Lance Armstrong not defending in court

[Deleted]

The tribunal system is the same system used for every other athlete. It may not be perfect, however it is better than the non-stop speculation.

The trial would have been covered endlessly by both the mainstream and sports media. We'd have detailed, blow-by-blow accounts of who said what, and we'd ultimately have an impartial figure decide who he believed most, Lance or the USADA. Unfortunately the public haven't had that, so we're left in this state. There's just as much speculation as before, only people are now arguing why he did or didn't fight the charges.

And again, I believe it is more than just Hincapie's word, or 10 riders' words, or 500. The USADA wouldn't have pressed this unless they had concrete, because of the argument you put forward. They would have known just as well as you or I that if they sat Floyd Landis down and had him bitch nobody would have taken it seriously. If that is all there is to their case then I'll admit that I'm wrong, but I doubt the USADA are that fucking stupid to only have that as evidence. However, even if they are disgraced riders, they do not become completely untrustworthy. Perhaps alone yes, however when we get to 10, 15, 20 people saying "he's a cheat" I think we have to take it seriously.

EDIT:

There are now reports that the USADA have positive samples. If that's true then it'd support my theory that the USADA have more evidence than just testimony.

[Rennadrel]

People just point fingers to the famous and better athletes. Jealousy and such.
However, he refuses to do the mandatory tests to show wether he has taken any kinds of drugs or not. It may just be because hes tired of all the bullshit, but its very suspicious aswell. Everyone has to take them, just because hes famous doesn't mean he should get special treatment.
If he just took the tests and proves he is innocent, there wouldn't be this much drama around it.



Its true that a person is innocent until proven guilty. But evidence and witness are still pointing to his guilt.
Taking the tests will guarantee his innocence but he refuses, wich is, again, very suspicious and most likely is because it will just prove his guilt.
Refusing to take the tests that EVERY athlete has to take when they're subject to drug use doesn't make it any better for him.

I honestly couldn't care less about Lance Armstrong, but ultimately with the move he makes now his career is down the drain aswell as all his trophies and victories.
If he takes the test and proves his innocence he has many more options, wich include ending his career with all the spoils. Now hes just screwing himself over.

You can't refuse mandatory testing as part of being a professional athlete, especially in cycling. The reason people got caught is because they tested positive for steroid use during the Tour de France or any other event. He had to go through the same testing while he was competing.

Taking a drug test however many years after you have retired doesn't do shit fuck all for what happened during any of the events. The Tour de France is once a year, and Armstrong won his last race 7 bloody years ago, and he competed last in 2009 and still came in 3rd place. So you tell me whether it's prudent to test someone for steroids when they have been retired for almost 2 years now and haven't competed in 3.

[Deleted]

So USADA have released their evidence dossier today, over 1000 pages including "direct documentary evidence including financial payments, emails, scientific data and laboratory test results that further prove the use, possession and distribution of performance enhancing drugs by Lance Armstrong".

The UCI have three weeks to appeal the USADA's ruling, otherwise Lance Armstrong will be formally stripped of his seven Tour de France titles.

Clearly more will come out when journalists have picked the bones of this report, and it will be published on the USADA's website for the public to read. Personally I find the sheer size of the report pretty damning, I haven't personally read it but I do trust the BBC's Matt Slater and he seems to think it is pretty convincing.

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

[Bolson13]

It's cycling, nobody gives a crap if the UCI takes his victories away because everybody else will still call him the winner. There were tours he won where numbers 2 to 13 have since then been caught for using doping. The whole sport is full of doping and always has been (Merckx admitted for instance and did't get his 5 stripped).

And the guy raised half a billion for cancer research should at least get the chance not to be embarrased like this. A little respect for that at least. Its not like some huge secret was just reveiled.

[Deleted]

"He raised money for charity so it's not that bad" is the worst argument ever. "Everybody was doing it so it's ok" is the second worst.

Lance Armstrong could raise billions for cancer, hell, Lance Armstrong could cure cancer and it still wouldn't be ok. That's the attitude that allowed Jimmy Savile to do what he did for years. Just because you raise money for charity doesn't mean you get to be a dickhead when you see fit, and it doesn't mean you get to be above the law/rules.

And yes, a phenomenal number of people were doping during that period. Why? Because guys like Armstrong perpetuated the doping culture. "Hey, they're doing it, we better do it too" is contributing to the problem, and quite frankly it disgusts me.


Oh, and Lance Armstrong's lawyer has called upon the 26 witnesses so to take lie detector tests. So much for "we're not going to defend ourselves against these allegations anymore", eh? I also liked the part where they called it a "one sided hatchet job". Well yeah, you had your opportunity to put across your side and you declined to do it.

[koodledrum]

If he had went to court it would basically have wound up a major slanging match between the witnesses (a number of whom are, shock horror dopers) versus Armstrong, I haven't read the report (neither the time nor inclination to read 1000 pages) but lets be honest, it would have wound up being like the Roger Clemens/Barry Bonds trials all over again. You also can't compare Armstrong to Saville, Saville was a vile child abusing scumbag who blackmailed people into keeping it covered up, Armstrong has on the other hand done nothing but good work for the charity he founded - even if he has doped it doesn't affect the fact the man has raised billions of dollars for a charity which saves lives.

Perhaps it's just me, but ultimately if he was so complicit in all of this he's essentially the biggest evil genius in all of sports - that's certainly how it looks atleast to me as he covered his tracks pretty damned well over his entire career apparently, there's significant doubt of which I'm not arguing, but really taking the word of people who have admitted doping - that doesn't sit well with me. Cycling has been crook since the dawning of time, we all know it, continues to be dodgier than dodgy so to essentially say that Armstrong fuelled something on that scale is somewhat an overstatement - the temptation was there & well, they all took it, nothing stopped them saying "y'know what, hell no, if it costs me my job so be it but I'll be damned if I'm going there". "under pressure to do it" is essentially saying they did not have the balls to do the right thing.

[Lilly32]

He is a cancer survivor and has started an organization which has raised half a billion dollars...thats $500,000,000 to help fight cancer. Who the hell cares if he used steroids in a sport no one gives a shit about. Seriously its cycling....the world series of poker gets more air time.

[Thallidomaniac]

He is a cancer survivor and has started an organization which has raised half a billion dollars...thats $500,000,000 to help fight cancer. Who the hell cares if he used steroids in a sport no one gives a shit about. Seriously its cycling....the world series of poker gets more air time.

Raising money for charity doesn't mean shit if illegitimacy is abound from such, i.e. Bernard Madoff.

[Bolson13]

"He raised money for charity so it's not that bad" is the worst argument ever. "Everybody was doing it so it's ok" is the second worst.

Lance Armstrong could raise billions for cancer, hell, Lance Armstrong could cure cancer and it still wouldn't be ok. That's the attitude that allowed Jimmy Savile to do what he did for years. Just because you raise money for charity doesn't mean you get to be a dickhead when you see fit, and it doesn't mean you get to be above the law/rules.

And yes, a phenomenal number of people were doping during that period. Why? Because guys like Armstrong perpetuated the doping culture. "Hey, they're doing it, we better do it too" is contributing to the problem, and quite frankly it disgusts me.


Oh, and Lance Armstrong's lawyer has called upon the 26 witnesses so to take lie detector tests. So much for "we're not going to defend ourselves against these allegations anymore", eh? I also liked the part where they called it a "one sided hatchet job". Well yeah, you had your opportunity to put across your side and you declined to do it.

Everybody was doing it, even the greatest champions. Yet this guy gets owned for it and his image completely destroyed. An image that he didn't just use for his own gain but what he put to work to raise half a billion dollars for cancer research.

You keep this within chambers in stead of right before the tour to maximise public awareness etc. USADA are just a bunch of anti doping dickheads that try to ruin a charity that is actually helping people. If you don't see that you are just another sensationalist like they are.

Nobody in the world thought he was innocent, you think that in the ultimate min/maxing endurance sport in the world, some special human can just stand up and run away with it? And if they have evidence, that is fine, they should take it to court. But what happened?

- the PR machine gets started right in the tour
- rumours start flying within the tour about who said what (rumours that are true for some part even).
- people discuss it for 2-3 months because some news keeps dripping in. Perfect to let the hype grow.
- The rapport appears, which is in all honesty doesn't even bring clear facts, mostly testimony from former teammates that got to finish the tour if they cooperated.
- The press eats up the rapport which is full of BS like EPO Jimmy Hendrix remixes and Lance as some doped up king that lies to the press outside of the bus and as soon as he gets on it, laughs in their faces.


Does this sound in any way fair to you. These are not personal attacks to Lance, these are attacks to the image of Lance. An image that has been used to raise half a billion. If it would have been the image of a moron like Christiano Ronaldo or something, that image has been ruined years ago so who cares. But they have delibaretly destroyed a half a billion dollar asset. An asset that betters the world, hopefully helping get rid of a disease that effects pretty much all of us direct or indirectly over the course of our lives.

Yes Lance is guilty, but the penalty they gave him before he was even properly heard is more then they can give him now. And we all are worse for it. Funny how the bank presidents that screwed the gobal economy did get that priviledge.

---------- Post added 2012-10-18 at 10:04 AM ----------

Raising money for charity doesn't mean shit if illegitimacy is abound from such, i.e. Bernard Madoff.

Madoff's crime was taking money from people and screwing them with it. Lance didn't steal money, he set up a global charity to fight a disease. A little more respect for that is in order.

[Deleted]

Nobody in the world thought he was innocent, you think that in the ultimate min/maxing endurance sport in the world, some special human can just stand up and run away with it? And if they have evidence, that is fine, they should take it to court. But what happened?

But that is the whole point. THEY DID TRY TO TAKE HIM TO A TRIBUNAL WHERE HE COULD HAVE DEFENDED HIMSELF. HE DECLINED. I also suggest you read the report.

The rest of your point seems to be "by exposing him they ruin the chance of his foundation raising money". But you also say "everybody already knew he was cheating". If everybody already knew he cheated and still donated why would they stop donating now the evidence has emerged?

Lance Armstrong was incredibly influential in perpetuating doping within the sport of cycling. His cheating needed to be exposed - with evidence - and happily it has been. The fight against cancer will receive just as much attention and funding as it ever has.

[CarlingBlackLabel]

And now the UCI have officially stripped him of all 7 of the Tour De France wins.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20008520

A shame. I held out a small hope that he was innocent and would be able to keep the wins.

[Deleted]

This must have been the most useless trial they've ever done.

The USADA and UCI got bribbed themselves for hiding results, they are all as guilty as armstrong is. For 10 years neither of them did their job as they were supposed to and they didn't even care about it. So I find it quite funny how they sudden become so hypocritical : Yeah we cleared the sports. Too bad you guys were directly at fault for this mess. I wonder when these financial transactions between UCI/ASADA and sponsors of Amstrong will come out, because it's a pretty vast amount.

All in all, every cyclist since the sport became professional has been taking some kind of doping, and that will NEVER change.

Partially caused by the fact that human bodies are not strong enough to cycle 5 days in a row with short amounts of rest and long tracks.

---------- Post added 2012-10-22 at 12:44 PM ----------

"He raised money for charity so it's not that bad" is the worst argument ever. "Everybody was doing it so it's ok" is the second worst.

Lance Armstrong could raise billions for cancer, hell, Lance Armstrong could cure cancer and it still wouldn't be ok. That's the attitude that allowed Jimmy Savile to do what he did for years. Just because you raise money for charity doesn't mean you get to be a dickhead when you see fit, and it doesn't mean you get to be above the law/rules.

And yes, a phenomenal number of people were doping during that period. Why? Because guys like Armstrong perpetuated the doping culture. "Hey, they're doing it, we better do it too" is contributing to the problem, and quite frankly it disgusts me.


Oh, and Lance Armstrong's lawyer has called upon the 26 witnesses so to take lie detector tests. So much for "we're not going to defend ourselves against these allegations anymore", eh? I also liked the part where they called it a "one sided hatchet job". Well yeah, you had your opportunity to put across your side and you declined to do it.

If you know anything. Doping was well active before Armstrong was even born and it was even bigger back then since it wasn't even checked upon. This is a statement by 99% of all the cyclists predating Armstrong. So no, he did not cause it, he just took it to a new level, big difference.

He might not have been a clean cyclist, but his cancer funding helped tons of people, and that's sadly not what he'll be remembered for.

That also shows how narrow minded and bad the inhabitants on this planet are.

[Wildtree]

If you know anything. Doping was well active before Armstrong was even born and it was even bigger back then since it wasn't even checked upon. This is a statement by 99% of all the cyclists predating Armstrong. So no, he did not cause it, he just took it to a new level, big difference.

He might not have been a clean cyclist, but his cancer funding helped tons of people, and that's sadly not what he'll be remembered for.

That also shows how narrow minded and bad the inhabitants on this planet are.

Two wrong, don't make a right. I think you know that.
And for doping being around the block a lot longer. Yes we all know that. And..... the older generations of us do also know VERY WELL how doping has been a big part of the cold war times. Back then, it was slammed against the countries from the east block.
How the hell can the UdSSR be so good at the Olympics. How the hell can China be so good.. How does East Germany get such athletes?
Three prominent examples.
The accusations were probably true.. In many cases there was a case.
And if I look at the results at the Olympics, I see that there's a change to the better.
The UdSSR doesn't do that well anymore.. No, I am not stupid now.. I just count the countries achievements together that were once part of the UdSSR.
China is up top, sure enough...... 1.4 billion people bring out a LOT of good athletes, naturally....
Europeans all do good, but not exciting.
There's one left...... One that keeps going ahead of them all.... Beating even a country that has almost 4 times as much population to draw from.
Which makes no sense whatsoever.

One might want to have a much closer look at the USA.
No one can tell me, their sports achievements are kosher. And times and again it comes to daylight that shit's going on..
With now the very latest example.....
The oh so great model athlete, that humiliated the cycling world. The role model for so many who are ill, not just from cancer.
An idol of the youth..
Nothing left but a damn cheater and liar.
Had he shown but a tad of honesty. Had he humbled himself down to regret. Probably the backlash would have been a lot less dramatic for him.
Instead he enjoyed to rise from being a cyclist, to become a superstar, a celebrity. The latter he finalized when he got involved with Sheryll Crowe.
No, don't someone try to defend him. He himself gave up doing so. His stepping down ad chairman of the very company he founded is more than enough said.
He cannot be defended. The evidence and witness account grew into absolute overwhelming conditions.
Take him for what he was... Quite a sympathetic guy, who was great in what he did, from cycling to be a celebrity, to fooling everyone for so long.

At the end of the day, I am glad that Armstrong never really got to me...
My cyclist idols to date are still Eddie Merkx and Bernard Hinault.
They are from my time period, and they had something to offer... it wasn't about money back then.
One could live from cycling, but not get rich.

[Deleted]

If you know anything. Doping was well active before Armstrong was even born and it was even bigger back then since it wasn't even checked upon. This is a statement by 99% of all the cyclists predating Armstrong. So no, he did not cause it, he just took it to a new level, big difference.

And if you read the post you quoted you'll find I didn't say he caused it. I said he perpetuated the doping culture and contributed to the problem. I find reading the things you're indignant about helps wonders. Also, taking it to a new level isn't a good thing. "Oh well, he didn't start it, but he just ran it as a professional operation."

Today is a good day not just for cycling, but for sport as a whole. By showing the world that cheats will be found out no matter how great their accomplishments you provide the deterrent to others. By removing their wins, their earnings, you remove the incentive to cheat in the future. I'm annoyed that it wasn't done at the time, but I am pleased that the authorities have made the effort to correct one of the worst abuses in the history of sport.

[Bolson13]

Merckx was caught 3 times during his career and Hinault's doctor turned out to be a doping doctor as well. Zoetemelk was also caught and he was 2nd every time Hinault won.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ses_in_cycling
Look at what it says at the line for 1930. It was in the rule book. Doping has always been a part of the sport.


Also, the US wins a lot of gold but if you compare it to Europe, they actually do not win that many. Europe can have more intries per event but also get much more golds. I don't think there is some huge olympic doping program for the US. That's a bridge too far.

[Wildtree]

Merckx was caught 3 times during his career and Hinault's doctor turned out to be a doping doctor as well. Zoetemelk was also caught and he was 2nd every time Hinault won.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ses_in_cycling
Look at what it says at the line for 1930. It was in the rule book. Doping has always been a part of the sport.


Also, the US wins a lot of gold but if you compare it to Europe, they actually do not win that many. Europe can have more intries per event but also get much more golds. I don't think there is some huge olympic doping program for the US. That's a bridge too far .

Europe or the European countries?
The way I evaluate how well a country does is by applying their population count. And there, the USA does "unnaturally" better than anyone else.
The number of athletes sent to the Olympics I don't use as a measure, since that varies by the national qualification standards of the countries.

Hinault was never caught for doping.
Mercks 3 times... Of the three times only one time could have been taken serious.
The first incident was extremely fishy. And there was no counter test to confirm the first test. He challenged that until this day.
The second time he was guilty for drinking Wick cold remedy, which was particularly removed from the ban list. However a substance in it was still on the list..
Makes no sense, and is completely stupid handling. Anyhow, one cannot call that doping.
The substance is now also removed from the list. Today this remedy is not considered doping anymore.
Only the third time was really a wrong doing, and he (unlike Armstrong) humbly confessed and admitted the mistake.

And that's what I said before, where a line can be drawn. Step up, man up, grow a pair, and admit your guilt.
We can likely agree here that the doping regulations in cycling are bullshit. At least most of us may agree.
Not that there are any, because they should be there. What makes it bullshit is, that cycling is handled so much different from all the other sports.
The UCI does not comply with the international standards and handling procedures in place otherwise in the world. Within the UCI the national bodies don't work on the same page either. So that's a mess right there....
If they would do so, if they would apply the common international handling, the problems would not exist just like that.
Did they strip Armstrong from his titles rightfully? of course....
But there's the flaw...... He shouldn't have been able to gather 7 titles at all. He should have been caught and banned a lot earlier.
Now I understand, that the doping detection advanced drastically. And that they can find stuff today that wasn't possible to find some 20 years ago. But we know he was tested positive, and they let go back then, instead of following through.
Had they done so correctly, and possibly stripped him off one or two titles, with a ban of a few years, he would have possibly have had a chance to redeem himself.
If anything he said was true, then he could have come back and show who he really was.

[Masqerader]

he didn't go to court.. cause everything would have come out..

[Revik]

This whole debacle is a total disgrace of UCI and cycling in general. No one is gonna give a damn about cycling any more because everyone's a cheater and if you do have someone who wins consistently and legitimately they will forever be hounded as a cheater true or not.

There's no winners any more only cheaters. The only thing left now is the dissolution of UCI and competitive cycling in general because there is no point to it anymore.

Cheaters shouldn't prosper therefore cycling shouldn't prosper.

[CarlingBlackLabel]

This whole debacle is a total disgrace of UCI and cycling in general. No one is gonna give a damn about cycling any more because everyone's a cheater and if you do have someone who wins consistently and legitimately they will forever be hounded as a cheater true or not.

There's no winners any more only cheaters. The only thing left now is the dissolution of UCI and competitive cycling in general because there is no point to it anymore.

Cheaters shouldn't prosper therefore cycling shouldn't prosper.

I think that's a little extreme perhaps?

The question I'd like answered is if Armstrong and his team ran and I quote, " the most sophisticated, professional and successful doping programme that sport has ever seen", then how on earth did the USADA and UCI allow it happen right under their noses for so long? They need to take a good hard long look at themselves over this.

[Mandible]

He is a cancer survivor and has started an organization which has raised half a billion dollars...thats $500,000,000 to help fight cancer. Who the hell cares if he used steroids in a sport no one gives a shit about. Seriously its cycling....the world series of poker gets more air time.

No offence, but do you have any idea what horrific things have been done in the name of medical science (or science in general) which meant insane advancements... Are you saying we should excuse those things just because of the results?

And yes it is precisely the same principle.

---------- Post added 2012-10-22 at 05:23 PM ----------

I think that's a little extreme perhaps?

The question I'd like answered is if Armstrong and his team ran and I quote, " the most sophisticated, professional and successful doping programme that sport has ever seen", then how on earth did the USADA and UCI allow it happen right under their noses for so long? They need to take a good hard long look at themselves over this.

Because they could not prove it at the time due to the current technology.