PDA

View Full Version : Lance Armstrong to be stripped of Tour de France titles and banned from cycling



fearofpopvol1
08-24-2012, 01:40 AM
http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/8298135/usada-ban-lance-armstrong-life-strip-seven-tour-de-france-titles-charges-used-performance-enhancing-drugs-cycling-career

Thoughts??

Jefferson24
08-24-2012, 02:23 AM
you dope you lose.

I bet the ban is over reaching, I doubt the have evidence that he doped every year. I would challenge it, but they obliviously got the goods on him at least or some years.

fearofpopvol1
08-24-2012, 03:43 AM
you dope you lose.

I bet the ban is over reaching, I doubt the have evidence that he doped every year. I would challenge it, but they obliviously got the goods on him at least or some years.

where was it proven that he doped?

5TimeWSChamps
08-24-2012, 04:36 AM
He quit his lawsuit against the USADA, which they are using as an admission of guilt.

fearofpopvol1
08-24-2012, 05:21 AM
He quit his lawsuit against the USADA, which they are using as an admission of guilt.

He's denied ever doping, he just doesn't believe he has to defend himself (nor pour the resources into proving his case). How does him not engaging in this prove that he was guilty?

dougdirt
08-24-2012, 08:22 AM
If Lance Armstrong weren't the cancer guy, he would be guilty in public opinion.

RedFanAlways1966
08-24-2012, 08:38 AM
Imagine if MLB, the NFL or the NBA gave a lifetime ban and stripped an athlete of all awards/wins based on heresay and "fully consistent w/ doping" test results. Do you think there would be a lawsuit?

I suspect Armstrong doped. Sometimes certain things just seem too unreal to be true (7 Tour de France titles, right Melky?).

Caveat Emperor
08-24-2012, 08:48 AM
I miss the good old days, where we'd fight hard to protect an American that goes overseas and dominates foreign competition. Now we have an American agency actively going after him? Lame.

dougdirt
08-24-2012, 08:49 AM
I miss the good old days, where we'd fight hard to protect an American that goes overseas and dominates foreign competition. Now we have an American agency actively going after him? Lame.

Not if they have reason to believe he was cheating.

Caveat Emperor
08-24-2012, 08:53 AM
Not if they have reason to believe he was cheating.

Where's your sense of patriotism? An American went over to France and dominated their sporting event -- every government agency, from the White House to the local sewer districts, should be backing Lance Armstrong's wins 100%. Let the French whine about what a cheater he is.

:usa:

;)

bucksfan2
08-24-2012, 09:22 AM
With doping so rampant in cycling I suspect that Armstrong doped. However he never failed a drug test and according to ESPN radio has taken over 500. He dominated the sport for a decade and raised hundreds of millions of dollars to combat cancer. I still admire Lance for what he has done. The irony of it is cycling takes a back back back back back back page in any sports except when Lance's name comes up.

5TimeWSChamps
08-24-2012, 09:24 AM
I lost all respect for Lance when, as soon as he beat cancer, he left his wife and shacked up with Sheryl Crow.

hebroncougar
08-24-2012, 11:09 AM
Where's your sense of patriotism? An American went over to France and dominated their sporting event -- every government agency, from the White House to the local sewer districts, should be backing Lance Armstrong's wins 100%. Let the French whine about what a cheater he is.

:usa:

;)

I don't care if you have a sense of patriotism or not. The American sports scene is getting downright embarassing. Is there a sport, where we don't have a bunch of criminals or people who are taking HGH, or steroids? It's beyond the stage where it's a "joke". I wish baseball had the same policy; you get caught cheating, you are banned. Make no mistake about it, he's guilty, and his "I'm tired of defending myself" argument carries no weight. They evidently have the evidence, and I think the argument he's making should be, "I can't defend myself, because I'm caught".

westofyou
08-24-2012, 11:11 AM
Where's your sense of patriotism? An American went over to France and dominated their sporting event -- every government agency, from the White House to the local sewer districts, should be backing Lance Armstrong's wins 100%. Let the French whine about what a cheater he is.

:usa:

;)

Yes.. I agree with everything above.... even the little winking guy at the bottom

NJReds
08-24-2012, 11:26 AM
So should cycling examine their testing process?

If Armstrong was tested hundreds of times randomly (blood, urine, etc.) since 1999 and never tested positive, but is now banned based on the testimony of cyclists who actually did get caught cheating, what good is the testing process that they have in place?

kaldaniels
08-24-2012, 11:38 AM
So what does the evidence say? I don't know who to believe...though I see most believe he doped.

WMR
08-24-2012, 11:39 AM
What actual hard evidence do they have that he doped?

Seems like a sham to strip him based on the case they haven't been able to prove.

Sort of respect Lance for refusing to play their game.

dougdirt
08-24-2012, 11:45 AM
There are multiple (I heard earlier that it was 10) eye witnesses who claim to have seen him taking things.

bucksfan2
08-24-2012, 12:04 PM
There are multiple (I heard earlier that it was 10) eye witnesses who claim to have seen him taking things.

I wonder how many of those witnesses were dopers themselves? I also wonder how many of those eye witnesses held a grudge against Lance?

Not saying Lance didn't dope, just find it odd that 7 years after the fact the US doping agency is trying to prove Lance doped.

dougdirt
08-24-2012, 12:15 PM
I wonder how many of those witnesses were dopers themselves? I also wonder how many of those eye witnesses held a grudge against Lance?

Not saying Lance didn't dope, just find it odd that 7 years after the fact the US doping agency is trying to prove Lance doped.

They have been trying to prove it for a long time. They are just now getting people to talk.

I also don't think you get that many people all willing to blatantly lie over a grudge.

NJReds
08-24-2012, 12:15 PM
There are multiple (I heard earlier that it was 10) eye witnesses who claim to have seen him taking things.

And hundreds of random tests that say he has not.


What if baseball just banned every player mentioned in Jose Canseco's book for life without ever testing them?


Just to be clear, I'm not a fan of cycling, which seems to be overrun by cheats. And for Armstrong do be so dominant against a bunch of other cheats, logic says that he had to be doing something himself. But it does seem that there was a concerted effort to get Lance at any cost.

dougdirt
08-24-2012, 12:31 PM
I am not saying it was right NJ, just that it was the evidence they had. And it is different than Canseco's book, where only one person was tossing things around. The USADA reportedly has 10 different people who have said they have first hand knowledge that Lance was doping.

NJReds
08-24-2012, 12:34 PM
I am not saying it was right NJ, just that it was the evidence they had. And it is different than Canseco's book, where only one person was tossing things around. The USADA reportedly has 10 different people who have said they have first hand knowledge that Lance was doping.

True. They obviously had enough evidence to have Lance bail on defending himself.

But I still think they may have an issue with their testing if they couldn't catch him for a decade.

Hoosier Red
08-24-2012, 01:17 PM
I wonder how many of those witnesses were dopers themselves? I also wonder how many of those eye witnesses held a grudge against Lance?


This is an argument Clemens/Bonds/Rose etc all tried for their various alleged transgressions. I've never understood how someone could have so many people with such axes to grind that they'd be willing to lie in court just to get him.

Again, it doesn't make him guilty, but I generally find the defense weak.

jojo
08-24-2012, 01:39 PM
http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/8298135/usada-ban-lance-armstrong-life-strip-seven-tour-de-france-titles-charges-used-performance-enhancing-drugs-cycling-career

Thoughts??

I think it should be proven that he cheated before he is penalized for cheating.

The USADA has managed to make themselves look worse than the athletes they want to demonize.

There needs to be strong anti-doping measures and stiff penalties for using PEDS, but first and foremost there needs to be fairness.

jojo
08-24-2012, 01:44 PM
This is an argument Clemens/Bonds/Rose etc all tried for their various alleged transgressions. I've never understood how someone could have so many people with such axes to grind that they'd be willing to lie in court just to get him.

Again, it doesn't make him guilty, but I generally find the defense weak.

Bonds wasn't actually convicted of perjury based upon the testimony of others. The only thing the federal government was able to win was one count where they argued that he answered a question by giving a response that was too long therefore he was trying to be misleading.

The Bonds trial was a huge egg on the face of those who wanted jurisprudence to punish PEDs users.

jojo
08-24-2012, 01:46 PM
What actual hard evidence do they have that he doped?

Seems like a sham to strip him based on the case they haven't been able to prove.

Sort of respect Lance for refusing to play their game.

It seems vindictive to me.

jojo
08-24-2012, 01:55 PM
Here's a quote from the judge who ruled on LA's attempt to block the USADA:


U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks acknowledged "the appearance of a conflict on the part of both organizations creates doubt the charges against Armstrong would receive fair consideration in either forum." But that doesn't mean federal courts should intervene, the judge said, adding that "these matters should be resolved internally, by the parties most affected. "If these bodies wish to damage the image of their sport through bitter infighting, they will have to do so without the involvement of the United States courts," Sparks said.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/23/sport/lance-armstrong-investigation/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Ouch USADA. Ouch.

bucksfan2
08-24-2012, 02:13 PM
This is an argument Clemens/Bonds/Rose etc all tried for their various alleged transgressions. I've never understood how someone could have so many people with such axes to grind that they'd be willing to lie in court just to get him.

Again, it doesn't make him guilty, but I generally find the defense weak.

The thing that was different with Lance than Clemens and Bonds is the 500 clean test that Armstrong has to his credit. Rose was a liar and lied for a number of years even though the evidence supported his gambling problem. Lance very well may have cheated on the drug test. Lord knows there are scientist out there on a daily basis trying to beat drug tests.

I can see the French Doping agency going after Lance. The Tour happens in France and Armstrong dominating that event. I just don't know why the USADA would make such a concerted effort in order to bring Lance down. What I would like to hear is the eyewitness evidence from 15 years ago.

To me at the end of the day Lance Armstrong and his livestrong foundation has raised over $400M to beat cancer. He used his place of stature to do a tremendous amount of good in society. For that I applaud him.

Hoosier Red
08-24-2012, 02:36 PM
The thing that was different with Lance than Clemens and Bonds is the 500 clean test that Armstrong has to his credit. Rose was a liar and lied for a number of years even though the evidence supported his gambling problem. Lance very well may have cheated on the drug test. Lord knows there are scientist out there on a daily basis trying to beat drug tests.

I can see the French Doping agency going after Lance. The Tour happens in France and Armstrong dominating that event. I just don't know why the USADA would make such a concerted effort in order to bring Lance down. What I would like to hear is the eyewitness evidence from 15 years ago.

To me at the end of the day Lance Armstrong and his livestrong foundation has raised over $400M to beat cancer. He used his place of stature to do a tremendous amount of good in society. For that I applaud him.

Because he's a US athlete representing the United States. The USADA has a responsibility to protect the clean US athletes who might otherwise be tempted to cheat if a)they know they have the means to cover it up and b) they feel it's necessary to cheat in order to win.

Assume for a moment that he's guilty. Would you feel like the USADA should turn a blind eye to his guilt because after all, he's an American and a great guy, and look how much money he's raised for cancer.

His comeback has been inspiring and the money he has raised to fight cancer is a real accomplishment. But those have nothing to do with whether or not he cheated the system.

Passing the drug tests doesn't really matter if he had a way of beating the system which is what was alleged.

I think in general, if you pass a drug test, absent any other information, you're presumed clean. But I don't think anyone would assume that someone is clean just because they pass a drug test. Many people who were later caught cheating had passed hundreds of drug tests as well, so it's certainly not an absolute method of proof.

Hoosier Red
08-24-2012, 03:20 PM
Bonds wasn't actually convicted of perjury based upon the testimony of others. The only thing the federal government was able to win was one count where they argued that he answered a question by giving a response that was too long therefore he was trying to be misleading.

The Bonds trial was a huge egg on the face of those who wanted jurisprudence to punish PEDs users.

No I know he wasn't convicted based on those words. But it was a general retort to people alleging misconduct. As a recovering Bob Knight apologist, I can tell you I was quite well versed in the "Well that guy has an agenda to bring him down" defense.

Looking at it from the outside in, it simply seems weak.

bucksfan2
08-24-2012, 03:30 PM
Because he's a US athlete representing the United States. The USADA has a responsibility to protect the clean US athletes who might otherwise be tempted to cheat if a)they know they have the means to cover it up and b) they feel it's necessary to cheat in order to win.

Assume for a moment that he's guilty. Would you feel like the USADA should turn a blind eye to his guilt because after all, he's an American and a great guy, and look how much money he's raised for cancer.

His comeback has been inspiring and the money he has raised to fight cancer is a real accomplishment. But those have nothing to do with whether or not he cheated the system.

Passing the drug tests doesn't really matter if he had a way of beating the system which is what was alleged.

I think in general, if you pass a drug test, absent any other information, you're presumed clean. But I don't think anyone would assume that someone is clean just because they pass a drug test. Many people who were later caught cheating had passed hundreds of drug tests as well, so it's certainly not an absolute method of proof.

I would have thought the USADA would pertain to events held on American soil or people representing USA funded teams ie. Olympics. To me that would be similar to the Dominican Republic having a testing board that could trump MLB's. If you or I were to go run a marathon over in London and win should the USADA get involved?

I guess if your not going to believe the drug test then why have them? To me that is similar to your employer having a drug testing policy and you have passed everything. But an ex-girlfriend of yours produces a picture that shows you smoking something that you can't determine to be a cigarette or joint. Drug test says your clean, ex says your a stoner, what is the truth?

Slyder
08-24-2012, 03:52 PM
There are multiple (I heard earlier that it was 10) eye witnesses who claim to have seen him taking things.

~500 tests (the number I heard on TV) in his career, including some completely random drug tests... and not one positive that ENTIRE time.... I think this is bull crap meant to make the rest of the world's riders feel better about getting their butt kicked for that long. There's no way you do something like win the Tour de France (let alone 7x), under that much scrutiny and not get caught if he did it.

Could he have at one time? Maybe, but to have that many clean tests makes me believe this is just a giant witch hunt and I'm ashamed its being allowed to be perpetrated for so long. I don't blame him for finally saying you know what forget it, he made the Tour de France relevant again and thats more than what they can do for themselves.

dougdirt
08-24-2012, 04:01 PM
Maybe, but to have that many clean tests makes me believe this is just a giant witch hunt and I'm ashamed its being allowed to be perpetrated for so long. I don't blame him for finally saying you know what forget it, he made the Tour de France relevant again and thats more than what they can do for themselves.

Couldn't you just change Armstrong to Bonds/McGwire/Sosa and Tour de France to Baseball and say the exact same thing?

Caveat Emperor
08-24-2012, 04:03 PM
True. They obviously had enough evidence to have Lance bail on defending himself.

I actually respect Lance a little bit for bailing on the entire thing. It's a kangaroo court that he'd be facing, and his participation in the process would only lend it legitimacy.

They're not just asking Lance Armstrong to prove a negative, they're also effectively telling him that his best evidence (hundreds of clean drug tests, many of them random) is worthless compared to the "eyewitness" testimony they'll be bringing against him.

Hoosier Red
08-24-2012, 04:05 PM
I guess if your not going to believe the drug test then why have them? To me that is similar to your employer having a drug testing policy and you have passed everything. But an ex-girlfriend of yours produces a picture that shows you smoking something that you can't determine to be a cigarette or joint. Drug test says your clean, ex says your a stoner, what is the truth?

Any test which can be cheated(ie any test) isi a useful tool, and again if there were no other evidence that he was cheating, he'd be given the presumption of innocence.

But from the start, there have always been other forms of evidence which eventually amounted to the case that was brought up against him. Is it possible that every single person who said that he was cheating was lying? Sure. And if they had no way of corroborating their collective stories, again, it likely wouldn't have amounted to the case that it did.

Using your example.
If your ex-girlfriend gave an employer that photo, two guys who you smoked with corroborated her story, and the guy who sold you the joint says that yes, it was you, and he has records showing you purchased the weed on the day before the photo(datestamped) was taken.
And then a chemist friend of yours explains to the employer that he showed you how to beat the drug test and provided video evidence that not only does his method work, but also that he showed you how to employ his method.
Would that outweigh the drug test in terms of evidence?

As to the other points brought up about whether it's fair for the USADA to conduct a witch hunt, or why the USADA should even bother when most(all) of his accomplishments occurred on foreign soil.

I honestly don't know the structure of how each national Anti-doping agency within the World Anti-Doping agency conducts its business. The Dominican Republic's anti-doping agency probably accepts Major League Baseball's test because 1)It doesn't have as much time,money or technology to do a more thorough search and 2) It probably wouldn't want to kill the golden goose anyway.
The USADA is not hampered by such constraints.

However, I don't think it's generally wise for an agency to so singlemindedly pursue someone, even if they are convinced of his guilt. But just because the people chasing after him are foolish for doing so, it doesn't make him any more or less guilty.

Razor Shines
08-24-2012, 04:40 PM
"@thesulk I knew Lance didn't have the ball to fight these charges."




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mutaman
08-24-2012, 04:54 PM
Let the French whine about what a cheater he is.
;)

When have the French ever whined about it?

Mutaman
08-24-2012, 04:57 PM
Well we need to persecute Armstrong so as to be fair to the other athletes who weren’t doping . So we take away Lance’s titles and give them to the guys who finished second. Wait, you say those guys have already been convicted of using? Well how about the guys who finished third. Oh, never mind.

Query :are any of my tax dollars funding this nonsense?

Hoosier Red
08-24-2012, 06:23 PM
~500 tests (the number I heard on TV) in his career, including some completely random drug tests... and not one positive that ENTIRE time.... I think this is bull crap meant to make the rest of the world's riders feel better about getting their butt kicked for that long. There's no way you do something like win the Tour de France (let alone 7x), under that much scrutiny and not get caught if he did it.

Could he have at one time? Maybe, but to have that many clean tests makes me believe this is just a giant witch hunt and I'm ashamed its being allowed to be perpetrated for so long. I don't blame him for finally saying you know what forget it, he made the Tour de France relevant again and thats more than what they can do for themselves.

It's funny. The utter domination is what makes me skeptical that he could have done it without doping.

You're talking about a sport where performance enhancing drugs have a proven positive impact on one's results.

You're talking about a population of racers which have routinely beaten drug tests which they later admit they were using PED's.

The population of racers using performance enhancing drugs includes virtually every top competitor.

And Armstrong didn't just beat them, he crushed them. He did this without inventing a new method to the task(like the fosbury flop) or a new tactic which would give him a large advantage. He did this by simply being stronger and faster then the rest of the racers, nearly all of whom have admitted to taking performance enhancing drugs.

And he did it clean? While there's obviously nothing he could do beyond taking the drug test to prove his innocence, that doesn't mean the drug tests should be treated as absolute gospel. Marion Jones beat hundreds of tests while taking performance enhancing drugs. So did Tim Montgomery, and Floyd Landis, and on and on and on. Sure they eventually got caught, but they proved that as long as you don't slip up, you can beat the test.

westofyou
08-24-2012, 06:38 PM
Eddy Merckx is happy today... no?

jojo
08-24-2012, 07:36 PM
Well we need to persecute Armstrong so as to be fair to the other athletes who weren’t doping . So we take away Lance’s titles and give them to the guys who finished second. Wait, you say those guys have already been convicted of using? Well how about the guys who finished third. Oh, never mind.

Query :are any of my tax dollars funding this nonsense?

At least one judge refused to let tax payers foot the bill.

Mutaman
08-24-2012, 09:57 PM
He did this by simply being stronger and faster then the rest of the racers, nearly all of whom have admitted to taking performance enhancing drugs.

For what its worth, not necessarily true: Armstrong was a brilliant tactician and ran a team that always seemed to work better than the other teams, something that's a huge advantage ion the Tour. Armstrong also was a "climber" which is a necessary skill to win the Tour but unlike most climbers, Armstrong could really sprint as well.

I'm not sure where you're going- on one hand you say Armstong was so dominant that he must have doped, but on the other hand,you agree that everybody doped. So where's the advantage?

Bottom line, he passed the tests, its a long time ago, its all based on "he said she said" evidence. It has all the earmarks of a witch hunt. Who cares anymore?

Hoosier Red
08-24-2012, 10:03 PM
For what its worth, not necessarily true: Armstrong was a brilliant tactician and ran a team that always seemed to work better than the other teams, something that's a huge advantage ion the Tour. Armstrong also was a "climber" which is a necessary skill to win the Tour but unlike most climbers, Armstrong could really sprint as well.

I'm not sure where you're going- on one hand you say Armstong was so dominant that he must have doped, but on the other hand,you agree that everybody doped. So where's the advantage?

Bottom line, he passed the tests, its a long time ago, its all based on "he said she said" evidence. It has all the earmarks of a witch hunt. Who cares anymore?

I understand the argument that we shouldn't care anymore. But it's a completely seperate issue as to whether we should care vs whether he actually did it.

The point that everyone else was doping goes to the fact that it seems unlikely in my mind that in a sport where there is an absolute advantage gained by doping, that a non-doper could go out and dominate a bunch of guys who were doping.

paintmered
08-24-2012, 10:35 PM
Query :are any of my tax dollars funding this nonsense?

Google hits of various reputation indicate that the USADA is indirectly taxpayer funded, mostly through federal grants.

hebroncougar
08-24-2012, 10:36 PM
For what its worth, not necessarily true: Armstrong was a brilliant tactician and ran a team that always seemed to work better than the other teams, something that's a huge advantage ion the Tour. Armstrong also was a "climber" which is a necessary skill to win the Tour but unlike most climbers, Armstrong could really sprint as well.

I'm not sure where you're going- on one hand you say Armstong was so dominant that he must have doped, but on the other hand,you agree that everybody doped. So where's the advantage?

Bottom line, he passed the tests, its a long time ago, its all based on "he said she said" evidence. It has all the earmarks of a witch hunt. Who cares anymore?

Isn't it that same team you're bragging on that is all saying he was indeed, doping?

gonelong
08-25-2012, 03:50 PM
I can't seem to muster up any outrage one way or another for a guy that rode a bike.

GL

traderumor
08-25-2012, 04:54 PM
Observe: rough week for the surname--Lance stripped of awards, Neil dies two days later.

Sea Ray
08-27-2012, 05:01 PM
Imagine if MLB, the NFL or the NBA gave a lifetime ban and stripped an athlete of all awards/wins based on heresay and "fully consistent w/ doping" test results. Do you think there would be a lawsuit?

I suspect Armstrong doped. Sometimes certain things just seem too unreal to be true (7 Tour de France titles, right Melky?).

This is where I'm coming from. Since when are you guilty if you are 500-0 in drug tests but a few people "say" you did it?

OK, maybe he did, but if he passes the tests then he "wins" is the way I see it.

camisadelgolf
08-28-2012, 07:00 AM
If this had gone far enough in court, there would've been plenty of people to say Armstrong is guilty. Then there'd be plenty of people with form of evidence or another to back it up (even if it's just a witness testimony). By quitting now, he never has to admit guilt, and his name won't be dragged through the mud. Even if he had won the lawsuit, there still would have been plenty of skeptics out there. Next thing you know, the witnesses are writing books about him and making a bunch of money by saying they saw him dope. This really is his best option. What strikes me as funny is that there are a lot more people saying "he wasn't caught" instead of "he didn't dope". I think it says a lot about our culture.

oneupper
08-28-2012, 09:33 AM
This is analogous the whole HOF debate. No one is sending Armstrong to jail. They are simply stripping him of honors/privileges which -after analyzing evidence- they decided that he doesn't deserve.

The courts acquitted the Chicago 8. Judge Landis banned them anyway. Good for him and good the cycling authorities.

Sea Ray
08-28-2012, 09:47 AM
What strikes me as funny is that there are a lot more people saying "he wasn't caught" instead of "he didn't dope". I think it says a lot about our culture.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. I think in order to sanction someone, you must catch him. I'd hate to think you could be found guilty of speeding if ten folks testified that they saw you going over the speed limit. I understand that sports has a different burden than law in that they can police themselves but I think they're going too far here

NJReds
08-28-2012, 10:18 AM
Yes, that's what I'm saying. I think in order to sanction someone, you must catch him. I'd hate to think you could be found guilty of speeding if ten folks testified that they saw you going over the speed limit. I understand that sports has a different burden than law in that they can police themselves but I think they're going too far here

I agree with Sea Ray here. Why are they wasting time and money on testing someone 500 times if it's completely discounted because 10 people said "I think I saw him do it."

Whether it's Lance Armstrong or anyone else, I don't understand the point/role of the testing process if it can be completely ignored.

Hoosier Red
08-28-2012, 11:33 AM
I agree with Sea Ray here. Why are they wasting time and money on testing someone 500 times if it's completely discounted because 10 people said "I think I saw him do it."

Whether it's Lance Armstrong or anyone else, I don't understand the point/role of the testing process if it can be completely ignored.

I don't think it's ignored. It's supplemented because there is verifiable evidence that the test could have been cheated.

No test is taken as an absolute standard, especially if there's evidence someone cheated the test.

And again, Armstrong was (in theory) presumed innocent and was free to challenge the evidence given by those who accused im. He is choosing not to challenge the assertions and because he's not challenging the evidence provided against him, he's found guilty.

IslandRed
08-28-2012, 02:36 PM
And again, Armstrong was (in theory) presumed innocent and was free to challenge the evidence given by those who accused im. He is choosing not to challenge the assertions and because he's not challenging the evidence provided against him, he's found guilty.

I think the "presumed innocent" part is where you're wrong. In a presumed-innocent scenario, the accusers have to prove they're telling the truth. From everything I've read, the USADA accepted the accusations at face value and put the burden on Armstrong to prove the accusers were lying. And if all the passed drug tests aren't good enough, then what could possibly be?

A lot of us have hit this scenario at some point in life, even if it's a six-year-old being tattled on for spitwad-throwing, not saying I ever did such a thing... there's a dispute, the authority figure believes someone else over you, and short of inventing time travel so you can take them back to the time and place of the incident, there's nothing you can do about it.

To paraphrase an article I read, a drug test could lie but people definitely do lie.

Having said all that, I'm not proclaiming Armstrong innocent -- for him to dominate a sport while being the only clean one in the lead pack strains credulity -- but just taking a position on the process.

savafan
08-28-2012, 03:29 PM
Having said all that, I'm not proclaiming Armstrong innocent -- for him to dominate a sport while being the only clean one in the lead pack strains credulity -- but just taking a position on the process.

At the same time, if he cheated, then who won those races? If everyone racing in the races cheated, then wasn't it a level playing field? And if it was a level playing field with all of the cyclists cheating, Armstrong still blew away the competition, so who was cheated?

savafan
08-28-2012, 03:52 PM
delayed double post after I came back to the website

RedsBaron
08-28-2012, 04:57 PM
Observe: rough week for the surname--Lance stripped of awards, Neil dies two days later.

One news network initially had an article online that stated that "Neil Young", the first man to walk on the moon, had died. :laugh:

texasdave
08-28-2012, 05:26 PM
One news network initially had an article online that stated that "Neil Young", the first man to walk on the moon, had died. :laugh:

I am assuming it was a Harvest Moon. In any case, Long May He Run. :)

camisadelgolf
08-28-2012, 11:57 PM
From reddit: if officials awarded Lance Armstrong's 2005 Tour De France title to the next fastest finisher who has never been linked to doping, they'd have to give it to the 23rd place finisher.

marcshoe
08-29-2012, 02:14 AM
This is analogous the whole HOF debate. No one is sending Armstrong to jail. They are simply stripping him of honors/privileges which -after analyzing evidence- they decided that he doesn't deserve.

The courts acquitted the Chicago 8. Judge Landis banned them anyway. Good for him and good the cycling authorities.

So was Judge Landis related to Floyd?

Frankly, I think Armstrong's a hypocrite. As are we all, particularly those of us who hold people up as heroes because of their athletic acheivements. With Lance, the cancer complicated matters. He seemed more admirable, having shown a superhuman amount of courage. Yet the suspicion remained that the very disease he overcame was a consequence of his indiscretions.

This is a tragedy.

Sea Ray
08-29-2012, 10:51 AM
From reddit: if officials awarded Lance Armstrong's 2005 Tour De France title to the next fastest finisher who has never been linked to doping, they'd have to give it to the 23rd place finisher.

Just curious as I don't follow the sport, what did they do about awarding a champion after this ruling?

camisadelgolf
08-29-2012, 04:57 PM
Just curious as I don't follow the sport, what did they do about awarding a champion after this ruling?
http://news.bostonherald.com/sports/other_sports/general/view/20120826wholl_get_lance_armstrongs_tour_titles_no_ easy_answer/srvc=home&position=recent

It makes for no easy choices for cycling’s authorities and historians.

The International Cycling Union, UCI, has control on the record books, but has declined to comment until it learns of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency’s reasons for stripping Armstrong of his Tour titles on Friday. Tour organizers were even more mum, deferring to the UCI and USADA in a two-sentence statement.

It could take months, or years, to iron out. But a guessing game has already erupted about who will — or should — inherit Armstrong’s titles, and whether cycling chiefs might try to clean the slate once and for all.

. . .

"When he’s stripped of his titles — if they do — from Mr. Armstrong ... they’re not necessarily required to give them to someone else," he told France-Info radio. "It’s very clear that the titles of Tour de France champion mustn’t be awarded to people who faced suspicion that they were doped, or who were."
There's more in the article, but basically, it's tough to say right now. It could end up being nobody.

NJReds
08-29-2012, 05:09 PM
Just curious as I don't follow the sport, what did they do about awarding a champion after this ruling?

I think they'll award the titles to these guys. :D

http://cycling.finial.com/stuff/supermen.jpg

texasdave
08-31-2012, 08:02 AM
Tyler Hamilton says Lance Armstrong gave him an illegal blood booster before the 1999 Tour de France and that the teammates took blood transfusions together during the cycling race the following year.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/20120830/armstrong-hamilton-doping-book/#ixzz257Ww1NfT

Everyone cheated. I once read a book about this because I had Lance Fever back when he was winning all his Tours de France. Pretty much you had to cheat or you became irrelevant.

savafan
08-31-2012, 02:43 PM
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/20120830/armstrong-hamilton-doping-book/#ixzz257Ww1NfT

Everyone cheated. I once read a book about this because I had Lance Fever back when he was winning all his Tours de France. Pretty much you had to cheat or you became irrelevant.

Is it considered cheating if everyone is doing it, or is it a level playing field?

dougdirt
08-31-2012, 03:42 PM
Is it considered cheating if everyone is doing it, or is it a level playing field?

Is it against the rules? If so, then it is cheating, even if everyone is doing it.

savafan
08-31-2012, 11:02 PM
Is it against the rules? If so, then it is cheating, even if everyone is doing it.

Who loses?

dougdirt
08-31-2012, 11:32 PM
Who loses?

The guys who aren't cheating. The sport in general.

jojo
08-31-2012, 11:51 PM
The guys who aren't cheating. The sport in general.

I think the prissy infighting is a much bigger turnoff.

Mutaman
09-01-2012, 07:17 PM
Isn't it that same team you're bragging on that is all saying he was indeed, doping?

!. I'm not "bragging" on anyone, just pointing out a fact.

2. Where are they "all saying he was indeed, doping?". Link please.

3. What does one have to do with the other?

Mutaman
09-01-2012, 07:18 PM
This is where I'm coming from. Since when are you guilty if you are 500-0 in drug tests but a few people "say" you did it?

OK, maybe he did, but if he passes the tests then he "wins" is the way I see it.

In the court of public opinion where hearsay evidence always rules the day. :)

texasdave
09-09-2012, 06:39 PM
Lance Armstrong’s troubles continue. The city of Chicago won’t let Armstrong run in the city’s annual marathon set for October, reports ESPN.com.

Lance really pissed someone off. Seems petty to me.

Mutaman
09-10-2012, 03:00 PM
"Lance Armstrong’s troubles continue. The city of Chicago won’t let Armstrong run in the city’s annual marathon set for October, reports ESPN.com."

I give up. Just another example of everyone jumping on the bandwagon, lack of imagination, and the media hype controlling all. Who made this decision?

UKFlounder
09-10-2012, 05:58 PM
When he announced he was dropping the fight, I thought they said he would be banned from any event associated with the USADA, including triathalons he was starting to run and that this marathon has some sort of agreement with the USADA.


"Lance Armstrong’s troubles continue. The city of Chicago won’t let Armstrong run in the city’s annual marathon set for October, reports ESPN.com."

I give up. Just another example of everyone jumping on the bandwagon, lack of imagination, and the media hype controlling all. Who made this decision?

texasdave
09-10-2012, 08:04 PM
"Lance Armstrong’s troubles continue. The city of Chicago won’t let Armstrong run in the city’s annual marathon set for October, reports ESPN.com."

I give up. Just another example of everyone jumping on the bandwagon, lack of imagination, and the media hype controlling all. Who made this decision?

Is it true that all runners in the Chicago Marathon are being issued bullet-proof vests? :)

texasdave
10-19-2012, 10:27 PM
Bump.

Interesting.



Nike reportedly paid $500,000 to the former president of Union Cycliste Internationale, the governing body for sports cycling and international competitions, to cover-up one of Lance Armstrong’s positive drug tests, according to a report Tuesday from Michael O’Keefee of The New York Daily News.

http://tracking.si.com/2012/10/16/nike-paid-cover-up-positive-drug-test-lance-armstrong/?sct=obnetwork

Sea Ray
10-20-2012, 10:14 AM
Interesting but all it boils down to is a mechanic saying he heard something and nothing else

dougdirt
10-20-2012, 10:28 AM
Interesting but all it boils down to is a mechanic saying he heard something and nothing else

At least that part of things, yes. The dozens of people saying they saw him dope.... that is another part of the story though.

Sea Ray
10-20-2012, 10:36 AM
At least that part of things, yes. The dozens of people saying they saw him dope.... that is another part of the story though.

Exactly. But $500K payoff and allegations that he really did fail a test is huge IMO, if true. Right now there's not enough evidence to say that it is. Up until this point the whole story has been that he's beaten the system by passing all of its tests despite all he was doing illegally

Razor Shines
10-20-2012, 11:55 PM
Where there's a raging inferno, there's fire.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kaldaniels
10-21-2012, 02:02 AM
I never thought Pete Rose would have a rival for the most shameless person to continue to lie in spite of overwhelming evidence. How naive was I.

Over/under on 2017 for the come clean autobiography by Lance?

NJReds
10-21-2012, 01:33 PM
Now the question is ... who wasn't doping in cycling.

dougdirt
10-21-2012, 06:27 PM
Now the question is ... who wasn't doping in cycling.

The camera men on the back of the jeeps?

jojo
10-22-2012, 10:35 AM
I think it's official that the 7 Tour titles have been officially stripped.


I wondering if this means there really hasn't been a Tour during the last couple decades if suspected enhanced riders are ineligible?

Roy Tucker
10-22-2012, 11:37 AM
I think that's why they didn't give the wins to the 2nd place guys. Pretty much everyone in that era was doping.

757690
10-22-2012, 03:18 PM
Well, they can strip him of all his models, but they can never take away the fact that he walked on the moon :cool:

texasdave
10-22-2012, 04:08 PM
Well, they can strip him of all his models, but they can never take away the fact that he walked on the moon :cool:


I always wondered why he didn't ride his bike around when he was up there. :)

RedFanAlways1966
10-24-2012, 03:46 PM
OK, seems the bicycle pros can stay ahead of testing. Does this mean:

(1) that all of the track-and-field athletes are doing the same? How about MLB and NFL players?

(2) the testing in bicycling has been a farce?

Something has to give here. Bicylce riders and their kin might be smarter than other sports, but they are not that smart (they can beat the testing and others cannot).

I have long believed that the NFL and MLB testing is a farce (hey, you will be tested in 3 months so make sure you clean it up!) and only the dumb fail. Hence, the reason many of these athletes get busted by the police with recreational drugs but never fail a league test (for PEDs or rec drugs). I can name three Bengals players that got busted by the authorities (Caldwell, Joseph and Henry), but never failed a league test. How did that happen?!?