[quote]orion wrote:
[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.[/quote]
The ones named in UK papers include:
Team mates - George Hincapie, Floyyd Landis, Tyler Hamilton, Frankie Andreu
French Official - Rieue
Team masseuse - Emily something.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
Looking it up, Wikipedia says retrospectively dqd from everything post 2000 including IAAF events in 2001/02 and 5th place in 2004 Olympics long jump.
[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]
They have a lot more than “a couple” of witnesses.
Negative tests don’t prove you’re clean.
As I said above, physical evidence isn’t the only way to get a conviction.
[quote]on edge wrote:
[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.[/quote]
I’ve heard of this as well. IIRC, it wasn’t allowed to be used due to some procedural violation. I don’t think they were allowed to test his sample when they did or something like that.
[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]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.
[/quote]
You misquoted me. I never said: And last point, all 7 of Armstrong’s vacated Tour de France titles will now go to… suspected dopers.
[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.
He must be drugged to his earlobes. [/quote]
Ben Johnson was stripped of more than just the single title. He was also stripped of his WR run (9.83 seconds) at the world championships the prior year - a meet where he passed a drug test.
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[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]
They have a lot more than “a couple” of witnesses.
Negative tests don’t prove you’re clean.
As I said above, physical evidence isn’t the only way to get a conviction.[/quote]
Yeah, if you did not float you were a witch.
If something is a kangaroo court because of its very rules, citing these rules does not really make your point.
In fact, I am all for throwing a coin, it would the arbitrary nature of it all even more apparent and a lot cheaper.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[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]
They have a lot more than “a couple” of witnesses.
Negative tests don’t prove you’re clean.
As I said above, physical evidence isn’t the only way to get a conviction.[/quote]
Yeah, if you did not float you were a witch.
If something is a kangaroo court because of its very rules, citing these rules does not really make your point.
In fact, I am all for throwing a coin, it would the arbitrary nature of it all even more apparent and a lot cheaper. [/quote]
Multiple witnesses would be sufficient for a conviction in just about any court of law.
EPO doesn’t take 10 years off the back. Some of these athletes need to be woken up several times a night and walk around for a bit so they don’t die in their sleep. This is one reason why the bodies that regulate these sports don’t want to see rampant blood-doping.
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[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]
They have a lot more than “a couple” of witnesses.
Negative tests don’t prove you’re clean.
As I said above, physical evidence isn’t the only way to get a conviction.[/quote]
Yeah, if you did not float you were a witch.
If something is a kangaroo court because of its very rules, citing these rules does not really make your point.
In fact, I am all for throwing a coin, it would the arbitrary nature of it all even more apparent and a lot cheaper. [/quote]
Multiple witnesses would be sufficient for a conviction in just about any court of law.[/quote]
Depends on the circumstance. If the witnesses are being coerced in any way, then no. As of now I haven’t heard any credible physical evidence. I haven’t heard anything from the witnesses, except a little from Landis. My impression of what I’ve heard about the witnesses is they all likely have ulterior motives.
I believe LA used. USADA also believes he used and they are using their belief to justify an all out, stop at nothing effort to nail him. And they 're not letting a little things like ethics or rules get in the way.
[quote]Kvetch wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
Looking it up, Wikipedia says retrospectively dqd from everything post 2000 including IAAF events in 2001/02 and 5th place in 2004 Olympics long jump.
[/quote]
I’m not interested in getting into a google-fu duel. The point is, it wasn’t an entire career’s worth of titles down the pan.
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[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]
They have a lot more than “a couple” of witnesses.
Negative tests don’t prove you’re clean.
As I said above, physical evidence isn’t the only way to get a conviction.[/quote]
Yeah, if you did not float you were a witch.
If something is a kangaroo court because of its very rules, citing these rules does not really make your point.
In fact, I am all for throwing a coin, it would the arbitrary nature of it all even more apparent and a lot cheaper. [/quote]
Multiple witnesses would be sufficient for a conviction in just about any court of law.[/quote]
Not if you have tons of contradicting physical evidence.
[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
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.[/quote]
That would would be funny!
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]OBoile wrote:
Multiple witnesses would be sufficient for a conviction in just about any court of law.[/quote]
Not if you have tons of contradicting physical evidence. [/quote]
Exactly.
Your honor, I submit to the court, 525 negative drug tests, most of which were administered by agents of the plaintiff under controlled conditions and all verified at the time as valid by said agents.
It’d take a special kind of contrary evidence to surmount that wall.
That is, if the court in question is not of the marsupial variety.
JACKED71 on page 3 had the perfect reply… reading the first few pages,i can tell they are posts by non cyclists that know nothing at all about climbing the ladder to get to the D1 pro teams… you start doping as an amature, hoping to get on a D3 team in holland or belgium, where you race mainly circut and 1 day races. win a few of these and maybe you get to a D2 team, remember, that former pros are in these races too, so you better never miss your drugs cause the pace will be extremely high, espically the first hour… single file in the gutter… all out.
HR at max, and just in misery…add in the crosswinds, hail, strong winds, sleet and narrow roads, and there always is a cobble section on the circut… harder than doing heavy squats… life in hell are the races in belgium and holland… this is where you start out trying to go from a junior, to an amature to HOPEFULLY a D3-D2-D1, then to the pros… DONT FORGET YOUR MASKING DRUGS TOO!!! lance didnt 500 TIMES… HE WAS ON THE BALL…somebody name me one person in a spring semi classic or classic road race thats clean… or a stage race… i was there, i seen it. i was clean. I held on for dear life… IN THE BACK!!
you dont cheat, you stay as a D3 PRO, finishing in the back in all your races…seen guys take drugs get better, but some guys got way better…the drugs effect everyone differently…seen guys that couldnt, but eventually could pull in the big ring up climbs. 4 nmonths earlier they were in the small ring in the pack. drugs dfo wonders…no news to me lance gave up… hell, his whole team admitted taking them… what pro is clean??
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[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]
They have a lot more than “a couple” of witnesses.
Negative tests don’t prove you’re clean.
As I said above, physical evidence isn’t the only way to get a conviction.[/quote]
Yeah, if you did not float you were a witch.
If something is a kangaroo court because of its very rules, citing these rules does not really make your point.
In fact, I am all for throwing a coin, it would the arbitrary nature of it all even more apparent and a lot cheaper. [/quote]
Multiple witnesses would be sufficient for a conviction in just about any court of law.[/quote]
Depends on the circumstance. If the witnesses are being coerced in any way, then no. As of now I haven’t heard any credible physical evidence. I haven’t heard anything from the witnesses, except a little from Landis. My impression of what I’ve heard about the witnesses is they all likely have ulterior motives.
I believe LA used. USADA also believes he used and they are using their belief to justify an all out, stop at nothing effort to nail him. And they 're not letting a little things like ethics or rules get in the way.[/quote]
What rules are the USADA breaking?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[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]
They have a lot more than “a couple” of witnesses.
Negative tests don’t prove you’re clean.
As I said above, physical evidence isn’t the only way to get a conviction.[/quote]
Yeah, if you did not float you were a witch.
If something is a kangaroo court because of its very rules, citing these rules does not really make your point.
In fact, I am all for throwing a coin, it would the arbitrary nature of it all even more apparent and a lot cheaper. [/quote]
Multiple witnesses would be sufficient for a conviction in just about any court of law.[/quote]
Not if you have tons of contradicting physical evidence. [/quote]
What contradicting physical evidence is there? I certainly haven’t heard of any.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Your honor, I submit to the court, 525 negative drug tests, most of which were administered by agents of the plaintiff under controlled conditions and all verified at the time as valid by said agents.
It’d take a special kind of contrary evidence to surmount that wall. [/quote]
Negative drug tests are not proof that an athlete is clean. Many confessed cheaters have passed drug tests while using. They are effectively meaningless as evidence of innocence.