Lance Armstrong... superman

[sharkshooter]

A friend of mine lives in Atlanta. His wife's sister is married to one of Lance's former teammates. I won't name him here. His wife's sister spent time with the US Postal team in Spain, while they trained. My friend's wife spent a couple of weeks there one summer. Lance is not defending himself, because he is guilty. He had some great doctors.

Not sure if this was intended to be sarcasm, but if it was, it was pretty good!

If not, it highlights the quality of the "evidence" against Lance: Nothing more than hearsay which would not even get heard in a court of law in any democracy on the planet. The USADA certainly had no credible evidence against him, just a lot of sore losers.

Did he dope? I really don't know, but you used to be innocent until "proven" guilty. In criminal court that is "beyond a reasonable doubt" - which would likely be absent given that all the witnesses would be thrown out and there is no physical evidence. The civil court standard of "on a balance of probability", I would think that a lot of unsubstantiated verbal evidence against hundreds of negative tests would give balance of probability to the side of "not guilty".

[spackler]

The post may be hearsay, but the evidence against Armstrong is based largely on eye witness accounts. And as for this innocent until proven guilty stuff, he was charged and declined to defend himself. He opted out of his due process.

[funk-like]

Hi - not meant as sarcasm, just recounting something I know from a first hand account of the story. My friend's wife told me this, she was there. I'm not submitting this to any court, I'm just sharing some info I have. The point spackler made is a good one - he had the choice to defend himself but chose not to.

Not sure if this was intended to be sarcasm, but if it was, it was pretty good!

If not, it highlights the quality of the "evidence" against Lance: Nothing more than hearsay which would not even get heard in a court of law in any democracy on the planet. The USADA certainly had no credible evidence against him, just a lot of sore losers.

Did he dope? I really don't know, but you used to be innocent until "proven" guilty. In criminal court that is "beyond a reasonable doubt" - which would likely be absent given that all the witnesses would be thrown out and there is no physical evidence. The civil court standard of "on a balance of probability", I would think that a lot of unsubstantiated verbal evidence against hundreds of negative tests would give balance of probability to the side of "not guilty".

[Kiwi]

Armstong networth is $125M, he was the leader of the PED cycling mafia omertà. I hope he gets sued by US Postal, Tour de Farce and many others.

Armstrong tested positive for EPO at the 2001 Tour du Suisse. Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis that he had tested positive for EPO and stated he had been able to make the test result go away.Roger Clemens, Sammy Sossa, Mark McGuire never failed any drug tests either, but they were guilty of cheating, too.

Al Capone was never charged for murder, but he was a murder. What do all of them have in common? They tried to hide their guilt. That's what cheats and criminals do!

I'd check your facts, at least with respect to Clemens. The sports media, who are only slightly more credible, pointed out recently that Clemens was only tried for lying to Congress, NOT drug use, and he was acquitted of that. He, like many others, have been branded cheats, but have not been convicted in a court of law. Stories, people with axes to grind and information from your cousins best friends ex-boyfriend don't cut it. Basic element of any justice system is "he who asserts must prove". It's not up to Lance or whomever to prove they did not, it's up to their accusers, and not in the media or in the opinion of a "body" of people. Let these people testify, in court, under oath, then call it "justice". Not interested in "justice" then OK, Lance is guilty... next!?

[Kiwi]

The post may be hearsay, but the evidence against Armstrong is based largely on eye witness accounts. And as for this innocent until proven guilty stuff, he was charged and declined to defend himself. He opted out of his due process.

In any court process the motives and credibility of "eye witnesses" can and should be tested. Case law is full of not guilty verdicts despite "eye witnesses". As far as being "charged", perhaps that is the word used in the media (ack!) but that fails to describe the USADA's role and authority. They have no authority to "charge" anyone, only publish their (biased) report then offer the "accused" the chance to rebut it. While I may have taken a different stand on this, one cannot really blame Lance for chosing not to rebut their "findings". I am sure that after 10+ plus years of the media, losers, cheats, liars, and the USADA targeting him why would he want to enter into a terribly flawed process? To do so would only acknowledge that the process was lawful, and fair, which IMHO it is not. The damage has been done. Even if it went to trial and he were acquitted, there are too many out there, as evidenced by this Forum, that will believe the bad first and disregard the evidence or lack thereof.

[golfinteg]

'The fallout from the file released by USADA resulting from its investigation into doping allegations against Lance Armstrong and the many other riders implicated, has been incredibly damaging for cycling worldwide.
'The evidence presented is damning, the behaviour of the key players is morally reprehensible and cycling fans have every right to feel let down.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/oth...onfession.html

Kudos to Cycling Australia for firing vice president Stephen Hodge
and road racing coordinator or coach Matt White recently in the wake and aftershocks of USADA damning report, on Lance Armstrong,

detailing over 202 pages and with more than 1,000 pages of supporting testimony how he was at the heart of the biggest doping program in the history of sport.

“During a stage of my career as a professional cyclist I took performance enhancing drugs — a decision I am not proud of,” Hodge wrote in a letter to CA.

CA fired road racing coordinator Matt White earlier this week after it was revealed he was involved in doping while a teammate of Lance Armstrong on the U.S. Postal team in 2003. The admissions follow the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency’s damning report into Armstrong’s career.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports...a1e_story.html

The evidence presented is damning, the behaviour of the key players is morally reprehensible and cycling fans have every right to feel let down," it said in a statement.
White, 38, admitted at the weekend that he was part of a strategy of doping when he rode on the Armstrong-led US Postal Service cycling team from 2001 to 2003.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori...231845/1/.html


Both were commended for admitting and should be lauded for having the courage to confess to DOPING!

Unlike Carl Lewis, it took him 15 years to 'admit', reluctantly!

[golfinteg]

THE voice of world cycling, Phil Liggett, says Lance Armstrong swore to his face he didn't dope but the veteran commentator now feels like 'a fool' for staunchly defending the fallen cyclist for so long.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226500195180

Lance Armstrong made a fool out of me

The above is reminiscent of my 1988 summer. The prelude to the 1988 Summer Olympics when I wondered why all the negative articles (citing Carl as aloof, arrogant, haughty etc..) and why Big sponsors were reluctant to endorse Carl Lewis the Phenom. In hindsight it must be by 'spin doctors', especially Coca Cola who KNOWS IT, the Official Olympic sponsor, who did not want to sponsor or have Carl Lewis as their man, given his positive tests in the US trials.

[fundonny]

Shocking. An athlete seeks an edge.

[sharkshooter]

...While I may have taken a different stand on this, one cannot really blame Lance for chosing not to rebut their "findings". I am sure that after 10+ plus years of the media, losers, cheats, liars, and the USADA targeting him why would he want to enter into a terribly flawed process? ...

When asked "When did you stop beating your wife?", one should say nothing and walk away. It is called baiting, and that is what has been done here. There is no reason for Lance to try to prove his innocence, or to try to counter the allegations. If there was evidence, that would be different.

[fundonny]

If he did, I don't care. Still an amazing story and still used all his fame for good. Cycling is the most doped up sport.

[mjf]

If there was evidence, that would be different.

I confess, I don't know all of the details of the report on this matter. My impression though, is that the report is full of first-hand eye witness testimony which, unless I'm mistaken, is completely valid evidence in any court.

[jeffc]

In any court process the motives and credibility of "eye witnesses" can and should be tested. Case law is full of not guilty verdicts despite "eye witnesses". As far as being "charged", perhaps that is the word used in the media (ack!) but that fails to describe the USADA's role and authority. They have no authority to "charge" anyone, only publish their (biased) report then offer the "accused" the chance to rebut it. While I may have taken a different stand on this, one cannot really blame Lance for chosing not to rebut their "findings". I am sure that after 10+ plus years of the media, losers, cheats, liars, and the USADA targeting him why would he want to enter into a terribly flawed process? To do so would only acknowledge that the process was lawful, and fair, which IMHO it is not. The damage has been done. Even if it went to trial and he were acquitted, there are too many out there, as evidenced by this Forum, that will believe the bad first and disregard the evidence or lack thereof.

11 eyewitness accounts from teammates. Nope, no evidence at all. In any court of law, that is called overwhelming evidence. Armstrong essentially pled guilty by not testifying. Levi Leipheimer (former teammate) was sacked by his team recently for testifying and incurred a ban from cycling for 6 months. Do you think he would have admitted to this if he was innocent? Not a chance. Furthermore, do you think a clean Lance could have beat all these doping athletes 7 years in a row?

[golfisforfun]

Maybe we can also talk about Livestrong. I am pretty sure it is as big a scam as Lance. There is a very good article in Outdoor Magazine about Lance and Livestrong.
Do people really believe that in an age where everyone cheats in cycling, the winner of 7 straight races was CLEAN? Really??? Wise up!
The only clean guy beat all the druggies?

[rando7777]

He had to be on the juice to beat all the other guys on the juice

[golfinteg]

Terry Fox & Dick Pound

My kind of Heroes and Role Models

[kemcheca]

I'd check your facts, at least with respect to Clemens. The sports media, who are only slightly more credible, pointed out recently that Clemens was only tried for lying to Congress, NOT drug use, and he was acquitted of that. He, like many others, have been branded cheats, but have not been convicted in a court of law. Stories, people with axes to grind and information from your cousins best friends ex-boyfriend don't cut it. Basic element of any justice system is "he who asserts must prove". It's not up to Lance or whomever to prove they did not, it's up to their accusers, and not in the media or in the opinion of a "body" of people. Let these people testify, in court, under oath, then call it "justice". Not interested in "justice" then OK, Lance is guilty... next!?

Andy Pettite admitted he was using steroids with Clemens. At-least Pettite is a man and came forward. Guess it's normal for a 45 year old to throw 90 miles an hour cut fastball!

[golfinteg]

7 out of the 11 witnesses didn't have to confess and should be commended for their willingness to testify against Lance Armstrong and face perjury charges & jail sentences if their testimonies (as first hand witnesses) & corroborating proof of evidences were false..

Lance Armstrong did not continue to fight against USADA charges nor was he willing to face his accusers. Chief among them his closest friend & former teammate George Hincapie and respected Canadian Michael Barry.

Let's not continue stating that Armstrong was not given due process. He alone aborted the process. Simply this Lance Armstrong derailed the Process.

Why? Because he didn't have the courage to face his accusers by taking the stand? Afraid to face perjury charges if he lies?

[golfinteg]

Andy Pettite admitted he was using steroids with Clemens. At-least Pettite is a man and came forward. Guess it's normal for a 45 year old to throw 90 miles an hour cut fastball!

Is Roger Clemens a Cheat? A Dope?

What Tiger liaisons with his extramarital affairs to-date pale in comparison to Roger Clemens (with sometimes his outright indiscreet displays). Stay tuned.

Has anyone read 'American Icon-The fall of Roger Clemens and the rise of steroids in America's Pastime'?

If you did reread pg. 368 about Clemens legal team reluctance to share the results of the MRI conducted on the 'papable mass' on Clemen's backside' with the Congressional Comittee Investigation. You be the judge!

Talking about RC's rear end this is what another icon has to say;

Gaston, in his second stint as Toronto's manager, told reporters that he suspects Clemens played a role in his firing the first time around in 1997

"He is an asshole himself, a complete asshole. I would say that loud right in his face. It is all about him, nobody else but him."

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/st...ns-gaston.html

[golfinteg]

What has Dick Pound to say about one of the '11 witnesses' that Lance Armstrong supporters or fan boys called a Cheat, Dope & Liar?
Let me wikiquote

In January 2007, Pound responded to Floyd Landis' testosterone test following stage 17 of the Tour of France, an event (and a stage) which Landis initially won, but of which he was stripped after failing a dope case and losing at arbitration. Pound declared "I mean, it was 11 to 1!" referring to the testosterone-to-epitestosterone level. "You’d think he’d be violating every virgin within 100 miles. How does he even get on his bicycle?"

Yes Dick Pound can be cheeky and offensive (for his "un pays de sauvages" remark which all of us does not approve off).

The question is why is Lance Armstrong vehemently opposed to Dick Pound when he made this remark;

In January 2004, Le Monde quoted Pound as saying that "the public knows that the riders in the Tour de France and the others are doping." This prompted a strongly worded rebuke from Lance Armstrong, who called Pound's comments "careless and unacceptable."[7] Pound said he was surprised by the personal nature of Armstrong's response because he had never mentioned the cyclist by name.

Was Armstrong genuinely interested in keeping the sports clean or afraid that his team doping practices be exposed?

[Sakuraba]

All it took was the mighty Oprah to get him to cop to being "a flawed man". I'm starting to feel sorry for him, she really asked some tough questions.

[golfisforfun]

I hope you are joking right? Feeling bad for him??? Seriously? He ruined lives, profied and made $ Millions as a fraud and will still end up with a boatload of cash... Cheaters often prosper!

[nokids]

For a while, I thought the french inquisition against Armstrong was just jealousy. Now we know they were right.

[habsfan]

I hope you are joking right? Feeling bad for him??? Seriously? He ruined lives, profied and made $ Millions as a fraud and will still end up with a boatload of cash... Cheaters often prosper!

exactly you cant feel bad for bullies, he ruined and attempted to ruin many people's lives in the process, I heard somewhere with the potential lawsuits coming his way he could be beyond broke after this, I really hope he is. But on the other hand when you hear that they only test the top 29 at the Tour de France and all of them failed how can you award a winner, or how can the sport itself be credible.

[Kilroy]

how can the sport itself be credible.

This is a disaster for the sport. What cedibility can it have now? Sponsors may become hard to find.

[jmwhite]

This is a disaster for the sport. What cedibility can it have now? Sponsors may become hard to find.

It's a disaster already and he hasn't even spilled ALL the beans yet. They won't want to go there with him. I don't think too many of these potential lawsuits will ever see the light of day. Too many skeletons in too many closets. Many people in high places turned a blind eye to what was going on during those years.

[fundonny]

He'll be fine financially and is still the best biker of this generation of cheaters.