Armstrong drops fight against doping charges

[FastFreddy]

Originally Posted by jonnythan

If it's so obvious he's a cheater, why don't they grab one of his samples from one of his victories and have an independent lab somewhere test it and prove it?

With all the effort they've put into this, it seems strange that they can't produce one doped sample.

Dude they have new evidence this past June on samples that prove his blood was doped. Plus they have 10 ex teammates willing to fry his ***** on the stand. Lance is smart enuff to not to take the stand or waste his money on an appeal. The judge just tossed his 134 page bs lawsuit.

[Bartelby]

Ten riders plus others:


"I think you've got to look at the facts and the evidence that has only been collected in the last couple of years. There are 10 riders and several other witnesses with evidence [against him]. There can be no other interpretation."

[jonnythan]

Originally Posted by FastFreddy

Dude they have new evidence this past June on samples that prove his blood was doped. Plus they have 10 ex teammates willing to fry his ***** on the stand. Lance is smart enuff to not to take the stand or waste his money on an appeal. The judge just tossed his 134 page bs lawsuit.

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.

[Fearsome Forehand]

I don't know if he doped, or not. I can understand why he would say F it though. If he is innocent, this is just a giant witch hunt so why waste the time, energy and money to combat it for years and years and years. He was tested umpteen times 'til Sunday at the time, and his results were clean.

He could always employ the OJ defense, that the samples have been tampered with especially after such a long time. He concluded it isn't worth the grief. He is retired from the sport so the lifetime ban is sort of a joke.

From what I have read, it is not exactly a given the international committee will back the allegations of the American one. We'll see.

[Bartelby]

If you have eyewitness testimony from ten riders plus others that he was doping, do you not think that such evidence on oath is not enough evidence?

There is some drug evidence, but if there's a murder then ballistics gets you so far and witnesses the rest of the distance barring confession.

[jonnythan]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

If you have eyewitness testimony from ten riders plus others that he was doping, do you not think that such evidence on oath is not enough evidence?

There is some drug evidence, but if there's a murder then ballistics gets you so far and witnesses the rest of the distance barring confession.

Those ten people could have any number of reasons for saying he doped. A lot of people simply don't like him.

If he doped so much and for so long, it should be trivial to pull out and old sample, test it, and say "there you go!" That has not happened. Why?

[Bartelby]

Yes, but he could have let them stand up before USADA and destroyed their evidence if he could, but he chose not to so they're going to punish him based on the unchallenged evidence before them.

[Benhur]

It's not certain yet that the International Cycling Union will go along with it and take away his titles. He won 46 cycling events since 1998 (and a bronze medal). If they do, however, the funny thing is that many of those victories will go to people who in turn were implicated in doping scandals. Then at some point these people should be investigated and replaced by others, I suppose, then repeat the process every few years until you get all the titles in the hands of unknown cyclists. Here is a list of those who would take his place.

http://deportes.elpais.com/deportes/...09_341829.html
[...]
Armstrong dejaría tres de sus siete Tours a Jan Ullrich (el primero y único de la historia con cuatro, entonces), un ciclista que después reconoció haberse dopado y su implicación en la Operación Puerto; un Tour iría a Zülle, del caso Festina, otro a Beloki y a Basso, ambos en la Operación Puerto; el séptimo a Klöden, también investigado. Y serían considerados podio de Tour: Dufaux, Moreau, Kivilev, Botero, Hamilton y Mancebo, cada uno con su historial a cuestas. Su Vuelta a Suiza iría a Simoni; las dos Dauphinés serían para Landis y Mayo, y su Midi Libre para Igor González de Galdeano. Sus 20 victorias de etapa en el Tour y demás victorias en otras carreras serían para Maignan, Brochard, Vaughters, Zülle, Zubeldia, Ullrich, Olano (bronce Sidney), Jalabert, Igor, Beloki, Heras, Rumsas, Millar, Mayo, Iván Domínguez, Voigt, Basso y Klöden.

[Fearsome Forehand]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

If you have eyewitness testimony from ten riders plus others that he was doping, do you not think that such evidence on oath is not enough evidence?

There is some drug evidence, but if there's a murder then ballistics gets you so far and witnesses the rest of the distance barring confession.

Has any of that been made public? If not, why not? What is the exact nature of it? If not public, if may consist of Floyd Landis told me he saw x. Hardly credible.

It would be like me saying I have 10 people that will testify that Bartelby is a communist agitator but not coming forth with the actual names or the actual testimony. Not exactly fair to Bartelby.

Didn't a federal grand jury clear LA of this? Didn't the judge in that matter criticize the methods of the US body?

I don't know if he is guilty or not, but I'm not willing to hang the guy based on mere innuendo if that is all that they have against him.

[Bartelby]

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.

[Bartelby]

The UCI is awaiting USADA's determination but in any event its more probable that the races he won will be declared without a winner.

[Fearsome Forehand]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

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. No wonder he opted out.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by Fearsome Forehand

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.

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.

[Bartelby]

If you're accused of doping then you need to mount a defence.

Armstrong has admitted to being a doper by not contesting the charge.

You can't opt out, unfortunately, as they punish you in your absence.

[jonnythan]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

Armstrong has admitted to being a doper by not contesting the charge.

Herp derp.

[Bartelby]

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.

[Fearsome Forehand]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

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.

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.

[Bartelby]

You'll have to stop farting in public.

Originally Posted by jonnythan

Herp derp.

[Fearsome Forehand]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

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.

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.

[Bartelby]

This seems pretty normal for the US justice system if you discard your tendential interpretation.

The reality is that some who were to testify have already been given bans which they were allowed to start serving after this year's Tour de France.

Originally Posted by Fearsome Forehand

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.