Formal Charges Brought Against Lance Armstrong

you are banned.

sloppy lawyers wrote:

long sox wrote:blah, blah, blah

What you omitted is that there is no old lady victim to be found.

[/quote]

Please stop being a child.

The victims of doping are the clean athletes that lose sponsors because they don't place high in major races and those that enter the sport clean and find that they have to dope to compete... or find that they need to dope just to be a domestique in a major team.

There has been so much evidence agaist Lance that the FDA found him guilty. Oh wait...that is not true. In fact they didn't have proof so they dropped their investigation. I am sure glad that guy haters are on the ball though. You obviously have more infoemation than the government body that spend so long investigating him. All of you who say he cheated like you have no doubt look like total a$$es. You have no proof. Only hate and assumptions.

J.R. wrote:

The giant pharma corporations definitely DO pay people to post on message boards, like this one. I wouldn't at all be surprised that they post here regularly.

You seem to be anti drugs, anti drug companies, anti drug promotion and anti drug distribution and yet in this case you appear to support Lance Armstrong and the other accused?

Did you take a look at the charges...

This isn't about some naive young athlete that took a dietary supplement and didn't check the label. The charges against the accused (including Armstrong) include Trafficking, administration and attempted administration of epo, testosterone and other drugs to other athletes.

If you are really so anti-drugs as you claim, I would have thought those would be precisely the things that you would be against?

There is a larger issue here that both Lance haters and supporters may not have treated adequately: Enough is enough. At some point the accusation process must come to an end. Even criminal laws are constrained by statutes of limitation. Assuming that Lance doped, this stuff should absolutely not be happening in 2012. These charges and rumors go back over a decade. This guy has answered the allegations repetitively and at same point should be able to resume his life-regardless of what happened more than ten years ago. No one, not even a dog, should be treated like this.

long sox wrote: Please stop being a child.

You have lost. That is why you result to insults to make your case. That doesn't work.

here is a gem wrote: I'm not claiming he is clean now either. I simply implied that passing a test now during his tri career has no bearing whatsoever on the USADA investigation of his professional cycling career. Got it?

The USADA does not have a case. Got it? They will lose because other evidence contradicts the new sworn testimony. Unless Armstrong admit he took PEDs there is nothing that can be done.

Armstrong is secondary to what the USADA is trying to do.

The USADA is up to something else. Armstrong is just a sacrificial lamb.

quote]long sox wrote:

sloppy lawyers wrote:

long sox wrote:blah, blah, blah

sloppy lawyers wrote:

long sox wrote: Please stop being a child.

You have lost. That is why you result to insults to make your case. That doesn't work.

So "blah, blah, blah" is the best you can come up with?

Then you claim others "result" to insults?

Stop being a child? You toss out an insult get a lower grade insult tossed back at you and you get offended.

I'm still waiting for people like you to figure out why the USADA which completed WADA testing on Armstrong many times is still looking for something on him.

This has nothing to do with WADA, which I support.

This has to do with USADA being run by attorneys looking to go far beyond WADA testing. WADA testing does not require endless retesting if nothing is found. That is a USADA attorney invention.

Don Bayles wrote:

There is a larger issue here that both Lance haters and supporters may not have treated adequately: Enough is enough. At some point the accusation process must come to an end. Even criminal laws are constrained by statutes of limitation. Assuming that Lance doped, this stuff should absolutely not be happening in 2012. These charges and rumors go back over a decade. This guy has answered the allegations repetitively and at same point should be able to resume his life-regardless of what happened more than ten years ago. No one, not even a dog, should be treated like this.

I completely disagree. First, not all crimes have a statute of limitations. The worst crimes, such as murder and (in many states) rape, don't. And, in sports, I would argue that doping, especially of the systematic kind over years, as Armstrong is accused of, is absolutely among the worst offenses in sport. So if you follow the same logic as the criminal code, there should be no statute of limitations for systematic doping.

Remember, cyclists have died due to doping (too much EPO = blood too thick = spate of young cyclists dying from heart attacks). I wouldn't hold Armstrong responsible for that even if he is guilty as charged, but he would seem to share some portion of the blame. And it certainly reminds us that doping has serious real-world consequences that go far beyond whose name ends up on a trophy.

Finally, if Armstrong systematically doped, why should he ever get a free pass just because a certain number of years have elapsed? He's still profiting from his victories after all.

In fact, I think that would be one of the biggest disincentives to doping - blood test people and save some blood samples for future testing, when methods have gotten better. Make it clear to the dopers (or would-be dopers) that they will NEVER have peace of mind. If they want to beat the system, they have to fool not only scientists today, but scientists a decade from now, or two decades ....

If someone cheated to win, I want them to have to live the rest of their life with the worry that they could be caught, and wonder every day if today will be the day. The same way the clean athletes they beat have to live the rest of their life with the knowledge that they came up short, wondering if it was because others doped.

You will never win over a real court of law claiming the murder and drugs are equal. They are not.

You can be put to death for committing murder.

You cannot be put to death for doing or selling drugs.

"If Armstrong systematically doped" he should have caught years ago. He wasn't. End of story. Time to write a new chapter. Let him un-retire from sports and now try and catch him.

Hey sloppy thinker, I didn't equate murder and doping. Don Bayles said that even criminal laws are limited by time, and I pointed out that the worst criminal offenses (like rape and murder) are not. So, using that comparison (which Bayles made) then the worst SPORTS offenses (like systematic doping) should also not be limited by time.

If someone got cheated out of achieving the pinnacle of their profession, they have to live with that failure for the rest of their lives. Why shouldn't the cheater have to live the rest of their life with the possibility that they could get caught?

If someone stole something really really important from you, something you had worked incredibly hard for, based your whole life around ... after how many years should they just be allowed to get away with it, and sleep peacefully knowing they could never be held accountable?

long sox wrote:

You seem to be anti drugs, anti drug companies, anti drug promotion and anti drug distribution and yet in this case you appear to support Lance Armstrong and the other accused?

If you are really so anti-drugs as you claim, I would have thought those would be precisely the things that you would be against?

I am supportive of all runners and athletes, all of us anywhere in the world, being able to pursue our running and lives, without being harassed by outside influences that have nothing to do with our sport.

I don't care if people take drugs or not, anymore than I care if they drink coffee or tea. I wish they wouldn't, because those things are harmful, but that's their personal individual choice to make for themselves.

J.R. wrote:

I don't care if people take drugs or not, anymore than I care if they drink coffee or tea. I wish they wouldn't, because those things are harmful, but that's their personal individual choice to make for themselves.

We both take a test for a job. I cheat, and as a result score higher than you. So I get the job and you don't.

You okay with that because cheating was my personal choice to make for myself?

Don Bayles wrote:

At some point the accusation process must come to an end.

Hey dude,

Armstrong is ACTIVELY pursuing an atheltic career,

and the USADA letter states anomalies in the blood as recent as last year.

Why are youa pologizing that much?

OK, after a little poking around here is the USADA protocol:

http://www.usada.org/files/pdfs/usada-protocol.pdf

Areas of particular interest in this case might include:

2.6-2.8 Possession, Administration, and Trafficking in prohibited substances

3.1 Burden of Proof (balance of probability)

3.2 Methods of Establishing Facts

3.2.4 The hearing panel in a hearing on an anti-doping rule violation may draw

an inference adverse to the Athlete or other Person who is asserted to have

committed an anti-doping rule violation based on the Athlete’s or other

Person’s refusal, after a request made in a reasonable time in advance of

the hearing, to appear at the hearing (either in person or telephonically as

directed by the hearing panel) and to answer questions from the hearing

panel or the Anti-Doping Organization asserting the anti-doping rule violation.

10.3.2 Sanctions for Violations of trafficking and administration

10.5.2 Reduced suspensions for those providing substantial assistance in discovering or establishing anti-doping violations

10.9 Commencement of Ineligibility Period

10.12 Imposition of Financial Sanctions

13.1 Appeals

17 Statute of Limitations

24.3 The Code shall be interpreted as an independent and autonomous text and not

by reference to the existing law or statutes of the Signatories or governments.

R-4 Initiation of Claims

R-28 Evidence

Who do you think wrote the protocols? The USADA attorneys.

What you posted was applicable 1/1/2009. It would be applicable after that, not before.

Lawyers often try to write their own laws or unenforceable language. The often fail to have them hold up in a real court of law. But they try because that is their job.