[Closed] Armstrong charged with doping.

So burying your head in the sand and ignoring it is the best thing to do, rather than looking for the truth?

If the truth hurts more then it helps, maybe, yeah.

And if a 2 year federal investigation couldn't find your version of the truth, I don't think I'm going to either.

RealMan - when I think of the Tour I think of drug cheats - they need to clean up the sport.

When I think of Father Christmas I think of my parents lying to me so I was blissfully ignorant of the truth everyone else was aware of.
Its so rationally obvious it makes me feel daft for believing it in the first place no I look back.

A 2 year investigation was dropped due to lack of evidence of fraud. They weren't interested in doping, only the money side of it - they were looking to prove Armstrong had defrauded the US Government. By all accounts they had a very strong case, but it was dropped to one man's decision, against the investigating team's wishes, just hours before Armstrong was set to be served.

Regarding the federal investigation. That was specifically looking into whether federal (tax payers) money (i.e. US Postal money) was being used to buy and trade drugs. Whether didn't find proof of it, or they were told to stop by a higher authority (which there are many hints of) is open to debate.

Either way, it wasn't specifically about whether he doped or not. That's why they've passed on all the evidence to USADA.

(edit: I see I was beaten to it)

RealMan - when I think of the Tour I think of drug cheats - they need to clean up the sport.

I was 7 when Lance first won, so when I think of the tour I think of Lance. The only real cheat for me has been Contador. And he was rightly stripped and banned.

If the truth hurts more then it helps, maybe, yeah.

I don't think this childish denial of reality is a great way of dealing with life tbh.

Contador. And he was [b]rightly[/b] stripped and banned.

So why a different rationale for Armstrong?

From what I've heard / read (and I don't really follow road cycling) the evidence against Contador was relatively thin???

RealMan - Member

I was 7 when Lance first won, so when I think of the tour I think of Lance.

...explaining the immaturity behind your viewpoint.

From what I've heard / read (and I don't really follow road cycling) the evidence against Contador was relatively thin???

Was enough for the authorities involved. If you want to believe what you hear from some cyclist on a club run and what you read from a wikipedia page, go for it.

I don't think this childish denial of reality is a great way of dealing with life tbh.

What does anyone have to gain from him being found guilty?

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.

Brilliant so if I do a bank job and they have no evidence then the 20 witnesses who saw me [ I forgot my mask ] counts for nothing then?

I would imagine LA cheated more than Contador and I was more disappointed in bertie than LA - it was all cheats then at least now some [ I would like to think the majorty] are clean.

What does anyone have to gain from him being found guilty?

Was enough for the authorities involved. If you want to believe what you hear from some cyclist on a club run and what you read from a wikipedia page, go for it.

I tend to use [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ ]bbc.co.uk/news/[/url] for news info - works quite well...

My point was, is the "evidence" presented in that USADA document not of a comparable standard to that presented against Contador?

What does anyone have to gain from him being found guilty?

Like I already said, the strong message that no matter how rich/powerful/successful you are, you are not above the law. Pretty strong discouragement to any future athletes tempted to cheat.

But I guess your fanboy dreams are more important.

I was 7 when Lance first won, so when I think of the tour I think of Lance. The only real cheat for me has been Contador. And he was rightly stripped and banned.

The only real cheat? You don't appear to follow the sport that you claim to love so much very closely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling

If you don't think Armstrong cheated then read [url= http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden ]this[/url] interview, it's long so I'll summarise it...

"So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."

So if the top blood doping expert thinks he cheated based on seeing the blood work, what more proof do you need?

The truth mainly.

Do we want the truth though? Can cycling handle the truth?

RealMan, for sport to work as a sport it has to be cheat free. Now, in the future and in the past.

For the benefit of the participants, spectators, sponsors and admirers. Its a role model from the top to the bottom. Not just in sport but in life in general.

Thats a gain for everyone.

You just seem to deny rationality because it spoils your blinkered view of the sport and worship of your cycling god.

Sod what you can handle - grow up and discover the truth at all cost.

Things dont imporve otherwise

Can cycling handle the truth?

The vast majority don't ride a bike because of Armstrongs wins.

If he's found guilty, it will be a sad day for cycling.

But I feel it's futile to carry on discussing this, so let's just agree to disagree. You can see him as an inspiring hero, you see him as a drug cheat. I know which one feels better for me.

The vast majority don't ride a bike because of Armstrongs wins.

I actually reckon there was a time when I would've quit road cycling if he had been found guilty at that point. Not now, but before. You guys may not see that as a loss though.. 😉

So if the top blood doping expert thinks he cheated based on seeing the blood work, what more proof do you need?

A damning indictment if true BUT it needs to be proved in a court of law, NOT STW..

Do we want the truth though? Can cycling handle the truth?

Everyone else can it would seem.

A damning indictment if true BUT it needs to be proved in a court of law, NOT STW..

It doesn't need to be proved in a court of law for most sensible people to think it's probably true. Do you reckon OJ Simpson killed his wife?

it needs to be proved in a court of law

Part of the reason he quit the blood passport review panel was because he's been blocked from speaking about cases and giving evidence (including Contador and Armstrong) in court.

Read [url= http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2012/behind-scenes-contador-cas-hearing-michael-ashenden ]here[/url] for the proof he had about Contodor doping that he wasn't allowed to mention in court.

You can be guilty of something without it being proved in court.

If he's found guilty, it will be a sad day for cycling.

Now this is the first thing you've said that I've agreed with. Although I imagine we'd disagree as to where the blame for that sadness originates.

It doesn't need to be proved in a court of law for most sensible people to think it's probably true.

You can say that, its a fair comment. On the other hand I like to give people the benefit of the doubt till proven otherwise & thats REGARDLESS of who they are & what they are alleged to have done. Hence why I will defend LA's innocence till proven otherwise.

I think thats the way we would all want it if we were if a similar situation no?

For the record Ill say I think he probably doped..its endemic in pro-cycling sadly & the majority of those that he did beat have at some time been caught..yet he still managed to beat them. That means either he was on better drugs or he wast just plain fickin awesome.

I would like to believe hes the latter.

edit: Oj? I would say a catalogue of errors led to him getting off, not one isolated action. From what I know of it, its very complex..

For the record Ill say I think he probably doped..its endemic in pro-cycling sadly & the majority of those that he did beat have at some time been caught..yet he still managed to beat them. That means either he was on better drugs or he wast just plain fickin awesome.

I would like to believe hes the latter.

+1, all of that.

I cannot believe some of the stuff that RealMan is saying. Not many people who cycle got into it because of Lance and the ones that did are collectively some of the worst humans on Earth.

+1, all of that.

So you think he probably cheated, but you don't think it's fair for him to get punished because you love him too much. 😕

That means either he was on better drugs or he wast just plain fickin awesome.

I would like to believe hes the latter.

Probably some combination of the two.

So if the top blood doping expert thinks he cheated based on seeing the blood work, what more proof do you need?

Some proof, perhaps, rather than an opinion? That Ashenden interview's been around for 3yrs and is regurgitated approx 3-4 weeks before the start of the TdF.
I for one would love to see Armstrong talking plainly about it, rather than in riddles. But at the end of the day, the federal case was dropped and this looks 'small claims court' in comparison.

it needs to be proved in a court of law

The fact that it hasn't been proven in court of law doesn't mean he didn't dope, it just means he was (relatively) good at it

Some proof, perhaps, rather than an opinion?

[i]AS: So out of the 87 usable samples that they gathered, they got 13 positives and 6 of them belonged to Lance Armstrong.

MA: Depending on which criteria you applied. Yes, six of them failed the definitive criteria. There were another two samples in fact where the EPO was visually there in the gel. You could see it was there, but for one reason or another, the percentage isoforms weren't calculated, or had to be re-analyzed, or it was a little bit too faint to get a definitive result. Yes, there were six samples with EPO in it, and there were another two samples where it was pretty plain to a trained observer that there was synthetic EPO in those as well.[/i]

So 6 failed tests is opinion?

who near enough invented the test for EPO

Well, if I were looking to publicise my invention, I'd pick a high-profile candidate and sling some shite that can neither be proved or "un"proved too. 🙂

So 6 failed tests is opinion?

Well the "failures" weren't enough to convince the federal investigation. And this evidence/ supposition/ opinion (call it what you want) has been around for a while now, once more resurrected conveniently before a major race. Its getting a bit boring.

I think the point is this is the first time that they have 10 witnesses ready to step forward, many of whom are credible and nothing to gain, such as George Hincapie, all of whom will testify that they saw Armstrong dope.

Up until now it's been always been a case of a single person vs Armstrong, most of whom, rightly or wrongly, he's managed to silence due to his wealth/power/legal team.

As stated before, the original Jeff Novitzky investigation was about fraud, not merely doping. This new investigation is as a result of what the original investigation uncovered from a doping perspective.

buffalo bill - those tests were only intended as research. You cannot convict on retrospective testing nor should you be able to - the chain of documentation and the age of the specimens is not right for this apart from the fact it was not against the rules to have EPO in your urine at that time

New(ish) on the BBC site

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18441436 ]link[/url]

Might help to alleviate some of RealMan's anguish

"The public will hopefully understand soon that because of professional doping, support systems like the organised doping in the former East Germany - the organised doping in case of Balco, the organised doping in certain Tour de France teams, the athletes that dope are not only cheaters, but are also victims of professional systems that, for the sake of profit, corrupt sports.

tj - but they have charged him against epo use, have they not?

RealMan, for sport to work as a sport it has to be cheat free. Now, in the future and in the past.

Sadly however very few sports are cheat free. In fact you'll see less cheating in 3 weeks of the Tour than you'll see in a 90 minute football match with all the diving, fouling, spitting, play acting and that sort of rubbish that goes on.

And rugby (much as I love it almost as much as I do cycling) has plenty of dodgy stuff going at every ruck, maul or scrum.

That doesn't justify taking drugs in cycling, but it does annoy me when it's condemned by people who turn a blind eye to cheats in their own sports.

Oh, and for what it's worth I don't believe for a minute Armstrong doped. However he may well have turned a blind eye to others doing it, in order to get a strong team around him.

tj - but they have charged him against epo use, have they not?

But not just (if at all?) on the basis of the tests to which TJ refers.

Some proof, perhaps, rather than an opinion?

Do you need to actually see the blood samples yourself?

it was not against the rules to have EPO in your urine at that time

So your saying LA wasn't doping then, just using chemicals that weren't banned?

Oh, and for what it's worth I don't believe for a minute Armstrong doped. However he may well have turned a blind eye to others doing it, in order to get a strong team around him.

ROFLMAO.

Oh, and for what it's worth I don't believe for a minute Armstrong doped. However he may well have turned a blind eye to others doing it, in order to get a strong team around him.

Haha.. needs a bump. So he assembled an incredibly strong team, allowed them to take drugs to become even stronger, decided against doping himself but was still head and shoulders above them (and all of his doping rivals) in terms of performance?!

Kenny - read the ashenden interview. I have no doubt Armstrong doped

Im quite amazed at the level of loyalty LA has clearly instilled in some of the previous posters. Im also shocked how this means you can believe the most unlikey if not impossible.

Its almost as if Lance was a religion rather than just a bloke that rode a bike.

Oh, and for what it's worth I don't believe for a minute Armstrong doped. However he may well have turned a blind eye to others doing it, in order to get a strong team around him.

Haha.. needs a bump. So he assembled an incredibly strong team, allowed them to take drugs to become even stronger, decided against doping himself but was still head and shoulders above them (and all of his doping rivals) in terms of performance?!

THIS

There is not doubt LA was the premier cyclist of his generation and , to some degree, head and shoulders above the others. It really is incredible to believe he did all this against other superb athletes who were cheating...perhaps they only cheated so they could wheel such LA 🙄

I started off thinking he was clean but the evidence is pretty damning these days ...FFS they were all cheating, even his own team.