What is Lance's endgame?

so if (7) ex riders take the stand and all tell basically the same story, and have incentive to be truthful(immunity if truthful, and severe prosecution if not), the fact that they may have denied prior PED use(lied, not under oath), then you are simply going to ignore their testimony, even if corroborated to a degree by other facts? are you kidding me? how do you think there are any organized crime convictions in this country---jurors have demonstrated a willingness to believe much worse guys if the entire mosaic of facts/circumstances are believable.....

njrun90 wrote: have incentive to be truthful(immunity if truthful, and severe prosecution if not)

OR

have incentive to be untruthful (immunity if they tell a story on LA that is simply their word vs. LA, and severe prosecution if they don't give up the bigger fish)

Brandon wrote:

And those that say he doped are not credible becasue they have already proven that they are liars in the past.

Are you kidding?! What about Hincapie? When did he lie in the past? What about Betsy Andreu? O'Reilly? Anderson? There are multiple people who have implicated Armstrong without a book to write or a grudge against him or out of simple jealousy.

Did all of these riders (Hamilton, Landis, Hincapie) ride with Lance with US Postal? If so, and these guys are all saying Lance used on US Postal, I would think it may follow that Hincapie used as well. I would find it just as hard to believe that most members of US Postal were blood doping but George Hincapie was the one saint in the group.

My two cents wrote:

Did all of these riders (Hamilton, Landis, Hincapie) ride with Lance with US Postal? If so, and these guys are all saying Lance used on US Postal, I would think it may follow that Hincapie used as well. I would find it just as hard to believe that most members of US Postal were blood doping but George Hincapie was the one saint in the group.

there are reports that Hincapie testified that he did, they're not confirmed though.

If an athlete tests at or below the non-advantageous testosterone and hematocrit levels, then he/she does not have an advantage in those areas over his/her peers. Such athletes compete fairly. Athletes should be enabled to optimize both testosterone and hematocrit levels in order to reduce success to mastery of the mind and inspiration of the spirit. To do otherwise subtly promotes the idea of genetic advantage, the root of the concept of a master bloodline or master race.

The Washington Post reported today that the US Anti-Dpoing Agency, also known as The Self-Annointed Clowns Out to Destroy US Athletics, will be investigating LA, and even if LA gets acquitted from the federal case, the US group will likely move to get his TdF victories voided (at least as many as they could).

Unfortunately, I think LA is going to come out of this the loser no matter what happens. The whole sport is reeking...and I'm a diehard fan of all things cycling...

This is why the leaked Hincapie testimony is such a big deal. Prior to his testimony there wasn't even any suspicion of him doping; plus, he rode with Lance in all 7 of his Tour wins, and has been considered part of Lance's inner circle.

Ergo, Hincapie has/had zero crediblity issues and zero reason to lie about Lance (or himself!) doping other than not wanting to perjure himself. It's a HUGE blow to Lance.

correct----the final straw in the myth, regardless of whether there is a legal penalty

always thought lance was a right c***

lance stood up to all those pro cancer people

djäveln wrote:

he was hoping the world would end 5/21...so...he's toast.

I think Lance is an atheist or at least an agnostic, so I doubt he's hoping something supernatural will help him out.

FogRunner wrote:

If an athlete tests at or below the non-advantageous testosterone and hematocrit levels, then he/she does not have an advantage in those areas over his/her peers. Such athletes compete fairly.

They don't compete fairly, because the limits are higher than any athlete would normally achieve, in order to avoid false positives.

It is also common practice to be well above the limits during training, when tests are unlikely, and to drop just below the limit when it matters (sometimes with the aid of masking agents).

The big guys don't usually get caught by being tested "over the limit" anyway, Armstrong included. The offense isn't being over the limit, it's doping. Lance Armstrong doped.

One thing that the apologists for Lance that are saying it doesn't matter because of all the good things he did for cancer research, etc. are missing is this: it's about image.

All of these sports stars have charities, and they are all carefully crafted by a P.R. person (or team) that makes them look like benevolent do-gooders who want to save the world. Armstrong's foundation, while doing good for some, is also self-serving in its own right. It perpetuates the Lance myth as an eternal good guy; the guy who really cares about people and projecting a squeaky clean image that allows him to pocket millions from Nike, Michelob Ultra (how could anyone drink that dross?), Radio Shack, etc.

So, yes, I do think we need to know whether Armstrong cheated or not. We'll never know because of the mountains of money and influence that surround him. If you get big enough, and enough people are suckling at the teat, they'll do everything they can to protect you and keep you from falling.

People keep saying that Lance can take the fifth - but my understanding is that prosecutors may be able to force him to testify if they give him immunity. If he gets immunity, he wouldn't be incriminating himself - so there would be no 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination.

And they can always have a provision in there revoking immunity if he lies on the stand so that he couldn't just deny drug use and suffer no consequences.

Hope they go that way!

I don't understand how you people think hincapie has zero credibility issues.

Did Hincapie state that he was using for a multiple amount of years? While competing?

If you're cheated for your professional career - and made a very nice living off of it - then you have credibility issues.

Everyone who "witnessed" lance take the drugs also did them and lied about doing so at the time. Thus, they all have credibility issues. Thus, it will be very hard to convict lance.

They need someone to come forward with a claim to have sold/provided lance with the drugs personally.

Brandon wrote:

(1) The fact remains that Lance has never tested positive.

(2) And those that say he doped are not credible becasue they have already proven that they are liars in the past.

(3) Did he dope?

(4) That is how I beleive guilt or innocence is decided.

(1) Neither did Marion.

(2) Hincapie?

(3) Yes.

(4) Maybe in a court of law, but in real life, we all know that Lance--like OJ--is guilty.

Seriously dude. I know I had grammar problems in my last post, but I just stated that hincapie has credibility issues. The man cheated his entire professional career. = credibility issues.

And, seriously, marion jones never tested positive for PEDs and neither have I. Does that mean I doped? No, it doesn't, so quit it with that type of association. It doesn't prove anything.

Thank you for voicing your opinion.

Querfeldein wrote:

FogRunner wrote:

If an athlete tests at or below the non-advantageous testosterone and hematocrit levels, then he/she does not have an advantage in those areas over his/her peers. Such athletes compete fairly.

They don't compete fairly, because the limits are higher than any athlete would normally achieve, in order to avoid false positives.

It is also common practice to be well above the limits during training, when tests are unlikely, and to drop just below the limit when it matters (sometimes with the aid of masking agents).

The big guys don't usually get caught by being tested "over the limit" anyway, Armstrong included. The offense isn't being over the limit, it's doping. Lance Armstrong doped.