Lance Armstrong stripped of Tour du France wins.

[Neil]

"Hello" "Police?" "I've just seen Neil selling resin kits to the Bornpol representative"

 

"Thank you Sir, we'll lock him up for life based on that evidence alone"

 

....

 

 

Yes that would be silly wouldn't it. However if ten of my former colleagues had made the same or supporting allegations then perhaps it might be worth taking a look at it especially if in a test survey my trading with the Bornpol representative(?) had been established.

 

I'm not saying (and haven't in my earlier post) that Lance Armstrong is guilty of doping; but it does appear to me that there is an ambiguity over his innocence as there is one over his guilt.

[The Nth Degree]

For the life of me, I just don't understand why a Government Agency, who is responsible for rooting out cheats and scoundrels for the good of sport, would victimise an innocent worldwide sporting hero and source of inspiration to thousands, maybe millions, for absolutely no reason or without evidence. That sounds utterly ridiculous to all but the most blinded and avid fans. Why would a national agency choose to victimise an innocent national hero - one of the greatest heros in his sport? And why has nobody asked this question?

[kandc_au]

Probably because if you are going to bring someone down/accuse them/disqualify them, you do it openly.

Currently we have him hung drawn and quartered, but OH, he doesn't have any failed drug tests/we believe that because his readings are not normal he is guilty/ we still have others who say he is guilty because they are/ we are right so believe us/ there is more evidence but we haven't finished accusing/charging people etc.

Currently it is not whether he is guilty or innocent but they way he has been accussed yet not proven.

To me, after this going on for years I don't blame he being to tired to keep up with defending himself and the costs involved.

It is up to the USDA to prove his guilt unequivically or shut up.

To date they have done neither.

I am not a great fan but I have less time for the US system of things....you are innocent unitl proven guilty unless we say so.

 

Khris

 

Edit: was to sign post with my name!

[beast66606]

It is up to the USDA to prove his guilt unequivically or shut up.

 

A point that seems lost on some of the contributors on here - I would go one step further, prove the accusations or donate the equivalent of what they have spent to investigate him to his cancer causes as way of apology.

[Tim Hale]

For the life of me, I just don't understand why a Government Agency, who is responsible for rooting out cheats and scoundrels for the good of sport, would victimise an innocent worldwide sporting hero and source of inspiration to thousands, maybe millions, for absolutely no reason or without evidence. That sounds utterly ridiculous to all but the most blinded and avid fans. Why would a national agency choose to victimise an innocent national hero - one of the greatest heros in his sport? And why has nobody asked this question?

 

The answer is the power struggle between the USDA and the UCI, LA aligned himself with the UCI and very publicly called for the resignation of the head of the USDA.

 

BTW

 

The news about the 'scandal' of the doping allegations was broken by L'Equipe, a French magazine which shares its Paris offices with the organisers of the Tour d'France. It claimed that LA was guilty although this accusation was based on supposition over unmarked blood samples which may/may not have been taken from the LA's team in 1999.

 

Tim

[BoD]

It is up to the USDA to prove his guilt unequivically or shut up.

 

Isn't that what they have been trying to do? (Although not nessarily going about in in a way that pleased everyone).

It was Armstong himself who tried to prevent it happening through the courts and then by not participating. He may be right to do this, he may be wrong, that is a matter of opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that USADA have been trying to prove his guilt.

 

[kandc_au]

Isn't that what they have been trying to do? (Although not nessarily going about in in a way that pleased everyone).

It was Armstong himself who tried to prevent it happening through the courts and then by not participating. He may be right to do this, he may be wrong, that is a matter of opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that USADA have been trying to prove his guilt.

 

And therein lies the problem, it would seem.

They are trying to prove his guilt, even after announcing his guilt.

I have said before I would be a lot happier if it was another country doing the investigation, no matter what the outcome.

 

Khris

[BoD]

..... and after he declined to defend himself. It would have made sense and have been much fairer though to release the proof at the same time as the 'verdict'. In fact it goes further than that it would have only been right to do so.

[beast66606]

I the fact that USADA have been trying to prove his guilt.

 

A key word there, which appears to be the issue - at the moment at least, they should already be able to prove his guilt.

[Revolution Mike]

I think you have to be naive in the extreme (or lacking knowledge of cycling's recent history) to think that LA was entirely clean given anecdotal reports and the number of his USPS/Disco team mates that have failed tests.

 

Having said which it is a shame that the "truth" won't be tested by USADA and ultimately CAS, but that was Lance's decision. Ultimately the standard of proof in sports doping cases is not the same as beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases. Without seeing the evidence USADA has it is difficult to know what the result would have been, though the inference could be that Lance knew he would be banned.

 

It is fairly unprecedented to ban someone retrospectively for such a long period, nor am I sure whether someone has been banned based on the evidence of witnesses before (if that is the only evidence USADA has).

 

I have sympathy with the argument that if there is evidence to ban him and strip the titles then it should be done, but the practical problem then becomes who do you grant the titles to? The runners up don't exactly have blemish free records!

1999 - Zulle (admitted taking EPO and was part of Festina/Banesto etc)

2000, 2001, 2003 - Ullrich (found guilty of doping in 2005 and heavily implicated in Operation Puerto/T-mobile doping)

2002 - Beloki (another implicated in Operation Puerto)

2004 - Kloden (and another implicated in blood doping)

2005 - Basso (heavily implicated in blood doping and later banned for "planning to dope")

 

Another sad day for cycling...

 

Cheers, Mike

[BoD]

but it doesn't change the fact that USADA have been trying to prove his guilt.

A key word there, which appears to be the issue - at the moment at least, they should already be able to prove his guilt.

 

In the context of my post saying 'trying to prove his guilt' can be read in more than one way. Perhaps I should have said 'trying to present their evidence in a hearing' (or whatever it is that they do)

[kandc_au]

The reality I think is, if we were all sitting about a table and discussing this, we would would probably find we are agreeing with each other in the end.

Mike, from what I recall I think all but one, of those who would stand to gain the award if/when LA loses it has a doping conviction.

It is unfortunate in that it makes a mockery of the sport as a whole ( at pro level) Sad really!

 

Khris

[Neil]

There's an interesting recent Guardian article by way of follow up. Make of it what you will.

[beast66606]

There's an interesting recent Guardian article by way of follow up. Make of it what you will.

 

The Guardian and a cheat - two bastions of honesty.

 

Let's wait until the authorities present their evidence, we all know that drug takers will stop at nothing to conceal their own habits, even if it's accusing everyone else.

[Red Devil]

Anyone had a look at the Usada stuff on the Armstrong case

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19903716

 

http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/

 

Can't say it looks good for Armstrong, personally I've always had doubts, I suppose it will all come out in the wash.

[beast66606]

Still no real information made public but I guess it's getting close.

[trisonic]

This evening US East Coast time (but not specific - I just heard that on the local New York news).

 

Best, Pete.

[Adrian]

Still no real information made public but I guess it's getting close.

I don't know, there's a fair amount of real information in the 200 page "Reasoned Deposition" to the UCI. Shorter than the 1000 page report at least.

https://docs.google....c/view?sle=true

 

Not had the chance to go through it line by line yet but it seems to contain some fairly damning evidence and testimony. No doubt there are those that will argue about what constitutes "real evidence" but with LA choosing not to contest it I have to say it doesn't look good for him.

[Red Devil]

Depends wwhat you mean by real information.

 

Some of the witness statements make fascinating reading, this one for example, I know some of this has been in the public eye before but as a signed witness statement it's pretty damning.

 

http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/OReilly%2c+Emma+Affidavit.pdf

 

There are those that'll probably only believe it if pictures of LA hooked up to a blood bag etc appear, but for someone as litigious as Armstrong the affidavits look grim reading.

[Adrian]

There are those that'll probably only believe it if pictures of LA hooked up to a blood bag etc appear, but for someone as litigious as Armstrong the affidavits look grim reading.

Even then you'll get some claiming it to be a photoshop job!

[LIRR]

 

 

The Guardian and a cheat - two bastions of honesty.

 

Let's wait until the authorities present their evidence, we all know that drug takers will stop at nothing to conceal their own habits, even if it's accusing everyone else.

 

There are 26 witness testimonies in the report. They could all be lying, but at some point it should be recognized that eyewitness testimony is still valid in most legal cases. If you don't allow witness testimony then there will be a huge difficulty in making a case against people who are devious enough to avoid leaving a trail of physical evidence.

The allegations against a former DJ, that recently came to light seem to lack any physical evidence to support the claims, but I believe that the authorities are now investigating the claims based on the sheer number of witnesses.

Andy

 

 

 

[beast66606]

There are 26 witness testimonies in the report. They could all be lying, but at some point it should be recognized that eyewitness testimony is still valid in most legal cases. If you don't allow witness testimony then there will be a huge difficulty in making a case against people who are devious enough to avoid leaving a trail of physical evidence.

The allegations against a former DJ, that recently came to light seem to lack any physical evidence to support the claims, but I believe that the authorities are now investigating the claims based on the sheer number of witnesses.

Andy

 

I said earlier that if LA is guilty I will join the cries of "Cheat" - the witness testaments of people who are known to be drug users and cheats don't stand up to my scrutiny - I've lived among such people, they will say anything (and I mean anything) to cover their bums, so I will still reserve judgement until the real evidence is considered by the authorities, if it's as solid as claimed then LA (and quite a few others I imagine) will be in serious doo dah very soon and I will add my voice to the condemnation, until that time I will still stay open minded - as people should do about the DJ (it seems in the UK we are now guilty when tried by media)

[trisonic]

If he is guilty then surely the problem is systemic in this sport? What a thought!

Similarly on Saville I had heard rumours as long ago as the late sixties - but they were that "rumours". I dismissed them at the time because he seemed a genuine guy. I must be a terrible judge of character!

 

However like Dave says these type of things do literally rotten things to a person's character and you end up not knowing what to believe.

 

Best, Pete.

[Adrian]

the witness testaments of people who are known to be drug users and cheats don't stand up to my scrutiny - I've lived among such people, they will say anything (and I mean anything) to cover their bums

I can see that the testimony of drug addicts can be unreliable, as you say they will say and do anything to be able to get to the next fix. However as I understand it the witnesses in this situation are not drug "addicts" per se, they were just using the drugs as a means to the end which to my mind puts a slightly different tenor on their statements. Besides which the deposition contains a fair amount of detailed circumstantial evidence. Each bit in itself not outright proof but when the whole weight of evidence and testimony is taken as a whole it does look damning.

[beast66606]

I can see that the testimony of drug addicts can be unreliable, as you say they will say and do anything to be able to get to the next fix. However as I understand it the witnesses in this situation are not drug "addicts" per se, they were just using the drugs as a means to the end which to my mind puts a slightly different tenor on their statements. Besides which the deposition contains a fair amount of detailed circumstantial evidence. Each bit in itself not outright proof but when the whole weight of evidence and testimony is taken as a whole it does look damning.

 

 

Someone who takes and relies on drugs - for whatever reason - is a drug addict, personally I wouldn't trust anyone who has been convicted of cheating, who knows what level they would go to in the pursuit of getting their "good" name back. Leopards rarely change spots.