'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

Flandria

No

Bradley doesn't seem too upset after yet another night on the p1ss...



Bradley Wiggins ‏@bradwiggins
Feel sober enough to compose a tweet to say a huge Thank You to The Wigan Warriors for making me a life member last night, huge honour

Lusk Doyle

No

morana wrote: »

(PS noticed the Yes vote in the poll has gone up!!!)

I thought that my eyes were playing tricks on me when noticed that earlier too!

letape

No

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

morana wrote: »

(PS noticed the Yes vote in the poll has gone up!!!)

I thought that my eyes were playing tricks on me when noticed that earlier too!

I am surprised that people needed the detail to be released before they voted yes!

Bahra12

No

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

morana wrote: »

(PS noticed the Yes vote in the poll has gone up!!!)

I thought that my eyes were playing tricks on me when noticed that earlier too!

I just put in a yes vote but only read this thread today. I have been 100 percent convinced of his guilt for serveral years and find it funny to read posts from those who are in complete denial. Truly amazing...

drogdub

No

Maybe i am being naive but for the day that's in it, good to see

Tony Martin

winning today. One of the more trustworthy pros

greenmat

No

The reason USADA waited to publish the file, the way I read it anyway. UCI really are a waste of space.

On August 24, 2012, USADA issued public notice of its sanctioning Mr.
Armstrong and provided the UCI notice of this decision on that same day. In a
letter of September 3, 2012 Pat McQuaid’s noted that the UCI was awaiting
“USADA’s full reasoned decision” before deciding whether to appeal USADA’s
August 24, 2012, announcement of sanctions against Lance Armstrong. The Code
provides that providing a reasoned decision in this contest is the duty of “the
Anti-Doping Organization with result management responsibility.” By calling upon
USADA to issue a reasoned decision, therefore, the UCI has confirmed that USADA
is the Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility and the
UCI may not contest USADA’s reasoned decision on the grounds that USADA allegedly
lacks results management responsibility. Had the UCI wished to challenge USADA’s
results management responsibility, the UCI was obligated to do so within
twenty-one (21) days of USADA asserting its results management authority on June
12, 2012. The UCI cannot challenge USADA’s results management authority at this
juncture.

petethedrummer

No

RobFowl

No

letape wrote: »

I am surprised that people needed the detail to be released before they voted yes!

Still 34 cancer hating fanboys out there though...


(Should have gone to Specsavers)

Cienciano

No

Lets post our favorite bits. At the moment it's from page 37:

Finally, although additional corroboration is not necessary given the testimony of USADA’s witnesses, as described in Section V.B. below, the retesting of Lance Armstrong’s samples from the 1999 Tour and the clear finding of EPO in six of the samples provides powerful corroborating evidence of Armstrong’s use of EPO. With or without this corroborating evidence, however, the evidence demonstrates beyond any doubt that Lance Armstrong used EPO during the 1999 Tour de France. No other conclusion is even plausible.

Lumen

I just noticed that Google+ has some sort of tagging system, and that "Lance Armstrong" is trending.

Amongst the expected apologist ****e I found:

"Simon Gornick
Lance Armstrong supporters remind me of those deluded women who want to marry death row criminals."

:pac:

GT_TDI_150

No

Does M.Barry's naming cast a shadow over the sky team or is the concencus that once on the sky pay-role one is clean, riders clean stays clean? and did his previous doping benefit him/sky once riding for them?

wav1

The sport of cycling has just been described on the news as ''rotten to the core''.Me thinks getting a bit of sponsorship even for a kids race has just become a whole lot more difficult.

petethedrummer

No

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Does M.Barry's naming cast a shadow over the sky team or is the concencus that once on the sky pay-role one is clean, riders clean stays clean? and did his previous doping benefit him/sky once riding for them?

Not really, Dr Geert Leinders is a bigger shadow.

And Sean Yates parking the Sky car outsider Motoman's shop.

G2ECE

No

So it's definitely not about the bike then??? Dang!

morana

No

petethedrummer wrote: »

Not really, Dr Geert Leinders is a bigger shadow.

And Sean Yates parking the Sky car outsider Motoman's shop.

but then you just have to shake your head in disbelief when you see ekimov getting an astana job.

allybhoy

No

Just took this from Telegraph news feed...

1.30 A lawyer for Armstrong has issued a strongly worded statement following the USADA's report, claiming that their "government funded witch hunt" is really quite rotten ...

"Ignoring the 500-600 tests Lance Armstrong passed, ignoring all exculpatory evidence, and trying to justify the millions of dollars USADA has spent pursuing one, single athlete for years, USADA has continued its government funded witch hunt of only Mr. Armstrong, a retired cyclist, in violation of its own rules and due process, in spite of USADA's lack of jurisdiction, in blatant violation of the statute of limitations, and without honoring UCI's demand to produce the entire USADA "file" for an independent review and decision as mandated by national and international rules.".

Up to 600 tests now haha...its like his lawyers are sitting in an office scrambling for a solution to make this go away and the best idea they can come up with is to add another 100 successful tests

I keep thinking of the Fr Ted episode.....

"So that's our best suggestion?? ANOTHER MASS!!? "

allybhoy

No

WADA, too, have also entered the breach. President John Fahey says in a statement: “WADA welcomes the fully reasoned decision from the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) with respect to the Lance Armstrong case, and confirms that we will now, as with all cases, carefully consider its contents and the voluminous accompanying evidence.

“The process followed by USADA has at all times been appropriate and careful, and in compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code (Code). Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) now has 21 days to determine whether it wishes to appeal the case. Thereafter, WADA has a further 21 days to determine whether we will exercise our independent right of appeal.

“In the interim, it is obviously inappropriate for us to make further comments.

“We would like to commend USADA for having the courage and the resolve to keep focused in working on this difficult case for the sake of clean athletes and the integrity of sport.”

fat bloke

No

Kimmage was spot on when he called him a cancer in the sport.

allybhoy

No

The UCI have released a statement saying: "The UCI has been advised by USADA that it’s reasoned decision and supporting material is available to view on its website.

"The UCI will examine all information received in order to consider issues of appeal and recognition, jurisdiction and statute of limitation, within the term of appeal of 21 days, as required by the World Anti-Doping Code.

"The UCI will endeavour to provide a timely response and not to delay matters any longer than necessary."

Flandria

No

Seperate transcripts of the emails.

http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/JR+Exhibit+A.pdf

Cienciano

No

allybhoy wrote: »

The UCI have released a statement saying: "The UCI has been advised by USADA that it’s reasoned decision and supporting material is available to view on its website.

"The UCI will examine all information received in order to consider issues of appeal and recognition, jurisdiction and statute of limitation, within the term of appeal of 21 days, as required by the World Anti-Doping Code.

"The UCI will endeavour to provide a timely response and not to delay matters any longer than necessary."

Will be interesting to see what UCI do! David Walsh tweeted:

Hein Verbruggen on LA in May last year: "Lance Armstrong has never used doping. Never, never, never." How can this man stay on UCI and IOC?

I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the UCI office right now!

drogdub

No

And the award for stupidest Tweet goes to:

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/jjo361

paddy no 11

No

Lads, can we change the poll to the following question




"Do ye prefer the cash or the wire transfer"




Mega LOL

petethedrummer

No

Flandria wrote: »

Seperate transcripts of the emails.

http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/JR+Exhibit+A.pdf

That could have been any Lance Armstrong emailing the Ferraris.

Flandria

No

And any old Johan too...

Hermy

No

Cienciano wrote: »

Lets post our favorite bits.

Mine is from page 14...

Had Mr. Armstrong not refused to confront the evidence against him in a hearing, the witnesses in the case of The United States Anti-Doping Agency v. Lance Armstrong would have testified under oath with a legal duty to testify truthfully or face potential civil and/or criminal consequences. Witness after witness would have been called to the stand and witness after
witness would have confirmed the following:

That Lance Armstrong used the banned drug EPO.

That Lance Armstrong used the banned drug Testosterone.

That Lance Armstrong provided his teammates the banned drug EPO.

That Lance Armstrong administered to a teammate the banned drug Testosterone.

That Lance Armstrong enforced the doping program on his team by threatening a rider with termination if he did not dope in accordance with the plan drawn up by Dr. Michele Ferrari.

That Lance Armstrong’s doping program was organized by Dr. Ferrari.

That Lance Armstrong pushed his teammates to use Dr. Ferrari.

That Lance Armstrong used banned blood transfusions to cheat.

That Lance Armstrong would have his blood withdrawn and stored throughout the year and then receive banned blood transfusions in the team doctor’s hotel room on nights during the Tour de France.

That Lance Armstrong surrounded himself with drug runners and doping doctors so that he could achieve his goal of winning the Tour de France year after year.

That Lance Armstrong and his handlers engaged in a massive and long running scheme to use drugs, cover their tracks, intimidate witnesses, tarnish reputations, lie to hearing panels and the press and do whatever was necessary to conceal the truth.

NIMAN

No

So who can come on here now and defend him, after hearing that news today?

The worlds biggest ever sporting drugs cheat. Fact.

His lawyer called it a 'one sided hacket job'. Well if he had had the balls to contest the chargesm then it wouldn't have been one sided.

corny

No

NIMAN wrote: »

So who can come on here now and defend him, after hearing that news today?

The worlds biggest ever sporting drugs cheat. Fact.

His lawyer called it a 'one sided hacket job'. Well if he had had the balls to contest the chargesm then it wouldn't have been one sided.

Tbf no one has tried. The 36 who voted no were either taking the piss or too pissed to realise they were voting no.

Hats off to USADA. This is the stuff of legend!

Cienciano

No

I'm sure everyone is reading it, but here's another interesting bit:

The adequacy of unannounced, no notice testing taking place in the sport of cycling remains a concern. For instance, at the 2010 Tour de France on two occasions the WADA independent observer (I.O.) team reported surveillance by cycling teams on the lookout for UCI testers. The WADA I.O. team reported they “could clearly see two persons watching the parking [lot] from their room windows half hidden behind the curtain as well as a team member seated in front of the hotel who immediately used his mobile phone when he saw the UCI [drug testing] team.”749 In the Independent Observer report insufficient efforts to ensure the confidentiality of test planning were also noted.750 Further, the elementary recommendations of suggesting that testers not wear prominent I.D. badges and Tour-branded clothing and not arrive in a Tourbranded car were made because the arrival of testers was at times so conspicuous as to provide advance notice to those about to be tested.751

And that was as late as 2010!

petethedrummer

No

NIMAN wrote: »

So who can come on here now and defend him, after hearing that news today?

I'm going to switch sides. I always like to back an underdog.

My response to these scurrilous accusations shall be to place my fingers in my ears and go "AH LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA".