Lance Armstrong to be stripped of Tour de France titles and banned from cycling

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by jojo

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]

Originally Posted by Hoosier Red

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]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

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]

Originally Posted by Slyder

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]

Originally Posted by NJReds

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]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

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]

"@thesulk I knew Lance didn't have the ball to fight these charges."




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mutaman]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

Let the French whine about what a cheater he is.

When have the French ever whined about it?

[Mutaman]

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]

Originally Posted by Slyder

~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]

Eddy Merckx is happy today... no?

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Mutaman

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]

Originally Posted by Hoosier Red

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]

Originally Posted by Mutaman

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]

Originally Posted by Mutaman

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.