Armstrong being found guilty in any way would be bad for cycling.
I like cycling. So I choose to believe that Armstrong is innocent. I choose to believe he was a fantastic athlete and an awesome inspiration. It's a good feeling.
If you don't like him, that's fair enough. But wanting him to be found guilty is wanting bad things to happen to cycling. For the greater good and what not, it would be better to let him be. The only good that can come from him being found guilty is for a few grumpy old men on internet forums to have a massive "I told you so" orgy, and I'm not even sure that's a good thing.
Besides, Lance has the best tweets.
Slightly OT, but just to address TJ's points about charities. Yes, they are pretty much all profit making bodies. They have to be in order that they can pay salaries to the best employees they can get - much like any other business.
Which is why it boils my piss when I get phone calls asking me to shoot charity events for free because "...we're a charititable organisation". Does the marketing director work for 'exposure'? No? then get tae Frunce.
As you were...
Why dont we wait to see if he IS actually charged and convicted before slagging him off?
If he is it'll be a sad but fair day. Otherwise park the venom.
I only know a little about gas/liquid chromatography and detection of molecules but from the little I do know I can see how a clever chemist can hide certain molecules behind the normal signature of the body's chemistry. Detection methods always lag a few years behind the creation of molecules and it's only a matter of time before scientific evidence becomes available.
I wonder who the witnesses are?
charities should IMO be assessed on their efficiency - of every £ donated how many p actually reach the charity recipients and how much gets absorbed in costs.
I feel the same about the NHS. 😕
There is a quite high probability that he cheated, the question is whether or not there is any value in spending the money to prove it.
Who should be awarded his 7 yellow jerseys?
What is the benefit to Cycling?
What is the benefit to anyone really?
It was an era where apparently the guys in the top 10 at the tour were doped, let's move on.
Cancellara - clean as ****ing whistle. Been awesome all way through his career with steady development from his start with mapai and fassa to the awesome rider he is now.So something similar to Armstrong who was World Road Race Champion long before he ever rode the Tour.
Er ......no. Armstrong's palmares pre cancer was wholly incomparable to Fabu's. World's aside ( a win that really endured him to the cycling world (not) and is always a lottery - good ride that it was) and Tours and LA has won FW and San Seb. Thats it !! (and he rode tour 18 months after winning Worlds)
Fabu could barely finish the classics when he was 21 but slowly got better. MSR, E3, Flanders, Roubaix. The two riders couldnt be more different.
has cancellara won Fleche Wallone ???
Dont think so.
Or do you mean Mur de Grammont in Flanders ??
Yeh, different Mu(u)r, same phenomenon - esp as he rode Boonen off his wheel and made him look about as slow as me
Couldnt be more different. Have you seen Fleche. Armstrong (as did Vandenbrouke) destroyed a 'charged' field up the final climb in a ridiculous gear and a 'look at me fashion'. Cancellara was favourite to win Flanders (his speciality) and simlply attacked Boonen (who was struggling that season)where nearly every rider who wins flanders attacks. Sat down in a big gear but then again he has only been World time trial champ 4 years on the bounce so may know something about turning a gear.
I imagine the same bloke who dragged TDF through the courts then when he lost admitted he did dope. Twisted ****.I wonder who the witnesses are?
So the Feds investigate for two years, clear and then these folk allege. .
I wonder who the witnesses are?
Well big George has just announced his retirement
It is fairly well accepted that most if not all pro cyclists were doping during LA's career. LA has managed to beat any charges through out his career whilst others did not. I'm not sure what finding him guilty would achieve for the sport today. Surely it would be better to concentrate of making sure the sport is clean from now on.
edgar allen poe?
nice!
. But wanting him to be found guilty is wanting bad things to happen to cycling. For the greater good and what not, it would be better to let him be.
What????? for the greater good if he is guilty - and I am sure he is - then the truth needs to out.
to say its the greater good to allow a cheat to get away with it?
a copy of the very damming interview with micheal asenden for anyone interested - just a part of the[i] evidence[/i].
http://martin.criminale.com/2010/08/michael-ashenden-interview-regarding.html
I jut hope the folk doing this actually have some [i]proof.[/i]
Does it REALLY matter?
I'm sure that eventually in the BIGGER picture, the karmic blade will swing and at some point in time and space balance will be restored.
If LA has been so self-centred then next time around his soul shall experience the alternative and vice-versa.
The truth is out there and if any of us are meant to know it, we shall. But possibly not in this lifetime.
Have a great day everyone 😀
Why dont we wait to see if he IS actually charged and convicted before slagging him off?
Come on Mark, this [b]is[/b] STW...guilty until proven innocent. 🙄
Why dont we wait to see if he IS actually charged and convicted before slagging him off?
Because even if the verdict is 'not guilty', the same people will just vomit up the same nonsense about 'there is evidence, just not enough to convict him' etc etc
Personally, I couldn't give a monkeys either way. He's just a guy who races bikes and was quite successful. Cycling's just a bit of competition & entertainment. Nothing of any real significance in the scheme of things.
Much like my opinion, & everyone elses on here.
However, Lance Armstrong threads are the only ones to give Religion/God threads a good run for their money on STW 😀
However, Lance Armstrong threads are the only ones to give Religion/God threads a good run for their money on STW
What about if we turn this in to a Lance / Helmet thread crossover?
Those glasses won't save your life fella.
[img] 
[/img]
I used to be an Armstrong fan, I hoped he did not dope and that all the naysayers were wrong.
Having read much on the subject I now don't believe he can be and am saddened by that. However it would appear many of the people he raced against almost certainly did as well so that just about clears the what about the pour innocent he beat arguement.
The damage caused by doping has hit those a little lower down the foodchain, all the not quite there riders who doped and have probably done their health and certainly their bank balances no good... but were they were more successful than they would have been without doping?
The Omerta is the biggest problem, would I want my kids to try to be a professional cyclist when I knew there was a chance that not only would they be expected to dope and would suffer badly if they broke the "law of silence"? No, not a chance on either count.
Breaking that stupid code - of which Armstong appears to have been the biggest enforcer (almost certainly because he had something to hide) should be one of the primary goals along with stopping all transfusions, doping etc.
I have a Livestong baseball hat, because I needed one & thought the money was going to a good cause.
I still wear it because it is my most comfortable hat but if chatting to a cyclist while wearing it I do feel just a little bit dirty - thats not right either & I would have preferred that more of my money had gone to a good cause.
Does chasing him through the courts and stripping him of his titles do any good? Probably not, certainly it makes my mates who know nothing about the subject take the micky because its in the news and keep them thinking cycling is dirty when I am sure that all most all,if not all pro sports are the same.
Sue him, send him to jail for lying to the feds but leave the titles on the basis that what happened happened and, as said above, how far down the results order would they have to go to find a clean rider & even then, how could they be sure?
Not proven TeeJ. Never tested positive TeeJ. All the others have TeeJ. Most tested man in world sport during his cycling career TeeJ. Where's your proof TeeJ (other than the articles people with an agenda have written)? Are you French TeeJ?
WunUndred 😀
DD
Which is why I carefully said [i]evidence[/i] not [i]proof[/i]
There is a mountain of [i]evidence[/i] - and I love the way you describe Ashenden as a man with an agenda. One of the worlds top experts on doping. Evidence ranging from sworn testimony of loads of folk to the evidence of failed retrospective testing to the evidence on his blood passport etc etc
You want to believe he is clean - up to you.
Many folk now known to have doped never tested positive, he is not the most tested athlete in the world.
Look at it from a level playing field.
Even if ALL of them were smacked up to their tits in those Amstrong Tours.
Even on a level playing field his achievements are awesome.
Now shut up. The Feds investigation had witnesses etc etc and rolled on for two years. At the beginning of that the same STW'ers banged on with their righteousness. funnily when it ended the same didn't say 'ah they didn't convict him'. Funny that. I wonder how many young STW'ers are joining or is it an ageing democraphic of bitter men?
Why does it matter???
He's still competing and beating clean athletes, that's why it matters. I suspect a certain B Wiggins thinks it matters quite a lot. He'd have been on the podium in 2009 if it wasn't for that cheating piece of scum.
You want to believe he is clean - up to you.
When did I say that?
I'm just saying that it hasn't been proven...and let's be honest, it probably never will. You'd believe a turd if it came up with something damning on him - because you have chosen long ago to believe he doped.
I'm French so I guess that I can say he's guilty 😀
For me, the evidence, be it circumstancial or not, is enough for me to believe that he doped. That said, he should be 'prosecuted' fairly and if the evidence isn't sufficiently robust then he shouldn't be convicted.
As it goes, for me the (alleged) threatening and manipulation of people to keep his secrets is what I would like to see him pay the price for as that's what I think has done the most damage to cycling.
circumstancial
alleged
😐
Aside from the whole Lance thing, I'd say it still matters now as it demonstrates that you stand a good chance of being caught for doping, even if only retrospectively.
REALMAN "Armstrong being found guilty in any way would be bad for cycling. I like cycling. So I choose to believe that Armstrong is innocent. I choose to believe he was a fantastic athlete and an awesome inspiration. It's a good feeling. If you don't like him, that's fair enough. But wanting him to be found guilty is wanting bad things to happen to cycling. For the greater good and what not, it would be better to let him be. The only good that can come from him being found guilty is for a few grumpy old men on internet forums to have a massive "I told you so" orgy, and I'm not even sure that's a good thing. Besides, Lance has the best tweets."
Well Said, in total agreement with you there
Heres a non-cycling mag agenda reported:
perhpas if he is found guilty it wouls also be a rather strong anti doping message? "we will catch you one day" and "no one is too big"?
I find this a very strange attitude that it would be bad for the sport to catch and punish a cheat
why do they always announce these allegations two weeks befor the tour - that then end up in court for years..
Why don't they go after some footballers and the pathetic sanctions they are given, let alone the non existent level of testing.
deadlydarcy - Membercircumstancial [b]or not[/b]
alleged [b]may or may not be true[/b]
As I said, let's see what actually gets thrown up. We've no idea who or what has been provided as witness statements from the other riders.
Its funny how some of the proven cheats bring out books after they are convicted. I suppose if you add thé name of the most well known cyclist then you'll sell xxxxx number of extra copies.
If he is convicted then the general public will just see cycling as à cheaters sport. I
Just dont understand the general attitude
let's see what actually gets thrown up
Ah right, just read like you'd made your mind up already; based on circumstantial evidence and allegations.
[img] 
[/img]
[i]Armstrong being found guilty in any way would be bad for cycling. I like cycling. So I choose to believe that Armstrong is innocent. I choose to believe he was a fantastic athlete and an awesome inspiration. It's a good feeling. If you don't like him, that's fair enough. But wanting him to be found guilty is wanting bad things to happen to cycling. For the greater good and what not, it would be better to let him be. The only good that can come from him being found guilty is for a few grumpy old men on internet forums to have a massive "I told you so" orgy, and I'm not even sure that's a good thing. Besides, Lance has the best tweets.[/i]
I'm sorry, but this is puerile nonsense.
'Bad for cycling?
How about being bad for cyclists that the most influential cyclist in the world was as bad a drug cheat as the rest?
You can 'choose' to believe what ever you want, but as the evidence stacks up you will end up with your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears.
Go and read the Kimmage-Landis article:
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2011/landiskimmage
Go and read LA Confidentiel:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24714691/L-A-Confidentiel-Part-I-English-Translation
Go and read about Betsy Andreu:
Go read about Emma O'Reilly, being hassled for 2 years by LA:
...to let this go, to pretend it's all ok is bad for cycling.
I love pro cycling, but like sausages, I don't really enjoy knowing how it's made.
clubber - MemberI'm French so I guess that I can say he's guilty
😆
I am too and I watch with interest. 😀
Scweiz, I have some 2.3" hookworms on that bike now, it still pedals like poo, but it corners like a scalextric car now 8)
Technicalities are the fundamentals of law. You can't convict on a hunch, so bearing that in mind LA MUST be assumed to be innocent till proven otherwise.
On the other hand..if he was doping, he was still the best cyclist on the Tour as he beat all the others (who as has been said on this thread already were probably doping anyway, certainly some of those he beat have been convicted).
But this is where it gets confusing. His charity work. There's no doubt he's raised awareness for cancer & a lot of money too. BUT there's also a very convincing argument that his foundation hasn't been much more than a tax-exercise for LA. I've read some very compelling arguments suggesting so..
To sum up, I think he probably was a a doper ( althought I truly hope not) but it flies in the face of evidence as doping was/is endemic in pro- cycling. BUT he was still probably the fastest on the Tour with or without drugs. As for the foundation? I believe thats bona fide.
Personally I hope he's not convicted, the World needs heroes & sometimes the ones we get are the oes we deserve.
There, how's that for a bit of fence sitting? 😉
[s]If he is convicted then [/s]the general public [s]will[/s] just see cycling as à cheaters sport.
I believe they already do.
And broadly speaking I think they're right.
He was right in one sense; its not about the bike...
Hopk1ns - Member
If he is convicted then the general public will just see cycling as à cheaters sport.
mrlebowski - MemberTo sum up, I think he probably was a a doper...Personally I hope he's not convicted, the World needs heroes & sometimes the ones we get are the oes we deserve.
Best just to sit with our fingers in our ears then? Just stop testing? Make other exceptions cos we feel like it?
C'mon guys 🙄
deadlydarcy - MemberAh right, just read like you'd made your mind up already; based on circumstantial evidence and allegations.
Oh, I pretty much have - at least in the sense that I think there's too much, too consistent information for him not to have been doping. Of course, if things come out in the trial that refute that to my satisfaction, I'll change my view. But then I'm not in charge of convicting him so my burden of proof isn't as rigid as it rightly will be for the hearing(s!).
FWIW, some time back, I did have the opposite view so I'm quite happy to change my mind based on latest information.
I'll admit to biking on dope.... didn't really help. 😯
Altho on 'shrooms it was an absolute hoot. 😛
Oh god al - you really do live upto your name don't you..
LA's innocent till proven guilty. My suscipions regardless. No fingers in my ears period. I'll wait till a court convicts him before I judge him.
Proof rumoured or otherwise needs to be PROOFED.
As I said, sometimes we get the heroes we deserve I.e. they come with baggage.
I'll be happy to admit he's a doper if he's proved to be so - will you admit he's clean if he's not convicted?
But this is where it gets confusing. His charity work. There's no doubt he's raised awareness for cancer & a lot of money too. BUT there's also a very convincing argument that his foundation hasn't been much more than a tax-exercise for LA. I've read some very compelling arguments suggesting so..
I'm sure he uses the foundation to optimise his own tax position but I suspect all that means is that his tax dollars are directed to cancer research and treament rather than going into general taxation.
It's quite some stretch though to say that the Foundation "[i]hasn't been much more than a tax-exercise for LA[/i]"
See more detail here: http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/cancer/lance-armstrong-foundation-in-austin-tx-3996/conclusions
LAF provides grants for cancer survivorship research; grants to community organizations; delivery of cancer survivorship education and support services; and grants to survivorship centers at academic medical institutions. In addition, LAF focuses on building partnerships with other national organizations and individuals to enlist them in the fight to establish high quality services and policies benefiting those affected by cancer. LIVESTRONG® Young Adult Alliance works to improve the survival rates and quality of life for young adults living with cancer. LIVESTRONG® Survivorship Center of Excellence Network is an initiative to create and maintain a network of survivorship centers that fosters collaboration to increase the impact in cancer survivorship. LAF funds programs initiated at community-centered non-profit organizations and agencies that cover topics such as general cancer survivorship education and support, physical activity, exercise and nutrition for cancer survivors, and pain, palliative and end-of-life care. LIVESTRONG® SurvivorCare provides cancer survivors with information, referrals, case management and patient navigation, allowing them to identify and address critical cancer-related issues and communicate with their health care team. The program assists cancer survivors in managing the physical, emotional and practical aspects of their cancer experience, including psychosocial support, patient navigation services, and matching to cancer clinical trials.
For the year ended December 31, 2008, LAF's program expenses were:
Grants and programs 13,485,452
Education and program development 7,268,168
Grassroots advocacy 3,800,251
Programs and policy 1,962,285
Government relations 997,955
Total Program Expenses:$27,514,111
I'll be happy to admit he's a doper if he's proved to be so - will you admit he's clean [b]if he's not convicted? [/b]
That'll never happen though, will it? Now the wheels are in motion he will be found guilty of something, no matter how small the sample, no matter how little direct proof there is. Probability will be enough for a conviction.
But wanting him to be found guilty is wanting bad things to happen to cycling. For the greater good and what not, it would be better to let him be.
One of the biggest obstacles to dealing with drugs in cycling is not the riders, but the attitude of the fans. It's very difficult to see cycling really cleaning itself up when people are still prepared to overlook alleged cheating and "move on" because it's "just entertainment" or "everyone's at it".
Competition is about striving to be first, within the boundaries set by the rules of the sport. You enter a race under those conditions, and if there are credible allegations that you have broken the rules, you will be subjected to the disciplinary process.
In Armstrong's case, the authorities are doing their job. They allege that their is evidence of wrongdoing, they are laying charges, and it is up to Armstrong to defend himself. That's the process, and whether anyone thinks it is good or bad for the sport is irrelevant.
Try a wee thought experiment. You're riding a local race, and it's come down to you and one other rider. As you approach the finish line, the other competitor swings a sneaky punch while no-one is looking, puts you into the hedge, and takes the win. I'm guessing most people wouldn't be too happy with that outcome, and would not have a great deal of respect for the "winner". Is there any difference if the other competitor beats you to the line because they used performance enhancing drugs?
Cycling is an open sport, and the same rules apply at any level. If you think this is just an issue for pro cycling, have a read of this:
http://www.bikeradar.com/blog/article/dan-staites-epo-positive-27221/
Personally, I want to race against other people on a level playing field, as defined by the rules of the sport. I don't have any respect for people who actively choose to go outside those boundaries, and I want due process to be applied when cheating is alleged.
Let's see what the outcome of the Armstrong case is.
Higgio I'm not saying it is - I just remember reading a very good thread on an American cycling forum with some very well argued points that suggested it was.
Like I said, I'm not judging the man...yet.
Arrrr you guys!
It is odd though how they do it two weeks from the tour. It just concerns me that its for the publicity. Who ever is leading the case probably has à big ego like lance. Great for their career.
Done for maximum publicity and not for cyclings benefit. Why now, why when the biggest race is about to start.
Good article in the Guardian about it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/jun/14/lance-armstrong-usada-doping-charges
I'm fed up of hearing about it. The same old stuff, wheeled out 2 or 3 weeks before the Tour. Every year, the same.
Let it go. Look forwards, clean the sport up. Picking on one athlete over and above others (like Bjarne Riis for example) is pointless and self defeating.
What next? Strip Virenque of all his Polka-Dot jerseys? Just tear up the whole bloody results list for the last 100 years? Looking back does no-one any favours, especially not with the one person in cycling that virtually every person on the street has heard of.
Not sure if it has been mentioned but wiping Armstrong's records '98-'11 would make Ullrich the winner of 3 TdF's and Wiggins the runner-up of the '09 tour.
Ullrich winning 3 TdFs would be hugely offensive.
How could any record adjustment in the event of LA being found guilty be attempted? After all this time how would you know which TDFs were ridden doped or not?
mrmo - MemberAre we to believe that Merckx was clean?
Merkx tested postive in '69 and was thrown out of the Giro.
Giro di Lombardia in 1973:
"It was Dr Cavalli, of Molteni, who prescribed it to me a bit lightly [un peu légèrement]. And he admitted his error publicly. Looking back, I can't see why they could disqualify me for such a ridiculous and inoffensive product as norephedrine*."
1977 Flèche Wallonne:
"That, I can't deny. I was positive along with around 15 others. I was wrong to trust a doctor."
*removed from banned list in 2004
If you are found to have cheated - your wins should be wiped - doesn't make the other 2 winners. Placing should be left open and winners money not paid to anyone who has doped.
Bored of all this histrionic revisionism.
Why dont we wait to see if he IS actually charged and convicted before slagging him off?
What do you think this thread is about if not about the fact Armstrong has been charged?
Even on a level playing field his achievements are awesome.
By level you mean everyone cheating??
True but he does get a fair degree of mileage for his image and his “charity/publicity machine” based on his cleanness
I used to be an Armstrong fan, I hoped he did not dope and that all the naysayers were wrong.
Having read much on the subject I now don't believe he can be and am saddened by that.
This is pretty much my view
To much evidence IMHO - though most circumstantial - many who have admitted cheating never failed a drug test at the time either for example
Its funny how some of the proven cheats bring out books after they are convicted. I suppose if you add thé name of the most well known cyclist then you'll sell xxxxx number of extra copies.
Might sell just as many if they declared he never cheated and they snuck around behind his back, perhaps all his team were cheating and that well know n non control freak LA just did not know what was going on with the team he handpicked to support him to won the tour.
I suspect all that means is that his tax dollars are directed to cancer research and treament rather than going into general taxation.
It barely funds any research or treatment and it promotes “awareness” and "survivability" as your own link proved – what was your point?
DD you are correct but there is so much dirt thrown in his general direction it seems , on the balance of probabilities, that he , like many other elite cyclists at the time , cheated.
the alternative is that members of Lances team cheated , the one he hand picked to win him the tour, he , know for not being a control freak or a details person, was oblivious to this, every other major competitor cheated, many associated with him then slowly started lying about his cheating in order to discredit him.
However LA alone was so god damn great he could beat the cheats anyway and everyone else is just jealous of his awesomeness
Another thought on this..(Im having a good day - multiple thinking stuff going on!)
The evidence wasnt good enough for a US Attorney to prosecute but its good for USADA? I have to admit Im scratching my head over that one a little bit...UNLESS there is new evidence?
or a lower standard of proof?
there was rumours about political interference in the us attorneys investigation and decision to drop it as criminal charges were being prepared.
I do hope they have something more tho or else it will fizzle out
mrlebowski - Member
I'll be happy to admit he's a doper if he's proved to be so - will you admit he's clean if he's not convicted?
Innocence through lack of proof of guilt - it means he's innocent in the eyes of the law, as I said above, along with amny others, there's too much evidence the other way IMO for me to believe this.
I'm sorry but if good lab work proves he was doping then there isn't anything to argue about.
It would be good for cycling (and all sport) if we look for cheats, shame them, prosecute them and remove them. Regardless of how long it takes.
Cheating is not sporting and letting it go by unchallenged is bad for sport.
I do hope they have something more tho or else it will fizzle out
You're just desperate for him to be found guilty aren't you?
There are zero positives in this (including zero positive dope tests against Armstong...)
LA is one of the few people that transcends cycling, he's bigger than the sport; trashing him trashes cycling, and this has been going on for years. The focus should be on catching dopers now. If he doped then as I pointed out earlier he definitely wasn't the only doper in the peloton so its essentially pointless.
Thats one of the most damming pieces of [i]evidence[/i] crikey.
Inadmissible as the samples are old and the wada code does not allow for retrospective testing
People claim the accusers all have agendas - I don't know what Ashendens agenda could be
REALMAN "Armstrong being found guilty in any way would be bad for cycling. I like cycling. So I choose to believe that Armstrong is innocent. I choose to believe he was a fantastic athlete and an awesome inspiration. It's a good feeling. If you don't like him, that's fair enough. But wanting him to be found guilty is wanting bad things to happen to cycling. For the greater good and what not, it would be better to let him be. The only good that can come from him being found guilty is for a few grumpy old men on internet forums to have a massive "I told you so" orgy, and I'm not even sure that's a good thing. Besides, Lance has the best tweets."
Having a laugh???
Well Said, in total agreement with you there
Love the irony - it is ironic? isn't it??
I don't have any issues with Lance, but I do have issues with the so-called "pinnacles of achievement", the role models, those who inspire, (whether cyclists, other sports stars or other public figures), when they are not actually what they are portrayed as.
If he is / was a worthy champion, he should be vindicated as such.
If not, he should be exposed as a fraud, stripped of his titles and prosecuted.
Quite simple really.
crazylegs - not quite what I meant ( i realised afterwards tho thats how it sounded)- what I meant was it is pointless going after him again without new and strong evidence. No one wins if its just the same old he said she said.
No point in grandstanding - either have the stuff to nail him good and proper or shut up
Reckon we should be dope testing some posters the way they crack on about stuff and always seem a bit cranky. I mean no vehement anti-dope poster would even remotely have a history of illegal drug usage would they..........
TJ: apologies, I misread your earlier comment.
No point in grandstanding - either have the stuff to nail him good and proper or shut up
Agreed.
For the people saying 'let it go', it's worth pointing out that some of the allegations in the USADA letter specifically relate to doping practices "...through to the present"
Bruyneel Johan - currently manager of Team Radioshack Nissan Trek
Pedro Celaya - currently doctor of same team
José Pepi Marti - currently trainer at Saxo Bank
Lance Armstrong - currently winning Triathalons
crazylegs - it wasn't clearly expressed hence the clarification - ta tho
Innocence through lack of proof of guilt - it means he's innocent in the eyes of the law, as I said above, along with amny others, there's too much evidence the other way IMO for me to believe this.
Fair enough, thats your opinion - I can respect that.
either have the stuff to nail him good and proper or shut up
totally agree.
this isn't just about Lance Armstrong. Doping isn't done by an individual, there are Doctors and others who may still be involved in the sport and in my opinion it is them who need to be found out and dealt with appropriately.
Um, everyone asking for 'evidence' might want to read through the actual letter that was sent out, and look at the number of times eyewitnesses have said they saw EPO, blood transfusions, Testosterone, Human Growth hormone, Corticosteroids,saline and plasma infusions being used by Lance.
I'm just wondering what the real motive is for USADA to prosecute him. The fact that he's walked away from quite a high level of investigation with no conviction shows that he's either clean or [i]very[/i] good at getting away with it.
I don't really buy the whole 'witch hunt' idea, unless Sheryl Crow has some very influential friends.
Maybe they're trying to break the culture of secrecy up a bit.
Either the testing shows it or it doesn't.
Personal testimony is worth what someone is getting out of it, either reduction or absolution for their crimes or something for seeing the rest fall.
I think bust any one for whom there is a valid sample for any performance enhancing drug now on the list. Regardless of whether it was banned at the time they were engaged in trying to attain an unfair advantage and so are guilty of perverting the rules of fair play.
Nah, too tricky to do and would cause too much litigation I'd imagine. "Sorry, you didn't win the TdF in 1980 because we've decided to ban lucozade this year, but it was perfectly legal when you won."
Though it does bring up a question to me - when does something become banned? Presumably there are many millions spend every year in all sports to be the best - nutrition, fitness regimes, equipment etc. - when does a cocktail of vitamins every day turn from good to bad?
These will be the last charges he has to answer IMO, its about as high as it can go.
So, lets all walk away from this thread and all agree to abide by the decision made!
The really interesting thing is not Armstrong, not even Bruyneel, or any of the dodgy doctors...
The really interesting thing is the UCI; Hein Verbruggen and Pat McQuaid must be looking through brochures for retirement homes right about now, because if Armstrong and Bruyneel go, there are some very searching questions going to be asked about Armstrongs 'donations' to the UCI.
Kimmage was right.
Check out the list of dopers
merckx, Freddy Maertens, tommy simpson, moser, pedro delgado, fignon, sean yeates..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling
there are some very searching questions going to be asked about Armstrongs 'donations' to the UCI.
Good point. MAJOR repercussions that go beyond LA, Postal & Floyd..
I think there is a small chance Lance may be in for a fall here.
That said, his [b]allegedly[/b] Livestrong funded legal team are powerful and too many important parties stand to lose out in a big way.