P.S.
I WIN I WIN I WIN YOOO HOOOOOO!!!!
P.S.
I WIN I WIN I WIN YOOO HOOOOOO!!!!
Lance is a good-for-nothing cheat. Good riddance to him.
J.R.
There is a minimum threshold to enter into any court system. Trials are not a question of preference, or fairness, but a question of law and facts.
Did Lance or USADA break any law?
If so, who violated which law? Please be exhaustive and unambiguous.
If no law was broken, by either party, why do you suggest a trial is appropriate?
Why do you disparage the AAA process as a kangaroo court? Please be precise.
You are deeply mistaken if you think that I'm injecting my own interpretations, abhorrent or not. It's simply a question of scope. Club rules are not the same as local, state, national or international laws. Violations of club rules can be completely legal. Wearing jeans can be sanctionable by club rules, but yet not illegal. Sanctions are not convictions. Sorry for you if you don't understand these basic definitions.
If USADA was "declared ineligible to regulate", America could no longer participate in the Olympics. Think that through a whole lot before responding to that.
USADA is not some alphabet organization making all the rules.
In conservative fairness to every athlete, USADA's sanctions must pass through every interested organization, with the right of appeal.
For Lance that means WADA and the UCI.
Lance and WADA and the UCI have the right to appeal USADA's sanctions to the CAS, then again to the Swiss courts.
Since everyone else was silent, why aren't you?
He should confess like Jimmy Swaggart:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCpeeaIfF9c
"Ah have sinned against you My Lord..."
There are two words spelled similarly and pronounced the same way "rein" and "reign". These words are textbook homonyms, and their meanings are quite different: "rein" is an aid used for controlling a horse, while "reign" is something a monarch does.
The expression "a free rein" has a definite meaning; allowing the ridden or driven horse freedom to chose its own path over difficult terrain by slackening the reins.
The expression "a free reign" doesn't exist and has never existed, except for those whose education is severely lacking, but you don't have to believe me:
http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/03/rein-or-reign/
I guess you don't win after all.
I don't know that Lance doped, I suspect he may well have.
However, I do think that JR has a point. Over the last few years this has turned into a classic witch hunt. In some quarters, objectivity has been completely set aside. Yes, Lance may have volunteered and be contractually obliged to follow the route of arbitration, but this whole mess has outgrown this process to the point where it is not fit for purpose.
If I was in his shoes I'm sure I would take the same stance. If I was under attack in the manner he is, I would want the safeguards afforded to a suspect in a criminal trial. None of the 'evidence' in this case has ever been rigorously tested, and I guarantee it would not have been tested to any great degree in arbitration.
It's very easy to prosecute someone when they do not have the means to a robust defence.
january1 wrote:
Levels Within Levels wrote:To those who say "they are all using", you are only parading your ignorance. It is like saying that Pablo Escobar and a local weed dealer are committing the same offence, give them the same treatment. Lance took cheating the system to levels never dreamed of by his rivals, not the least of which was having the best lawyers money can buy, and the Cancer Shield to deflect popular scrutiny on every level.
This.
Listen, you had to be an idiot to EVER think cycling was clean.
The thing is...Lance was what he was...guy who saw the system was rigged and said...literally..."yay though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I shall fear no evil for I am the meanest mutha fukker in the valley..."
Not saying it is right, it just was what it was. The thing that is amazing...is how many people went along with him.
Or, the heartbroken, like the Brojo's who decided he broke their little hearts.
I never, never, never, never, EVER thought cycling was clean.
Why?
Because I saw first hand how dirty track and field in Los Angeles was. And, I read the freaking press back in the day.
Not saying Lance was right, but there are 100's of guys who were doing it and went right along.
And the owners of the sport knew it, don't forget, the sport was/is a business, and sadly, human being are fukking corrupt and pathetic.
The only real justice would be / woulda been for the sport to cancel itself for 5 years or something. But GREED rules.
The funny thing is, the witch hunts always go after the individual athletes, and never the guys making the bigger money...
Tim Westwood wrote:
I don't know that Lance doped, I suspect he may well have.
However, I do think that JR has a point. Over the last few years this has turned into a classic witch hunt. In some quarters, objectivity has been completely set aside. Yes, Lance may have volunteered and be contractually obliged to follow the route of arbitration, but this whole mess has outgrown this process to the point where it is not fit for purpose.
If I was in his shoes I'm sure I would take the same stance. If I was under attack in the manner he is, I would want the safeguards afforded to a suspect in a criminal trial. None of the 'evidence' in this case has ever been rigorously tested, and I guarantee it would not have been tested to any great degree in arbitration.
It's very easy to prosecute someone when they do not have the means to a robust defence.
Hi J.R., I thought you were done with this thread?
The system is broken, so USADA should let Marion Jones off? What about Eddie Hellebuyck? Justin Gatlin? Floyd Landis? Tyler Hamilton? Chryste Gaines? Tim Montgomery? They all went through arbitration, but I didn't see you complaining the the process was unfair or "unfit for purpose" then.
If arbitration is not "fit for purpose" USADA should re-suspend LaTasha Jenkins? What about LaShawn Merritt?
The fact is that arbitration works extremely well; having the evidence tested by people who actually know and understand the sport (especially when two of the three people on the panel are appointed or co-appointed by the Respondent) is far more likely to rigorously test the available evidence than any court case ever will.
This "witch hunt" complaint is bull, pure and simple- the only reason that this has dragged on over years is that Armstrong wanted to avoid giving evidence under oath, and has wriggled around and thrown down roadblock after roadblock.
If he were truly innocent he could have gone to arbitration with USADA several years ago; the case would have been decided within 2 -3 months and he could have got on with his life.
His actions pronounce his guilt, and the system is fine.
naive beyond belief.
athletes have always cheated, and always will cheat.
especially major sports leagues. the money is too big.
there is no solution; what that means is that they will keep finding new ways too cheat.
one of the major issues is that the seasons or the events get longer and longer...and the only way for these guys to survive is to take substances...and like any clan of humans they share with each other the ways to survive the grind.
the only REAL solution is to stop all competitive leagues.
they are in a huge "catch 22" now. here is why: if they stop them from taking substances that allow them to stay healthy through long seasons, they will have to hire more players when guys are on paid injured leave...and the owners don't want to hire larger player pools...
and so it goes.
but everybody, like you, think they know better.
the only other way to take the cheating and drugs out of it is to take the money out of it.
human beings are too needy and greedy and so you got what you have got...
Bad Wigins wrote:
How many decades have sports tried to eliminate PED's, and what have they achieved, absolutely nothing. Not because it can't be done, but because the sports themselves are corrupt from the inside out. Pro sports are about making money, and there's no money to be made if there are no PED's. Using every possible advantage to win is the driving force.
That is why other forms of cheating are not only allowed, they are tradition. For example, putting pacemakers in track races is cheating. It gives runners a physical advantage and allows them to go faster. It's as dishonest as a wind-assisted sprint. But it has been done for decades and results occasionally in records, which makes money, so it is allowed.
Imagine pacemaking being banned. There go all the European meets. No more sub 3:30's, ever. Nobody will watch track anymore. The sport would go broke.
That's the same thing that would happen if track really did eliminate PED's. Same for cycling. If performances regress, the sports will go into recession, and so the investors who set the rules and pull the strings see to it that PED's are not eliminated.
LA almost surely was a doper. Cycling protected him for a long time, but then USADA, for shamelessly self-promoting reasons, decided to put him against the wall, and cycling threw him under the bus. But cycling is not going to change one little bit. LA is just the fall guy for a tradition as old as cycling itself. As long as all eyes are on LA, they won't be on the sponsors and organizers who enable and profit from PED's, and they will easily figure out how to keep things as they are.
If you really want drug-free sports, you must decide if you can do without the sponsors and the big money. There won't be records anymore. There won't be many good competitions. They won't be putting it on TV. It'll be crap. PED's are cheating, but that's how it is. Cheating's traditional now. You won't recognize the sport without it.
i shoulda read further, this is exactly it.
fans are stupid, owners are greedy. the cycle continues. the best answer lance could give would be "were you entertained? then you got your money's worth, as did everyone."
Link wrote:
http://www.cbssports.com/general/story/21541130/report-lance-armstrong-will-admit-to-doping-in-oprah-interview
Bump worthy link. I just read the news at USA Today's website. My Tivo's going to be busy when Oprah comes on.
Old Woman in the Shoe wrote:
Blah, blah, blah... wrote:Which would have to coincide with the witnesses testimony regarding dates and times. If Andreau "saw" Lance use a syringe with unknown contents in 2002, but a positive test was not consistent with the timeline, then you'd have strong circumstancial evidence, along the lines "where there's smoke, there's fire", but not enough for a guilty.
I don't see why the times have to coincide. I get the circumstantial evidence piece, but I don't think it applies in a scenario like this. A positive test is a positive test. It's all you need. If the cops pull me over for drunk driving, and I blow a 0.25, they don't also need to ask my friends if I've been drinking.
But if we continue this madness, for the people who think Lance is clean (can barely type that without laughing), what's he going on Oprah for? Just a nice chat? What's the "90 minute special" for? Do you think Lance is going to sit there and say he's innocent for 90 minutes? That seems like repetitive television. What's the point!?!?
You know they have this thing called "commercials," right?
--It's not going to actually be...90 minutes. Right?
Notakicker wrote:
http://sports.sho.com/videos/1302
I don't know who looks seedier, Lance or Travis with his hair plugs.
hmmm.
okay so he allegedly spoke to USADA about "a path to redemption."
if USADA agreed to that, they are a sham.
the only reason that makes sense for him to admit to doping is so he can go back to running Livestrong.
personally I think he should just gone his own way and started his own "Livestrong Marathons" etc.
it's crazy...and one thing for sure is that it is going to be interesting.
i really wonder about the whole strategy of this...Oprah is allegedly not paying him for the interview...the interview is at his house in austin...puff piece...i mean show the booty of his ill gotten treasures...have his kids running around, sitting in his lap...humanize him...
it's crazy.
he is so used to dancing.
there are too extremes...he continues to dance and talk about how unfair the whole process was...
or he comes clean all the way...but not...
"that's just the way the whole sport was, we all did it, i had to be tough to be a leader and protect the majority..."
i just wish cycling and the TdF would go away for years...
cycling used to be runnings little brother, and somewhere over the years you guys...some of you any way...made it the older brother.
Tim Westwood wrote:
I don't know that Lance doped, I suspect he may well have.
You are really not sure whether Lance doped or not? Have you seen the report?
ggthdd wrote:
26mi235 wrote:I do not remember when he testified under oath in a manner that would involve perjury. Was the civil case about the insurance a case where he testified under oath in a manner that opens him to perjury?
I am not trying to be a butt-head or a Lance apologist, but I just do not remember (and I am posting a long-term name, not some no-name account).
Yes - it was a case that was specifically arguing whether he doped or not. He said, under oath, that he did not.
Whether we personally think perjury should result in someone going to jail is one thing, but the fact remains that one clear penalty for perjury is jail time.
It is not that lying about a bike race is an important crime, but lying in Court, under oath, has massive implications for a society built on the rule of law.
If we can't have fair trials where witness testimony is to be believed, we really can't have a system based on laws - and that is a huge problem that must be deterred.
OK, if is the court case from the insurance suit, then, while he might have committed perjury he cannot be convicted of that offense because the statue of limitations has run out on that case.
Thus, at this point, I think that he cannot be jailed for perjury unless someone can cite a case of testifying under oath in a manner that committed perjury.
And Rojo, "rojo wrote:
Lance belongs in prison for perjury."
Is this opinion, or were you stating what you think (thought) the facts are? If you meant the 'facts', I think that there is a higher burden on you to determine the facts or to indicate that it is an opinion of what you want to happen, not what the facts are in the case.
[Note, I do not consider it being a Lance apologist just for trying to clarify a legal issue. I did not say that I think he is a scumbag or not ("yes", is my opinion, for misleading and using his position of trust and importance to do so, by the way).
There was no doubt that Lance doped after the 2004 retesting of 1999 TdF samples.J.R doesn't have a point. A trial is not necessary nor appropriate.There was no witch hunt. USADA simply performed its duty following up allegations in Landis' e-mail. These allegations were corroborated by testimony, e-mails, videos, depositions, and doping control test reports.Lance has the lawyers and resources to defend himself, and arbitration provides ample opportunity to mount a defense and challenge the evidence. He preferred to challenge the process, and that failed also on the merits.
Tim Westwood wrote:
I don't know that Lance doped, I suspect he may well have.
However, I do think that JR has a point. Over the last few years this has turned into a classic witch hunt. In some quarters, objectivity has been completely set aside. Yes, Lance may have volunteered and be contractually obliged to follow the route of arbitration, but this whole mess has outgrown this process to the point where it is not fit for purpose.
If I was in his shoes I'm sure I would take the same stance. If I was under attack in the manner he is, I would want the safeguards afforded to a suspect in a criminal trial. None of the 'evidence' in this case has ever been rigorously tested, and I guarantee it would not have been tested to any great degree in arbitration.
It's very easy to prosecute someone when they do not have the means to a robust defence.
s this opinion, or were you stating what you think (thought) the facts are? If you meant the 'facts', I think that there is a higher burden on you to determine the facts or to indicate that it is an opinion of what you want to happen, not what the facts are in the case.
I don't want to answer for Rojo, but my view is that it is fairly clear that this is an opinion, not a judgement based on facts. The lack of supporting evidence makes that obvious.