Formal Charges Brought Against Lance Armstrong

Its All In the Game Yo wrote:

I mean, unless there is a nun who on a one night's leave from her isolated convent years ago helped Lance inject himself one night during the Tour with a bottle clearly labelled EPO because she had no idea it was banned. Then she returned to her convent, where she stayed until last month, when she left the order, learned that EPO was banned, and said, "Oh my goodness, I must report this to the authorities immediately." Short of something like that, you're pretty much limited to the testimony of drug cheats (= liars) if you want firsthand accounts of people doping. Whether they're telling the truth or not is a different question.

Your logic is the one so popular with rapist defense attorneys, dragging the woman's entire history through the mud, to prove that since she is not a nun, maybe she even (gasp!) has had extra-marital sex, she couldn't have been raped.

It even works, unfortunately, when there's just one woman. But in Lance's case, there are ten witnesses (or whatever the number is). The standard in US courts is "beyond reasonable doubt." I doubt a higher standard applies here.

How many times did Marion Jones test positive? How many witnesses were there that saw her doping?

How many medals does she now have?

By this standard its pretty evident that LA can be found guilty, banned and stripped, if the evidence is compelling.

I am not a fan of Lance nor do I hate him. I have seen no conclusive evidence that he has ever doped like a failed test. However, the fact that he won 7 TDF in a row against a field that have all been convicted of doping makes me doubt it would be possible without drugs. If they have evidence, then nail him. But he is innocent until proven guilty even if his victories are highly suspicious.

If you don't know of any evidence it's because you haven't looked for it:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=lance+armstrong+failed+drug+test+1999

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=lance+armstrong+60+minutes

sub3over40 wrote:

the fact that he won 7 TDF in a row against a field that have all been convicted of doping makes me doubt it would be possible without drugs.

Actually it proves that they were all very very unhealthy.

If he wasn't using any drugs, and everyone else was using them, then it makes sense that he was the healthiest one of the bunch, and that's why he won the 7 tdf races in a row.

Sloppy Lawyers wrote:

The real question here is why doesn't the USADA let Armstrong compete at Kona?

Why not let him and get yourself a new blood sample to test?

Is the USADA really so dumb to not realize the gift horse in front of them? Or, is the USADA up to something else, knowing they cannot, and never will catch Armstrong, even if a new blood sample is provided?

What is the USADA up to?

Please. If he passes another drug test at Kona, this will again prove his innocence.

The USADA cannot let this happen!!!

They must stop him from competing, so they can convict him by innuendo and supposition!!

The brojos will back me up on this -- see their quote of the day.

I would bet that he cheated. But, I figure if they keep on trying and going after him, one of these times evidence will get tampered with enough that he'll look guilty, even if he was clean (which I doubt). So, I say, unfortunately since he dodged it for so long then, eventually you have to let sleeping dogs lie. I wish all cheaters could get brought to justice, but this feels more like a petty game where they will try everything they can until they can somehow show that he was guilt, even if it turns out he was actually innocent. Just let it go.

I said I have doubts....it is possible and your theory could be correct. Also doping may not be ideal for such a long event. It seems to work better in shorter events rather than a multi-day grind like the tour. Your theory is just as valid as anyone elses at this point.

Hey everybody that USADA complaint was signed by a Lisa

Cucumber? Is she a doctor? And just who is this rouge

USADA aren't they suppose to be meat inspectors?

simply orange wrote:

Its All In the Game Yo wrote:

... you're pretty much limited to the testimony of drug cheats (= liars) if you want firsthand accounts of people doping. Whether they're telling the truth or not is a different question.

Your logic is the one so popular with rapist defense attorneys, dragging the woman's entire history through the mud, to prove that since she is not a nun, maybe she even (gasp!) has had extra-marital sex, she couldn't have been raped. ...

What?? Please re-read my original post. What I was saying has *nothing* to do with defending rapists by blaming the victim, and I think that is abundantly clear in my post.

I pointed out that it's basically inevitable that firsthand witnesses of doping are going to have credibility issues by virtue of having been associated with doping and the lies that go with it. Sure, if they weren't associated with doping they would be more credible ... but then they wouldn't have firsthand knowledge of doping, obviously.

What you're talking about is smearing the victim of a crime to make it seem like she "deserved" being attacked.

Two totally different things.

Its All In the Game Yo wrote:

What you're talking about is smearing the victim of a crime to make it seem like she "deserved" being attacked.

Two totally different things.

What you're talking about is smearing the accuser (10 of them, in this case) to undermine their evidence.

Whether the accuser is also the victim, as in the rape case, is beside the point. Both the rapist defense and Lance's defense hinge on attacking someone else's credibility. Lots and lots of someones, in Lance's case.

OK, fine.

Say they finally strip Armstrong of his titles. How far down the GC are they going to have to go to find a non-doper to award each title to? Good luck with that.

Why did Rupp see a FAMILY PRACTICE doctor several states away from where he lived?

I think you are trying to insinuate that Rupp is cheating, but you sound like a stalker.

Magic 8 Ball wrote:

We all need to step back, take a deep breath, and absorb the difference between evidence and proof. One million riders can come out and say they saw Lance Armstrong inject himself with EPO or that Lance Armstrong told them he injected himself with EPO. That's evidence.

A blood test that both A and B samples test positive for EPO is proof.

The USADA doesn't have proof of doping violations, only evidence. They are powerless to do anything without proof.

They don't use a blood test, they use a urine test. In that urine test they do not simply test for the presence of EPO. We know that there is going to be EPO - it is a natural substance that we expect to find in blood.

What is being tested for, are indicators that the EPO was from a synthetic source, rather than natural human EPO and this is done by observing the position of "bands" in the sample.

So it is "evidence" that EPO was used, which is not the same as capturing a sample of the actual synthetic EPO that was injected by the athlete (which might be considered "proof").

The strange thing about these Lance threads, is that you can be sure that people will come out of the woodwork with all these ridiculous reasons why everyone should leave poor Lance alone.

But when the person caught is Ezkyas Sisay (epo), or Abderrahim Goumri (Biological Passport abnormalities) these people almost never* seem to jump to the athlete's defense. Why is this? Do these people think it is o.k. for americans to dope, but not others, or is there some sort of zombie army that is bought back to life when the name "Lance" is used in a thread?

* J.R. being the notable exception here - he's nutty, but at least he's consistent in defending dopers.

sub3over40 wrote:

I said I have doubts....it is possible and your theory could be correct. Also doping may not be ideal for such a long event. It seems to work better in shorter events rather than a multi-day grind like the tour. Your theory is just as valid as anyone elses at this point.

I have to stop laughing,...Do you really exist?

Does the USADA really care about guilt or innocence here? Or in the lead-up to the Olympics, is that beside the point?

What better way to show how seriously the organization takes doping than to catch a few headlines. Why don't they just come out with the "guilty" verdict already? Why didn't the criminal prosecutor? Well, because getting straight on the actual facts is not, after all, the point. It's better for the USADA, the bald prosecutor from L.A., etc., to appear to be in pursuing "justice" than to actually pursue it.

Vincent Omnia wrote:

Does the USADA really care about guilt or innocence here? Or in the lead-up to the Olympics, is that beside the point?

What better way to show how seriously the organization takes doping than to catch a few headlines. Why don't they just come out with the "guilty" verdict already? Why didn't the criminal prosecutor? Well, because getting straight on the actual facts is not, after all, the point. It's better for the USADA, the bald prosecutor from L.A., etc., to appear to be in pursuing "justice" than to actually pursue it.

Bingo! It's not about getting rid of drugs, but promoting them. By constantly shoving their drugs, drug tests, and other bogus drug propaganda into the public vision, they are trying to raise up their nasty business on a pedestal.