Formal Charges Brought Against Lance Armstrong

it is about time they got this arrogant drug cheat. anyone who thinks that performance enhabcing drug use is not rampant in track is delusional. there are chemists and doctors all over the country willing to engage in creating and manipulating drugs to boost performance. WADA will always be at least one step behind. There will always be people out there finding new drugs and successful ways to avoid detection.

It is not jst in sport. There was an article in the NYT recently about the use of amphetamines among high school kids because it aids concentration while taking standardiized test like the SAT and ACT.

It seems that everybody wants fair play and meritocracy as long as they can find a way to get an advantage over others. The human race a sorry lot of hypocites.

g_d

When you're as good as lance people(misery) want to bring you down to their level(a lower level). Misery loves company

rickybobby wrote:

LANCE IS INNOCENT! Go LANCE! It's a shame that he still has to go through this scrutiny.

Wow, and what does this mean for Bolt and company. In 2007 this guy could not break 10s for 100m nor 19.80 for the 200m, and 6months later he is able to improve by half a second. Lets be honest, who's fooling who. This guy is never on time for training and is trunk most of the time, yet he can produce unbelievable times... Get real

hehehehe wrote:

"So why did they wait 2 years if this is true. He did over 500 tests and has been heavily scrutinized for a long time. Sounds like a setup and a desperation move."

Still sucking his balls after all these years. 500 times?

ball

So lets assume that USADA convicts Lance, then we give the award to the second place winners . . . only to conclude that they were dirty as well. Then as we work our way down the line, we find that everyone on the tour is dirty.

So then the Tour and USADA decides to drug test everybody and give the medals to anyone with a bike and is clean . . .

And the winner is Phil Schifly! Yes, you Phil! You were forced to live in the woods for 25 years and eat only grown vegetables, wild animals and harvested fruit. Since your only means of transportation was a bike, you are the winner.

USADA deemed everyone else illegal since most people have taken a multi-vitamin, eaten steroid-induced foods or McDonalds chicken nuggets.

The point of going after Lance is to prove that he used lies to raise money for charity.

Can I just say something here please??

First it was the "bird dance" or whatever, then it was the "macarena", two things that came and went like a bolt of lightning and were never heard of again.

I was fastening my shoes last night and heard the news of Lance, and it was then I realized that I needed to buy more Cheez Whiz!

GROW GROW GROW GROW

OK then USADA shouldn't Frank Shorter be getting his long over-due Gold medal soon?....http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4627739

Doesn't matter what anybody took as the Tour De France makes sure no one competes with a hematocrit of over 40......that, and only that, keeps the sport clean.

Hard evidence was found after East Germany fell that said Cierpinski cheated. If the US Anti doping Agency can use hearsay evidence to bring charges against Lance Armstrong how about the International Olympic Committee freakin man-up and take the hard evidence that was found in the GDR and award the Gold medal to the rightful winner, Frank Shorter.

1976 Montreal Olympic Marathon

1 Waldemar Cierpinski 25 East Germany

2 Frank Shorter 28 United States

This is complete crap.

To use the breathalyzer analogy from earlier in the thread. If you blow a .07 you aren't going to be arrested.

If you take vitamins you are modifying your blood.

Lance and his team did everything up to the "speed limit" to maximize his performance. So is it cheating if you don't go over the limit? It comes down to the idea that any manipulation is a violation versus, you can enhance blood up to the limit but if you go over then it's a violation.

The Marion Jones comparison doesn't count here because "The Clear" was designed to not be detected. She was clearly over the speed limit.

Completely natural is a ridiculous concept. It has never happened in the era of modern sports. Even Babe Ruth doped, negatively with alcohol, but he doped.

Note that the alleged positive drug test way back in 2001 has been denied by the chemist who manages the whole testing program and tested Armstrong. He says he wcould never testify that the blood test was positive...

How many of you really know about professional cycling other than the BS you read in the papers? Not many I wager.

Anyway, it's ludicrous to think that Armstrong could systematically dope for 12 years and not get repeatedly outed by many of the other pros. LA had very few friends in the peloton, and a lot of haters. If they had first-hand knowledge to pass to the testers about LA, they would have done it many times by now a long time ago...

I\'ll just repost this from 2010 (when there was similar hubbub over the Landis allegations) because the story hasn\'t really changed:

\"Did Lance \"cheat\"? Probably, at least at some point. I mean you can\'t really think of a competitive cyclist from his time that didn\'t, and at that level, if everyone is getting an extra edge there\'s no way to keep up without it. The simple logic is that he never got caught: if anyone was clean, it was him. The conspiracy theories that he had some magical drug that nobody else had and that was undetectable for a decade is ridiculous. He\'s an athlete, not a mad scientist.

These are the things that are clear: while others were testing positive, he never got caught. If he cheated, than likely, so did everyone else, and he still dominated the sport for nearly a decade. Why did he dominate? No other cyclist of his time had the talent coupled with the motivation to focus an entire team\'s energy on winning one single race each year. Nobody at the time had the same level of sophistication in engineering and training technology, and he got lucky as hell to never have a bad fall or bonk in 15000 miles of tour riding when he won his 7 straight.

An investigation led by a proven cheater to try establish that someone else, years in the past, also cheated, is a complete waste of time. It would even be funny if it wasn\'t going to cost millions of dollars. The sport has moved on and cleaned up, but rather than be able to focus on that, and the new generation of great riders, the attention is shifted toward old accusations. Lance is a great champion and a philanthropist and should be recognized as such. The doubters have had a decade to prove that he gained an unfair advantage in becoming the greatest tour rider in history, and have failed to do so. The sport should be allowed to move on without people like Landis, who actually did test positive, pulling it back into the mud.\"

There's almost too much wrong with this to bother. While I think the "Tour d'Anemia" could be amusing, not allowing anyone with a hematocrit over 40 is ridiculous. I think 50 was the number you were looking for.Also, they do this not to keep the sport clean but to regulate just how dirty it gets. Same reason all jockeys race at the same weight. Otherwise they's be starving themselves to dangerous levels. Now they can only starve themselves to a certain level or they have to wear extra weight.

awesome always wrote:

Doesn't matter what anybody took as the Tour De France makes sure no one competes with a hematocrit of over 40......that, and only that, keeps the sport clean.

I think the main point of the charges is to keep LA away from Hawaii. Hard to believe this would be happening right now if he was retired instead of winning races.

Interesting letter from Lance's attorney to the USADA before the charges were made public. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303734204577465021326477022.html

The USADA attorneys are sloppy.

Statute of Limitations:

A legal protection that can only be ignored in cases like murder. Not true here. No one died. No positive results can be produced or ever were produced.

USADA Reliable Sources:

Besides credibility the witness is supposed to be present at the event. That does not seem to be the case. It is all hearsay.

The USADA will lose again, and it knows it will lose.

guilty UNTIL proven guilty. This is ridiculous. It is all hear say and gossip as of now. Honestly, if you don't have sufficient evidence shut up. This is defamation of character.

kayceeee wrote:

guilty UNTIL proven guilty. This is ridiculous. It is all hear say and gossip as of now. Honestly, if you don't have sufficient evidence shut up. This is defamation of character.

Please define hearsay for us. (Note: People giving testimony to things they personally witnessed and heard is not hearsay).