'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

petethedrummer

No

hardCopy wrote: »

Anyone who can add 2 + 2 knows Lance is guilty, the fanboys will never believe it.

Depends what stage of the denial they are at.

1. He never cheated. Heart of a moose, lungs of a hippo.
2. He never tested positive.
3. European Conspiracy.
4. The USADA case is a witchhunt.
5. It's all hearsay.
6. Waste of taxpayers money. Why aren't they catching the wall street criminals?
7. Ok, maybe he cheated but everyone else was cheating.
8. It's too late now to change the results.
9. Greg Lemond must have cheated too.

2 Wheels Good

No

Heard something about them finishing charges against other people implicated in the report against Armstrong that is the reason it's being delayed. Can't remember where I heard it but it kind of makes sense.

Leroy42

It us a bit odd though. USADA give someone (let's park that in this case it's LA) a deadline to signal they want to contest a charge, a charge for which they have provided no evidence, and then they are delayed in providing any evidence despite the fact they have already decided the case (since the charge isn't being contested) and handed out a punishment.

Now, if this was a normal Joe instead of LA do you think people would be so accepting?

I'm not questioning their bona fides or whether LA is guilty, but the law must be fair and be seen to be fair and I'm not sure that this is the case. I fully expect to see irrefutable evidence at some point, just seems to me that they should have had everything ready to go before announcing any judgement.

ThisRegard

No

The only reason any "judgement" was announced was because Armstrong chose not to contest anything.

Leroy42

I understand why judgement was announced, but it does seem odd that despite having passed judgement, and thus you would expect they have their facts and files in order, they continue to delay presenting the evidence.Given that, I don't like the continued delays as it only gives oxygen to arguments of witch hunt etc.

Obviously, when dealing with such a high profile case it is even more important to avoid any actions which can be open to questions.

It just seems they rushed to release their judgement and now are busy putting the files together. We all know that powerful people with expensive lawyers and PR machines are quite capable of picking holes in even the best cases.

corny

No

ThisRegard wrote: »

The only reason any "judgement" was announced was because Armstrong chose not to contest anything.

That was his right. What followed was all USADA.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Now, if this was a normal Joe instead of LA do you think people would be so accepting?

No they wouldn't is the fair answer.

Leroy42 wrote: »

I'm not questioning their bona fides or whether LA is guilty, but the law must be fair and be seen to be fair and I'm not sure that this is the case. I fully expect to see irrefutable evidence at some point, just seems to me that they should have had everything ready to go before announcing any judgement.

I agree.

petethedrummer

No

Leroy42 wrote: »

I understand why judgement was announced, but it does seem odd that despite having passed judgement, and thus you would expect they have their facts and files in order, they continue to delay presenting the evidence.Given that, I don't like the continued delays as it only gives oxygen to arguments of witch hunt etc.

I would presume that having a mountain of files ready to present in a court room is different than having it all collated in a presentable report format. Particularly when it is being presented to an agency that really really* wishes none of this ever happened. It's also not just about 1 man, its about widespread conspiracy of doping. So I presume new information is being presented all the time.

Anyways, legal processes are always being delayed and government agencies are known to on occasion miss a deadline.


*really

Undercover Elephant

petethedrummer wrote: »

I would presume that having a mountain of files ready to present in a court room is different than having it all collated in a presentable report format. Particularly when it is being presented to an agency that really really* wishes none of this ever happened. It's also not just about 1 man, its about widespread conspiracy of doping. So I presume new information is being presented all the time.

I don't buy it.

Someone had to have done at least an internal report in order to decide whether to start proceedings in the first place. It can't be too hard to adapt it. Besides, if the aim is to hand over evidence, why not just do a huge data dump?

I would favour explanations of ineptitude over malice. But one explanation is that there's stuff in there that they really don't want the UCI to see. It would be naive to think the Armstrong PR machine won't make hay with this.

Anyone who wants a real cleanup and the complete demolition of Lance should be less than pleased about all this.

FISMA

Leroy42 wrote: »

It us a bit odd though. USADA give someone (let's park that in this case it's LA) a deadline to signal they want to contest a charge, a charge for which they have provided no evidence, and then they are delayed in providing any evidence despite the fact they have already decided the case (since the charge isn't being contested) and handed out a punishment.

Now, if this was a normal Joe instead of LA do you think people would be so accepting?

I'm not questioning their bona fides or whether LA is guilty, but the law must be fair and be seen to be fair and I'm not sure that this is the case. I fully expect to see irrefutable evidence at some point, just seems to me that they should have had everything ready to go before announcing any judgement.

Leroy,
It appears that you have posted on the "I Hate Lance Armstrong" thread where conjecture, hearsay, opinions, feelings, pishogues, funny vibes, and tea leaves are all kinds of evidence, admissible in court, sorry, arbitration.

I will reserve a guilty judgement until the science tells me so.

kumate_champ07

^
troll

FISMA

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

^
troll

If you cannot make yourself look good, make someone else look bad.

kumate_champ07

FISMA wrote: »

If you cannot make yourself look good, make someone else look bad.

thanks for confirming my above post.

Lumen

FISMA wrote: »

I will reserve a guilty judgement until the science tells me so.

What on earth does that mean? What "science"?

Beasty

No

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

^
troll

If you have a problem with a post report it. Calling someone a troll in-thread is back-seat modding and will incur sanctions if done again

Thanks

Beasty

Inquitus

No

Leroy42 wrote: »

We all know that powerful people with expensive lawyers and PR machines are quite capable of picking holes in even the best cases.

And Lance is certainly a such a person and yet even he knew the case was so good he couldn't win, so he effectively pleaded guilty instead.

niceonetom

No

Lumen wrote: »

What on earth does that mean? What "science"?

I think it means "He never failed a test!" But even the thickest lancefan can faintly hear the idiocy in that statement now, so saying "I will reserve a guilty judgement until the science tells me so." is a way of smuggling in the same vacuous bullplop while soft-of-maybe-slightly not sounding quite so foolish.

I blame CSI.

FISMA

Lumen wrote: »

What on earth does that mean? What "science"?

It means that until the USADA releases their results and the scientific community is allowed to analyze their methodology, procedures, and conclusion(s), I will not blindly agree with their assertion that Lance is guilty.

Is that too much to ask for?

drogdub

No

FISMA wrote: »

It means that until the USADA releases their results and the scientific community is allowed to analyze their methodology, procedures, and conclusion(s), I will not blindly agree with their assertion that Lance is guilty.

Is that too much to ask for?

Yes.

furiousox

No

FISMA wrote: »

It means that until the USADA releases their results and the scientific community is allowed to analyze their methodology, procedures, and conclusion(s), I will not blindly agree with their assertion that Lance is guilty.
Is that too much to ask for?

Have a read of this in the meantime

corny

No

furiousox wrote: »

Have a read of this in the meantime

The words of a proven serial cheat and liar shouldn't be at the top of anyones list of compelling evidence.

Fisma honest question. Are you actually open to a guilty verdict or will you cling to the inevitable Armstrong spin when it comes?

FISMA

corny wrote: »

The words of a proven serial cheat and liar shouldn't be at the top of anyones list of compelling evidence.

+1
That's the sad thing about Tyler, he could have been a powerful force either way. He has confirmed himself as a liar. I do look forward to Hincapie's statement. That will carry a lot of weight.

I almost choked when I heard Hamilton's "chimera" argument. I am not sure what Lance could do to top that - alien abduction, perhaps?

corny wrote: »

Fisma honest question. Are you actually open to a guilty verdict or will you cling to the inevitable Armstrong spin when it comes?

Absolutely. I will accept the science community's conclusion.

Hopefully, we will not have to wait much longer.

Leroy42

FISMA's posts prove the point. The continued absence of any direct evidence (and regardless of how intriguing Hamilton’s book is it does not constitute evidence) gives the impression that USADA jumped a bit early on this.

It may well be that they have uncovered more evidence, even evidence of UCI conspiracy etc., but surely they have enough evidence to give the UCI regarding LA and can also progress with the other evidence at a later time? They have already announced they are stripping him of his 7 titles, which is pretty serious, so I would that at he very minimum expect that they have clear evidence of drug taking in each of those tours.

Lumen

FISMA wrote: »

It means that until the USADA releases their results and the scientific community is allowed to analyze their methodology, procedures, and conclusion(s), I will not blindly agree with their assertion that Lance is guilty.

Is that too much to ask for?

I'm not sure if you're using some idiomatic American concept of science which encompasses everything that isn't religion or sex, but science as a tool is neither necessary nor sufficient for obtaining a conviction in any legal system I'm aware of.

Would you find someone not guilty of (say) murder for lack of DNA evidence in a case where there was means, motive, opportunity and numerous eyewitnesses?

As for the more general issue of evidence being presented, that isn't necessary in this case since Lance has essentially pleaded guilty by not contesting. USADA will do it anyway, when they are ready.

RobFowl

No

Jesus the fanboys are out in force !!

Wait until the evidence is released before rubishing it . There are ongoing cases which preclude some details being published. Also LA opted not to contest the ruling so effectively pleaded guilty. Bear that in mind before siding with him!!
The UCI who are calling for pulication are are possibly at the fore of further allegations so their press releases need to be taken with a pinch of salt.
In a few months our sport will have changed dramatically and will be in a better place.

ThisRegard

No

corny wrote: »

The words of a proven serial cheat and liar shouldn't be at the top of anyones list of compelling evidence.

The thing is, although the author is a self admitted cheat, the book contains truth and facts of what was going on at the time. Otherwise I don't think there was a chance a publisher would even consider looking at it.

Monty Burnz

No

Wow, are there still delusional people out there who think Armstrong wasn't a doper??

dave_o_brien

No

FISMA wrote: »

+1
That's the sad thing about Tyler, he could have been a powerful force either way. He has confirmed himself as a liar. I do look forward to Hincapie's statement. That will carry a lot of weight.

I almost choked when I heard Hamilton's "chimera" argument. I am not sure what Lance could do to top that - alien abduction, perhaps?



Absolutely. I will accept the science community's conclusion.

Hopefully, we will not have to wait much longer.

What I struggle to swallow is the absolute hypocrisy inherent in that opinion. You refuse to believe anything said by Tyler Hamilton because he is a convicted doper, yet believe Lance Armstrong is innocent despite being a convicted doper.

He is convicted now. He chose not to challenge a legal finding. In other words, he legally accepted that he doped.

So what's even madder is that you assume that Hamilton is always lying because he lied once, but Armstrong is lying about his guilt because he's just awesome and stuff.

Chips Lovell

No

More details emerge:

Lance Armstrong's ex-wife, Kristin, is said to have not only known about but also participated in his doping practices, helping to refrigerate EPO and distribute drugs to US riders at the 1998 World Championships, according to a report with alleged details from the USADA's "reasoned decision" on its lifetime ban for Armstrong.

The report also claims that George Hincapie said that he lied to US Customers officials about EPO in his luggage

Guybrush T

No

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

More details emerge:

Lance Armstrong's ex-wife, Kristin, is said to have not only known about but also participated in his doping practices, helping to refrigerate EPO and distribute drugs to US riders at the 1998 World Championships, according to a report with alleged details from the USADA's "reasoned decision" on its lifetime ban for Armstrong.

The report also claims that George Hincapie said that he lied to US Customers officials about EPO in his luggage

Oh dear, now big George's evidence is useless too, he's a confessed liar, so is bound to be lying if he says bad things about Lance.

furiousox

No

Whatever your opinion of Hamilton, his story cannot be discounted and his testimony is just one out of 9 or 10 former teammates of Armstrong who are all telling the same story.
Like it or not, the book is stong evidence of the doping program within Postal.
(And nobody mentioned in the book is suing the author for libel)
I agree Hincapie's story will carry more weight as he was someone Armstrong considered "a brother".
Putting the ex-wife on the stand would also have been an incredible twist to the story.

"The words of a proven serial cheat and liar shouldn't be at the top of anyones list of compelling evidence."

Couldn't this be said of Armstrong too?