'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

couerdelion

Yes, but he's still great

Hermy wrote: »

That figures is now 12.

It's now 13. I wasn't concentrating

Junior

Chickens coming home to roost for Lance ?

The Sunday Times has revealed that the terms of its costly 2004 legal settlement with Lance Armstrong are likely to be reviewed in the wake of news the cyclist will not contest doping charges against him.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=49916&c=1

Tombo2001

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

This tread is getting sickening now, some take LA at face value and still believe the "most tested, never positive, to tired to continue fighting" stance he has taken and others believe the thruth is out and by LA not contesting the charges he finally 'confirmed' as much. We're never going to agree!

.

Its a bit rich to see people banging on about the 'Lance apologists'.....

Look at the results of the poll.

13 people dont believe he doped.

270 people do believe he doped.......

whats the issue here? The overwhelming majority is in the same camp as you.

morana

No

the bad thing is as Kimmage has said where is all the top ranked clean riders? why arent they coming out and say as GE Larsson did " well done USADA"?

That is disturbing to me.

Tombo2001

morana wrote: »

the bad thing is as Kimmage has said where is all the top ranked clean riders? why arent they coming out and say as GE Larsson did " well done USADA"?

That is disturbing to me.

Who are the top ranked clean riders?

petethedrummer

No

morana wrote: »

the bad thing is as Kimmage has said where is all the top ranked clean riders? why arent they coming out and say as GE Larsson did " well done USADA"?

That is disturbing to me.

Until the UCI condemn Armstrong's doping I'd say most of the riders are too afraid to venture an opinion. So we might be waiting for a while.

Can I apply for my cycling license under protest next year?

RobFowl

No

morana wrote: »

the bad thing is as Kimmage has said where is all the top ranked clean riders? why arent they coming out and say as GE Larsson did " well done USADA"?

That is disturbing to me.

The deafening silence is very worrying!

morana

No

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Who are the top ranked clean riders?

I would say Wiggins, Froome, Roche, Martin for starters.... there must be some out there with a bit of courage?

petethedrummer wrote: »

Until the UCI condemn Armstrong's doping I'd say most of the riders are too afraid to venture an opinion. So we might be waiting for a while.

Can I apply for my cycling license under protest next year?

Yes you can in November!!!

petethedrummer

No

morana wrote: »

I would say Wiggins, Froome, Roche, Martin for starters.... there must be some out there with a bit of courage?

Not till Pat gives them the OK. I wonder if Wiggins wants to punch Lance in the face.

corny

No

morana wrote: »

I would say Wiggins, Froome, Roche, Martin for starters.... there must be some out there with a bit of courage?



Yes you can in November!!!

<snip>

morana

No

corny wrote: »

<snip>

yes so could i! I meant Dan not Tony Martin!

average_runner

What i don't understand is the following:


They have all this evidence against Lance, but yet they wont release. Surely it can be release given he wont contest it ?

Chips Lovell

No

Can I remind people (again) that you can't make unproven doping allegations.

corny

No

average_runner wrote: »

What i don't understand is the following:


They have all this evidence against Lance, but yet they wont release. Surely it can be release given he wont contest it ?

Lance is fully aware of the case against. I imagine they can't release it to the general public yet because cases against Bruyneel and the likes are still ongoing. All in good time though. USADA have said eventually their findings will be released.

Chips Lovell

No

average_runner wrote: »

What i don't understand is the following:


They have all this evidence against Lance, but yet they wont release. Surely it can be release given he wont contest it ?

They will be releasing it:

He said that the evidence in relation to the case would emerge once the other arbitration hearings concluded, and that he had expected Armstrong to choose his current course of action rather than fight the charges.

corny

No

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Can I remind people (again) that you can't make unproven doping allegations.

Can i post a link to the leaked 2010 list then as a response?

Chips Lovell

No

corny wrote: »

Can i post a link to the leaked 2010 list then as a response?

No, I'd prefer not. The problem isn't the list (which has been made public). The problem is that you're using this list to imply that named riders are doping. And you can't do that.

corny

No

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

No, I'd prefer not. The problem isn't the list (which has been made public). The problem is that you're using this list to imply that named riders are doping. And you can't do that.

Not that they're doping but that they wouldn't be the first names to come to mind, on all available evidence, when answering the question 'Who are the top ranked clean riders?'. Semantics perhaps but saying someone is clean or doping requires a leap of faith either way in cycling these days.

Chips Lovell

No

corny wrote: »

Not that they're doping but that they wouldn't be the first names to come to mind, on all available evidence, when answering the question 'Who are the top ranked clean riders?'. Semantics perhaps but saying someone is clean or doping requires a leap of faith either way in cycling these days.

A. I think you've misunderstood what that list is and how it was drawn up;
B. Even if it was what you seem to think it is, you can't use it to infer doping against named riders, regardless of whether you say "x is likely to have been doping" or "x isn't the first name that would spring to mind when you talk about clean riders". Unless Irish libel laws change, that isn't up for discussion.

Thank you

Tombo2001

Would I be allowed to say "interesting to see who was a '5' on the list?'......

Chips Lovell

No

I don't think I could have been any clearer. You can't allege or infer a rider is doping unless there is irrefutable evidence.

And that's the last explanation of the rules I'm giving on-thread. Any further queries, PM the mods and we'll reply in due course.

vetinari

Personally I'd agree that the circumstantial evidence is quite strong in terms of him doping, the times, the rest of his team caught doping etc.

However, I have to admit that the entire witch hunt by the USADA did leave me feeling quite uneasy.

This article best articulates my uneasiness

http://articles.latimes.com/print/2006/dec/11/local/la-me-doping11dec11

One relevant quote from it.

SADA has never lost an arbitration case in its history, a record that spans six years and more than 40 proceedings. Authorities call that record a testament to their skill at bringing only bulletproof cases.

I always get nervous of any justice system having a 100% record.

therightstuff

No

The "list" has Frank Schleck as a "2/10" doping risk so it is far from infallible.

Forget the list, the main issue is how the UCI can continue to run our sport without root and branch changes when all the evidence suggests that they were complicit in the most famous (infamous) rider in cycling being doped.

therightstuff

No

vetinari wrote: »

Personally I'd agree that the circumstantial evidence is quite strong in terms of him doping, the times, the rest of his team caught doping etc.

However, I have to admit that the entire witch hunt by the USADA did leave me feeling quite uneasy.

This article best articulates my uneasiness

http://articles.latimes.com/print/2006/dec/11/local/la-me-doping11dec11

One relevant quote from it.




I always get nervous of any justice system having a 100% record.

Is that article from the Lance Armstrong Times?

blorg

No

Raam wrote: »

At the time of posting, five people have voted that they think he didn't dope. Are they for real?

Just go read an American cycling forum. On some of them the majority of posters still don't believe the man doped. It's incredible, but that is what Lance is angling for. He's accepting the ban, the loss of his titles, basically throwing away his entire career, on the hope he can still persuade enough people he is the victim of a witch hunt. And it's working.

ThisRegard

No

blorg wrote: »

on the hope he can still persuade enough people he is the victim of a witch hunt. And it's working.

Yip.

vetinari wrote: »

However, I have to admit that the entire witch hunt by the USADA did leave me feeling quite uneasy.

Jaysus.

dub_skav

No

vetinari wrote: »

Personally I'd agree that the circumstantial evidence is quite strong in terms of him doping, the times, the rest of his team caught doping etc.

However, I have to admit that the entire witch hunt by the USADA did leave me feeling quite uneasy.

This article best articulates my uneasiness

http://articles.latimes.com/print/2006/dec/11/local/la-me-doping11dec11

One relevant quote from it.



I always get nervous of any justice system having a 100% record.

It seems there are some issues with the arbitration process, but only for those who accidentally dope, or who have reason to believe that there samples were not tested properly.
All the examples in that article were caught with banned substances in their systems.
Perhaps the ability to be more lenient in the case of accidental violations would be useful.
However, I don't thik that would help Lance.

Undercover Elephant

vetinari wrote: »

However, I have to admit that the entire witch hunt by the USADA did leave me feeling quite uneasy.

It's not a witch hunt - it's the opposite. It's the single-minded pursuit of the designated bad actor, even if it means doing side deals with other bad actors. Sad to say that this is pretty much the way that US federal prosecutors, and those who take their leads from them, behave. Anyone who doesn't see this hasn't been paying attention.

I agree with the rest of your post.

Note to the logically challenged: the above does not imply that Lance Armstrong was not a cheat.

mark kiernan

speaking of bad actors i see a hollywood movie in this
matt damon stars as lance the hero winner of 7 tours the first man on the moon
now some goverment organisation wants to bring him down
now with the help of the a team hes out for justice:D

marienbad

No

vetinari wrote: »

Personally I'd agree that the circumstantial evidence is quite strong in terms of him doping, the times, the rest of his team caught doping etc.

However, I have to admit that the entire witch hunt by the USADA did leave me feeling quite uneasy.

This article best articulates my uneasiness

http://articles.latimes.com/print/2006/dec/11/local/la-me-doping11dec11

One relevant quote from it.



I always get nervous of any justice system having a 100% record.

This is conspiracy theory stuff. It is not a justice system - it is an anti doping system that all athletes sign up to knowing what it involves.