BREAKING Report: Lance Abandoning Fight vs Doping Charges, TDF Titles Gone

jopblo wrote: Personally, I think Armstrong or his camp are paying people to comment on message boards.

You are delusional. I am not being paid. I simply pointed out why not let Armstrong race again and test him? It amazing that there are people, like you, who want to prevent retesting at all costs.

If L.A. tests dirty he is forever destroyed.

If he tests clean, people like you will continue to claim he cheated.

My opinion: If he tested dirty he is guilty all the way back to when he first started. If he tested clean, then he is clean.

Another opinion wrote:

jopblo wrote: Personally, I think Armstrong or his camp are paying people to comment on message boards.

You are delusional. I am not being paid.

I am not saying you are being paid. However it is absolutely true that the Lance Armstrong Foundation has lots of interns at all times. Part of their job is to respond on message boards and the comments section of newspaper articles. They call this interning in marketing, public relations, social media, etc. Fortunately many of these comments are easy to spot because they so reflexively parrot the Lance talking points--hearsay, witchhunt, passed 500 tests, etc. etc. etc.

obvious, do you have inside knowledge? or are you talking in general about the industry?

because i find that very f*'ed up.

you mean college graduate work for free as interns to purposely derail, disparage, troll us guys who just want to post in a forum?

WELL &*@# YOU LANCE ARMSTRONG.

Another opinion wrote:

If you really wanted to catch a cheater there is no better way than to test them again.

This is simply too much for you to grasp.

Seriously?!?! You continue on with idiotic postings showing your lack of knowledge on drug testing. Enough with the ignorance.

Tor wrote: Seriously?!?! You continue on with idiotic postings showing your lack of knowledge on drug testing. Enough with the ignorance.

The ignorance, and supreme stupidity are yours. You have a lack of knowledge of just about everything. You know nothing, and continue writing like you do. Your lack of knowledge is completely transparent.

I know you are but what am I?

Double dog dare. You are and I am not.

Glad we've found a level on which we can debate without exposing your incredible ignorance.

lets go after lance but ignore this....

http://siusopen.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/serena-williams-getty-btb.jpg

The pro-Lance perspective wrote: Glad we've found a level on which we can debate without exposing your incredible ignorance.

This thread has legs. Amazed it is still here with all the insults being hurled.

Travis T. Tygart is willing to let Lance Armstrong compete again if he will simply admit he doped. Yes, you heard that right. The guy he just banned forever can compete again if does what Tygart demands.

What will the Armstrong haters do then? The guy they want to see permanently banned could compete again. I don't believe that would be acceptable to anti-Armstrong people on this forum, based on the comments posted here.

For myself, as a hater, I simply want to see him exposed as one of the biggest cheaters in sporting history. Yes, there should be some level sanction, but I don't care about a lifetime ban or even that all 7 titles are stripped. I'm ok with those things happening too. But enough with the charade of being a clean athlete. He's a fraud and the general public should see him for what he is. If he's still in the books as a 5x champion, so be it, but at least we'll all know that he was a cheat. Curious, do you think Landis and Contrador should keep their titles? Yes, I know they both had positive tests, but if Lance had UCI protection and they didn't, there is certainly no difference in their "victories."

Reading cycling forums most haters are more interested in trying to clean up the sport and they'd like to see a re-structuring at the top (UCI). They see Armstrong as a key link if cycling is ever going to change it's dirty and corrupt history.

If the allegations are true, which apparently they are, Lance basically ended the career if at least two riders (Simeoni and Bassons) who were either honest about the doping or opening spoke out against doping. Other cheaters have never been so blatant towards clean cyclists. He was truly the mafia boss of the peloton (not saying he was the first either) and he had many co-conspirators who helped maintain the myth. An amazing story of corruption.

I'd be more than willing to see a reduced 2 year ban for Armstrong (and results nullification limited to 8 years, although that is not as important to me) if he would give up the goods on Hein and Fat Pat.

Tor wrote:

Curious, do you think Landis and Contrador should keep their titles? Yes, I know they both had positive tests, but if Lance had UCI protection and they didn't, there is certainly no difference in their "victories."

Contador has kept his 07 and 09 titles. He tested positive during the 10 Tour which is why he lost that title, just as Landis tested positive during the 06 Tour.

This is the problem with DQ-ing Armstrong on witness testimony rather than tests - how many titles does he forfeit? If the testimony is specific enough that they can strip him of all 7 titles then they should. The USADA charge which Lance didn't contest (and therefore legally accepts) is that he doped during his entire career so on that basis it's all of them.

But then there's the case of Bjarne Riis who kept his 96 title because apparently there's an 8-year statute of limitations (I personally think they invented that rule to avoid the can of worms that is Miguel Indurain). If we go by that 8-year rule, Lance should only lose his 05 title but keep 99-04. But then Riis made a public admission which Lance won't do.

What if they just cancel Lance's victories without instating new winners? Could Ullrich, Beloki, etc. sue ASO for the prize money? This has the potential to get pretty fu\cked up.

FWIW, I think the investigation technically started in 2011, so the 8 year SOL includes the '04 title as well.

"This has the potential to get pretty f*cked up." -- Yep.

Tor wrote:

FWIW, I think the investigation technically started in 2011, so the 8 year SOL includes the '04 title as well.

"This has the potential to get pretty f*cked up." -- Yep.

You can't start building a legal case on one day and claim that the statute of limitations apply on the day you started. It doesn't work that way, technically. The reason is simple, you have to meet a time schedule to build your case.

Try telling your who tells you the due date is X. You tell the boss I started on date X, so technically I met the schedule.

Agree. Although the guy makes my skin crawl for a multitude of reasons, if he came clean about everything I'd feel alot better with the truth out.

Agree. Although Tygart responded to UCI (maybe sarcastically) that a truth and reconciliation commission was needed, I wonder if there is any actual possibility of something like that happening. Sounds like a pipe dream, but if Lance were to spearhead the effort from the cyclists side for the sake of future cyclists it could happen. But then again, his head wouldn't fit through the door to attend any commission.

That's probably the biggest thorn I have with Armstrong, how he used his false positional authority to demean, cheat, intimidate, tear down, etc. others. I feel bad for Bassons, Bishop, and other clean cyclists who had their pro careers cut short because they wouldn't dope. I feel bad for Simeoni for being spat on and ostracized in the peloton because he spoke out against Ferarri. I feel bad for Emma O'Reilly who was sued for 2M pounds for being honest. I feel bad for David Walsh, Pierre Ballester, and other journalists who were sued for speaking truth. I feel bad for Mike Anderson for having his name dragged through the mud because he wouldn't sign a non-disclousure agreement. I feel bad for Greg LeMond, America's true great cycling champion, for having his bike line reduced to rubble for not annointing Lance. I feel bad for cancer victims/survivors who believed in the whole Lance myth. I feel bad for the pro cyclists who died from heart attacks in the 2000s from EPO use that Lance perpetuated.

Then why does every article regarding Armstrong and the SOL mention that both the '04 and '05 TdF titles fall under the 8 year SOL?

http://www.freep.com/usatoday/article/57336128&usatref=sportsmod?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Cfeaturedtext%7CSports%7Cp

The articles you read are written by people reporting what they the themselves read.

The statute of limitations is 8 years. That is the date which formal charges must be filed.

"Common law legal system have statutes limiting the time for prosecution of a debt or crimes designated as misdemeanors to two years after the offense occurred. If a person is discovered to have committed a misdemeanor after the statute the time has expired for the person to be prosecuted. While it may seem unfair to forbid prosecution of crimes that law enforcement can later prove to a standard required by law (cf., e.g. beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing evidence, and preponderance of the evidence), the purpose of a statute of limitations or its equivalent is to ensure that the possibility of punishment for an act committed long ago cannot give rise to either a person's incarceration or the criminal justice system's activation.

"Unless the crime is deemed exceptionally heinous – for example, murder, to which the statute does not generally apply – social justice as enacted through law says that lesser crimes from long ago are best left alone so as not to detract attention from more serious crimes."

In other words, the USADA is claiming that drug use in sports is a heinous crime. That is not the case in a normal court of law.

That is why it is okay for someone, like ex-president Bill Clinton, to claim he "didn't inhale" marijuana as a younger person. It happened so long ago, there is nothing anyone can do about it, legally. It makes not difference whether he never inhaled, or breathed in and never exhaled which I think is more truthful.

You should be very afraid of being put away or something you did many years ago. When we are young many of us do what we'd rather not remember.

Fine. Going back 8 years includes the '04 race. Charges were filed this summer prior to the '12 TdF.

Thanks for the legal clarification. What is your opinion on USADA using conspiracy charges to go beyond the SOL and 2004?