he may be guilty and if he is won't say a word probably because it would be a risk of showing the whole doping scene, how it works an who owns it.
he may be guilty and if he is won't say a word probably because it would be a risk of showing the whole doping scene, how it works an who owns it.
Seriously? If the USADA really DID have this iron-clad evidence - why will they NOT provide it to either Armstrong, or the UCI?
There was a criminal investigation - check facts before posting - it was determined that there was insufficient evidence for it to proceed. You'd think with this great 'proof' that USADA had, it would have gone ahead.
I'm neither blind, nor am I being played. I'm one of the many interested parties who have watched how the USADA has operated in the past 9 years. If they were an actual court - you Americans would be screaming corruption - because that's how they operate. Willingly 'overlooking' positive tests in order to gain 'testimony' against a 'bigger' target. It's all out there if you care to investigate!
Cheers to the UCI for not bowing and kowtowing to the USADA
And obviously you can't be wrong, or not have all the facts, or even have a slightly biased opinion.
Here's what I (apparently misguidedly) see... An agency head taking every opportunity to get his name and quotes in the press (his reply today was minutes after Armstrong declaring him 100% guilty), and over-stepping his bounds to the point of offending other world agency's. An agency that is (from what I have read) is using one sample (there always is an A & B sample per test) from more then 8 years ago (8 years is their *own* guideline on testing) to make claims against a case that is more then 17 years old (from when it started, again there is supposed to be an 8 year max. similar to legal cases due to testing and peoples memories). Add to the fact their witnesses are the likes of John Landis (a confirmed and pissed off cheater) and/or other riders who are still racing even tho' may or may not have had tested for drugs also.
One cannot deny it can be read many ways, myself even I'm not 100% sure he did not use, but they USADA is no saint and IMO they do not have any concrete proof in this. IMO They are just jockeying for position atop the world of testing and are willing to throw anyone under the buss to get there.
Lance just got all his titles and awards taken away from him today.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012...tour-de-france
Pathetic how a thing like this happens. At least Lance can go on living his life without this witch hunt hounding his every move making his life miserable.
The cycling sport is the biggest doping joke in sports history, worse than DDR, every single year there are tons of positive tests in the top of the sport.
Noone can seriously defend anything about the pro circuit of that "sport".
But soon after Mr Xi secured a third term, Apple released a new version of the feature in China, limiting its scope. Now Chinese users of iPhones and other Apple devices are restricted to a 10-minute window when receiving files from people who are not listed as a contact. After 10 minutes, users can only receive files from contacts.
Apple did not explain why the update was first introduced in China, but over the years, the tech giant has been criticised for appeasing Beijing.
As far as the weight thing, 8 months after chemo, if he was exercising differently than he was prior to the treatments, and most likely eating much healthier, it is more likely that the weight was muscle instead of fat as it was prior to the treatments. More muscle helps with cycling.
Let alone, how could he challenge the evidence against him when he was not allowed to see the evidence and neither were his lawyers?
Last edited by Flatspriest; 2012-08-24 at 10:14 PM.
when all else fails, read the STICKIES.
Of course they continue to push, cause someone(maybe more than one) on the governing body has a cob up their ass over Armstrong's success, either that, or they prefer to belive the backstabbers and troublemakers over their own certified clean tests.
---------- Post added 2012-08-24 at 05:18 PM ----------
You say you dont understand... let me put it in simple terms so that you can understand (no I'm not trying to be snarky)... Assume for a moment, your significant other (in this case the governing body). Started punching you in the face, repeatedly, then stopped, then started again... and it became a pattern... for years... at what point do you just say 'Fuck it' and walk away?
--- Want any of my Constitutional rights?, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
I come from a time and a place where I judge people by the content of their character; I don't give a damn if you are tall or short; gay or straight; Jew or Gentile; White, Black, Brown or Green; Conservative or Liberal. -- Note to mods: if you are going to infract me have the decency to post the reason, and expect to hold everyone else to the same standard.
Last edited by Seranthor; 2012-08-24 at 10:35 PM.
--- Want any of my Constitutional rights?, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
I come from a time and a place where I judge people by the content of their character; I don't give a damn if you are tall or short; gay or straight; Jew or Gentile; White, Black, Brown or Green; Conservative or Liberal. -- Note to mods: if you are going to infract me have the decency to post the reason, and expect to hold everyone else to the same standard.
Last edited by Bakis; 2012-08-24 at 10:23 PM.
But soon after Mr Xi secured a third term, Apple released a new version of the feature in China, limiting its scope. Now Chinese users of iPhones and other Apple devices are restricted to a 10-minute window when receiving files from people who are not listed as a contact. After 10 minutes, users can only receive files from contacts.
Apple did not explain why the update was first introduced in China, but over the years, the tech giant has been criticised for appeasing Beijing.
The titles might not mean much to you but having to pay back 500.000 $ orso per tour de France he won might (especialy as this money is usually distributed among the team with the actual winner not taking a share or only taking a 10% cut like the rest) and that's just for wearing the yellow jersey in Paris, any stage wins etc.. are not included.
No, if he cheated then he didn't win, and whether or not other people cheated is irrelevant.
This case is a bit odd though - it appears that they know he did it, but can't prove it through their tests. They should have given it to the Met, when they get criminals who they know committed a crime but can't prove it, they just fit them up for some other crime.