Pretty overwhelming evidence Lance doped.

[EagleKeeper]

Affidavits are evidence.

As for all those negative test results, plenty of guys who never failed a test (such as Hincapie) have admitted doping. Apparently, those tests aren't hard to beat.

I wonder if Indurain was clean?

Affidavits are statements of opinion and/or observation

They are not physical test results.

 

[Phokus]

All though everyone feels that he doped and stated he doped; there is no evidence itself that he did dope.

Because the system is out to get him on hearsay, he is unable to establish his innocence.
the system can not show a single test that points to it even after all these years of newer technology.

Similar to an oral class test where the teacher did makes up the test on the fly to evaluate the students. The students can not leave the class and have to sit a different desks than normal. In a previous test, students tried to crib on their arms; this one all hands/arms were checked.

Highest grade is a C except for one A. Did the person with the A cheat. The suspicion is there; but unable to be proven. Or did the student who got the A put in extra effort to ensure that they were the best?

Affidavits are statements of opinion and/or observation

They are not physical test results.

Eaglekeeper, are you EVER right on ANYTHING?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/s...r-de-france-triumph-takes-a-dark-turn.html?hp

While Armstrong has long protested his innocence, retroactive testing found EPO in six of Armstrong’s urine samples from the 1999 race, according to the report.In addition, the report said, five fellow riders on Armstrong’s 1999 United States Postal Service team — George Hincapie, Frankie Andreu, Tyler Hamilton, Jonathan Vaughters and Christian Vande Velde — provided affidavits testifying to firsthand knowledge that Armstrong violated antidoping rules, the report said.

 

[Mursilis]

Affidavits are statements of opinion and/or observation

They are not physical test results.

I never said affidavits were test results. They are, however, evidence.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

All though everyone feels that he doped and stated he doped; there is no evidence itself that he did dope.

Because the system is out to get him on hearsay, he is unable to establish his innocence.
the system can not show a single test that points to it even after all these years of newer technology.

Similar to an oral class test where the teacher did makes up the test on the fly to evaluate the students. The students can not leave the class and have to sit a different desks than normal. In a previous test, students tried to crib on their arms; this one all hands/arms were checked.

Highest grade is a C except for one A. Did the person with the A cheat. The suspicion is there; but unable to be proven. Or did the student who got the A put in extra effort to ensure that they were the best?

There is overwhelming evidence that Lance doped, as discussed in detail in the USADA report. The evidence includes both direct evidence (the testimony of many of his former teammates and associates) and circumstantial evidence, including positive test results and Lance's having paid more than $1M to Michele Ferrari, the most notorious doping doctor in cycling history.

I find it very difficult to understand how anyone could continue to cling to the notion of Lance's innocence. I can certainly understand the sentiment that it was wrong and/or a waste of resources to continue to pursue him after all these years, but since it appears he was essentially the ringleader for one of the most prolific and sophisticated doping schemes in the history of sports, I can't say that it deeply offends me personally.

 

[momeNt]

As long as they revoke the titles and don't give it to anybody else I'm okay with this. Everybody was doping, so if the revocation is really an admission by the governing body saying "Our sport was invalid all these years" as opposed to "Lance's accomplishments were invalid" I'm okay with that.

 

[Hacp]

Unless there is a positive, or the Antidoping agency decides to put this in front of a court of law, where the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, this doesn't hold water.

 

[Hacp]

There is overwhelming evidence that Lance doped, as discussed in detail in the USADA report. The evidence includes both direct evidence (the testimony of many of his former teammates and associates) and circumstantial evidence, including positive test results and Lance's having paid more than $1M to Michele Ferrari, the most notorious doping doctor in cycling history.

I find it very difficult to understand how anyone could continue to cling to the notion of Lance's innocence. I can certainly understand the sentiment that it was wrong and/or a waste of resources to continue to pursue him after all these years, but since it appears he was essentially the ringleader for one of the most prolific and sophisticated doping schemes in the history of sports, I can't say that it deeply offends me personally.

If there is overwhelming evidence, then they should try Lance under the court of law. Allow him a fair trial.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Unless there is a positive, or the Antidoping agency decides to put this in front of a court of law, where the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, this doesn't hold water.

They did - he had the opportunity to challenge this in arbitration, where the USADA would have borne the burden of proof. He elected not to challenge their case, because he knew he would likely lose.

 

[Hacp]

They did - he had the opportunity to challenge this in arbitration, where the USADA would have borne the burden of proof. He elected not to challenge their case, because he knew he would likely lose.

Arbitration is not court of law judged by a jury of his peers.

 

[lotus503]

Arbitration is not court of law judged by a jury of his peers.

Had the justice department decided to proceed he would have had his jury.

This is not a criminal issue this is not a civil suit, he gets no day in court so to speak.

He had a chance to challenge it and chose not to, hoping I'm sure to believed despite the mountain of evidence. 200 pages of it in fact.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Arbitration is not court of law judged by a jury of his peers.

Procedurally, an arbitration is what he was entitled to. This was the forum he agreed to as a condition of participating in a WADA-regulated sport. Personally I don't believe any reasonable fact finder could have failed to conclude that Lance doped, and that any benefit he might have enjoyed through a trial by jury would have been due to the improper influence of emotion and bias.

 

[Doppel]

I heard Malcolm Gladwell talking about Lance on the Bill Simmons podcast the other day. He made the point that cycling (certainly in Lance's era and probably today too) is much like Formula 1 - a sport that emphasizes both the skill, fitness and competitive instincts of the athlete, and the technological acumen of the team. Arguably the sport would be better off simply accepting that and making it part of the competition (albeit at the risk that it would make it effectively impossible for non-dopers to be successful).

It has been readily apparent to any real bike racing enthusiast for many years that Lance must have been doping. There was virtually nobody at the top level of professional cycling in that era who was not, and we are obviously talking about a man with one testicle, and who had suffered ravaging, systemic cancer. I still think Lance was the hardest-working, fittest man in cycling - it's just that he was also the most sophisticated and accomplished doper. Taking away his wins will mean that riders who literally placed 7th-10th will end up "winning" some of his Tours de France, because all the other competitive riders have been shown to have doped. To me that doesn't make much sense.

Great post.

I do think Doping can be quashed though and should be. Come down even harder on those who do it.

But yeah he obviously was doing it. No way he cleanly beats the world's best who were on drugs. He was very very good at hiding it.

Some will always defend him until there is a positive clinical test and I won't be 100% sure unless that happens or he admits it it I would say I am at least 95% confident he was doping.

 

[momeNt]

He did so much for cancer awareness though and he should be thanked.

Before livestrong, I would say nearly half of my friends didn't know what cancer was, the other half thought it was a zodiac sign. After he started livestrong and promoted cancer awareness, a lot of people finally learned about cancer. And for that Lance, we thank you.

 

[Doppel]

He did so much for cancer awareness though and he should be thanked.

Before livestrong, I would say nearly half of my friends didn't know what cancer was, the other half thought it was a zodiac sign. After he started livestrong and promoted cancer awareness, a lot of people finally learned about cancer. And for that Lance, we thank you.

Yes, he's had a net positive impact and the truth is that even if he was drinking roid smoothies twice/day the fact of the matter is everybody else was and he still won 7 tours, and he was cheating but so was everybody so in that sense it's a wash.

 

[bononos]

Armstrong's history of testing 'clean' counts for very little if you are aware of the tricks in sports doping. His teammates and others in the cycling world have come clean will tell-alls and books that explain this.

He did so much for cancer awareness though and he should be thanked.

Before livestrong, I would say nearly half of my friends didn't know what cancer was, the other half thought it was a zodiac sign. After he started livestrong and promoted cancer awareness, a lot of people finally learned about cancer. And for that Lance, we thank you.

Lance Armstrong's foundation is not exactly squeeky clean and there are problems with it like large exorbitant salaries, donations being mishandled, monies being spent on lawsuits etc.

 

[Wreckem]

Unless there is a positive, or the Antidoping agency decides to put this in front of a court of law, where the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, this doesn't hold water.

Again you, like many others on this board, have no idea what you are talking about.

This is pure admin law. Its not a civil case. Its not a criminal case. Its an administrative case, and admin law is a very different beast.

It holds water because Armstrong declined to have his formal hearing. He declined it. It was his choice. Since he declined it and didn't rebutt anything, it stands.

As for other posts about hearsay, testimony by ex team mates isnt evidence, etc.

1. Its not hearsay, testimony of EYE WITNESS accounts by the person who witnessed it is not hearsay.

2. Not only is it not hearsay, eye witness testimony IS DIRECT evidence. Stuff like DNA, blood testing is circumstantial evidence.

3. When you have ~12 people who all testify to the same things, all stating exactly the same things, that is credible DIRECT EVIDENCE.

 

[momeNt]

Armstrong's history of testing 'clean' counts for very little if you are aware of the tricks in sports doping. His teammates and others in the cycling world have come clean will tell-alls and books that explain this.



Lance Armstrong's foundation is not exactly squeeky clean and there are problems with it like large exorbitant salaries, donations being mishandled, monies being spent on lawsuits etc.

Oh I know, I was being facetious. Lance has managed to create a self-serving empire on the plight of cancer stricken people and families. It's a shame that so many better charities have had money taken from them because of Lance's "story" and the livestrong brand.

 

[Phokus]

He did so much for cancer awareness though and he should be thanked.

Before livestrong, I would say nearly half of my friends didn't know what cancer was, the other half thought it was a zodiac sign. After he started livestrong and promoted cancer awareness, a lot of people finally learned about cancer. And for that Lance, we thank you.

So... you have the most retarded friends ever?

 

[disappoint]

“the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen.”

Bullcrap it was sophisticated. The drug testers would knock on his door and he pretended he wasn't there and didn't answer the door. According to the rules, as long as he was in the city it was not ruled against him. Another time he had doped and his teammates texted him that the testers were making their rounds and he dropped out of that race.

Ermergerd email, that new fangled sophisticated communication medium, back in my day we had a string and two tin cans!

 

[Hacp]

Again you, like many others on this board, have no idea what you are talking about.

This is pure admin law. Its not a civil case. Its not a criminal case. Its an administrative case, and admin law is a very different beast.

Well first of all, there is dispute about the jurisdiction of the USDA in terms of taking away Armstrong's titles. The ICU makes decisions on this matter, and without a failed drug test (unlike floyd landis who failed his), there is very little they are willing to do.

So according to the USDA, Armstrong cheated, but nothing has officially occurred in terms of taking away his titles. The USDA released these documents in order to wage a publicity war. They want the popular opinion to be that Armstrong is guilty, because that will help their case in dealing with the ICU.

It holds water because Armstrong declined to have his formal hearing. He declined it. It was his choice. Since he declined it and didn't rebutt anything, it stands.

Again, you have a very narrow view on this matter. The ruling stands, but does it mean anything? Well, no. Its just some government agency who decided to claim Armstrong cheated. Armstrong can't participate in any cycling events, yes, but he was out of the sport for a bit and I don't think he is coming back.

So again, this is just a publicity stunt by the USDA. They want, through propaganda, to convince people that Armstrong cheated. However, I won't believe anything the USDA has to say because they refused to offer Armstrong a trial by jury when he specifically requested one. They themselves do not believe their evidence will hold muster in a fair trail, judged by Armstrong's peers, why should I believe their evidence?

 

[Phokus]

Well first of all, there is dispute about the jurisdiction of the USDA in terms of taking away Armstrong's titles. The ICU makes decisions on this matter, and without a failed drug test (unlike floyd landis who failed his), there is very little they are willing to do.

So according to the USDA, Armstrong cheated, but nothing has officially occurred in terms of taking away his titles. The USDA released these documents in order to wage a publicity war. They want the popular opinion to be that Armstrong is guilty, because that will help their case in dealing with the ICU.

Personally, I won't believe anything the USDA has to say because they refused to offer Armstrong a trial by jury when he specifically requested one. They themselves do not believe their evidence will hold muster in a fair trail, judged by Armstrong's peers.

You're dumb (but then again, you're a conservative, no surprises here):

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/s...r-de-france-triumph-takes-a-dark-turn.html?hp

While Armstrong has long protested his innocence, retroactive testing found EPO in six of Armstrong’s urine samples from the 1999 race, according to the report. In addition, the report said, five fellow riders on Armstrong’s 1999 United States Postal Service team — George Hincapie, Frankie Andreu, Tyler Hamilton, Jonathan Vaughters and Christian Vande Velde — provided affidavits testifying to firsthand knowledge that Armstrong violated antidoping rules, the report said.

And 11 people testified against him, under penalty of perjury, nobody's going to risk going to jail to lie about Armstrong doping, especially not 11 people.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Well first of all, there is dispute about the jurisdiction of the USDA in terms of taking away Armstrong's titles. The ICU makes decisions on this matter, and without a failed drug test (unlike floyd landis who failed his), there is very little they are willing to do.

So according to the USDA, Armstrong cheated, but nothing has officially occurred in terms of taking away his titles. The USDA released these documents in order to wage a publicity war. They want the popular opinion to be that Armstrong is guilty, because that will help their case in dealing with the ICU.

Personally, I won't believe anything the USDA has to say because they refused to offer Armstrong a trial by jury when he specifically requested one. They themselves do not believe their evidence will hold muster in a fair trail, judged by Armstrong's peers.

It's the UCI, not the ICU, and USADA, not USDA.

The USADA would be insane to give Lance a jury trial when he has no entitlement to one and when there are not even any established procedures for what that process would entail. I am unaware of any precedent for a USADA jury trial, and if they gave Lance that right, it would entitle everyone else to a jury trial, despite the fact that USADA has a well-established arbitration process and no history of jury trials. It is not even clear to me how any court could conduct such a trial because none has jurisdiction to entertain USADA claims - arbitration is the exclusive venue for USADA disputes.

USADA has made it plain that they released this information because WADA wants to eliminate doping in cycling, period. I consider that a laudable goal, and do not take issue with their releasing such well-sourced evidence. I have no idea what UCI will do, and other things being equal I would just as soon they left Lance's palmares intact, though I doubt they will do so in light of the abundant evidence of his doping.

I was a fan of Lance's during his TdFs, and other things being equal would rather USADA had simply left him alone, but to me there can be no credible argument that he did not dope, and I don't know anyone who knows anything about cycling who would claim that he did not. This is essentially an open and shut case.

 

[Hacp]

You're dumb (but then again, you're a conservative, no surprises here):

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/s...r-de-france-triumph-takes-a-dark-turn.html?hp

And 11 people testified against him, under penalty of perjury, nobody's going to risk going to jail to lie about Armstrong doping, especially not 11 people.

That's great. It doesn't mean anything.

 

[Hacp]

It's the UCI, not the ICU, and USADA, not USDA.

Thank you.

The USADA would be insane to give Lance a jury trial when he has no entitlement to one and when there are not even any established procedures for what that process would entail. I am unaware of any precedent for a USADA jury trial, and if they gave Lance that right, it would entitle everyone else to a jury trial, despite the fact that USADA has a well-established arbitration process and no history of jury trials. It is not even clear to me how any court could conduct such a trial because none has jurisdiction to entertain USADA claims - arbitration is the exclusive venue for USADA disputes.

USADA has made it plain that they released this information because WADA wants to eliminate doping in cycling, period. I consider that a laudable goal, and do not take issue with their releasing such well-sourced evidence.

I agree that they are releasing the information for an ulterior motive.

 

[Phokus]

That's great. It doesn't mean anything.

LMAO

"While Armstrong has long protested his innocence, retroactive testing found EPO in six of Armstrong’s urine samples from the 1999 race, according to the report."

Oh yeah, drug testing that showed lance is a cheat doesn't mean anything.

LMAO LMAO LMAO

You conservatives are so batshit fucking stupid this is incredible.