It won't be made public now simply because Armstrong chose not to defend himself against the charges because the public humiliation he would suffer would destroy him completely.
Instead he'll skulk off claiming victimisation.
So, you are assuming facts not in evidence. Seems to be a lot of that going around.
If someone finds a good synopsis that gives both sides of the story, please post a link. Seems most of the print on this matter has been along the lines of Let's Kill Lance Armstrong !!!
I allege that you were the second gunman in Dallas on 11/22/63. I have 10 people that will testify but I won't name them and you can't see their testimony. Prove me wrong.
For all I know, he is guilty as sin, but I would like him to get a fair hearing as opposed to a Kangaroo Court which is what it sounds like this thing is.
Armstrong has admitted to being a doper by not contesting the charge.
I would also like to see both sides. The USADA can put this all to rest by simply producing a positive test result, and having it verified at an independent lab. If they were to do this, almost everyone would go along with Armstrong as a doper.
The fact that they have to resort to anything else seems strange to me.
All evidence, physical and verbal, would have been put to Armstrong in a public forum for his rebuttal.
He chose not to defend himself and therefore he's guilty.
One also has to wonder if the USADA threatened the supposed witnesses with persecution if they did not testify against LA. This whole thing doesn't smell right to me. Seems like the head of the USADA has a hidden agenda.
All evidence, physical and verbal, would have been put to Armstrong in a public forum for his rebuttal.
He chose not to defend himself and therefore he's guilty.
One also has to wonder if the USADA threatened the supposed witnesses with persecution if they did not testify against LA. This whole thing doesn't smell right to me. Seems like the head of the USADA has a hidden agenda.
You'll have to stop farting in public.
If it is so compelling and bullet proof, why not release it to public scrutiny and remove all doubt?
I'm objective on this. You seem to have made up your mind without seeing any evidence that would warrant doing so.
I take it you are not a LA fan. He is an American, after all.
Public forum? What public forum?
The USADA is not "the US justice system."
To walk away from defending yourself is an admission of guilt, so Armstrong made my mind up for me.
To walk away from defending yourself is an admission of guilt, so Armstrong made my mind up for me.
I'm sorry, but walking away from a group that is harassing you is not an admission of guilt.
He may or may not be guilty, but the fact remains that there doesn't need to be a long trial to prove he is a doper. Show everyone the postive tests, if there are any.
Yes, that's what a lot of criminals scream when they're led from the dock.
How long, specifically, does he have to fight them?
Are you saying that if you ever stop fighting, no matter how long you've already been fighting, it proves you are guilty?
He had hardly even begun to fight it.
All the years he denied doping he never really faced legal challenge, but as soon as it happened he gave up.
He's cutting his losses by avoiding public humiliation.
Produce a failed blood test. That would shut everyone up.
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty in America? So suddenly we're like some Eastern third-world dictatorship where it's guilty and off with his head.
What Bartelby's message lacks in logic or sense will be made up in sheer volume.
He could be doing just that, but that doesn't mean he is. Please try and back up your assertions.
The third statement wasn't an assertion; it was an opinion.
They've got no real physical evidence, and they never have on Lance Armstrong. No one has.
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty in America? So suddenly we're like some Eastern third-world dictatorship where it's guilty and off with his head.
This is just a case of either Lance Armstrong either had pretty much the best doping system in the world (because everyone was out to get him),
That applies in a courtroom, not in the sporting world. You also insist that Barry Bonds wasnt cheating?
Ah this is so silly.
The reason why Lance Armstrong gave up was because when the Federal Government gave up, now the USADA is stepping up in order to try and get him on some bogus charges. They don't have any real physical evidence, and the majority of their evidence is pure hearsay. The man gave up because he's tired of getting harassed. He has never failed a single drug test over his entire career, and no one has ever proven from past samples that he has ever cheated. This is just a case of either Lance Armstrong either had pretty much the best doping system in the world (because everyone was out to get him), or he really was just that good.
And the reason why the USADA got 10 people, mostly former teammates, to testify is because they all cut deals with them so that those cyclists wouldn't have to go to jail/be banned from the sport/have much less severe punishments for testifying against Lance Armstrong, who to date has never failed a test. They've got no real physical evidence, and they never have on Lance Armstrong. No one has.
Like Marion Jones? Too bad his "doctor" ratted on her. I wonder who will do the same for Phelps.
Ah this is so silly.
He has never failed a single drug test over his entire career, and no one has ever proven from past samples that he has ever cheated.
They do? The best I can find is samples from 2009 and 2010 that say the blood is "consistent with" doping. They don't prove anything even about 2009 and 2010, let alone about the years he actually won.
The USADA have destroyed cycling as a sport. Lance Armstrong won those 7 Tour de France titles, not to mention that he has passed every drug test he has ever taken, and that was a LOT of drug tests.
As is every athlete’s right, if Mr. Armstrong would have contested the USADA charges, all of the evidence would have been presented in an open legal proceeding for him to challenge. He chose not to do this knowing these sanctions would immediately be put into place,” USADA added in a statement.
“The evidence against Lance Armstrong arose from disclosures made to USADA by more than a dozen witnesses who agreed to testify and provide evidence about their first-hand experience and/or knowledge of the doping activity of those involved in the USPS Conspiracy as well as analytical data. As part of the investigation Mr. Armstrong was invited to meet with USADA and be truthful about his time on the USPS team but he refused.”
“Numerous witnesses provided evidence to USADA based on personal knowledge acquired, either through direct observation of doping activity by Armstrong, or through Armstrong’s admissions of doping to them that Armstrong used EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone and cortisone during the period from before 1998 through 2005, and that he had previously used EPO, testosterone and hGH through 1996. Witnesses also provided evidence that Lance Armstrong gave to them, encouraged them to use and administered doping products or methods, including EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone and cortisone during the period from 1999 through 2005. Additionally, scientific data showed Mr. Armstrong’s use of blood manipulation including EPO or blood transfusions during Mr. Armstrong’s comeback to cycling in the 2009 Tour de France.”
The anti-doping rule violations for which Mr. Armstrong is being sanctioned are:
(1) Use and/or attempted use of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents.
(2) Possession of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions and related equipment (such as needles, blood bags, storage containers and other transfusion equipment and blood parameters measuring devices), testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents.
(3) Trafficking of EPO, testosterone, and corticosteroids.
(4) Administration and/or attempted administration to others of EPO, testosterone, and cortisone.
(5) Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other complicity involving one or more anti-doping rule violations and/or attempted anti-doping rule vio
This is very very cunning by Armstrong. He can now say he never fought the charges and maintain more moral high ground amongst his supporters than if he got convicted of any of the charges at all.
Now... let's see if his corporate supporters, Nike etc, will continue their associations with him.
Marion Jones died of extremely suspicious circumstances. Lance Armstrong to date has had no real health issues despite the fact that during the 90s and early 2000s cyclists were pumping dangerous levels of drugs into themselves that could easily affect them at the age Armstrong is at.
Very good sense of humor you have.
Marion Jones is not dead. I think you're confusing Jones with Florence Griffith-Joyner.
I don't see how anyone can take the Tour de France seriously again if Lance Armstrong is stripped of his 7 titles, even more so when you take account that he has never failed a drugs test.
We've seen this sort of hypocrisy over doping in athletics, where Ben Johnson was stripped of 100m gold at the 1988 Seoul Olympics after testing positive for stanozolol, and retrospectively had his 1987 World Championship taken away too (even though he passed a drugs test after that race), while Carl Lewis, who failed 3 drug tests at the 1988 Olympic trials, is still seen as an Olympic hero and has all his medals, even those that Johnson won on the track. Johnson has been ostracised ever since, yet we know he was a better sprinter than Lewis, doped or not.
What's happened to Armstrong is even worse because he's never tested positive.
Marion Jones is not dead. I think you're confusing Jones with Florence Griffith-Joyner.
I don't see how anyone can take the Tour de France seriously again if Lance Armstrong is stripped of his 7 titles, even more so when you take account that he has never failed a drugs test.
We've seen this sort of hypocrisy over doping in athletics, where Ben Johnson was stripped of 100m gold at the 1988 Seoul Olympics, and retrospectively had his 1987 World Championship taken away too (even though he passed a drugs test after that race), while Carl Lewis, who failed 3 drug tests at 1988 Olympic trials, is still seen as an Olympic hero and has all his medals, even those that Johnson won on the track. Johnson has been ostracised every since, yet we know he was a better sprinter than Lewis, doped or not.
What's happened to Armstrong is even worse because he's never tested positive.
All that doping and unable to produce a single failed blood teat from hundreds of samples.