Cliff notes version of what USADA has on Lance Armstrong

Didn't these guys turn on Lance years ago with the whole 60 minutes thing?

blah blah blah...The USADA or The Fed or whomever will spend several million for what gain? Is there anyone on Earth that believed John Edwards was innocent yet today he is innocent of all charges. Several million spent to nail Lance, several million in attorney fees for Lance, Lance will be found not guilty, Lance will write another book.

WHO FVCKING CARES?!!??!!

IT'S SPORTS FOR PETE'S SAKE.

FVCKING GAMES!

Forgive me for being out of the loop, but isn't this all stuff we already know? Not that he was a doper or anything but that there are a few people who want to bring him down whether he's dirty or not? I don't understand what's changed and why he now can be considered dirty when its the same sh!t he went through before in the court of public opinion. People are saying he doped? So what? Is there any evidence or just people (who were brought in and questioned by the USADA mind you) saying uh yeah he doped. It seems like the only actual evidence of him doping was gathered over a decade ago and even that was said to have been covered up. So you can take that with a ton of salt. Also the timing of this is so transparent. He's starting to really roll on the triathlon scene and he has KONA coming up and NOW is when USADA decides to do come out with this. Fishy.

Well it's definitely a witch hunt isn't it, not surprising the brojos would jump all over it.

But not if the USADA was after them. No, not at all.

Then it wouldn't be very fair.

J.R. wrote:

Well it's definitely a witch hunt isn't it, not surprising the brojos would jump all over it.

But not if the USADA was after them. No, not at all.

Then it wouldn't be very fair.

Is it really a witch hunt when there are ten, TEN, credible witnesses who reported his drug abuse in addition to biological evidence?

dumb wrote:

Is it really a witch hunt when there are ten, TEN, credible witnesses who reported his drug abuse in addition to biological evidence?

Do you believe everything that you read?

If so, then you should believe what Armstrong has said.

Or do you only believe the things that the corporate media tells you to think. Not brainwashed much huh.

seriously..... wrote: blah blah blah...several million in attorney fees...

This is the problem. The USADA attorneys will make out like thieves. The USADA CEO is an attorney and was previously the USADA General Counsel. The current USADA General Counsel has a background in litigation. It is obvious that these two don't care whether they "nail" Armstrong or not. Its all about the fees.

This is the US ADA CEO, Travis T. Tygart.

@ 0:44 he says "we have evidence that even children's multivitamins are contaminated." Geez, everything is contaminated with PEDs.

Here is the annual report for USADA:

USADA seems to operate more as a business than a true non-profit.

Do you believe everything that you read?

If so, then you should believe what Armstrong has said.

Or do you only believe the things that the corporate media tells you to think. Not brainwashed much huh.[/quote]

LiveStrong is the height of "corporate media" Check your sources

In what ways do you see it acting as a business? Non-profits are businesses.

Did not realize so much in federal grants went to USADA.

J.R. wrote:

dumb wrote:

Is it really a witch hunt when there are ten, TEN, credible witnesses who reported his drug abuse in addition to biological evidence?

Do you believe everything that you read?

If so, then you should believe what Armstrong has said.

Or do you only believe the things that the corporate media tells you to think. Not brainwashed much huh.

You are a moron If you think Lance didn't dope.

I won't waste anymore time. In medical school I learned that you should never try and convice someone that their delusions aren't real bc delusions are by definition persistent and illogical.

You are delusional.

luv2run wrote: In what ways do you see it acting as a business?

Most of the USADA expenses seem to be for salaries and services. Out of $15M in expenses only $2M was given out in grants. Not a good ratio. The annual report also shows that the USADA is entirely reliant on one major grant. If the grant goes away the USADA dies. The attorneys running the organization will have to find work somehow else.

Lot of weird ass posts here.

Snsnskdkdk wrote:

You are a moron If you think Lance didn't dope.

I won't waste anymore time. In medical school I learned that you should never try and convice someone that their delusions aren't real bc delusions are by definition persistent and illogical.

You are delusional.

Heh, where did I ever say that Armstrong didn't take any drugs.

You sure are delusional. Now don't be persistent. Just go away.

Snsnskdkdk wrote:

You are a moron If you think Lance didn't dope.

I won't waste anymore time. In medical school I learned that you should never try and convice someone that their delusions aren't real bc delusions are by definition persistent and illogical.

You are delusional.

hey nobody doubts you went to medical school.

Finally Lance is going down. As much as I feel bad for him b/c virtually everyone in the TDF dopes, he has been one of the worst offenders. His teams have been involved in some impressively systemic doping and his eagerness to attack those who have outed him is disgusting. Plus Livestrong doesn't even give money to researchers anymore, just tries to raise "awareness" - truely embarrassing. I'll be happy to watch this B*tch get rocked in court and I hope he also gets rocked in the court of public opinion.

Amidst all the charges, counter-charges, rumors, and speculations about this matter, there are three things I'm actually sure of:

1. Either Armstrong was relatively clean OR drug-testing was a joke for most of the decade he was doing his winning. Pretty much has to be one or the other, no? Neither reflects all that well on the anti-doping agencies.

2. Everybody has an agenda here, with money and prestige on the line, and that includes the USADA. They could still be 100% right, but the USADA is as concerned about their "brand" as Armstrong is about his. The media has a stake in this too - Armstrong and doping charges draws eyeballs. (I almost wrote "sells papers" but nothing does that anymore.)

3. The most important question in the current Armstrong case doesn't actually have anything to do with Armstrong. The most important question is what impact will this case have on anti-doping efforts going forward? Armstrong's legacy, one way or the other, isn't going to impact the 2012 Olympics or 2016 Olympics much at all (to pick two major sets of sporting events). What can impact those events (and others) quite a lot is how drug-testing is done and cases adjudicated. How this case plays out has the potential to influence that. There could be some positives to come out ... okay, poor word choice ... there could be some good things to come out of this for sports as a whole. This case should shine a real bright light on how doping charges are handled by the USADA. Do people get due process? Is the agency, you know, competent? Or are reforms needed to strike a better balance between catching dopers on the one hand and not railroading the innocent on the other? Let's use the Armstrong case to get a better idea about the answers to those questions. And let's look at the testing issue - even taking the USADA's word as gospel on this case, Armstrong seems to have beaten the tests hundreds of times, and admitted dopers have also beaten numerous tests. So what kind of improvements might be made to the testing approach? I mean, fool me once, shame on you, fool me 500 times and maybe we should rethink things, no?

Bottom line: As this case proceeds, I think we should be watching it with a focus on the question of What can we learn from this that will help us do a better and fairer job going forward?

Ok, so Lance is maybe finally going down.

If he get stripped from hes 7 victories, i really wonder who they will give the medals?

Conatador went down, and they gave the victory to Andy Schleck..... Like he was less of a doper?

What is good is that finally Bruyneel might be out of the circus.

And hopefully Lance has to pay back parts of the money he earned.

But, remember, he was the best among the dopers, the same is true among runners. The timespan 1990-2008 will be remembered as the blood doping era, but dont take anything away from the winners, except keep doping in mind when you compare times and world records.

lance did take EPO as a cancer treatment