[Closed] Lance Armstrong caught cheating?

yes. But still has not admitted it.

a large number of former teammates and colleagues have contributed to a document which is rather damning.

Head to Hands
Yes no maybe smoking gun it's almost certain he didn't go to the moon or kill JFK

Yeah it turns out he never actually did go to the moon.

Edit, lol. 🙂

He was caught, but to be fair it was entrapment, all set up by special circumstances and that fake drone, so they could get him to go off and destabilise the empire.

Ah no wait, that was that other guy.

He would have got away to, if it hadn't been for those bastid, bastid meddling kids.

No that was jimmy with the meddling kids

and in a slightly Orwelian twist it would appear that everyone was guilty, just that some are more guilty than others

I don't take a great interest in this but, from what I can tell, the evidence is basically lots if people who also probably took drugs saying "I saw him do it" or "we all did it" and there's not much actual evidence other than that.

As yet only testimonies of other junkies. Not sure what hardcore evidence there is. However I believe he did it

has Lance Armstrong actually been caught cheating?

Well he was apprehended leaving the building wearing a striped jersey, eye mask and carrying a bag full of nicked stuff with swag written on it, they didn't catch him filling the bag though.

Why not have a little scan through this.

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/lance-latest-have-we-done-it-yet/page/60

yes and he would have got away with it if he never came back.

I don't think Emma O'Reilly was a junkie.

There's lots of evidence including payments, emails, etc plus sworn testimonies from riders and non-riders who've never cheated or been involved with it. In addiiton there's results from his testing in 2009 and 2010 that shows 'clear evidence of blood value manipulation'.

The UCI would love to have said that there was no actual evidence and that it was all circumstancial but USADA did such a professional job and left no loose ends that they couldn't without instantly destroying the tiny little bit of credibility they still had.

Eye witness accounts are evidence. That and he did have six EPO positives from the 99 tour found a few years later under re test. You only need to read the usada report and you'll get all the gorey details from that. Some of those on the team were still considered clean until they testified against him and are now facing a ban for it.

www.followingthechainline.blogspot.com

As yet only testimonies of other junkies.

You've not really been following it either then ?

or more likely he's one of the many who believes what LA's lawyers say despite Kaesae's proclaiments having more grounding in truth 🙄

It is a shame that it didn't end up in a court and that the USADA process allowed Armstrong to not contest the case without having to plead guilty. By not contesting the case he also prevented the retrospective testing of samples using new techniques. If the evidence had been heard in court, and Armstrong inevitably found guilty then we'd not have this bizarre situation where people seem to think there is no "real proof" despite an overwhelming weight of evidence that in a court would almost certainly result in a conviction.

I don't take a great interest in this

You're right, it looks like you don't.

totally agree with mrblobby!

As yet only testimonies of other junkies.

[img] [/img]

There's lots of evidence including payments, emails, etc plus sworn testimonies from riders and non-riders who've never cheated or been involved with it.

Serious question - if someone was accused of murder, would sworn testimony, a receipt for a weapon and a threatening email be enough to convict them?

If yes, fine

If not, all we are left with is:

results from his testing in 2009 and 2010 that shows 'clear evidence of blood value manipulation'.

Which is after the TDF wins is it not? And that seems slightly ambiguous to me.

I'm not trying to say he didn't do it, and TBH I don't care anyway, but it just seems like a massive witch hunt to me. Why could these people not testify years ago for a start? Yes. There's probably some convenient reason I suppose but even on STW he's been convicted and hanged for years. It just seems bizarre to me.

Serious question - if someone was accused of murder, would sworn testimony, a receipt for a weapon and a threatening email be enough to convict them?

Probably would [don't even need a body] unless there was a load of contrary evidence.

Why could these people not testify years ago for a start?

I don't know the circumstances of the testimony but perjuring yourself to federal investigators in the US usually carries jail time as a penalty, perhaps the stakes were never that high in the past? - if it was a federal investigation

Troll 🙂 Slow morning Stu?!

Serious question - if someone was accused of murder, would sworn testimony, a receipt for a weapon and a threatening email be enough to convict them?

Your asking if a group of people said they seen a person murder someone, let's say with an a axe, they have a receipt for that axe and he threatened the witnesses would this be enough to convict them?

No of course not every murder that has been charged has always admitted to it.

There have been many opportunities to contest the evidence, and opportunities to appeal the decision. The evidence has also been accepted as overwhelming by pretty much everyone that matters, including the UCI. If the evidence had been weak or circumstantial then I'm sure this would not have happened.

To ask why people couldn't testify years ago is an interesting question. Many of those who testified have been trying to get the facts out for years but no one has been listening. Of the riders who testified, well for some it seems that no one had actually asked them until the Feds and USADA did. Also to ask why they didn't speak out at the time shows a lack of understanding of how the peloton operated at the time. To speak out would have meant the end of any career you might have aspired to in professional cycling, and to be shunned by all other riders including your teammates (just look at what happened to Bassons.)

Edit...

but it just seems like a massive witch hunt to me.

Do agree with this, and I think many of the guilty parties would happily pin it all on Armstrong in order to cover up their culpability.

Of the riders who testified,[s] well for some it seems that no one had actually asked them until the Feds and USADA did[/s] several have only just retired, and have gone for the "a bigger boy made me do it" defence in order to avoid any sort of punishment for their own guilt.

FTFY.

and in a slightly Orwelian twist it would appear that everyone was guilty

[b]Stu McGroo[/b] - Member
I don't know all the ins and outs of the story so can someone with more knowledge please tell me, has Lance Armstrong actually been caught cheating?

The US anti doping authorities gathered sufficient witness statements of people who said he had doped, or said they had doped with him that they determined he was guilty.

Armstrong never failed a doping test and he had many tests (there is some doubt about a test around 2000) but the doping tests available at the time were not particularly good at picking up certain types of doping.

njee20, there may be truth in that, and having read Zabriskies testimony I think in some cases it's an accurate statement.

As above, the reason many are coming clean now is because they've been forced into it by the threat of going to jail. Having been forced to testify to a US grand jury means that they told the truth (or at least close enough...) and more to the point, it's all very consistent between them, with other testimony that's been out there for ages and so on.

As to it being a witch hunt, maybe in a way but IMO a justified one. If this hadn't happened, then the UCI would still be sitting there claiming that they were doing a great job and many people still involved in the sport would continue to be. Now there's at least a chance that the UCI will be forced to change and that many of the architects of doping in cycling will be forced to leave.

there is some doubt about a test around 2000

There is no doubt about it at all, he failed the test and the UCI allowed a retrospective doctors note to cover it up.

Serious question - if someone was accused of murder, would sworn testimony, a receipt for a weapon and a threatening email be enough to convict them?

Yes, if the testimony was strong. Unfortunately more and more people seem to have been misled by CSI, and other programmes like it, into thinking that you need laser-guided, DNA-confirming, enhance-enhance-ENHANCE forensics to secure a conviction. A criminal lawyer friend of mine told me it's a right pain in the arse because juries have to be firmly briefed accordingly.

Numerous people are convicted on witness testimony alone.

- if someone was accused of murder, would sworn testimony, a receipt for a weapon and a threatening email be enough to convict them?

Serious answer; Yes. Most court cases revolve around witness testimony. It is not unusual to have no forensic evidence (despite the influence of CSI on juries ideas) and there have been murder convictions where the body has never been found, let alone the weapon.

I was due to give witness evidence in, funnily enough, a drugs case in crown court last week. No forensic evidence linking the defendant to the drugs found (in his car not on him personally). Despite that on the day of the trial he changed his plea to guilty, as he took his defence team's advice that the evidence (all witness statement and testimony, so the sort of thing STW arguments deem 'circumstantial') was overwhelming. I would suggest the same was behind LA's decision not to continue to challenge the USADA case...

I don't expect a change in the L.A apologists (not aimed at you PP) attitude that the only acceptable evidence is a positive test, but frustrating for someone involved in the criminal justice system to keep hearing that line trotted out.

edit

Armstrong never failed a doping test

Wrong. He failed a cortisone test in the 1999 TdeF and produced a back dated TUE (therapeutic exemption certificate). Do we really need another thread discussing the evidence against LA when the information is readily available for anyone interested enough to come to an informed opinion?

Some reading for you stu mcgroo [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/lance-latest-have-we-done-it-yet ]Please god make it stop[/url].

but frustrating for someone involved in the criminal justice system to keep hearing that line trotted out.

Poor mite. Don't read the threads then? 🙄

PeterPoddy - Member
Serious question - if someone was accused of murder, would sworn testimony, a receipt for a weapon and a threatening email be enough to convict them?

If yes, fine

If not, all we are left with is

Well, it's not as simple as that - they would have different burdens of proof required. In the UK (I'm not sure about the US so won't post about it) murder would be a criminal conviction and you would have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt before conviction. Doping in sport would be a civil case and as such the burden of proof is lowered to the balance of probabilities. This doesn't stop a murderer being convicted on witness testimony alone though.

Well he was apprehended leaving the building wearing a striped jersey, eye mask and carrying a bag full of nicked stuff with swag written on it, they didn't catch him filling the bag though.

Armstrong never failed a doping test

Make it stop. Please, make it stop

Nah - make it continue.

Lance has clearly demonstrated that media management works

"I never failed a drugs test" you say it, people believe it.

I mean he wouldn't say. "I was tested many times using methods that could not detect the things I'm accused of taking"

ot defending himself he has successfuly ctreated uncertainty in the publics colective mind

Thanks for the replies, it wasn't a troll and I know there have been lots of threads but the facts do tend to get lost in a multitude of differing opinions and this thread is no different.

I'm not a fan of the testimony-by-a-confessed-cheat-for-a-lesser-sentence approach to justice which is why I asked the original question.

No, I prefer the dopers to actually get caught, or at least confess to it. You know, like [u]Jacques Anquetil[/u], Lucien Aimar, Lius Ocana, [u]Eddy Merchx[/u], Bernard Thevenet, Joop Zoetemelk, Laurent Fignon, Pedro Delgado, [u]Miguel Indurain[/u], Bjarne Riis, Jan Ullrich, Marco Pantani, Floyd Landis and Alberto Contador. And they're just the TdF winners!

When was Indurain caught?

When was Indurain caught?

+ve for Salbutamol in 1994. Also had big lungs, which is [b]an[/b] explanation for his high VO2.

Andy

Didn't he get a tue for that?

Trouble is, some people can apparently get caught and still get away with it. That's when you need witnesses.

I thought they only banned Salbutamol to try and stop Indurain winning. Its not even in the same league....