Forum menu
you admit the samples were Armstrongs then?
(Armstrong himself admits this, I believe)
I honestly think the young brits bought up by british cycling will be dope free.
When they're young, maybe - but when they hit the top? The fact that there haven't been many Brit riders caught doping could be well be because there aren't many top Brit riders - arguing that we Brits are somehow less likely to dope than other nationalities is at best naive.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/search/label/Cycling
Some more reading for Tango Man and everyone else.
Gents, it is all good reading, but, if they were after him and had concrete evidence, then they would charge him, they have been after him for years, so why not charge him? Serious question, if the evidence you all point to is that concrete and proven then why haven't they charged him?
Can you not read?
However as a retrospective test it has no liability attached and as there was no test for EPO at the time then he is in the clear from this legally.
His time will come - I think this american investigation will get him.
TJ, I can read very well, they have the evidence to go after him, no matter what the "no liability attached" and it being a retrospective test, it would do less harm to go after him when they had the evidence than to allow him to carry on competing and tainting the sport even further
So I ask again, they have concrete evidence then they should charge him?
Doh - its concrete evidence that he took epo. Its not a criminal offence to take epo. Its was not against the rules to take it when he did as there was no test for it then. The breach of rules was to have a heamatocrit of higher than 50%
Why do you think the american investigation is going after him? They are looking for the evidence to charger him with criminal offenses
Why do you think the american investigation is going after him? They are looking for the evidence to charger him with criminal offenses
No doubt when that investigation fails it'll be because Nike is too powerful / his lawyers were better / whatever, still guilty. Just like when he was "too important" to be found cheating at the TdF.
The FDA will charge him and the bigger fish later in the year. They will finish putting evidence to grand jury to gain indictments and issue all the charges in one go.
Because the retrospective testing they did isn't permissible under the WADA rules so exactly how do they go about it? No law was broken, apart from the one the federal case hinges on, so apart from that case you can't bring him before a court either. So the on-going federal case is the first opportunity they've had to go after him properly and I personally hope they make it stick.
True, we don't really know what concrete evidence they have but they have investigative power way beyond that of sports governing bodies and drug testing agencies, and a conviction rate over 90%.
Given the vast weight of circumstantial evidence against Armstrong and co, it would be a very brave bet that they have no evidence.
Think Al Capone...
I think that Armstrong will be placed in a very difficult situation; he will either have to admit to naughtiness with PEDs, or argue against all the circumstantial evidence without being seen to lie to a Grand Jury.
Either way, I think his reputation will be examined in the cold light of day.
I think too, that he will always have his believers and they will see this as an unfair attack on a great athlete, but equally it may reveal that his feet, like the feet of so many others are made of clay.
I used to like him. I used to be blind to the use of drugs in cycling, I used to think they were great athletes.
One by one all the cyclists I admired have fallen from grace...
...and perhaps most depressing, Armstrong could have done so much to expose and clean up the sport, and be thought of as a real hero for doing so.
If Armstrong admits to naughtiness with PEDs he will be in trouble for perjury in the SCA trial, spending government money on PEDs etc.
its concrete evidence that he took epo. Its not a criminal offence to take epo. Its was not against the rules to take it when he did as there was no test for it then. The breach of rules was to have a heamatocrit of higher than 50%
So he played the game within the rules at that time?
If Armstrong admits to naughtiness with PEDs he will be in trouble for perjury in the SCA trial, spending government money on PEDs etc.
Ironically this may be his means to somehow striking a deal with the prosecutors. i.e. Come clean for a reduced sentence.
TBH: I don't think he'll get his just deserts. As someone said it will be like Al Capone, he'll get done for something they can make stick rather than for what he actually did. Probably get some sort of monetary fine and a reduced suspended sentence and be allowed to keep his name at least a little intact.
This is what happened to Ulrich in Germany. The cases were settled out of court with no "official" admission of guilt. He paid a fine and is now getting on with his life out of the spotlight.
The thing is that with legal PED's or with a total ban and no PED's being used at all things may well have played out exactly as they did anyway. It would just have been more transparent. Right now its stupid, everyone claims to be clean and it's a race to find the next product no-one knows about.
I just can't believe the amount of naivety that exists about what is going on in cycling. The UCI is complicit and until they get the doping apologists like McQuaid out of the UCI nothing will change.
Incidentally, this has bigger repercussions for sport in General. The man who apparently took the bribe to cover up Lances positive for EPO in the 2002 Tour of Switzerland is now serving on the IOC Committee. BTW: It's also a matter of public record that Lance and this gentleman are business partners. Conflict of Interests?
gravitysucks - MemberSo he played the game within the rules at that time?
Actually no. EPO was still against the rules, they just couldn't test for it. There are things they can't test for now but they are still against the rules. Think about Basso's ban. He never tested positive for anything.
The problem is that retrospective testing has only been allowed in the last few years. He still broke the rules but because retrospective testing is not actually allowed for tests taken back then he can't be officially sanctioned for it. Even if it was allowed, the UCI would still find a way of protecting their golden boy cash cow.
Even if it was allowed, the UCI would still find a way of protecting their golden boy cash cow.
Yet, they will allow him to taint the sport retrospectively after he retires, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
If they have the evidence then he should be charged, full stop, they have done it with other athletes, so charge him, as everyone on here believes he is guilty then he should be charged, I mean, come on, there has to be evidence to prove he cheated or sidestepped the system, so if that is the case get him charged and do not allow him to destroy the sport even more....
Give it time tango man, as I said above, the FDA will not release indictments for criminal charges until they are ready to do them all, and they may have quite a list.
The UCI have proved themselves incapable of policing the sport and are an irrelevance.
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/9376630.stm ]Alberto's going to appeal.[/url] Curiouser and curiouser, innocent or LandisII?