-allegations

epicsteve – Member

given he’s pretty much admitted doping and also perjuring himself.

Yeah, that’ll stand up in court.

I doubt the court will be as charitable as some on here and i am pretty sure a conviction for doping and the striping of his titles for said offences during said tours will indeed by accepted by the courts as guilt…either way LA will likely have to defend it and his decision.

Oh hold on a minute all LA has to do is not turn up nor defend the claim as that is what the innocent do and his lack of defence will of course mean nothing

Junkyard – Member
if anyone knows about vendettas it will be LA- he has dished out a few over the years.
Its not a vendetta it is an attempt to catch a cheat who has avoided the authorities for years.

+ 1000

Junkyard – Member

I doubt the court will be as charitable as some on here

I think it’ll be interesting if it does end up in the courts but tbh the federal prosecutors already tried to bring a criminal case and dropped the charges, do you see it being any different just a few months on? The talk of admissions of guilt is completely meaningless in court.

Course, the criminal courts have a higher burden of proof than USADA.

The bloke is pretty amazing. Don’t forget he beat cancer when it was almost a given he was a dead man walking, he also finished 2nd in the tour just 2 years ago

Could it have been with a Withnail-style bottle of “unadulterated child’s piss” down the trouser and a pipe taped to the end of “the old chap”?

dannyh – that’s the kind of comment when I wish there was a ‘like’ button on STW.

Been done already:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Pollentier
Things have moved on a bit since then