Armstrong drops fight against doping charges

[diggler]

Originally Posted by Dedans Penthouse

So, from the above:

* Is Armstrong a doper? Most likely-we'll give that one a "yes."
* Strip Armstrong of his 7 little bicycle race awards? Yes.
* Ban Armstrong from any bicycle race affiliations? Yes.

---> Lance Armstrong...going....going......'gone'

__________________________________________________ __________

"the persecution of Assange" - LMAO!

Kinda obvious that ol' Lance was only the 1/2 of it eh, Bartelby?

So, from the above:

one can now conclude that you're even capable of extending your Yankeephobe agenda to include aligning yourself with rapists.

Bartelby supports rapists.

^^^^^
whadda ya think? ..... pretty disengenuous, eh?

re Assange. Alleged rapist.

[Bartelby]

Lie strong!

[MAXXply]

Looking forward to the publication of tell-all memoirs and insider accounts coming up in the next 12 months. I'd be interested to read of UCI's complicity in all this, as I agree with the line that Armstrong was too big a star that the governing body could not afford to lose.

"It's not about the bike - and all about the drugs"

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

Lie strong!

It's complete nonsense. We all know who won those 7 Tour de Frances from 1999-2005, having beaten off cancer that had given him a very low chance of survival. The USADA asks us to believe that Armstrong, was not only a taker of PEDs while simultaneously passing hundreds of drug tests and winning 7 Tour de France titles, but was also the leader of pushing PEDs onto other cyclists, and that the evidence of the witnesses who accuse Armstrong (including PED users like Hamilton and Landis) is sacred, despite the plea bargaining scandals that dominate the US justice system.

[Bartelby]

USADA isn't a part of the US justice system.

No one is alleged to have committed a crime and no one is going to jail.

The witnesses had nothing much to gain from their testimony and nothing to lose if they gave none.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

USADA isn't a part of the US justice system.

It is publicly funded by US taxpayers. What plea bargains did they offer the likes of Hamilton and Landis to drop Armstrong in the s***?

Originally Posted by Bartelby

No one is alleged to have committed a crime and no one is going to jail.

Of course not, USADA are just breaking their own rules and trying to nullify every result Armstrong has had in the last 14 years.

Originally Posted by Bartelby

The witnesses had nothing much to gain from their testimony and nothing to lose if they gave none.

They had a lot to gain, not being pursued vigorously by the USADA themselves. "Oh, we'll go soft on you as long as you testify that you saw Armstrong doping. Resist, and we'll do our worst".

[Bartelby]

In other words,

USADA is not a part of the us justice system as I suggested.

USADA can't break its own rules as if no one challenges its rulings then no such case can be established.

USADA is not a part of the us justice system and their worst is pretty feeble.

[Bartelby]

Its rather insulting and implausible that people would perjure themselves just to get Lance and the idea that USADA is on some irrational and conspiratorial crusade is implausible, to say the least.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

USADA is not a part of the us justice system as I suggested.

USADA have entered into plea bargains with those who testified against Armstrong. Evidence under coercion is not reliable evidence, quite the opposite.

Originally Posted by Bartelby

USADA can't break its own rules as if no one challenges its rulings then no such case can be established.

Despite the 8 year limitation in its own rules, USADA want to strip Armstrong of all results going back to 1998.

Originally Posted by Bartelby

USADA is not a part of the us justice system and their worst is pretty feeble.

Plea bargains with other cyclists "tell us something bad about Lance Armstrong and we'll ease off on you".

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

Its rather insulting and implausible that people would perjure themselves just to get Lance and the idea that USADA is on some irrational and conspiratorial crusade is implausible, to say the least.

So that's implausible, yet the USADA's story of Armstrong not only winning 7 Tour de Frances and passing hundreds of drug tests while taking PEDs, but pushing drugs onto other cyclists and running "the most sophisticated doping operation ever seen" is plausible? It would be utterly laughable if it wasn't for the fact that they've smeared Armstrong's reputation.

[Bartelby]

1. Negotiation is not coercion and USADA has no coercive powers.

2. There is no 8 year limitation, as I've already pointed out. If you can document this myth then I'll reconsider my position.

3. They don't want perjured testimony in exchange for 'easing off' and these riders were punished, although less severely than if they had not agreed to give truthful testimony.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

1. Negotiation is not coercion and USADA has no coercive powers.

Plea bargaining is coercion. It is blackmail.

Originally Posted by Bartelby

2. There is no 8 year limitation, as I've already pointed out. If you can document this myth then I'll reconsider my position.

Even on this BBC article below, which hardly supports Armstrong's side, we have the following:

The only area he felt the UCI might have an argument is on the length of time it has taken to Usada to apply sanctions. Sport usually has an eight-year statute of limitations

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19413613

Originally Posted by Bartelby

3. They don't want perjured testimony in exchange for 'easing off' and these riders were punished, although less severely than if they had not agreed to give truthful testimony.

How do you know that? Don't forget that Armstrong has never failed a drugs test according to the official rules. He doesn't have to prove anything, his accusers do.

[Bartelby]

Laws always have their exceptions and the fact is that he is accused not just of taking drugs but of organizing a drug ring:


The only area he felt the UCI might have an argument is on the length of time it has taken to Usada to apply sanctions. Sport usually has an eight-year statute of limitations.
Nevertheless, the lawyer feels Usada could win this debate as well given it is likely to argue that Armstrong lied about his wrongdoing and therefore did not deserve the benefit of the eight-year limit.

[Bartelby]

He never failed drug tests in large part because corrupt officials warned him of doping controls in time for him to take saline solutions.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

He never failed drug tests in large part because corrupt officials warned him of doping controls in time for him to take saline solutions.

More outlandish statements?

[Bartelby]

Its in the USADA report.

Originally Posted by Mustard

More outlandish statements?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

Its in the USADA report.

That's what I meant.

[Bartelby]

Yes, we get it, whatever Lance says is true and whatever USADA says is a iie no matter how much evidence supports USADA.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

Yes, we get it, whatever Lance says is true and whatever USADA says is a iie no matter how much evidence supports USADA.

What evidence? Armstrong has not failed a drugs test according to the official rules. He doesn't have to prove anything. The USADA has to do that, and getting plea bargained cyclists to make outlandish claims of "someone did this" and "someone saw that" isn't evidence to get someone found guilty, or at least it never should be.

[Bartelby]

Armstrong has had an investigation into his drug cheating that has found unchallenged evidence against him proven.

He doesn't have to prove or disprove anything, but the findings are unchallenged and entirely negative.

Armstrong is left with mere assertion, as you are.