L. Armstrong to be Stripped of All Titles

Off Topic
101

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]JACKED71 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Yeah, this is bullshit. No one at that level is clean so it’s a fair playing field.[/quote]

This is a great day for cycling. Yes, Lance cheated and every top ten finisher in the Tour De France is doped to the gills as well. Real fans of cycling have always known that doping exists in the sport. Until the stable is cleaned out it will always smell. Start with the biggest and then the rest. For those that follow cycling, I have far more respect for a rider like David Moncoutie who finishes 13th or so in the Tour every year versus the epic performances Lance dished out every day. Lance generating 450 watts of power on the Mont Ventoux (year 2000) rhymes with absolutely nothing.

We just have to accept the fact that Lance will go down as the biggest fraudster in sports and has finally been nailed. The question is why did it take so long to bring him down. In fact, he had a positive dope test that was supposedly covered up the by UCI in the 2001 Tour of Suisse. Credit to the USADA for having he balls took take down a larger than life guy like Lance. The only thing that sucks is the waste of tax dollars that was required for all this.

Catching Lance sends out the stongest possible message to all those who dope or are thinking of doping - you are never too big to fail.[/quote]
Nailed? Based on what? If they come forward with actual evidence that’s one thing but to accuse someone and challenge them to years of investigating and hearings, at his expense of course, is wrong. It is not a level playing field. If Lance, after several years and several millions, wins, what happens to those who brought the charges? Nothing. They have nothing to lose…except other people’s money. If Lance wins, he loses, unless the USADA compensates him for his losses. As if that would happen. It’s not the first time someone has not fought charges because it would cost them more to fight. [/quote]
As I said in an earlier post, witness testimony is evidence. A positive blood test isn’t the only evidence that can be used to show guilt.

102

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
He may be a dick in real life (I have read several articles where folks said he was an ass) and that might be the reason for the witch hunt. But he is one of the 10 ten U.S. athletes of all time IMHO…and has raised over 300 million for cancer research…at the end of the day, it just shows the absolute pettiness of people.

And last point, all 7 of Armstrong’s vacated Tour de France titles will now go to… suspected dopers.

1999: Alex Zulle (confessed to EPO use)
2000: Jan Ullrich (suspended from 2006 Tour; banned this year and stripped of all results from 2005 on)
2001: Jan Ullrich
2002: Joseba Beloki (kept out of 2006 Tour while under doping investigation, later cleared)
2003: Jan Ullrich
2004: Andreas Kloden (accused of illegal blood transfusion in the 2006 Tour)
2005: Ivan Basso (confessed to attempted doping, suspended)[/quote]
This was my first thought. I’m fairly certain Armstrong doped, but so did everyone else near the top. They’re taking away his Tour titles only to give them to someone else just as dirty. If they are going to do this, then they should just remove these titles and give them to no one.[/quote]

Agreed. This is a witch hunt of the highest order. Even athletes like Ben Johnson were only stripped of a single title. Armstrong is a perfect scapegoat because he beat cancer and kept on winning.

He must be drugged to his earlobes.

103

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]JACKED71 wrote:

Catching Lance sends out the stongest possible message to all those who dope or are thinking of doping - you are never too big to fail.[/quote]

Problem is, he was not caught.

He is simply no longer fighting their allegations.

Now in their mind and in your mind that might mean something, but so far they did not prove anything. [/quote]

From what I understand a positive drug test isn’t the only way to be “caught”. Witness testimony can also be used (much like you can be convicted of murder without forensic evidence if there are a bunch of witnesses).[/quote]

They have a couple of anonymous “witnesses” he has a couple of hundred clean tests.

In terms of hard facts he kind of has some strong points.

Somebody said that somebody said is not enough to tear a man down.

And I would bet the farm that he was juicing.

I do not give a fuck about the “integrity” of cycling, professional sports or any other such drivel either, I just think that dragging someone in front of several courts over and over again, all with different rules, all with different standards of evidence, till you finally got him is far, far worse than anything that he possibly could have done.

I kind of tend not to care too much about whether he dried and snorted monkey testicles, if they can do it with him, they can do it with anyone else.

104

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]JACKED71 wrote:

Catching Lance sends out the stongest possible message to all those who dope or are thinking of doping - you are never too big to fail.[/quote]

Problem is, he was not caught.

He is simply no longer fighting their allegations.

Now in their mind and in your mind that might mean something, but so far they did not prove anything. [/quote]

From what I understand a positive drug test isn’t the only way to be “caught”. Witness testimony can also be used (much like you can be convicted of murder without forensic evidence if there are a bunch of witnesses).[/quote]

They have a couple of anonymous “witnesses” he has a couple of hundred clean tests.

In terms of hard facts he kind of has some strong points.

Somebody said that somebody said is not enough to tear a man down.

And I would bet the farm that he was juicing.

I do not give a fuck about the “integrity” of cycling, professional sports or any other such drivel either, I just think that dragging someone in front of several courts over and over again, all with different rules, all with different standards of evidence, till you finally got him is far, far worse than anything that he possibly could have done.

I kind of tend not to care too much about whether he dried and snorted monkey testicles, if they can do it with him, they can do it with anyone else. [/quote]

Yeah I def agree with that. You need a positive test to accept what they’re doing and if they had that they wouldn’t have needed to be dragging it through the courts like that.

Fun article:

105
106

lol, nice

107

Even the homies devastated by the news

http://bustedcoverage.com/2012/08/24/24-nsfw-black-guy-tweets-sticking-up-for-their-homie-lance-armstrong/best-of-twitter-lance-armstrong/#1

108

[quote]Cortes wrote:

What a bunch of crap. If the US Anti-Doping Agency ever did conduct a “witch-hunt,” this was it. No positive drug tests aside from one prescription CORTICO-steroid positive, but they just would not leave well enough alone. How many years now have they been hounding Armstrong for this crap? Absolutely shameful. Hope they are happy now that they’ve successfully destroyed a superstar and one of the greatest athletes of all time. Asses.[/quote]

I agree with this as well, except that he tested positive on multiple occasions. He failed six tests in 1999 for EPO. He did it, he got caught and now he is going to pay the price.

And he knows he did it. Otherwise he wouldn’t be dropping this altogether.

I just really hope he doesn’t start publicizing all of his efforts to help cancer patients. If he’s doing so for pure, altruistic reasons, then he shouldn’t be concerned with whether or not others know that he’s fighting the good fight.

I also don’t think it holds any merit to say “well, everyone else cheated too so what he did wasn’t that bad.” We don’t apply that sort of logic to, say murderers, or gang members or anything like that. Obviously, cheating and killing aren’t in the same ballpark, but the point remains that two wrongs don’t make a right, no matter how minimal the “wrong” is. Cheating is wrong, he did it, he got caught and I for one am glad to see him finally pay the consequences. It’s like people bury their head in the sand just because he beat cancer. That’s great that he beat cancer, but it doesn’t negate the fact that he then turned around and cheated his sport.

I mean, for anyone (not you specifically, just people in general) to defend him by even insinuating that he didn’t actually cheat is pathetic and ignorant. This is a guy who dominated the dirtiest sport in the world. Like I’m supposed to believe it’s some sort of hidden, conspiratorial agenda when the most dominant racer in the dirtiest sport smashes everyone for 7 years and then tests positive half a dozen different times that it’s all a witch hunt.

109

For those arguing about the burden of proof and evidence required to establish a positive doping violation, I looked it up in the World Anti-Doping Code. It’s not exactly what I thought it was.

Under Article 3: Proof of Doping, in Article 3.1 Burdens and Standards of Proof, it says “This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” It goes on to state how it’s different when the burden of proof is placed upon the athlete though. There’s also a comment at the bottom of the page comparing this standard of proof to the standard applied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct.

Also at the bottom of the page, pertaining to Article 3.2 Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions, it says “[Comment to Article 3.2: For example, an Anti-Doping Organization may establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.2 (Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited method) based on the Athlete’s admissions, the credible testimony of third Persons, reliable documentary evidence, reliable analytical data from either an A or B Sample as provided in the Comments to Article 2.2, or conclusions drawn from the profile of a series on the Athlete’s blood or urine Samples.]”

So apparently he said she said bullshit, if the witnesses are deemed to be credible, can be evidence used to establish a positive doping violation. Hard to argue the credibility of USADA’s alleged witnesses or any of their other “evidence” now that Lance is not going to fight it as we aren’t likely to see who would have testified or what e-mails and other evidence they had.

110

1150×770 393 KB

This is probably hard to read, but it shows the top ten finishers in all the years LA won the Tour plus one of the years after his comeback. Basically all the riders who are gray shaded have been implicated in some sort of doping scandal at one time or another. Obviously you can add LA to that list now. In almost all years the entire podium is shot and in two of the Tours you have to now go down to the 8th place finisher to find a “clean” rider…or at least one who hasn’t been caught yet.

111

[quote]JACKED71 wrote:
Indeed. You actually have to dig a bit deeper in the general classification in those years to find a legit winner. Looking at the 2001 and 2002 tours for example, this would be the 13th or 14th finisher. Almost every finisher within the top 10 has been involved in doping scandal of some sort from 1998 and the early 2000 period. [/quote]

Who the fuck wants to watch a race of 13th and 14th place finishers?

112

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

I mean, for anyone (not you specifically, just people in general) to defend him by even insinuating that he didn’t actually cheat is pathetic and ignorant. This is a guy who dominated the dirtiest sport in the world. Like I’m supposed to believe it’s some sort of hidden, conspiratorial agenda when the most dominant racer in the dirtiest sport smashes everyone for 7 years and then tests positive half a dozen different times that it’s all a witch hunt.[/quote]

I read your caveat, but just want to clarify I never suggested he did NOT dope. But if the standards of the day were not enough to convict him, at that time, and they have to keep dragging him to court again and again for one more bullshit accusation after another, now years after the fact, on his dime and his time; when the guy finally says “enough,” then no, that does not suggest to me guilt on his part.

113

I’d love to see some sport drop its doping rules and say “use as much of whatever you’d like” only for the performances to not improve at all, LOL.

114

[quote]orion wrote:
They have a couple of anonymous “witnesses” he has a couple of hundred clean tests.
[/quote]

No, they have a lot of non-anonymous witnesses including 10 of his team-mates who earnt a percentage of his winnings.

[quote]roybot wrote:
Agreed. This is a witch hunt of the highest order. Even athletes like Ben Johnson were only stripped of a single title. Armstrong is a perfect scapegoat because he beat cancer and kept on winning.
[/quote]

Marion Jones is a better example. All titles won dirty are redacted. Similar evidence too i.e. tested clean at the time. No-one seems to weep much for her…

[quote]OBoile wrote:
And last point, all 7 of Armstrong’s vacated Tour de France titles will now go to… suspected dopers.
[/quote]

No chance of that happening. IMHO this is why this matters. A lot of the top flight have been busted except for miracle boy. Is that because he is clean? No, no-one thinks he is. He has been incredibly powerful, resourced and supported within the sport and its all coming out. Is it a which-hunt? Sure but necessary - this is like trying to bust Capone.

Check this out:

[quote]Daily Telegraph wrote:
Tales of his vindictive, bullying streak are manifest; just one will suffice here.

The Italian rider Filippo Simeoni is just one of the riders who found himself on the wrong end of Armstrongâ??s strong-arm tactics. His crime had been to testify against Armstrongâ??s doctor, Michele Ferrari, and then to take legal action after Armstrong repeatedly accused him of lying.

During the 18th stage of the 2004 Tour, when Simeoni attempted to bridge the gap to a breakaway, Armstrong chased him down himself â?? an extraordinary step for the yellow jersey to take. Armstrong warned him in no uncertain terms that any break of which Simeoni was a part would be pursued mercilessly, and ordered him to return to the peloton. When the Italian returned to the pack, he was abused and spat at by his fellow riders.

While Armstrong earns an estimated $10 million a year in endorsements, Simeoni now runs a coffee bar south of Rome.
[/quote]

Some indication of how he has surpressed what he can no longer fight huh? Still want to give this “hero” a pass?

Ultimately, his contempories didn’t get a pass so if the evidence sticks, why argue for this fucker to get one? If what is being said is proven i.e. that a lot of officials have basically been on his pay roll, they should all burn. On the flipside, if its all bullshit then the accusers should get jail-time.

Either way, there are lot of crimminal mofos in this and I think its pretty clear which way its heading now.

115

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I read your caveat, but just want to clarify I never suggested he did NOT dope. But if the standards of the day were not enough to convict him, at that time, and
[/quote]

Standards of the day? Are the standards of the day to allow corrupt officials to hide test results? Do you really think people shouldn’t investigate that shit?

[quote]Cortes wrote:
they have to keep dragging him to court again and again for one more bullshit accusation after another, now years after the fact, on his dime and his time; when the guy finally says “enough,” then no, that does not suggest to me guilt on his part. [/quote]

How many times has he been to court? I believe its zero. He has however taken other people to court. This would be the first time he would testify and he has turned it down. Tired of suing eye-witnesses - yay.

[quote]Cortes wrote:
when the guy finally says “enough,” then no, that does not suggest to me guilt on his part. [/quote]

The downside of what is taken to be a guilty admission is too huge. It was a cleverly dressed up statement to evoke reactions like yours but you have to be pretty credulous to sustain it.

116

[quote]Kvetch wrote:

Marion Jones is a better example. All titles won dirty are redacted. Similar evidence too i.e. tested clean at the time. No-one seems to weep much for her…

[/quote]

She was stripped of all titles and medals during the year she admitted to doping.

117

The real issue is why the USADA gets some of its funding from the govt, i.e., our taxes. That should upset us more than what Lance did or didn’t do…on foreign soil no less.

118

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

I agree with this as well, except that he tested positive on multiple occasions. He failed six tests in 1999 for EPO. He did it, he got caught and now he is going to pay the price.

[/quote]

Where did you hear this? I’ve always heard that he’s never failed a test other than one for a non-androgenic steroid that was prescribed for an injury. I would think if he had failed 6, or even one, for a PED they would have had him long ago and wouldn’t have had to spend the last 5 years forcing ah uh I mean collecting witnesses.

119

[quote]Kvetch wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
They have a couple of anonymous “witnesses” he has a couple of hundred clean tests.
[/quote]

No, they have a lot of non-anonymous witnesses including 10 of his team-mates who earnt a percentage of his winnings.

[/quote]

Really?

Name names.

120

Let’s see the scorecard:

A govt funded, non-governmental agency bans a retired athlete from competing. It strips him of his titles, although it probably lacks the authority to do so, which makes it basically a symbolic gesture. The athlete in question will continue to be a millionaire and his cancer charity will continue helping cancer victims. The athlete in question will still have lots of support and admiration from the public for his athletic accomplishments and/or his work on behalf of cancer victims.

I would say our money was well spent.