Lance Armstrong stripped of Tour du France wins.

[iak]

"Evidence???"

So what exactly will that consist of?

Armstrong was a strong character who got what he wanted and trod on a lot of toes in doing so. He made a "lot" of enemies during his career. The idea of some disgruntled former team mate's "testimony" being worth while seems frankly, bonkers.

 

The French press and some cycling big wigs have gone after this "doping" Armstrong allegedly was up to and not one shred of credible evidence has been found. Yes the science has moved on but being a qualified MLSO, just how carefully have these samples been stored and handled? Hmmm!

After the Festina affair of 1998, cycling gradually started to address its "cancer." The list of busts is amazing if look into it

 

However, that is not to say that some got away with it; it just seems crazy that a man who faced death the way Armstrong did, would risk anything.

Marco Pantani would be sufficient proof of the folly involved. I know he never tested positive but poor Marco risked something and paid with his life...

[Bob Reid]

Of course, look to Europe for Justice, kill 77 human beings and get put inside for just 21 years, thats what? About 3 months per life ended? He'll walk in 7?

 

Now that is disgusting, as I'm sure we all agree.

 

Best, Pete.

 

Pete, your clearly not a US cycling fan, this is one big deal for that countries cycling enthusiasts many of which I can count many as friends. That said, no one but yourself is comparing this with tragic mass killings of which the US is sadly all too familiar with.

[Tim Hale]

Personally, I think that this evidence is the reason he has chosen to not to fight the case. To see and hear statement after statement from your friends and colleagues all pointing the finger at you would be too much, especially as they themselves have already admitted their guilt or cooperation.

 

Isn't that speculation without providing any proof?

 

Tim

[The Nth Degree]

"Evidence???"

So what exactly will that consist of?

Armstrong was a strong character who got what he wanted and trod on a lot of toes in doing so. He made a "lot" of enemies during his career. The idea of some disgruntled former team mate's "testimony" being worth while seems frankly, bonkers.

 

We'll have to wait on the evidence given by USADA. As you suggest, this type of, and especially age of evidence is much easier to fight than your current and former friend and colleagues. Also, you seem to suggest there is only one person giving evidence against him. Unfortunately that is wrong.

[The Nth Degree]

Isn't that speculation without providing any proof?

 

Tim

 

Yes, Tim. I said "Personally".

[Tim Hale]

Yes, Tim. I said "Personally".

 

Thanks for clearing up that doubt, for a moment I thought you were making an unsubstantiated accusation against someone who does not have an opportunity to respond.

 

Tim

[beast66606]

Thanks for clearing up that doubt, for a moment I thought you were making an unsubstantiated accusation against someone who does not have an opportunity to respond.

 

Which appears to be roughly where LA is ...

[Gene]

Frankly I have no interest in cycling or Lance Armstrong...BUT....even I think this stinks to high heaven...after so many years,after so many tests,after so many investigations ---> enough already....the guy won! How many kicks at the can do the authorities get? It's gotten absurd and I for one can't fault the guy for essentially telling them to piss-off after all the sh*t he's had to take all these years over this doping issue!

[The Yorkshire Pud]

Total Witch Hunt IMO ......... as for his "so called" ex friends and team mates cutting deals to get themselves off the hook ......... this sounds very dodgy at best.

 

A sad day indeed.

 

No wonder the mans "had enough" of it all .......... he seems to be up against a stacked deck whatever he does.

 

Real shame ..........

[kevinlms]

I know nothing about the Tour de France, other than its suspect reputation regarding drugs for many years.

 

But if there is no evidence, how can he be stripped of titles, by anyone? On what grounds? If he'd failed to provide samples at any time, it could be deemed as 'failure by neglect or deception', but he claims that he always supplied samples as required.

 

 

No wonder he seems to have simply, given up after all this time. There is only so much anyone can take.

[Bernard Lamb]

But if there is no evidence, how can he be stripped of titles, by anyone? On what grounds? If he'd failed to provide samples at any time, it could be deemed as 'failure by neglect or deception', but he claims that he always supplied samples as required.

No wonder he seems to have simply, given up after all this time. There is only so much anyone can take.

It is rather more complicted than that.

There are various drug test done both in and out of competition.

There is also a test to basically measure the make up of your blood. There is a normal and a maximum level for certain components.

Medical science has advanced in recent years so that a pattern can be seen as to how the human body deals with training and racing.

There is one top UK rider who has a certificate to explain his generic abnormality. I think that they actualy carried out tests on his father before allowing him to compete.

It seems to be the ongoing changes that have arroused suspicion. Plus so many of his associates having problems with the authorities.

He does not help his case by making remarks along the lines of never having failed a drugs test or never done anything that was against the rules at the time.

The ultimate irony is that if he had not had cancer he would probably never have won the TdF.

You would need a good knowledge of cycling physique to understand that remark. Basically it is why Wiggins can win the race and Cavendish cannot.

Bernard

[beast66606]

He does not help his case by making remarks along the lines of never having failed a drugs test or never done anything that was against the rules at the time.

 

It probably helps a lot more than admitting he had failed a drug test or broken the rules though.

 

A difficulty with the argument about his blood altering after cancer is the authorities would need a sample taken prior to any treatment so they can prove it did, otherwise they are simply assuming (granted a logical and probably correct assumption) and people should not be found guilty on assumptions.

We are, of course, assuming this is their "evidence" - from what I read it all seems to be the statements of team "mates", which is hear say imho.

[chris p bacon]

The ultimate irony is that if he had not had cancer he would probably never have won the TdF.

You would need a good knowledge of cycling physique to understand that remark. Basically it is why Wiggins can win the race and Cavendish cannot.

Bernard

 

Can you enlighten us ?

[Tim Hale]

The Alpha male of all Alpha males is obviously going to attract enemies.

Personally I never did like the bloke.

Sad however to see that things have reached this state.

Bernard

 

Any bearing on the most recent comment?

 

Tim

[Adrian]

Thanks for clearing up that doubt, for a moment I thought you were making an unsubstantiated accusation against someone who does not have an opportunity to respond.

 

Tim

Which appears to be roughly where LA is ...

Not really, LA was being given the opportunity to respond to the allegations but he chose to decline it. Now whether he would get a fair independent hearing is another issue, as I understand it the USADA has not allowed LA to see the "evidence" against him yet, and I believe the UCI has said that it wants to see the "evidence" before it deciding on what to do about it his TdF titles. At some point I think that USADA will have to release/publish the evidence to some degree, I'd be keen to see/hear what the evidence was before deciding on whether it has been a witch-hunt or not.

[Bernard Lamb]

Not very good at the multi quoting lark so will try to answer the various points.

It is not his blood that changed after he had cancer. It is his whole body. He changed from the make up of a one day rider to a tour rider and having lost a good deal of weight became a far better climber.

To win the tour you have to get up mountains fast. If you are above a certain weight that becomes very difficult.

Cavendish to quote a local rider I know "Can't get over a bridge". He has improved but still has problems. As became very evident in the Olympics.

The third point by Tim. No.

Interesting to learn today that several top US riders declined to compete in the Olympics.

Another point is that the Police have been far more effective in catching drug cheats than the doping agencies and the controlling bodies.

Make of that what you will.

Bernard

[kandc_au]

Firstly I am not generally a cycling fan as such.

As for LA I couldn't care less one way or the other BUT, it would appear he has decided he doesn't have the go to keep fighting the claims.

This to make does NOT make him guilty.

There is no guarantee that he wishes to keep spending money defending himself.

News here on Oz is that he has been stripped opf his TdF titles.....it has also be said that the other issue ois what to do with the presentation of thew titles given that all except one, who would be entitled to take the glory has also been shown drug cheats.

Say's a lot about the sport....if that is what you want to call it, BUT does NOT make LA guilty either.

He needs to be proven guilty first, with or without him.

 

Khris

[Xerces Fobe2]

If I was innocent I would fight all the way to prove it - maybe he is to dopey to pursue his case!

 

XF

[beast66606]

News here on Oz is that he has been stripped opf his TdF titles.....it has also be said that the other issue ois what to do with the presentation of thew titles given that all except one, who would be entitled to take the glory has also been shown drug cheats.

 

News here is (the BBC, their quotes) - note this has not been ratified by the UCI (International Cycling Union)

 

 

 

Lance Armstrong 'stripped' of Tour de France titles and banned

 

Lance Armstrong has been stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and given a lifetime ban by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).

[beast66606]

If I was innocent I would fight all the way to prove it - maybe he is to dopey to pursue his case!

 

XF

 

That's very easy to say when you haven't battled against an organisation such as the USADA and had no evidence presented (yet) after several years, you must be a man of considerable wealth. (Not that it makes him innocent, but eventually when you bang your head against a wall often enough, you realise the wall is simply not going to move, so you stop banging)

[kandc_au]

That's very easy to say when you haven't battled against an organisation such as the USADA and had no evidence presented (yet) after several years, you must be a man of considerable wealth. (Not that it makes him innocent, but eventually when you bang your head against a wall often enough, you realise the wall is simply not going to move, so you stop banging)

 

Beast, I agree, and think it is now up to the USDA to prove without doubt given they have gone public with this.

 

K

[BoD]

USDA have said they will release the evidence, once other outstanding cases have been concluded.

[beast66606]

USDA have said they will release the evidence, once other outstanding cases have been concluded.

 

Which could be translated as once we have covered every base (up) - there is no reason why the evidence couldn't be presented to the relevant bodies (not the public at this stage) to add weight to/prove their claims, the fact that they keep on delaying things stinks to me, and I can understand why LA has decided to give up and await his fate.

 

Anyway, time will tell.

[Bob Reid]

Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis both proven by blood samples to be drug cheats, one of whom was caught and banned more than once are apparently the only ones so far that the USADA admit are part of the "evidence" Would any of us be happy to be judged on testimony when they themselves have been proven to have lied in the past? It was hardly going to be a fair hearing, especially when the contents of their testimony is not revealed to your defence. More like a Kangaroo court I'd say.

[Bob Reid]

Beast, I agree, and think it is now up to the USDA to prove without doubt given they have gone public with this.

 

K

 

Without Lance's testimony to balance what's alleged, they'll only ever be accusations - no matter how compelling it might seem and in the absence of any physical evidence.