Lance won't come clean as if he does he's going to jail for perjury.
Glitch...?
Lance won't come clean as if he does he's going to jail for perjury.
I don't think it matters if he comes clean or not, if the evidence points to him lying under oath, then he committed perjury. It will be interesting to see if this actually happens, and why the investigation was closed down when there is so much compelling evidence.
"Watershed moment in the pro peloton?? "
If the positives out of the below can be taken then yes I believe it's a watershed moment.
Read the riders' statements
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/danielson-vande-velde-and-zabriskie-accept-usada-bans
Ok, meant to say that Lance won't come clean voluntarily. Suspect he'll go down for this.
Also, I'm quite surprised by people saying how disappointed they are by riders like Hincapie and Barry. Are you following the same sport I've been following? This can't really come as a surprise to anyone. They were put in incredibly difficult situations during some dark times for cycling, and given the same alternatives I'm sure most of us would probably have made the same choices. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to read Millar and Hamiltons books for starters.
Let us say that you went to a party and on the way back home you were stopped by the police for speeding. Then the cop made you take an alcohol test. It showed that you were not drunk. He took another one and it showed the same thing. He took you to the hospital and their test showed you were not under the influence of Alcohol.
The cop then goes to the party and thay say "oh, he was drunk". So now you are pronounced GUILTY.
Armstong had hundreds of test and he passed them all, but now (just because some people who don't like him or have already been caught and are just determined to drag him down with them,) he's guilty?
It's a good job that at the end of the day it's just about riding a bicycle around the place, so pretty insignificant in the scheme of things.
Joao - are you still in denial about lala? After all the evidence published over the last few years?
Blimey.
Let us say that you went to a party and on the way back home you were stopped by the police for speeding. Then the cop made you take an alcohol test. It showed that you were not drunk. He took another one and it showed the same thing. He took you to the hospital and their test showed you were not under the influence of Alcohol.The cop then goes to the party and thay say "oh, he was drunk". So now you are pronounced GUILTY.
Armstong had hundreds of test and he passed them all, but now (just because some people who don't like him or have already been caught and are just determined to drag him down with them,) he's guilty?
You're joking, right?
And if they had records of bank transfers to the off licence?
Joao, if a load of others at the party were also tested and shown not to be drunk, then all admitted to having been boozing heavily all night... what conclusions would you come to?
Joao, if a load of others at the party were also tested and shown not to be drunk, then all admitted to having been boozing heavily all night... what conclusions would you come to?
That the testing system was dodgy?
That the other party goers were hacked off?
The whole saga is just very sordid and very sad.
[url= http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/nike-show-continued-support-for-armstrong-after-usada-report ]Nike still supporting Lance.[/url] Quite surprising really.
Joao - that's the shittest analogy I've ever heard.
Also check up what WADA accepts as evidence, sworn testimony is included, not just positive tests.
The UCI and ASO have signed up and accepts WADA regulations.
Take your head out the sand, it'll hurt your eyes.
Nike still supporting Lance. Quite surprising really.
I suppose with the "Just do it!" slogan their support is quite appropriate.
How about Oakley, Trek etc?
Joao - that's the shittest analogy I've ever heard
Sorry. I nicked it from elsewhere, so unfortunately can't claim any credit for it's shittiness.
Joao, if a load of others at the party were also tested and shown not to be drunk, then all admitted to having been boozing heavily all night... what conclusions would you come to?
I'd conclude their statement to be unreliable at best, blatant lying at worst.
If never failing a drugs test can be trumped by some blokes saying "he did it", then what's the point in all the drug testing.
Anyway, I'm clearly out of my depth amongst all the doping & legal experts here 😀
Joao - that's the shittest analogy I've ever heard
Sorry. I nicked it from elsewhere, so unfortunately can't claim any credit for it's shittiness.
Joao, if a load of others at the party were also tested and shown not to be drunk, then all admitted to having been boozing heavily all night... what conclusions would you come to?
I'd conclude their statement to be unreliable at best, blatant lying at worst.
If never failing a drugs test can be trumped by some blokes saying "he did it", then what's the point in all the drug testing.
Anyway, I'm clearly out of my depth amongst all the doping & legal experts here. I didn't realise STW was populated with so many globally-renowned lawyers & scientists 😀 ... unless we're all just repeating stuff we found on the internet & agree with?
That the testing system was dodgy?
That the other party goers were hacked off?
The whole saga is just very sordid and very sad.
1, Yes
2, Can't see how that is true. In this case all your mates have come forward and said that they were all shit-faced despite the fact if they'd kept their mouths shut nobody would have known
3, Agreed. It's a shocking period in professional sport in general and particularly for cycling. This hopefully will begin to really draw a line under it
If never failing a drugs test can be trumped by some blokes saying "he did it", then what's the point in all the drug testing.
Millar never failed a drugs test.
2, Can't see how that is true. In this case all your mates have come forward and said that they were all shit-faced despite the fact if they'd kept their mouths shut nobody would have known
The tests say one thing and the person says the opposite.
Lance, as one person, had the power to influence and oversee this structure of professional doping yet USADA doesn't have the same level of influence.
Just saying like. [/devil's advocate]
I think the damning stuff in the report is the lying. why say you aren't in contact with Ferrari in 2009 when you were, unless you have something to hide. (hundreds of emails prove he was)
Anyway, I'm clearly out of my depth amongst all the doping & legal experts here. I didn't realise STW was populated with so many globally-renowned lawyers & scientists ... unless we're all just repeating stuff we found on the internet & agree with?
No just agreeing with the uncontested USADA report. What's the source of your fantasy?
The tests say one thing and the person says the opposite.
And it is now known that it was quite easy to cheat the test.
Millar never failed a drugs test.
He was caught in posession of EPO* though, which kind of removes the need for a positive test!
*OK, empty vials...
*OK, empty vials...
Legally that can only prove that he was in possession of empty vials. Any conviction would have to come from a confession, no?
And it is now known that it was quite easy to cheat the test.
Indeed, and it's often cyclists who come clean that explain to the testers how they beat the tests, and help improve the testing in the process. Microdosing EPO is a good example of that.
Can't really believe some people are still claiming he's innocent. Where's RealMan?
Legally that can only prove that he was in possession of empty vials. Any conviction would have to come from a confession, no?
Possession of the paraphernalia for doping is enough in France. The bloke booted off the tour this year was caught with a syringe and the fact it was just a placebo given to him by a homeopath didn't save him. Just having the needles is a crime.
Can't really believe some people are still claiming he's innocent.
Celebrity has become a religion, the deference shown to those in the media spotlight often leaves me astonished.
I don't get it, pro cyclist doped and lied about it.....and?
Can't really believe some people are still claiming he's innocent. Where's RealMan?
Some people and some major corporations and organisations! Makes you realise how much influence he has and how much of a myth he's built up over the years.
Possession of the paraphernalia for doping is enough in France.* The bloke booted off the tour this year was caught with a syringe and the fact it was just a placebo given to him by a homeopath didn't save him. Just having the needles is a crime.
That's fair enough and if you know the laws and still allow yourself to get caught by holding on to a syringe, etc. I think Millar has admitted that the mistake was not throwing away the syringe, but equally he was glad he was caught.
*Does mean that ownership of a high performance sports car means you're guilty of speeding? 😕 I know time and opportunity comes into it, but so does reasonable doubt. Complicated this legal stuff, innit?
Joao,
I'll use you analogy in a slightly different manner. If I drink 6 pints, then get in the car in Inverness, drive to London, and pass a breath test in London 10 hours later, does that mean I wasn't drink driving?.
Does mean that ownership of a high performance sports car means you're guilty of speeding?
Has anyone in a high powered sports car never exceeded the speed limit ever?
Has anyone in a high powered sports car never exceeded the speed limit ever?
Only the ones caught by traffic cops and the tools to do it, but that's not the point I was making. The point being that French law assumes you are speeding simply because you have the tools in your possession to do it. Guilty until proven innocent.
Does mean that ownership of a high performance sports car means you're guilty of speeding? I know time and opportunity comes into it, but so does reasonable doubt. Complicated this legal stuff, innit?
Not really. Being in possession of doping paraphernalia is explicitly illegal, owning a high performance sports car is not.
Analogies are not always useful, but isn't a better one that if someone is carrying a car-lock-opening thing then likely they are a car thief, and not an AA/RAC man?
Not just the means, but also motive.
They won't bust a hospital for having the paraphernalia.
Only the ones caught by traffic cops and the tools to do it, but that's not the point I was making. The point being that French law assumes you are speeding simply because you have the tools in your possession to do it. Guilty until proven innocent
Only in relation to this particular offence. I think the point is that there's no good reason for a cyclist to have syringes, blood bags, drugs etc in his possession excluding for medical reasons which he'd have documentation for so the only possibility for having them other than this is doping and so you don't need to be caught doing it, just having the means to do so. View it more like having a dozen packages of heroin on you is a crime and probably classed as an intention to supply drugs despite the fact you may never have been caught selling them.
Glitchy
Reading David Millar's book at present and he says that there is still a reasonable sized doping culture in the sport, but that a lot of it is down to the deliberate misuse of the therapeutic use expemtion certificate or whatever its called.
The point is that it is possible to have a high performance car and not speed. If you have drugs paraphernalia you have to explain what you were going to use it for.
I'm intrigued by this French thing. Could someone provide a link please? The cases I'm aware of for the 2012 Tour involved police suveillance over long periods, money trails, dealers, telephone tapping and enough evidence to quite reasonably bring a prosecution. [url= http://www.sudouest.fr/2012/07/11/di-gregorio-pris-en-flag-766718-8.php ]This one for example[/url]
Nike still supporting Lance. Quite surprising really.
[url= http://store.nike.com/us/en_us/?l=shop,men_livestrong ]Not really. [/url] Far too much invested Livestrong, which effectively IS Lance. They'll be hoping this blows over and the memories of Lance the American multi-TDF winner remain and they can go on selling yellow things that contribute a small amount to a cancer charity.
Ironically, it appears to be the bullying and intimidation of Simeoni and 'witnesses' which has done for him by allowing USADA to set aside the statute of limitations covering earlier doping evidence.
My overriding image of the man will always be the smug 'zipped lips' to the peleton as he dragged him back.
I'm interested at what UCI will do now re the Kimmage libel case. The USADA report doesn't appear to have the smoking gun connecting McQuaid et al to suppression of LA's positive test, although there appears to be plenty that hints at an improper relationship and a deep reluctance to address doping.
