Off Topic - Lance Armstrong nailed at last

Off topic. It is a Friday after all

The evidence (which is going to be released by the US authorities soon) is so overwhelming that Armstrong has decided not fight the charges and let all his records including his 7 Tour De France wins be wiped off the record.

Time eventually catches up with some cheats even if they have become huge mega rich stars.

 

I hope he's ordered to pay back his prize money too. Obviously he's made far more in sponsorship off his cheating anyway but they need to make sure he's disgraced as much as possible so he can't continue to make millions off his heroic ability to dope his way to records after adversity.

 

Druggy Yank pussy

 

Assuming he really is guilty: I am glad. Never been proved although professional cycling is a joke... more drugs used at the tour De France than in Salford on a Friday night.

Professional cycling is a bit of a joke. You have to cheat to win.

 

Let's see the supposed evidence first eh.

Never failed a dope test,but that does not mean he was riding clean.

Armstrong not contesting these claims does not necessarily imply guilt,maybe
he's just sick and tired of this rumbling on for years.

Not every professional cyclist is doping,some are just supreme athletes at their peak.

Like Bradley Wiggins.

 

I feel sorry for the large number of people who have to accept that the man that they idolised is nothing but a cheat.

 

Pro cycling is a total farce, its a shame some of them (not including Armstrong yet as nothing has been proved yet) have totally ruined the sport for everyone else, total joke of a sport IMO and the people who run it could actually be more insane than the people who run football, which is saying something.

 

This is not a good argument. Someone who has fought against cancer, who is a hero to millions,who has an incredible sport record, just giving up the fight to clear his reputation because he cannot be bothered to fight any longer?

If the authorities accuse me of being a huge cheat, of not being who I am, what is the best option for me? According to you, if I say I cannot be bothered to contest,then that does not imply my guilt. I could be innocent.

In the face of overwhelming evidence, Armstrong has decided to give up. He would NOT have done so otherwise.

 

Do a GIS for Lance Armstrong... there are plenty of pictures of him competing at Tour De France... Is that not proof enough of taking drugs?

 

what i find funny is this guy was away and free and clear and jsut had to shut up, rest on his laurels but yet he swans back into cycling again.... some people are pure greedy.

armstrong was dead to rights years ago as i've heard guys talk in public about his cancer diagnosis and how he admitted then what he was on etc etc. fellow riders etc. journalists have hounded him and been told thiey'd be sued etc so the turth has come out which is good... but 7 wins gone from the record books whould in theroy shatter the tour once and for all surely

 

Where is the overwhelming evidence?????

 

Doping in cycling has a long and tragic history,(Britain's own Tommy Simpson died on Mont Ventoux back in 67')

But the fact remains that many professionals who ride the classics are not doping.

 

Beat me to it Rubadub.

 

As I said inmy first post USADA will shortly publish the evidence.

"USADA, charged by Congress as the non-government agency empowered to protect the integrity of Olympic sports, has never lost a court challenge to its jurisdiction. Had the case gone to arbitration, where USADA has prevailed in 58 of 60 cases, the agency said it had more than 10 witnesses, including past teammates of Armstrong, who would testify that for years he used blood-doping and performance-enhancing drugs to gain an edge."

Armstrong and his legal team would have been provided with all the legal documents. that could be the main reason why he gave up fighting for his reputation.

 

in the backgorund there's also been riders who've have been public form his own ex team mates or training partners who broke the story

 

Let's see this evidence before damning Armstrong forever,if these allegations are proved
then,and only then,will he be open to ridicule.

 

^^^

I remember over the last few years there have stories surfacing inFrance and other European countries of ex-teammates saying that he is constantly doping. These stories were brushed aside as sour grapes.

 

I think by not fighting his case he has already opened himself to ridicule and accusations of cheating by doping.

Of course we will have to wait for the publication of USADA to get the details of his doping but there is no other rational reason for him not to fight his case. His being fed up is not a good reason, especially for someone who is supposed never to give up against insurmountable odds.

 

He had over 500 drug tests all negative! A few of us have long argued the Saurez case, no absolute evidence, done in by reputation and media focus, as well as an overarching official body determined to get a result. I don't see how any of us can say he's guilty and has to fight the charges to prove his innocence if his life has moved on and he's doing other stuff. If as has been said a few times in this thread cycling is full of drugies then when he was racing the peloton behind him were full of EPO as well and so he proved himself the best of a drugged up bunch. This business of he only won because he was on drugs implies the rest were not so he cheated and had an advantage, but if that's true you can't then make a blanket statement that they were all on them.

Ok played the devils advocate a bit there but it really gets my goat when we short cut facts to support an opinion, aka what happened to our club when the FA made it up as they went along. The fact was, he was tested more than any other athlete ever (and turned up for all of them) and if the testing was deficient so he was able to come through negative every time, well they have to develop and improve the testing procedure and just suck up the fact that he may have been on something then but life's not fare.

Giving ex team mates immunity or lesser penalties after they have been caught as long as they give evidence against him strikes me as coercion, the guy wasn't liked that much either so why not say yes he was on steroids if it gets you a lesser sentence.

I am sure the testing is so sophisticated now and so random (knocks on the door at 5 am) that they are mainly clean. I am convinced Bradley is clean as well as most of the teams so would be interesting to see a comparison of stage times from Armstrongs days to now. Again wouldn't be conclusive but apparently that doesn't matter!

We as a club decided not to appeal the Saurez ban, in the words of Bob Dylan "You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows", I think he's come to the same conclusion. I'm not saying he is innocent but at this moment in time there has been nothing I have seen that says he's guilty, only self-interest statements released by convicted ex team mates.

And as for reports lets hope the USADA report is fairly concise and not 115 pages long to obfuscate the logic used to convict.

 

I have been rather tongue in cheek about this... I'm sure there are some cyclists who don't do drugs... there have been so many caught though... even those that repeatedly passed drugs tests later got caught.

I'm sure its not just in cycling either.

Absolutely hope Lance is not being targeted if not guilty.

No I haven't seen any conclusive evidence... the fact that barely a year goes by without fresh allegations against him makes me suspicious.


Do I know he is guilty... absolutely not... and based on evidence I've seen would not convict him.

Do I think he is guilty... absolutely... and if he is not fighting something that will undermine his entire career is a huge exclamation mark saying that there might be damning evidence that we don't know about.

I suspect there is evidence and he made a bargain not to contest as long as it isn't made public.

Don't know for sure... just a hunch...

Oh and wouldn't be at all surprised if B.Wig is a doper too... just because to win at cycling against so any people who are... you kind of have to.


Anyhow in conclusion.
Do I know he is guilty: no
Do I think he is guilty: yes
Would I personally hand out punishment to him based on what +I+ know... no