John O'Donnell wrote:
Does anyone know why they are imposing a lifetime ban? I don't know what penalties are normally imposed in cycling, but I am quite sure Floyd Landis and others were not given lifetime bans. Is it because Armstrong is presumed to have used PEDs in all seven Tour wins? Thanks.
It has nothing to do with the amount of time Armstrong doped. It is because he is charged with trafficking.
dumb lance armstrong always is pretending to be clean and natural. he doesn't have the balls to fight. win or lose, he should get 10 witnesses of his own who can say they never saw any drugs and who could testify that the usada's witnesses were jealous or misinformed.
good riddance.
Louie Logic wrote:
The insane thing is not only was Lance mercilessly tested more times and for a longer period than anyone in the sport and yet never got caught doping.
How many times was Lance tested? Please provide some evidence with your answer.
Pretty sure Kristin Armstrong has a lot more drug tests than Lance.
Never tested positive you say? Clearly never read this interview then:
http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
coach d wrote:
Unless you have to go through an "arbitration process" where court is hand-picked by the prosecutor, you have no right to see the evidence against you, and your rights are less than what they would have been in the Soviet Union. This is a quasi-legal agency set up the way it is so that athletes are denied the rights they would have under the US Constitution if they got a traffic ticket.
I'm not arguing that Lance is clean, but we have a process here that simply should not be allowed in the United States.
Lance would have had a better chance for success if he'd hired a hit man instead of a lawyer. And I think he should.
By the "court is hand-picked by the prosecutor" do you mean the arbitration process where USADA picks one arbiter, Lance picks one arbiter, and those two arbiters pick the third? Is that what you mean by hand-picking the prosecutor? It is a lot more input than I ever got into who would hear a case in civil court.
By "no right to see the evidence against you" I assume you are talking about the clearly outlined discovery process in the Arbitration rules where Lance would have been given notice of all witnesses, documents and exhibits that USADA intended to introduce? That no right to see the evidence?
NeverFailedADrugsTest wrote:
Never tested positive you say? Clearly never read this interview then:
http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
Lance tested positive at the 1999 tour for a corticosteroid at the 1999 TdF. He was allowed to file a backdated TUE. UCI covered it up. They also apparently covered up the positive at the TdS in 2001 in exchange for cash.
Let's please stop with this never tested positive bullshit.
I'm one of the people who will admit to being disappointed. I defended Lance in the face of Floyd Landis's accusations of a few years back.
For the record, is Landis one of the people who would have testified against Lance?
~ wrote:
I for one don't think the guy needs to surrender his titles. Those attacks in the mountains and the speed in the time-trialing were real and he won them all in dominating fashion. That said, it amazes me that people can't understand how doping works in a sport like cycling. Lance, or any of the other riders, don't just sit around and one day decide to up their game with some pharmaceuticals. It is systemic to the sport. A promising young rider doesn't get a contract offer to a Tour team without being thoroughly vetted that he's on board and not likely to be a liability to the rest of the team and all the people involved in the shoe.
The managers, coaches, doctors (literally hundreds of people sport-wide) - these people are all plainly aware of the performance possibilities of an athlete training with performance enhancers, many have been studying the data for decades, their entire careers. They not only know the significant benefits of PEDs, they know that the management teams of each of their competitors has this date too. It is a classic prisoners' dilemma with millions of $$$ and long careers as spoils to the victors. These are the people calling the shots day-to-day, not some 25yr old rider.
THIS IS THE REAL "POST OF THE YEAR" ROJO.
Not some post that says this decision shows his guilt. Anyone who is remotely competent in understanding the cycling world (or attempted to) has known he has doped for years. But that doesnt change the fact that Lance controlled and dominated races and changed the way Tours are ridden against a field of talented dopers.
I wonder if the joy people show in this decision comes from the fact that another doper, no matter the name, has been caught and stripped of his winnings or the fact that they dont like Lance as a person and they take personal offense to his denials and the way he handled himself in the last 10 years.
If its the former, who gets his jerseys? How can any follower of endurance sports believe they know with a certainty necessary to strip and re-award victories that person A doped and person B did not. The drugs are always ahead of the tests and the incentive to dope AND to cover-up positive tests is always there. I cant celebrate this decision from this point of view. It ignores everything we know and should believe about the former and current state of endurance sports. You can only say Lance didnt deserve those wins if you can point to someone who did deserve them... and I for one cannot.
If its the latter, I agree there is little to like about the man and the tone and manner of his staunch denials played a role in that. But I think that ignores reality a little bit. Rojo, you contrast Lance with the admitted dopers of the 60s and 70s. That's not a fair comparison. Those guys are old and out of the sport or have little to lose from an admission. Lance's being clean was so tied to his earning potential and his (questionable) cancer research foundation that of course he was going to "deny deny deny" and fight fire with fire.
Even the admitted dopers of his era have only not denied denied denied when it was personally beneficial to them to deny: Ulrich-- avoid jail time; Hamilton--publicity, avoid DOJ/USADA charges; Riis--continue in the sport; Vaughters--continue in the sport, continue to shape the narrative of the Garmin team; Lance's other former teammates--avoid DOJ/USADA charges...
Additionally, if the USADA or the DOJ was going to try to use its resources and its immunity to bully a conviction (that doesnt help clean up anything and just takes down a name for taking down a name's sake) then why wouldnt Lance use his resources and his access to publicity to fight back. Can anyone say that Jeff Novitzky is not a jerk as well? Im not trying to say that Lance is a good guy--I dont think he is. But I dont really get how people can rationally be offended by the way he has addressed these charges over the years unless they dont understand the reality of the world around them and the cycling world.
Hopefully this is all over now. But Im not sure there are any winners here:
http://www.bicycling.com/news/featured-stories/injustice-all?page=0,0Who doesn't cheat in the Tour de France? He never tested positive.
Witchhunt with an agenda.
They shouldn't have stripped him of the titles not because he was clean, but because pretty much every other pro cyclist out there is doping as well.
Front page of the Friday, August 24, 2012 New York Times:
Armstrong Drops Fight Against Doping Charges
oops wrote:
Wow. Next question, what will he say to the public?
The 10 people willing to testify against me should also be asked: "who was the best rider in the world?"
EGO....????? Makes every world class runner GUILTY!!!!
Mr. Obvious wrote:
oops wrote:Wow. Next question, what will he say to the public?
I never tested positive despite being the most tested athlete in history. Although I am ending my formal fight against these charges because it is a baised forum that does not change what happened on the roads. I refuse to allow my children to see their father's name being drug through the mud. This is a witchhunt fueled by haters with a vendetta and I refuse to allow them to continue to waste taxpayer resources. I am going to continue the fight against Cancer, despite my detractors wishes...blah, blah, blah.
Drug though the mud? Dragged might be a better choice, especially as it's the correct word.
kudzurunner wrote:
I'm one of the people who will admit to being disappointed. I defended Lance in the face of Floyd Landis's accusations of a few years back.
For the record, is Landis one of the people who would have testified against Lance?
There is no public information on who the witnesses are/were. There is some speculation that it would have included Floyd, but it is all speculation. They may release those details in the sanctioning letter. At least some of those names will come out, as sanctions will be imposed against them (expect that to include Hincapie).
Just to state it for the record again, USADA claimed they had at least 10 former teammates and at least two former team personnel (managers, gophers, etc) that would have testified against him.
Interesting move made by Lance. Reminds me of the end of the movie Wargames, in which WOPR finally realizes "the only winning move is not to play". This was Lance's only move. Don't go to arbitration. Don't fight. Don't play.
Why are people saying that people would be willing to testify to avoid jail time? That is simply not true in this case.
Also, for the 10th time and for some reason people keep missing this point: THERE WERE POSITIVE TESTS!
Of course he doped, because everyone in the TDF doped during those years. But the only rational method of dealing with the problem is to have a testing regime. If you test negative, you're "clean." Going back 7 years based only on the testimony of convicted dopers given sweetheart suspensions in exchange is ridiculous. Which clean rider will now assume the yellow jerseys Armstrong loses?
Filipino wrote:
Why are people saying that people would be willing to testify to avoid jail time? That is simply not true in this case.
Also, for the 10th time and for some reason people keep missing this point: THERE WERE POSITIVE TESTS!
Right, although part of the reason for testifying was to reduce their own sentence. The rumor is that some of the other riders will get 6 months instead of four years. At least some of them were allowed to ride in the TdF this year, again, according to rumor and best guesses.
So, while it wasn't jail time they do have a lot of self-interest in testifying against Lance. Also, best anybody can tell the reason some of this came to light was the grand jury testimony in the federal investigation, where many of these same riders were allegedly subpoena'ed and testified.
crdb wrote:
Of course he doped, because everyone in the TDF doped during those years. But the only rational method of dealing with the problem is to have a testing regime. If you test negative, you're "clean." Going back 7 years based only on the testimony of convicted dopers given sweetheart suspensions in exchange is ridiculous. Which clean rider will now assume the yellow jerseys Armstrong loses?
I personally think they should vacate the titles, but I have no idea what ASO will decide to do.
Are you against all non-analytical positives? Do you support Marion Jones being allowed to keep her gold medals? Kelli White? Tim Montgomery?