Armstrong drops fight against doping charges

[Benhur]

Originally Posted by fundrazer

Great, but what do their comments have to do with anything?

A "jury of one's peers" is a basic right of defendants, where a peer means an equal.

Their comments are relevant because those 3 riders (Merckx, Hinault, Indurain) are in a sense his only equals alive. It's the truest "jury of his peers" you can find today.

The low peons among cyclists who are ready to accuse him and throw him under the bus are commensurately less trustworthy, because much more susceptible to the corroding effects of envy, spite, resentment, greed, coercive submission and other abject passions.

[fundrazer]

Okay, if that's your reasoning for posting their comments, how about sharing with the rest of the readers, the comments and stories from a certain Greg Lemond.

[Sander001]

Originally Posted by fundrazer

Okay, if that's your reasoning for posting their comments, how about sharing with the rest of the readers, the comments and stories from a certain Greg Lemond.

It's common knowledge that Lemond and Armstrong have disliked eachother for many years, so what's his schadenfreude going to suddenly prove?
Please read again and read carefully and slowly what Indurain and Merckx are saying. Less than championing Armstrong, they are condemning the Orwellian character of USADA.

[fundrazer]

It's not suppose to prove anything...That was my point, because I was stating that copy/pasting comments from those cycling greats was pointless.

[Sander001]

Originally Posted by fundrazer

It's not suppose to prove anything...That was my point, because I was stating that copy/pasting comments from those cycling greats was pointless.

Obviously, it's not pointless. Merckx and Indurain are giving more insight that USADA is unfit to carry out its obligation.

But Lemond and Armstrong have had a bitter relationship for many years so it's expected that he is to side against Armstrong no matter what.

[adventure]

Hamilton: Lance supplied PED before 1999 Tour

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- Tyler Hamilton says Lance Armstrong gave him an illegal blood booster at his house before the 1999 Tour de France and the two teammates compared notes on using performance-enhancing drugs as far back as 1998.

Hamilton makes the allegations in his book, The Secret Race. Inside the Hidden World of the Tour de France, Doping, Cover-ups and Winning at All Costs, set to be published Sept. 5. The Associated Press purchased a copy Thursday. Armstrong agent Bill Stapleton did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Hamilton and Armstrong rode together on the U.S. Postal Service team.

Armstrong has long denied doping but last week chose not to fight drug charges made by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. USADA has erased 14 years of Armstrong's competitive results, including his seven Tour de France titles.

The book mirrors much of what Hamilton told 60 Minutes in 2011 and what he said he told federal criminal investigators looking into doping allegations on the Postal Service team. Officials closed that investigation in February without bringing any charges against Armstrong.

Hamilton details his own drug use and says usage on the team started even before Armstrong joined in 1998. He and Armstrong soon became roommates and confidants who would discuss using the blood-booster EPO and other performance-enhancing drugs.

He said while visiting Armstrong's home in Nice shortly before the 1999 Tour, he asked the Texan if he had any EPO and Armstrong pointed to the refrigerator.

Hamilton described a doping plan put in place by the team for the 1999 Tour de France, with Armstrong's knowledge, that included a motorcyclist riding behind racers with a thermos full of EPO. It was to be dispensed to riders in the team camper after race stages.

He said team leaders, doctors and mangers encouraged and supervised doping and performance-enhancing drugs were handed out to cyclists in white lunch bags.

Armstrong has previously sought to discredit Hamilton as a drug cheat who was twice banned for doping and was recently stripped of his 2004 Olympic gold medal.

According to USADA, Hamilton is among its key witnesses ready to testify against Armstrong. In all, it said as many as 10 former teammates were ready to do so. The agency has withheld most of their names, saying it feared Armstrong would try to intimidate them.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mor...#ixzz255wEFbPb

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mor...2_a8&eref=sihp

[adventure]

Originally Posted by tennismonkey

interesting article on forbes as to why armstrong may have "quit" fighting allegations of doping. something he supposedly was never going to quit fighting.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richkarl...ide-more-dirt/

Ha ha! Lance doesn't even deny doping anymore. He simply denies having gained an "unfair advantage," ie everyone was doping along with him:

Sometimes it’s the stuff they don’t say that rings loudest.

Lance Armstrong has always said he won his seven Tours as a squeaky clean athlete. He claimed he did not use cheater gambits like red blood cell transfusion, EPO, human growth hormone, testosterone, steroids, or any of the banned performance enhancing drugs rife in professional cycling. Armstrong also said he was tested more than any other athlete in the world — more than 500 times. (Maybe not: There has never been any independent verification of Armstrong’s “500 times” tested claim. The source of that unrealistic number — once a week for 10 years? Really? — was always Armstrong, just Armstrong.)

Yesterday, Armstrong didn’t say any of that. No claims that he never doped. No claims of being the most tested athlete in history.

Armstrong used different words yesterday. He said he used no “unfair advantage” during his career.

Wow — huge shift, that. Armstrong knew the hammer was about to fall on him hard. If he had chosen to arbitrate the charges against him put forward by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, the evidence against him would have come out. The strongest of that evidence is the eyewitness testimony from more than 10 ex-teammates and employees.

Let’s pause. Some will protest that eyewitness testimony is hearsay, vendetta, not real evidence. Sorry, it is hard evidence when it is given under oath. Eyewitness testimony under oath is enough to convict someone of murder. The ******* Jerry Sandusky is in prison because of eyewitness testimony, not DNA or other “facts.” Let us remember that false testimony is called perjury, a felony. Jail time. Most people won’t perjure themselves for a vendetta. Do you seriously believe that 10 people who worked closely with Armstrong would perjure themselves and risk jail out of mere jealousy towards Armstrong? That is Armstrong’s claim, but it makes no sense.

Armstrong was going down hard and he knew it. He quit his fight with the USADA to keep the evidence — that testimony from ex-teammates and employees — from seeing the light of day. More on this in a minute.

In claiming he had no “unfair advantage” Armstrong has opened the door, a wee bit, to a full doping admission. Yes, Armstrong doped. Everyone with an IQ higher than a tomato knows it. Moreover, Armstrong knows that everyone knows. He is therefore, starting yesterday, laying down the foundation for a new narrative that he hopes will cast him in a positive light. It goes like this: Yes I doped. But they all doped. Fact is, I still worked harder and smarter than any pro cyclist. I won on a level playing field.

If that was the sum of Armstrong’s doping confession — I doped, but so did everyone; I won on a level playing field — he might have a point. Armstrong didn’t start the age of super bio doping — mostly this is blood boosting that gives cyclists a 5% to 7% performance edge in mountain climbs, but it is also human growth hormone, artificial testosterone and the like. This bad stuff started in the early 1990s. It was not Armstrong’s fault that his peak years as an athlete coincided with cycling’s peak doping years. Bad luck for him.

That creates some sympathy for Armstrong’s doping. He knows it — Armstrong is extremely savvy about marketing and PR — and he is trying to prepare his fans for larger confessions with his “no unfair advantage” comment.

Here I think of the movie, The Sting. Paul Newman and Robert Redford were the good guys. Why? They cheated the cheater. Beat him at his own game. Armstrong, with Thursday’s statement, is positioning his fans to believe that he only cheated the cheaters — the rotten Germans, Italians, Spaniards, whatever. Armstrong thus becomes a bad-*** American folk hero, a Robin Hood in stars and stripes, if you like.

Will this ploy work? It might if that is the whole story. But the story does not end there. It’s a fact that Armstrong donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the anti-doping efforts of cycling’s governing body, the Union Cycliste Internationale, during his pro years. Armstrong was the only cyclist to do so. He’s the only pro athlete of any sport to donate money to a regulating body. The conflict of interest is both stunning and appalling. It begs discussion at least.

[adventure]

Originally Posted by Benhur

A "jury of one's peers" is a basic right of defendants, where a peer means an equal.

Their comments are relevant because those 3 riders (Merckx, Hinault, Indurain) are in a sense his only equals alive. It's the truest "jury of his peers" you can find today.

The low peons among cyclists who are ready to accuse him and throw him under the bus are commensurately less trustworthy, because much more susceptible to the corroding effects of envy, spite, resentment, greed, coercive submission and other abject passions.

But if they introduce false testimony, they open themselves up to charges of perjury, defamation and libel. And as "low peons," they would not be very well situated financially to fight such legal battles. But they are speaking up nonetheless.

You, like lance, should've quite while you were ahead.

[LanEvo]

Originally Posted by adventure

Hamilton: Lance supplied PED before 1999 Tour

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- Tyler Hamilton says Lance Armstrong gave him an illegal blood booster at his house before the 1999 Tour de France and the two teammates compared notes on using performance-enhancing drugs as far back as 1998.

Hamilton makes the allegations in his book, The Secret Race. Inside the Hidden World of the Tour de France, Doping, Cover-ups and Winning at All Costs, set to be published Sept. 5. The Associated Press purchased a copy Thursday. Armstrong agent Bill Stapleton did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Hamilton and Armstrong rode together on the U.S. Postal Service team.

Armstrong has long denied doping but last week chose not to fight drug charges made by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. USADA has erased 14 years of Armstrong's competitive results, including his seven Tour de France titles.

The book mirrors much of what Hamilton told 60 Minutes in 2011 and what he said he told federal criminal investigators looking into doping allegations on the Postal Service team. Officials closed that investigation in February without bringing any charges against Armstrong.

Hamilton details his own drug use and says usage on the team started even before Armstrong joined in 1998. He and Armstrong soon became roommates and confidants who would discuss using the blood-booster EPO and other performance-enhancing drugs.

He said while visiting Armstrong's home in Nice shortly before the 1999 Tour, he asked the Texan if he had any EPO and Armstrong pointed to the refrigerator.

Hamilton described a doping plan put in place by the team for the 1999 Tour de France, with Armstrong's knowledge, that included a motorcyclist riding behind racers with a thermos full of EPO. It was to be dispensed to riders in the team camper after race stages.

He said team leaders, doctors and mangers encouraged and supervised doping and performance-enhancing drugs were handed out to cyclists in white lunch bags.

Armstrong has previously sought to discredit Hamilton as a drug cheat who was twice banned for doping and was recently stripped of his 2004 Olympic gold medal.

According to USADA, Hamilton is among its key witnesses ready to testify against Armstrong. In all, it said as many as 10 former teammates were ready to do so. The agency has withheld most of their names, saying it feared Armstrong would try to intimidate them.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mor...#ixzz255wEFbPb

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mor...2_a8&eref=sihp

This won't be a first, now many others will be jumping on the money train for this with a book deal...

[adventure]

Originally Posted by LanEvo

This won't be a first, now many others will be jumping on the money train for this with a book deal...

You're right, they must all be making this up for a book deal at lance's expense. Poor lance! The entire world is out to get him! It's a conspiracy perpetrated against him by mcgraw hill!

[Benhur]

This may take a while if UCI appeals. USADA has not yet forwarded the case to UCI. They say they will do so in the "coming weeks." Then, once UCI receives USADA's report, it has 21 days to appeal to CAS in Switzerland. After this 21 day period, WADA has another 21 days to appeal.

The CAS decision can still be appealed to the Swiss Federal Tribunal.

[Bartelby]

Yes, that his a quite legalistic twist to his usual defence which admits nothing without lying. He's been well trained to say just the right (clever) thing.

Originally Posted by adventure

Ha ha! Lance doesn't even deny doping anymore. He simply denies having gained an "unfair advantage," ie everyone was doping along with him:

Sometimes it’s the stuff they don’t say that rings loudest.

Lance Armstrong has always said he won his seven Tours as a squeaky clean athlete. He claimed he did not use cheater gambits like red blood cell transfusion, EPO, human growth hormone, testosterone, steroids, or any of the banned performance enhancing drugs rife in professional cycling. Armstrong also said he was tested more than any other athlete in the world — more than 500 times. (Maybe not: There has never been any independent verification of Armstrong’s “500 times” tested claim. The source of that unrealistic number — once a week for 10 years? Really? — was always Armstrong, just Armstrong.)

Yesterday, Armstrong didn’t say any of that. No claims that he never doped. No claims of being the most tested athlete in history.

Armstrong used different words yesterday. He said he used no “unfair advantage” during his career.

Wow — huge shift, that. Armstrong knew the hammer was about to fall on him hard. If he had chosen to arbitrate the charges against him put forward by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, the evidence against him would have come out. The strongest of that evidence is the eyewitness testimony from more than 10 ex-teammates and employees.

Let’s pause. Some will protest that eyewitness testimony is hearsay, vendetta, not real evidence. Sorry, it is hard evidence when it is given under oath. Eyewitness testimony under oath is enough to convict someone of murder. The ******* Jerry Sandusky is in prison because of eyewitness testimony, not DNA or other “facts.” Let us remember that false testimony is called perjury, a felony. Jail time. Most people won’t perjure themselves for a vendetta. Do you seriously believe that 10 people who worked closely with Armstrong would perjure themselves and risk jail out of mere jealousy towards Armstrong? That is Armstrong’s claim, but it makes no sense.

Armstrong was going down hard and he knew it. He quit his fight with the USADA to keep the evidence — that testimony from ex-teammates and employees — from seeing the light of day. More on this in a minute.

In claiming he had no “unfair advantage” Armstrong has opened the door, a wee bit, to a full doping admission. Yes, Armstrong doped. Everyone with an IQ higher than a tomato knows it. Moreover, Armstrong knows that everyone knows. He is therefore, starting yesterday, laying down the foundation for a new narrative that he hopes will cast him in a positive light. It goes like this: Yes I doped. But they all doped. Fact is, I still worked harder and smarter than any pro cyclist. I won on a level playing field.

If that was the sum of Armstrong’s doping confession — I doped, but so did everyone; I won on a level playing field — he might have a point. Armstrong didn’t start the age of super bio doping — mostly this is blood boosting that gives cyclists a 5% to 7% performance edge in mountain climbs, but it is also human growth hormone, artificial testosterone and the like. This bad stuff started in the early 1990s. It was not Armstrong’s fault that his peak years as an athlete coincided with cycling’s peak doping years. Bad luck for him.

That creates some sympathy for Armstrong’s doping. He knows it — Armstrong is extremely savvy about marketing and PR — and he is trying to prepare his fans for larger confessions with his “no unfair advantage” comment.

Here I think of the movie, The Sting. Paul Newman and Robert Redford were the good guys. Why? They cheated the cheater. Beat him at his own game. Armstrong, with Thursday’s statement, is positioning his fans to believe that he only cheated the cheaters — the rotten Germans, Italians, Spaniards, whatever. Armstrong thus becomes a bad-*** American folk hero, a Robin Hood in stars and stripes, if you like.

Will this ploy work? It might if that is the whole story. But the story does not end there. It’s a fact that Armstrong donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the anti-doping efforts of cycling’s governing body, the Union Cycliste Internationale, during his pro years. Armstrong was the only cyclist to do so. He’s the only pro athlete of any sport to donate money to a regulating body. The conflict of interest is both stunning and appalling. It begs discussion at least.

[Benhur]

In other news, the French Cycling Federation (FFC) is proposing that if USADA's decision is upheld, the Tour titles be vacated (not given to anyone) in order to avoid controversy due to the doping histories of the potential recipients. If the titles are transferred, the winners would be: Zülle (1999), Ullrich (2000, 2001 and 2003), Beloki (2002), Klöden (2004) and Basso (2005). All five of them have been involved in doping cases.

So, as someone put it in a comment elsewhere, if Armstrong wasn't doping, he beat a bunch of dopers. And if he was doping, he STILL beat a bunch of dopers. No matter how you cut it, he won those Tours because he was the best rider.

We may also wonder, if Armstong's title's are vacated, why shouldn't the second-place spots of those riders be vacated as well?

If these organizations were really serious in "cleaning up" and consistent in their methods, they would have to vacate most podium spots for the last few decades.

[Raphael]

A doctor who treated me while I lived in Paris was the chief medical officer for the French indoor cycling team when Lance first came to France to train. After retiring from that post and just maintaining a private practice, he told me after Lance's first Tour de France win, "US Postal....they must have VERY good doctors.."

I applaud anybody who beats cancer and can raise money to help others do likewise. But that doesn't change the fact that a guy who wasn't "caught" with a positive test was somehow going significantly faster than cyclists who WERE caught. Doesn't that seem suspicious??

[fundrazer]

But you can't claim that all doping is equal. Raphael just said it in the post above mine! Lance had the entire US Postal squad doping. Chances are their procedures may have been more advanced than other squads. It also helps Lance when all of his domestiquess are doped to the gills.

[Bartelby]

You've got to wonder whether his whole fund raising activities were not now a case of 'reputation laundering'.

[jonnythan]

Originally Posted by fundrazer

But you can't claim that all doping is equal. Raphael just said it in the post above mine! Lance had the entire US Postal squad doping. Chances are their procedures may have been more advanced than other squads. It also helps Lance when all of his domestiquess are doped to the gills.

They were so advanced, no one has ever been able to find anything in any blood or urine sample Lance has ever given. Even to this day.

[Benhur]

This article is from late June and gives some interesting details on the nature of the USADA.

Travis Tygart Plays Prosecutor, Jury and Judge in Lance Armstrong Case
http://www.xtri.com/features/detail/...511714298.html


This one from a few days ago is openly conspiratorial and suggests the cancer and pharma industries may not be happy with the success of Armstrongs organization (livestrong.org) and with a new book coming up.
http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=520

I am not familiar enough with livestrong.org to comment on its impact or its potential to bother those industries, but I certainly would not put any thing past the pharmaceutical industry. During the swine flu scare I watched an astonishing documentary about the history of this industry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxyVK3pAiQQ

[El Diablo]

^^ ummm, I read the article from stateofthenation you cite and there isn't a single sentence in it indicating a bit of evidence that the pharmaceutical industry was in any way unhappy with, or even had an opinion about, Lance Armstrong. Suggesting so is slanderous and intellectual sociopathy. The article SPECULATES that the industry PROBABLY didn't like what Armstrong was doing. Oh.

[Benhur]

Originally Posted by El Diablo

^^ ummm, I read the article from stateofthenation you cite and there isn't a single sentence in it indicating a bit of evidence that the pharmaceutical industry was in any way unhappy with, or even had an opinion about, Lance Armstrong. Suggesting so is slanderous and intellectual sociopathy. The article SPECULATES that the industry PROBABLY didn't like what Armstrong was doing. Oh.

Of course it does not provide any evidence, nor did I say it did. I said it “suggested” that those industries “may not be happy”.

Making such suggestions, however, is hardly a case of slanderous “sociopathy,” in view of the known behavior of those industries. Sociopathy is a central essential characteristic of the pharmaceutical industry, not of those who remind you of it.

The youtube documentary I linked moves along a bit slowly, but there is an amazing amount of revolting information regarding these industries (especially after the 50 minute mark or so).