i think your right, and the way things are right now, its so 50/50 that no side really has complete control. The people who say he is innocent will cling to that, and the people who say he is guilty will cling to that. Theres been no clear decision either way. And i think thats one of the more interesting things. This idea that even if he did dope, which i obviously think is bad if its true, but he has done a ton to bring awareness, money, attention, press, to cancer, and has given people who do have cancer a hero and inspiration. i think thats huge.
I dont like how its not so black and white, but i guess nothing ever is. I'd like it to be clear one way or the other, he used or didnt, but we probably will never know for sure.
He dominated a sport in an era where pretty much everyone who was a major contender has gotten busted or is heavy suspected of using PEDs. There is no way in hell he won the TDF 7 times in a row over all of the dopers unless he himself was doping.
Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
Was Lance aware of that at the time? If he had gotten away with it why come back and make yourself vulnerable to future investigations unless you are, in fact, innocent?
for lance ... it's always about him and his ego ... his foundation ... everything ... it's about him ... all through his career he had everyone coat tail to him ... this guy controlled everything ... from the UCI to the press corps to the sponsors ... he had journalists banned ... he had cyclists careers ended ... he was the most powerful man in cycling ... too big to fail ...
dude ... there is a mountain of evidence (no pun intended) ... you need to observe all of it objectively here ... i was a huge lance fan ... i've been watching pro cycling since 1986 before he even came to prominence ... i didn't want to believe he doped ... but it's just too much to overlook ... look at all the information critically and you will see this ...
The evidence is overwhelming that Lance doped. Doping has been very influential in the cycling world (as many other sports) for a long, long time, but especially since the development of EPO which provides a HUGE benefit to those in endurance sports, like cycling. But what sets Lance above the rest as far as culpability is his pressure for his team mates to drug, his responsibility to destroy anyone that threatened his drug use (which to him meant winning), and his fraud when it came to Livestrong.org v. Livestrong.com. There are so many people out there on Twitter and FaceBook saying it "was in the past" so forget about it. But that makes no sense at all! All crime and wrong doing is in the past. You prosecute/pursue criminals AFTER they have commited the crime. Doping in cycling is not all in the past. Fighting doping in sports should be pursued unless/until the rules change and doping is allowed. But how will people feel when athletes start dropping dead or dying young from pushing the limits of drug use to win?
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals. Ghandi
Regardless of how fake he is, how much of a scumbag he was in real life and how little his charity actually has given to cancer research, he gave a lot of people hope. I saw it first hand the first time my old man had cancer. He was given his book as a gift while he was in the hospital and he read it and the hope it gave him was unreal. It sounds weird, but I feel like it gave him a sense of pride in that he was going to beat cancer and could go on to do whatever he wanted (until he died a few years later of an unrelated cancer :evil: ). And regardless of whether his story would be true without doping was irrelevant, his story seriously helped him get through that, and that won't change.
He has given a lot of people hope. And a lot of those people refuse to see the truth and will defend him to the end, and I think I understand that. But a lot of "seen the light" and feel betrayed. I feel bad for both groups.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals. Ghandi
But the people who have admitted and we know have used, arent in trouble, thats the thing. Thats what im saying. With lance, yesterdays events change nothing. His supporters say this is just him saying he's tired of fighting a currupt system and that this doesnt mean he's guilty, and the non supporters say this is an admission of guilt. Id much rather know one way or the other. We dont know. Thats the thing.
And as i was saying, the people, athletes who have admitted they used are walking around scott free, havent spent time in jail, havent really gotten their records stripped. Bonds, Clemons, Giambi, Petitte, ARod, Sosa, Mcgwire, every single one of them used and in many ways as some are still active and playing they continue to be praised and their wrongs forgotten about. Bonds especially his lack of punishment is bizaare. That guy should be in prison and fined to a massive tune.
and cycling is the same way, you had ulrich and that other guy Basso admitting they used and then the next year they are on the tour again, competing for the prize. Its strange.
Basso served a suspension. Ullrich was suspended and then banned for life (I think). He definitely retired after the suspension and hasn't been back. Basso snever admitted anything. He only admitted that he spoke to the doping doctor and "intended" to dope. Ullrich never denied doping, and eventually admitted to it, although he never opened up about who provided him the drugs, who else was doing it, if the team encouraged or required it, etc. Ulrich has been ostracized and treated like dirt in cycling and with the German public. And the sad thing is, he is a genuinely nice guy. But hey, you play you pay..... if you get caught. Lance just thinks he is above the rules, and he seemed to get away with it for so many years. The other cyclists who got caught did not have the resources to pay UCI the big bribes. I think Lance paid UCI around $200,000.00 over the years. So you think they really wanted to catch him?
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals. Ghandi
Regardless of how fake he is, how much of a scumbag he was in real life and how little his charity actually has given to cancer research, he gave a lot of people hope. I saw it first hand the first time my old man had cancer. He was given his book as a gift while he was in the hospital and he read it and the hope it gave him was unreal. It sounds weird, but I feel like it gave him a sense of pride in that he was going to beat cancer and could go on to do whatever he wanted (until he died a few years later of an unrelated cancer :evil: ). And regardless of whether his story would be true without doping was irrelevant, his story seriously helped him get through that, and that won't change.
He has given a lot of people hope. And a lot of those people refuse to see the truth and will defend him to the end, and I think I understand that. But a lot of "seen the light" and feel betrayed. I feel bad for both groups.
but thats what im saying. The mountain of evidence against him is all circumstantial. its all someone saying they saw him dope. He has never failed a test and never been caught. I dont think we'll ever know the truth. One way or the other. The supporters can say he never failed a test, has been hounded and pursued since 1999 to an extent which is astonishing and has never been caught with anything, which is all true. And the haters can say all his teammates used, most cyclists during his tour victories doped, and his teammates have said he doped. Both sides refuse to give, and both sides are sure they are right. Both sides have reason to believe their right.
Someone like Bonds its obvious he doped, Even without him being caught doping, i can be sure he did. Bonds demeanor and personality is, i used, you cant do anything about it, i made a mockery of the most hallowed record in sports and dont give a damn what happened or the consequences. With lance, maybe its true maybe its not.
Regardless of how fake he is, how much of a scumbag he was in real life and how little his charity actually has given to cancer research, he gave a lot of people hope. I saw it first hand the first time my old man had cancer. He was given his book as a gift while he was in the hospital and he read it and the hope it gave him was unreal. It sounds weird, but I feel like it gave him a sense of pride in that he was going to beat cancer and could go on to do whatever he wanted (until he died a few years later of an unrelated cancer :evil: ). And regardless of whether his story would be true without doping was irrelevant, his story seriously helped him get through that, and that won't change.
He has given a lot of people hope. And a lot of those people refuse to see the truth and will defend him to the end, and I think I understand that. But a lot of "seen the light" and feel betrayed. I feel bad for both groups.
I don't disagree, but I don't think we can judge those people since we have never been through what they went through. I have never faced the possibility of death and can't begin to think about what the hope he gave them feels like.
Like I said, I don't like the guy a little bit, but I have mixed feelings on his career as a whole.
but thats what im saying. The mountain of evidence against him is all circumstantial. its all someone saying they saw him dope. He has never failed a test and never been caught. I dont think we'll ever know the truth. One way or the other. The supporters can say he never failed a test, has been hounded and pursued since 1999 to an extent which is astonishing and has never been caught with anything, which is all true. And the haters can say all his teammates used, most cyclists during his tour victories doped, and his teammates have said he doped. Both sides refuse to give, and both sides are sure they are right. Both sides have reason to believe their right.
Someone like Bonds its obvious he doped, Even without him being caught doping, i can be sure he did. Bonds demeanor and personality is, i used, you cant do anything about it, i made a mockery of the most hallowed record in sports and dont give a damn what happened or the consequences. With lance, maybe its true maybe its not.
Circumstantial evidence? I'm not sure what you mean. There are 12 people that gave direct evidence of his doping, the pressure, the fraud, and the conspiracy. Are you saying there has to be photos or video? what about Larry Sandusky? Were the victims' testimony not enough? What about someone seeing a murder. The murderer shouldn't be convicted because it was witness testimony is not reliable? Really? There would be a lot of criminals running around without fear of punishment if we had to rely on photos, video, or scientific evidence of crime.
Lance has tested positive. In 1999 he tested positive for steroids. But UCI let him get a Therapeutica Use Exemption AFTER he tested positive which was against the rules. If you use any drugs that are allowed in certain circumstances you have to get a doctor to say you need it and get approval. He didn't because obviously there was no real medical reason. He got caught, and then paid a doctor to say it was needed because he had a saddle sore. Really?
In 2001 he tested positive for EPO at the Tour de Suisse. A couple of years ago the lab manager finally came forward and said that UCI came to him and told him to keep private the results. So UCI never publicized nor did they sanction him for it.
In the first few years of Lance's domination at the Tour de France there was no test for EPO. Everyone knew that. After 2004 or so, a good test was developed. The labs retested several of Lance's saved samples and guess what? They were all positive. But guess what? The rules said you can't go back in time that way so he got off. And UCI was right there to stand behind the man.
After his comeback in 2008, according to USADA, his blood testing showed evidence of doping. That is very hard to prove conclusively. The only reason the blood values are tested regularly is so the officials can see which ones are suspicious and the watch them, investigate them, or do further testing to try to catch them conclusively. The blood values are basically a measure of the amount of oxygen in your blood (EPO). If it varies a lot then something is funny. If it stays consistent throughout a long hard race (like a 3 week tour) without going down, then something is funny. Lance still had the nerve to come back and dope. Again, he thought he was above the rules.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals. Ghandi
Basso served a suspension. Ullrich was suspended and then banned for life (I think). He definitely retired after the suspension and hasn't been back. Basso snever admitted anything. He only admitted that he spoke to the doping doctor and "intended" to dope. Ullrich never denied doping, and eventually admitted to it, although he never opened up about who provided him the drugs, who else was doing it, if the team encouraged or required it, etc. Ulrich has been ostracized and treated like dirt in cycling and with the German public. And the sad thing is, he is a genuinely nice guy. But hey, you play you pay..... if you get caught. Lance just thinks he is above the rules, and he seemed to get away with it for so many years. The other cyclists who got caught did not have the resources to pay UCI the big bribes. I think Lance paid UCI around $200,000.00 over the years. So you think they really wanted to catch him?
i have no idea, all im saying is its all speculation. Anyone claiming to know one way or the other, lance doped or did not is fooling themselves. I dont know lance, and neither does anyone on this board. I do think the press and the cycling establishment and governing and ruling boards and committees were out to get him from the start. I think thats obvious. Im a francophile but the french press hates him, hated him since day 1. Why? They were claiming wrongdoing and doping since day 1. Whether they knew something, or whether they just hate him for no reason, i dont know. But I do think, he's been tested and tested and tested adnaseum. The most tested athlete in history. And he's never been caught. And if you are innocent i could see at some point, you maintain your innocent, you deny, you say you did nothing wrong and still people continue to say you doped. I can see, if he never doped, i can see why he would be at the point he is at now. On the other hand, if he did dope, thats another story.
And i think that all points to a larger issue, in all sports now. The users have tainted it forever, for the moral, ethical and non users. Anytime anyone hits a home run, or wins the home run title for the year, we all wonder did they use? It ruins it for those who didnt use, because they are always under a cloud of suspicion.
And i dont know if lance is innocent or not. But, no matter who wins the Tour, they will forever now, be under a cloud of suspicion. How terrible if lance didnt use, and all this has happened. Its insane either way.
My point is, all steroid users and dopers should be treated the same. And they arent. Not in cycling and not in any sport.
dude ... there is a mountain of evidence (no pun intended) ... you need to observe all of it objectively here ... i was a huge lance fan ... i've been watching pro cycling since 1986 before he even came to prominence ... i didn't want to believe he doped ... but it's just too much to overlook ... look at all the information critically and you will see this ...
an innocent man would not say "I'm done with this nonsense." an innocent man would fight forever and sue forever. sorry, lance.
If I had known then what I know now...
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
Eyewitness testimony is a tricky issue. There were quite a few eyewitnesses who said Damien Echols and the 2 other teens murderered the 3 boys in West Memphis or that they were leaders in a satanic cult. One lady in Robin Hood Hills said she observed damien and the boys in a satanic riutal and coven. Obviously we know those are lies now, but those lies sent them to prison for nearly 2 decades. On the other hand the current person i think did it, was exposed largely because of his lies and eyewitness testimony which contradicted his statement. Then then are cases like you said, the sandusky case where its obvious the eyewitness testimony is correct and true. Then flip over to the JFK assassination, and i was having a discussion with someone the other day and i said 53 people said they saw and heard the shot come from the grassy knoll and this person didnt want to admit that, and admit it was a conspiracy. So eyewitness accounts are tricky things. I have no doubt that prior to DNA testing, many innocent people were put to death and prison based primarily on eyewitness accounts that were false "that guy did it" "he's the one". Michael Jackson is another great example. You had many eyewitnesses, but no evidence. And you cant convict and imprison on eyewitness accounts.
who is Lance Armstrong - and why do we care if he was high and riding a bike through France? Wouldn't you have to be high as fuck to think riding a bike through France is a good idea?
^^^^^ (musicismylife) but lance is a total bulldog. if he was innocent, he'd be in court confronting his accusers and begging for a lie detector.
If I had known then what I know now...
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
dude ... there is a mountain of evidence (no pun intended) ... you need to observe all of it objectively here ... i was a huge lance fan ... i've been watching pro cycling since 1986 before he even came to prominence ... i didn't want to believe he doped ... but it's just too much to overlook ... look at all the information critically and you will see this ...
an innocent man would not say "I'm done with this nonsense." an innocent man would fight forever and sue forever. sorry, lance.
you cant really say what would happen, because you arent in that situation. The West Memphis three copped the Alford Plea. The reason they did that last year, as opposed to continuing to fight until the death was because Damien said he was finished with it all, he was at a point of no return and couldnt stand it anymore in prison. The other 2 guys wanted to stay in prison and fight and deny guilt, but they gave in and agreed to the alford plea because they knew damien just was at his breaking point.
Unless you are in that situation you cant judge what a person would do. Imagine he is innocent. Really. Imagine it. Now imagine you went through all he's gone through the last 13 or 14 years, and it makes complete sense to me why, even if he's innocent why he would "give up" and say he's finished with the fight. We know what he's done these last 13 or 14 years. He's never wavered an inch. Maintained his innoncence. Taken a trillion tests and exams to see if he has doped and has passed every single one. Yet, he's still hounded by a ton of people who say he doped. Imagine if he's innocent. Makes complete sense to me, if thats the case, that he would feel like going to trial would be fruitless and pointless
pretty funny (or sad) that about half the second place finishers in the "lance years" were dopers, too (calling jan ullrich)
If I had known then what I know now...
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
And you cant convict and imprison on eyewitness accounts.
Yes you can.
If not, how was Larry Sandusky imprisoned?
And how do you know that Larry Sandusky's witnesses were telling the truth, but Lance Armstrongs weren't? Do you have some special ability? If you do, I could use your help.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals. Ghandi
And you cant convict and imprison on eyewitness accounts.
Yes you can.
I dont think you should be able to. Im a big believer in innocent until proven guilty. The WM3 are a perfect example of what relying on eyewitnesses can get you. To believe someone is guilty i need more than people saying they saw something. We know eyewitnesses can have their own agenda, or be mistaken, or be unsure about what they saw. They can be pressured by police to say what they say. A million different things could be going on. Who knows. And we all to a certain extent, believe what we want to believe in terms of eyewitnesses. Like i said above, the sandusky case is clearly one where the eyewitnesses arent lying. Few people would disagree with that. But then you talk about the tons of eyewitnesses who say they heard an explosion and bombs in the WTC attack and im not sure everyone is going to believe that or take that seriously as eyewitness testimony. Thats the sketchiness of it all. Not all eyewitness testimony is given the same weight for some reason. The 53 people who are sure they heard and saw a grassy knoll shot in Dallas, that wasnt enough to overturn the idea that Oswald was the sole shooter. Why not? Why isnt the 53 eyewitnesses as important as everyone who was sure they saw Oswald?
Eyewitness testimony is sketchy. Anyone who says otherwise really hasnt delved too deeply into american judicial proceedings. Hell, in the American South the amount of black men lynched, killed, beaten, imprisoned, shot etc... all based on someone who said they saw "that guy rape that white woman", would be staggering. The majority of lynchings were based on that premise. Someone accused someone of rape, and then it went on from there.
it also, just feels bizaare, just in a judicial sense. He hasnt been tried or convicted of anything. He hasnt stood trial, and he;s being stripped of all his wins. And banned for life. Seems like thats something that should be decided in a court of law, where he can defend himself in court. Thats not right, from a strictly ethical stance and in terms of american judicial law. You cant just do that.
I also sort of find it odd, the USADA, which I assume is based in the US, is able to strip him of medals and wins won in a foreign country. Seems like it would be outside the US jurisdiction.
taking those 2 things into account, i dont know how this ruling could stand. Maybe lance would appeal but im sure someone will.
If he's found guilty in a court of law, where evidence on both sides can be shown, thats one thing. Seemed very arbirtrary to me. He didnt admit anything, he just said he wasnt going to fight it. Thats not an admission of guilt , lets face it. His explanation in the letter was legitmate and makes a great deal of sense.
And as i said, steroid users are not treated the same. Clemons and Bonds have not been stripped of any of their records and stats, not has AROD been stripped of his home runs. Im all for cleaning sports up. Drug use in sports is horrible and clearly an important issue. But lets treat everyone who uses the same way. I personally think anyone who used should have their records and stats wiped away. They should be treated like Penn State was, any and all seasons they played should be wiped away and not recognized. Is Clemons treated that way? ARod?
I also sort of find it odd, the USADA, which I assume is based in the US, is able to strip him of medals and wins won in a foreign country. Seems like it would be outside the US jurisdiction.
Yeah. Almost like someone had a vendetta against him ... and to be able to take titles away that you never awarded seems .... hey, wait a minute ...
:think:
:shock:
Does this mean I can strip Bill Belichek and the New England Patriots of their Super Bowl wins if I launch an investigation into Spy Gate???
He hasnt stood trial, and he;s being stripped of all his wins. And banned for life. Seems like thats something that should be decided in a court of law, where he can defend himself in court. Thats not right, from a strictly ethical stance and in terms of american judicial law. You cant just do that.
he didn't stand trial.....but he basically plead "guilty"
If I had known then what I know now...
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
He hasnt stood trial, and he;s being stripped of all his wins. And banned for life. Seems like thats something that should be decided in a court of law, where he can defend himself in court. Thats not right, from a strictly ethical stance and in terms of american judicial law. You cant just do that.
he didn't stand trial.....but he basically plead "guilty"
He thought it was to his benefit to not try his case because he did not want the evidence to become public. He thought it would be better to accept the sanctions. That would allow him to talk about the unfairness of it all, how the process was unfair to him, and he never doped, and that he just was "tired of fighting." People will believe him. But it's not like he doesn't have the money, nor has he ever declined to fight anything before. But this time, he knew the evidence was overwhelming, and even the most stubborn defender would not be able to deny the truth.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals. Ghandi
He hasnt stood trial, and he;s being stripped of all his wins. And banned for life. Seems like thats something that should be decided in a court of law, where he can defend himself in court. Thats not right, from a strictly ethical stance and in terms of american judicial law. You cant just do that.
he didn't stand trial.....but he basically plead "guilty"
no he didnt. read his statement. thats the whole point of why this is sort of silly. This will be used as ammunition by the lance haters as he's guilty when really nothings changed. this is exactly what he's been claiming since day 1. And the lance supporters will say this is a non issue and that he hasnt admitted a thing. I think its split 50.50 on if he did it or not. But basing the idea of guilt or innocence based on the fact he isnt fighting the charges anymore is naive. Unless any of us have been in his shoes before, and i doubt anyone here has, you dont know how youd react in his situation. Not really sure why its being argued about frankly.
This will be debated about for decades to come. Nothing was resolved. People will continue to say he;s guilty and a doper and will continue to have people come forward, and then you will also have people saying he's innocent. Nothing was resolved.
Its a funny guilty plea indeed because he doesnt admit he's guilty, and in fact explicitly says otherwise in the letter, just like he has the last 2 trillion times he;s been asked or accused and about doping.
i think we all pick our battles. you see all the time celebrities suing magazines or websites for defamation. An then you see some celebrities ignoring it all, not suing anyone. I dont think either side is correct in that issue. Its all a matter of preference and knowing what you can handle. We have no way of knowing what its like to be that scrutinized and criticized or what it has done to his family.
I also sort of find it odd, the USADA, which I assume is based in the US, is able to strip him of medals and wins won in a foreign country. Seems like it would be outside the US jurisdiction.
There are questions about that. It would seem the International Cycling Union has proper jurisdiction in this case.
Also, I thought that he never failed a drugs test.
As for the part about this being all heresay based, that it's a bunch of doctors and tarnished/banned ex-teammates with a collective chip on their shoulders towards their former leader, that there is no hard evidence since being cleared on every test...
The results of them blood tests in 2009/10... not sure if they can't be presented now that LA has pleaded no contest to the case. If they can't, then LA's enough of an evil prick to realise this is the one thing that could've prevented a proper unequivocal public roasting.
115 bucks for half a haircut by a novice? I want my money back!
0
Options
goldrush
everybody knows this is nowhere Posts: 7,364
Seriously though, can someone clear something up for me? If Armstrong is stripped of his titles then who will be acknowledged as the 'winner' of each of the 7 Tours? If so many others are also guilty, how far down the field do you have to go to find the first 'clean' cyclist and will they now be awarded the win?
“Do not postpone happiness”
(Jeff Tweedy, Sydney 2007)
Seriously though, can someone clear something up for me? If Armstrong is stripped of his titles then who will be acknowledged as the 'winner' of each of the 7 Tours? If so many others are also guilty, how far down the field do you have to go to find the first 'clean' cyclist and will they now be awarded the win?
I believe there will be no winner for those years.
Comments
I dont like how its not so black and white, but i guess nothing ever is. I'd like it to be clear one way or the other, he used or didnt, but we probably will never know for sure.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
The evidence is overwhelming that Lance doped. Doping has been very influential in the cycling world (as many other sports) for a long, long time, but especially since the development of EPO which provides a HUGE benefit to those in endurance sports, like cycling. But what sets Lance above the rest as far as culpability is his pressure for his team mates to drug, his responsibility to destroy anyone that threatened his drug use (which to him meant winning), and his fraud when it came to Livestrong.org v. Livestrong.com. There are so many people out there on Twitter and FaceBook saying it "was in the past" so forget about it. But that makes no sense at all! All crime and wrong doing is in the past. You prosecute/pursue criminals AFTER they have commited the crime. Doping in cycling is not all in the past. Fighting doping in sports should be pursued unless/until the rules change and doping is allowed. But how will people feel when athletes start dropping dead or dying young from pushing the limits of drug use to win?
He has given a lot of people hope. And a lot of those people refuse to see the truth and will defend him to the end, and I think I understand that. But a lot of "seen the light" and feel betrayed. I feel bad for both groups.
And as i was saying, the people, athletes who have admitted they used are walking around scott free, havent spent time in jail, havent really gotten their records stripped. Bonds, Clemons, Giambi, Petitte, ARod, Sosa, Mcgwire, every single one of them used and in many ways as some are still active and playing they continue to be praised and their wrongs forgotten about. Bonds especially his lack of punishment is bizaare. That guy should be in prison and fined to a massive tune.
and cycling is the same way, you had ulrich and that other guy Basso admitting they used and then the next year they are on the tour again, competing for the prize. Its strange.
but thats what im saying. The mountain of evidence against him is all circumstantial. its all someone saying they saw him dope. He has never failed a test and never been caught. I dont think we'll ever know the truth. One way or the other. The supporters can say he never failed a test, has been hounded and pursued since 1999 to an extent which is astonishing and has never been caught with anything, which is all true. And the haters can say all his teammates used, most cyclists during his tour victories doped, and his teammates have said he doped. Both sides refuse to give, and both sides are sure they are right. Both sides have reason to believe their right.
Someone like Bonds its obvious he doped, Even without him being caught doping, i can be sure he did. Bonds demeanor and personality is, i used, you cant do anything about it, i made a mockery of the most hallowed record in sports and dont give a damn what happened or the consequences. With lance, maybe its true maybe its not.
I don't disagree, but I don't think we can judge those people since we have never been through what they went through. I have never faced the possibility of death and can't begin to think about what the hope he gave them feels like.
Like I said, I don't like the guy a little bit, but I have mixed feelings on his career as a whole.
Circumstantial evidence? I'm not sure what you mean. There are 12 people that gave direct evidence of his doping, the pressure, the fraud, and the conspiracy. Are you saying there has to be photos or video? what about Larry Sandusky? Were the victims' testimony not enough? What about someone seeing a murder. The murderer shouldn't be convicted because it was witness testimony is not reliable? Really? There would be a lot of criminals running around without fear of punishment if we had to rely on photos, video, or scientific evidence of crime.
Lance has tested positive. In 1999 he tested positive for steroids. But UCI let him get a Therapeutica Use Exemption AFTER he tested positive which was against the rules. If you use any drugs that are allowed in certain circumstances you have to get a doctor to say you need it and get approval. He didn't because obviously there was no real medical reason. He got caught, and then paid a doctor to say it was needed because he had a saddle sore. Really?
In 2001 he tested positive for EPO at the Tour de Suisse. A couple of years ago the lab manager finally came forward and said that UCI came to him and told him to keep private the results. So UCI never publicized nor did they sanction him for it.
In the first few years of Lance's domination at the Tour de France there was no test for EPO. Everyone knew that. After 2004 or so, a good test was developed. The labs retested several of Lance's saved samples and guess what? They were all positive. But guess what? The rules said you can't go back in time that way so he got off. And UCI was right there to stand behind the man.
After his comeback in 2008, according to USADA, his blood testing showed evidence of doping. That is very hard to prove conclusively. The only reason the blood values are tested regularly is so the officials can see which ones are suspicious and the watch them, investigate them, or do further testing to try to catch them conclusively. The blood values are basically a measure of the amount of oxygen in your blood (EPO). If it varies a lot then something is funny. If it stays consistent throughout a long hard race (like a 3 week tour) without going down, then something is funny. Lance still had the nerve to come back and dope. Again, he thought he was above the rules.
i have no idea, all im saying is its all speculation. Anyone claiming to know one way or the other, lance doped or did not is fooling themselves. I dont know lance, and neither does anyone on this board. I do think the press and the cycling establishment and governing and ruling boards and committees were out to get him from the start. I think thats obvious. Im a francophile but the french press hates him, hated him since day 1. Why? They were claiming wrongdoing and doping since day 1. Whether they knew something, or whether they just hate him for no reason, i dont know. But I do think, he's been tested and tested and tested adnaseum. The most tested athlete in history. And he's never been caught. And if you are innocent i could see at some point, you maintain your innocent, you deny, you say you did nothing wrong and still people continue to say you doped. I can see, if he never doped, i can see why he would be at the point he is at now. On the other hand, if he did dope, thats another story.
And i think that all points to a larger issue, in all sports now. The users have tainted it forever, for the moral, ethical and non users. Anytime anyone hits a home run, or wins the home run title for the year, we all wonder did they use? It ruins it for those who didnt use, because they are always under a cloud of suspicion.
And i dont know if lance is innocent or not. But, no matter who wins the Tour, they will forever now, be under a cloud of suspicion. How terrible if lance didnt use, and all this has happened. Its insane either way.
My point is, all steroid users and dopers should be treated the same. And they arent. Not in cycling and not in any sport.
an innocent man would not say "I'm done with this nonsense." an innocent man would fight forever and sue forever. sorry, lance.
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
you cant really say what would happen, because you arent in that situation. The West Memphis three copped the Alford Plea. The reason they did that last year, as opposed to continuing to fight until the death was because Damien said he was finished with it all, he was at a point of no return and couldnt stand it anymore in prison. The other 2 guys wanted to stay in prison and fight and deny guilt, but they gave in and agreed to the alford plea because they knew damien just was at his breaking point.
Unless you are in that situation you cant judge what a person would do. Imagine he is innocent. Really. Imagine it. Now imagine you went through all he's gone through the last 13 or 14 years, and it makes complete sense to me why, even if he's innocent why he would "give up" and say he's finished with the fight. We know what he's done these last 13 or 14 years. He's never wavered an inch. Maintained his innoncence. Taken a trillion tests and exams to see if he has doped and has passed every single one. Yet, he's still hounded by a ton of people who say he doped. Imagine if he's innocent. Makes complete sense to me, if thats the case, that he would feel like going to trial would be fruitless and pointless
Yes you can.
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
If not, how was Larry Sandusky imprisoned?
And how do you know that Larry Sandusky's witnesses were telling the truth, but Lance Armstrongs weren't? Do you have some special ability?
I dont think you should be able to. Im a big believer in innocent until proven guilty. The WM3 are a perfect example of what relying on eyewitnesses can get you. To believe someone is guilty i need more than people saying they saw something. We know eyewitnesses can have their own agenda, or be mistaken, or be unsure about what they saw. They can be pressured by police to say what they say. A million different things could be going on. Who knows. And we all to a certain extent, believe what we want to believe in terms of eyewitnesses. Like i said above, the sandusky case is clearly one where the eyewitnesses arent lying. Few people would disagree with that. But then you talk about the tons of eyewitnesses who say they heard an explosion and bombs in the WTC attack and im not sure everyone is going to believe that or take that seriously as eyewitness testimony. Thats the sketchiness of it all. Not all eyewitness testimony is given the same weight for some reason. The 53 people who are sure they heard and saw a grassy knoll shot in Dallas, that wasnt enough to overturn the idea that Oswald was the sole shooter. Why not? Why isnt the 53 eyewitnesses as important as everyone who was sure they saw Oswald?
Eyewitness testimony is sketchy. Anyone who says otherwise really hasnt delved too deeply into american judicial proceedings. Hell, in the American South the amount of black men lynched, killed, beaten, imprisoned, shot etc... all based on someone who said they saw "that guy rape that white woman", would be staggering. The majority of lynchings were based on that premise. Someone accused someone of rape, and then it went on from there.
I also sort of find it odd, the USADA, which I assume is based in the US, is able to strip him of medals and wins won in a foreign country. Seems like it would be outside the US jurisdiction.
taking those 2 things into account, i dont know how this ruling could stand. Maybe lance would appeal but im sure someone will.
If he's found guilty in a court of law, where evidence on both sides can be shown, thats one thing. Seemed very arbirtrary to me. He didnt admit anything, he just said he wasnt going to fight it. Thats not an admission of guilt , lets face it. His explanation in the letter was legitmate and makes a great deal of sense.
And as i said, steroid users are not treated the same. Clemons and Bonds have not been stripped of any of their records and stats, not has AROD been stripped of his home runs. Im all for cleaning sports up. Drug use in sports is horrible and clearly an important issue. But lets treat everyone who uses the same way. I personally think anyone who used should have their records and stats wiped away. They should be treated like Penn State was, any and all seasons they played should be wiped away and not recognized. Is Clemons treated that way? ARod?
:think:
:shock:
Does this mean I can strip Bill Belichek and the New England Patriots of their Super Bowl wins if I launch an investigation into Spy Gate???
is it still cheating if everyone is doing it?
There is no way that he wasn't using performance enhancing supplements.
he didn't stand trial.....but he basically plead "guilty"
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
He thought it was to his benefit to not try his case because he did not want the evidence to become public. He thought it would be better to accept the sanctions. That would allow him to talk about the unfairness of it all, how the process was unfair to him, and he never doped, and that he just was "tired of fighting." People will believe him. But it's not like he doesn't have the money, nor has he ever declined to fight anything before. But this time, he knew the evidence was overwhelming, and even the most stubborn defender would not be able to deny the truth.
Please do. Their victory over the Rams was straight-up bullshit.
no he didnt. read his statement. thats the whole point of why this is sort of silly. This will be used as ammunition by the lance haters as he's guilty when really nothings changed. this is exactly what he's been claiming since day 1. And the lance supporters will say this is a non issue and that he hasnt admitted a thing. I think its split 50.50 on if he did it or not. But basing the idea of guilt or innocence based on the fact he isnt fighting the charges anymore is naive. Unless any of us have been in his shoes before, and i doubt anyone here has, you dont know how youd react in his situation. Not really sure why its being argued about frankly.
This will be debated about for decades to come. Nothing was resolved. People will continue to say he;s guilty and a doper and will continue to have people come forward, and then you will also have people saying he's innocent. Nothing was resolved.
Its a funny guilty plea indeed because he doesnt admit he's guilty, and in fact explicitly says otherwise in the letter, just like he has the last 2 trillion times he;s been asked or accused and about doping.
i think we all pick our battles. you see all the time celebrities suing magazines or websites for defamation. An then you see some celebrities ignoring it all, not suing anyone. I dont think either side is correct in that issue. Its all a matter of preference and knowing what you can handle. We have no way of knowing what its like to be that scrutinized and criticized or what it has done to his family.
There are questions about that. It would seem the International Cycling Union has proper jurisdiction in this case.
Also, I thought that he never failed a drugs test.
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-ad ... -Rats.html
http://98fm.com/2012/category-news-spor ... 2012-2408/
As for the part about this being all heresay based, that it's a bunch of doctors and tarnished/banned ex-teammates with a collective chip on their shoulders towards their former leader, that there is no hard evidence since being cleared on every test...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/la ... story.html
The results of them blood tests in 2009/10... not sure if they can't be presented now that LA has pleaded no contest to the case. If they can't, then LA's enough of an evil prick to realise this is the one thing that could've prevented a proper unequivocal public roasting.
http://youtu.be/jGtfpzT4Lqw
Seriously though, can someone clear something up for me? If Armstrong is stripped of his titles then who will be acknowledged as the 'winner' of each of the 7 Tours? If so many others are also guilty, how far down the field do you have to go to find the first 'clean' cyclist and will they now be awarded the win?
(Jeff Tweedy, Sydney 2007)
“Put yer good money on the sunrise”
(Tim Rogers)
I believe there will be no winner for those years.