More bad news for Lance? SI on the case.

A trial is going to happen because there is reasonable suspicion that a crime occurred, not just because the Feds think he cheated at sports. The HemAssist accusation is the big deal, and it's not just about Armstrong. In fact, I don't think he's the main target, but rather the people who helped him. From the Science of Sport blog:

"Why, goes one of Fabiani’s (an Armstrong spokesman) best lines, is the FDA of all people interested in some European bike races from a decade ago?

Well, the response now goes, because one of the most famous sportsmen of the last half-century stands accused of buying stocks of a tightly controlled investigational drug – manufactured by an American pharmaceutical company and intended for use only in clinical trial settings under the regulation of the FDA or its European counterparts and which is illegal to use for any other purpose, or even for a private citizen to possess, much less transport internationally – to pull off a monumental sporting fraud.

I think that subject is well within the FDA’s investigatory wheelhouse. And I eagerly await Fabiani and Armstrong’s explanation for why it’s not."

Dogman wrote:

poiuy wrote:

What was Betsy Andreu busted for? Or Michael Ashenden? I would think both of them would have a lot of credibility in a court of law.

Actually, both of them are 2-steps removed from the process and quite easily refutable. Hell, I am not a great lawyer and I could make them look like idiots. Come on. Have you really researched their association and testimony? If not, then please go away.

Again, Dogman, these are your words... "The only people testifying against him are those already busted and seeking a plea deal. Their credibility is immediately diminished by their status as a criminal."

I provided two examples that contradict your claim. It's now on you to discredit their potential testimony. I find it ironic, as a lawyer, that you choose to attack them and not the evidence itself. How does the saying go, "when guilty, attack the witness, when innocent, attack the evidence."

I look forward to you posting something of substance that doesn't come straight from the Armstrong PR machine. And, yes, I have researched their association and testimony. They would both make credible witnesses despite your spin on reality.

Since when is the fact that he beat top cyclists 7 times in a row acceptable proof for Lance using PED's? I'm not denying that it is POSSIBLE that he did, based on the prevalence of doping in the sport of cycling, but until there is actual proof of him doping I have no reason to believe that he did.

The logic of many of you that a winner must have been doping is ridiculous. First of all, where is your source that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a "clean" cyclist to beat a "dirty" one? I believe Renato Canova has come on here and disclosed (at least in the sport of track and field) that it is usually the average elites that end up cheating to get to the next level, not the ones that are the most talented. Assuming that Bekele is clean, which we should since there is no evidence that he is not, then he is beating all the "dirty" athletes out there. Also, since when is the fact that your teammates cheated proof that you did? If that were the case everyone should assume that El G was dirty too... but once again there is no proof so that would be like speculating in some other type of mythological idea.

I don't understand why it is so hard to believe that Lance could win so many times. The guy was swimming 6 miles a day at the age of 12, and has a resting heart rate of 32 beats per minute. He won the genetic lottery, just like Geb, Bekele, El G, etc.

One can look at Lagat, for example, and speculate that he "cheated" because of one positive A sample while he was competing for Kenya. Let's say this is true. I doubt anyone in their right mind would even think that he is cheating as an American athlete. So why is he still setting American records and running 12:54 at the age of 36? The answer is because he is more talented than most of if not all the runners in our country. I don't see why it is that ludicrous to think that he could have run 3:26 in his prime, given his consistent performances this late in his career when he is supposedly "clean".

Lagat is breaking American records because he is a Kenyan competing for America

Lance wouldn't have a problem if he had just retired and gone the way of Indurain (who was also doping). Lance had to become a celebrity, his ego wouldn't let him fade away. He put himself in this position because he is greedy and arrogant. At this point it doesn't matter how many tests he passed, there is no reversing the damage he has done to himself by acting like a pompous d-bag about the entire situation. The almighty dollar and his ego will be his downfall.

Since when do American cyclists become A-list celebrities? He put himself out there to scrutinized and now he's scrambling to cover it up. So far, he hasn't been caught by a court or drug test and he's successfully pulled the wool over the eyes of the American public and a lot of ridiculous fan boys on this thread. Who cares anyway? Cycling has become the WWE of international sport. We only watch to see who gets caught next...

Not sure why you replied to my post, but I'll bite anyhow. All elite cyclists are talented. You've bought into the myth that Lance is a physiological freak of nature, a one-of-a-kind athlete. He is a great and talented cyclist, no doubt, but so are all the others who have won big races/tours and also tested positive for PEDs. Although Lance won a World Championship title pre-cancer, he had shown no ability to be a great Tour rider, much less a 7-time champion.

As another poster suggested, the "Lance can't be guilty" crowd needs to spend significant time on the Cycling News website (Clinic forum). If you read the threads (and related links provided) and still think Lance was clean, then there is no hope for you. You're simply a pollyanna. And this is coming from someone who once bought the hype "hook, line, and sinker." I finally opened my eyes, did some reading, and saw the reality.

Merckx's mechanic wrote:

Gotta love the fanboys who still think there's "insufficient evidence" linking Lance to doping. It's like- one of the world's leading anti-doping scientists- Dr. Caitlin's opinion means nothing to them. Yup, the same Dr. Caitlin Lance hired to prove he was clean is saying he doped.

Now quick little Lance Elves! Quickly now! Or people will soon catch on that all's not well... why is Santa riding to the South Pole!

You obviously know nothing about how things work in the court room. Believe me, as stated in the article there is not enough evidence to bring him down. This has nothing to with being a "fanboy". It's called using your brain a little.

Perhaps there is more that isn't being published but based only off the article this investigation has been a huge waste of time.

puzzled and bewildered wrote:

talking to Lanse supporters is like talking to the black community about OJ.

I don't know that anyone is saying he didn't do it. Most are just saying that this "evidence" wouldn't stand up in court.

I for one think he did dope but I still don't think anything in those articles is enough to prove him guilty. This really isn't that hard of an idea to understand.

ecin wrote:

Perhaps there is more that isn't being published but based only off the article this investigation has been a huge waste of time.

I'm sure the Feds are giving away all their evidence to a couple of reporters from SI. I don't think it's a stretch to assume there is a bit more evidence, including eye witness testimony, that has been collected.

This really isn't that hard of an idea to understand.

All the top riders are busted (he beats them all). His teammates and former teammates for a decade get busted (from the time period where he is team leader). He chases down an anti-doper's breakaway to make a point and enforce the unwritten code of silence. Narc'd on by many riders. He has positive tests that are swept away. He makes large vague and secret donations to the UCI. Linked closely with a cutting edge cheating doctor. When there is finally real pressure on him, he (and his team) have the worst tour in lance and team history.

But I bet he's clean. I mean, he passed like a bazillion tests.

I second reading some clinic. Even the "fanboys" supporting lance, who never entertained the idea he could possibly be dirty, have changed their tune to the "so what everyone else was" defense.

Ha.....great evidence. A guy with him said that there were drugs in a bag and security looked at him sideways. Now that's convincing.

Wow. I know you said you're not a very good lawyer but are you really that terrible a speller? Are you drunk?!

Dogman wrote:

Please note that I am not/have not stated my opinion about whether or I think Lance is/has used, but merely commented on my opinion that the evidence that has been unvailed to this point does not appear to rise to a level that would support a leagally guilty vertict against him.

You obviously know nothing about how things work in the court room. Believe me, as stated in the article there is not enough evidence to bring him down. This has nothing to with being a "fanboy". It's called using your brain a little.

Perhaps there is more that isn't being published but based only off the article this investigation has been a huge waste of time.

------------

You obviously have low intelligence, since you are telling me I know nothing about how things work in the courtroom. Are you aware of my background? Or the validity of the evidence being presented? Why do you think there's a Fed. investigation and why has it gone so far? Any ideas Einstein?

For one, you have Dr. Michael Ashenden- an anti-doping expert from the AIS- saying "I saw epo in Lance's '99 samples". But then the Pharmstrong machine moves into high gear to discredit him, the fanboys call him a hater, and his testimony is considered "inconclusive".

There's a reason so many of Armstrong's team are saying he doped. It's time to face reality.

Er... wrote:

Wow. I know you said you're not a very good lawyer but are you really that terrible a speller? Are you drunk?!

Dogman wrote:

Please note that I am not/have not stated my opinion about whether or I think Lance is/has used, but merely commented on my opinion that the evidence that has been unvailed to this point does not appear to rise to a level that would support a leagally guilty vertict against him.

LOL. Now you know why I don't type my own briefs. "Gilty" as charged! LOL.

innocent until proven guilty

heresay is not admissable in court

lacking empirical evidence, the entire cycling world is gossiping like a cheerleading squad

i think it's likely that he doped (at least as likely as it is that his accusers in the sport did as well), but they really just need to shut the f*** up until they actually stick him with something. this drama is stale

Dogman-

You espouse the typical lawyer BS which is why lawyer jokes exist. If it came down to it, I would bet that if you had to bet your most valued possessions on lance's innocence, there is no way you would do it. I don't care what you say on these message boards. When push came to shove, and you had to choose right, you would bet he was dirty, regardless of this legal nonsense you're talking. Common sense.

With this being said, I haven't seen or heard any legal evidence against lance. Unless something changes here, he's safe, legally. You would still have to be a moron with no common sense to think he's clean, or be completely ignorant about endurance sports and Lance in general.

BTW I would put the ratio of good lawyers pretty low, especially seeing as what a joke it is to get into law school and the common motives of going in anyway. They all juke their stats and a law degree is more or less meaningless these days, unless you were top 10 individually in your class and have connections. Even then you're probly an ahole.

stick your BB gun up your diplomatic @ss and stop your nonsense, save it to rip off some ppl in court or whatever you unethical tools do. You get no meaningful respect.

Agreed- I have no idea whether or not he will ever be found guilty in a court, nor would I want to try predict that, since any number of technical arguments could/will be made about sample handling, chain of custody of evidence, reasonable doubt, blah blah blah.

In the meantime, we each get to have our own opinions, and voice them as we see fit. To me, the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, and this continued focus on all of his "clean" tests are irrelevant, since there are substances that are either untestable, rapidly cleared, or present naturally. More and more athletes these days are caught not because of a failed test, but because of testimony, financial records, drug logs, etc. "Innocent until proven guilty" is an excellent principle for the legal system; for our own opinions we get to set the bar of "guilty" however low or high we like. Mine is pretty high, but Lance has sailed over it.

As to my opinion, I think he doped, and have thought so for awhile. All the top guys he destroyed were caught up in huge scandals AND the watts/kilo numbers are off the chart. BUT, as someone who loves cycling, I don't really care. I accept that then, and now, most of the top guys dope. The drama is still the same, the guts are still there, Lance was still pretty damn inspiring looking back at Ulrich and taking off... Additionally, the guy has done a TON for the cancer community as a result of his winnings and celebrity. I am not sure if he is more tragic figure or more Machiavelian case study.

Two things that I find particularly interesting:

1. This reminds me a ton of Tiger Woods' downfall. If Lance had let Floyd's team race in the Tour of California, instead of trying to blackball Floyd, how much of this would have come out? The hubris of someone to repeatedly cut ties and throw those that have damning information on you to the wolves... I just don't understand it. Who gives a crap if Floyd's B-List domestic team races if it keeps him quiet? If Tiger had done more than buy his girls a sandwich as a tip...

2. At first I thought the FDA was involved bc of fraud on the US Postal Service or illegal activities by agents of the US Postal Service. There is little in this article that links doping to Postal. Most of it is Motorola stuff, that doesn't as much concern federal authorities. Now that it involves this unapproved drug, and could be deemed an international drug ring with money laundering... this could be very interesting.

spokane xc wrote:

Additionally, the guy has done a TON for the cancer community as a result of his winnings and celebrity.

Please explain what exactly Lance has done for the cancer community. I'm certain that there has been some good that has come from his foundation, but I would argue that other cancer foundations do MUCH more with the money they raise. LAF's mission is to increase "awareness" - what does that mean exactly? I know I wasn't aware of cancer until Armstrong came around.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in the coming months as the Armstrong myth starts to unravel, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a journalist with a hefty set of balls (do any still exist?) start digging into Livestrong. For example, how many .org's have a money making .com directly linked? Unfortunately, I think Armstrong has used cancer to make more money for himself.

Furthermore, what if it's proven that PEDs contributed to Lance's cancer? Where does his foundation go from there?

When you have a moment, try this link:

.