# Still a believer?



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

After all this, who still really thinks Lance raced clean?



edited out: and is a victim of a witch hunt and/or disgruntled associates?


----------



## brianmcg (Oct 12, 2002)

I never thought he was clean. But I still think it was a witch hunt. 

I mostly hate how every other sport in the world doesn't go throught 1/100 of the scrutiny or testing that cycling does and everyone thinks they are fine. And when some third string kicker gets a three game suspension for failing a test for some unknown substance that is never revealed, it never gets reported.


----------



## CheapTrek (Dec 23, 2011)

brianmcg said:


> I never thought he was clean. But I still think it was a witch hunt.
> 
> I mostly hate how every other sport in the world doesn't go throught 1/100 of the scrutiny or testing that cycling does and everyone thinks they are fine. And when some third string kicker gets a three game suspension for failing a test for some unknown substance that is never revealed, it never gets reported.


I'm mixed on this. I also don't think that he rode clean and to be fair, not playing by the rules is cheating. On the flip side, PEDs have been a part of pro cycling since the beginning of pro cycling. The TdF started testing in the mid 60's and decades of bans, pulling riders from races and rigorous testing regimes does not seem to have had any great net effect. 

Regardless of the outcome of this case, in the end, I think we will be left with the question of whether or not we are willing to accept pro cycling as entertainment or that we should continue to try achieving the result (I think most of us would rather see) of having a clean sport, despite the fact it seems unlikely.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

You need a 3rd selection (probably more really) ... I agree with "brianmcg" in that I never really thought he was clean, but it was a witch hunt to try and nail the "Big Name" to try and make somebody's career.

So my answer is: None of the above


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

Chris-X said:


> So they shouldn't have gone after Armstrong?
> 
> This makes no sense at all.:mad2:


No Chris. Again, it's call nuance. :mad2: As I've said many times before, the views that Armstrong did indeed dope and that USADA's investigation is a "witch hunt" are not mutually exclusive. I'm with Wookie.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

brianmcg said:


> I never thought he was clean. But I still think it was a witch hunt.


Oh, no no no. Those are two opinions that cannot be held at the same time. If you attack USADA's process you _MUST_ be a Lance fanboy.


----------



## Rolando (Jan 13, 2005)

Chris-X said:


> So they shouldn't have gone after Armstrong?
> 
> This makes no sense at all.:mad2:


Why should they go after anyone when the whole peloton was doped. 

Put me into the "never thought he was clean but this in fact was a witch hunt" column.


----------



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

Wookiebiker said:


> You need a 3rd selection (probably more really) ... I agree with "brianmcg" in that I never really thought he was clean, but it was a witch hunt to try and nail the "Big Name" to try and make somebody's career.
> 
> So my answer is: None of the above


That's why I didn't make a third option. Either he raced clean like he says and you believe him or you don't. It's a yes or no question. It eliminates the, "leave him alone because of:"

1. It's all water under the bridge.
2. Look what he's done for cancer awareness
3. Everyone was doing it.
4. Name your excuse.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Chris-X said:


> So they shouldn't have gone after Armstrong?
> 
> This makes no sense at all.:mad2:


When the "Entire" peloton is using, all the witnesses you call have been using, it's been known to go on since the beginning of the sport...and you just go after "One" guy...that's a witch hunt.

If they stripped every win from everybody that testified, took away all their prize money...then went after every other rider that has done so...that I might agree it wasn't a witch hunt.

It's a publicity stunt by USADA/USAC to show how powerful they are...nothing more nothing less. How else can you explain them trying to strip titles away from Armstrong when they have absolutely "NO" jurisdiction over them? Seriously...they said they stripped his 7 TDF titles when they had "ZERO" to do with the race, no control over the race, no governance over the race...None, Nada, Zip.

Nothing but self promotion and making a name for themselves. It was vendetta driven.

As I said...Armstrong used PED's as did every witness, likely every winner of the TDF since it's inception but you don't see them going after them for their wins, titles or money.

If you seriously want to clean up cycling...don't go after the past, go after the future. Make Armstrong your friend and figure out how he got away with it for so long to catch future dopers, not prosecute him for past indiscretions that nobody cares about any longer.

Witch hunt...nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Wookiebiker said:


> When the "Entire" peloton is using, all the witnesses you call have been using, it's been known to go on since the beginning of the sport...and you just go after "One" guy...that's a witch hunt.
> 
> If they stripped every win from everybody that testified, took away all their prize money...then went after every other rider that has done so...that I might agree it wasn't a witch hunt.
> 
> ...


I so agree! Great post.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

Wookiebiker said:


> When the "Entire" peloton is using, all the witnesses you call have been using, it's been known to go on since the beginning of the sport...and you just go after "One" guy...that's a witch hunt.


See items 3 through 5.

(1) Use and/or attempted use of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents.

(2) Possession of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions and related equipment (such as needles, blood bags, storage containers and other transfusion equipment and blood parameters measuring devices), testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents.

*(3) Trafficking of EPO, testosterone, and corticosteroids.

(4) Administration and/or attempted administration to others of EPO, testosterone, and cortisone.

(5) Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other complicity involving one or more anti-doping rule violations and/or attempted anti-doping rule violations.*


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

There are plenty who are still believers. 

I've actually been threatened both physically and legally on Facebook for posting links and discussing the facts of the USADA case. 

Some people really don't take kindly to their preconceived notions being shattered.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

OldChipper said:


> No Chris. Again, it's call nuance. :mad2: As I've said many times before, the views that Armstrong did indeed dope and that USADA's investigation is a "witch hunt" are not mutually exclusive. I'm with Wookie.


How is USADA doing their job a witch hunt? Should they have ignored over a dozen witnesses? Really?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Wookiebiker said:


> When the "Entire" peloton is using, all the witnesses you call have been using, it's been known to go on since the beginning of the sport...and you just go after "One" guy...that's a witch hunt.
> 
> If they stripped every win from everybody that testified, took away all their prize money...then went after every other rider that has done so...that I might agree it wasn't a witch hunt.
> 
> ...


Did every witness pay off the UCI? Did every witness get positive tests ignored?


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Did every witness pay off the UCI? Did every witness get positive tests ignored?


Unknown because they won't release their testimony...but very possible, or part of the LA payments went to cover up the positives of other riders as well since he needed his teammates to be strong for the tour as well.

What we do know is they admitted to doping which is against the rules, they gave the dates and when...so, if that's the case, they should have all wins, finishes, records, etc. wiped off the records and all winnings should be paid back.

If you are going to do it with one...you have to do it with all, otherwise it's just a witch hunt and there is no argument for any other outcome unless it's vendetta driven.

What I see is people hate LA, but like some of the other riders that testified against him...so therefore it validates their testimony against LA and they shouldn't be punished for thier actions. So people are again playing favorites.

It's punish or leave it...pick one. It's kind of like being Pregnant...Either you are or you are not, there is no inbetween.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

I see one person still believes in Santa Claus...


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

gregario said:


> That's why I didn't make a third option. Either he raced clean like he says and you believe him or you don't. It's a yes or no question. It eliminates the, "leave him alone because of:"
> 
> 1. It's all water under the bridge.
> 2. Look what he's done for cancer awareness
> ...


Unfortunately in the world of athleteics, especilly in cycling...it's not as easy as you want to make it out. Did he use drugs to win? Yes. Did others? Yes.

If others used, why are their titles not being stripped? Why are they not being made to pay back winnings? Why are they not being tried for their indescretions?

LA haters like to look at it from he's evil and others are OK...LA fanboys are he's great and all others are evil. The reality it 90% of the people don't fall in either catagory as you would like to place them.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Wookiebiker said:


> Unknown because they won't release their testimony...but very possible, or part of the LA payments went to cover up the positives of other riders as well since he needed his teammates to be strong for the tour as well.
> 
> What we do know is they admitted to doping which is against the rules, they gave the dates and when...so, if that's the case, they should have all wins, finishes, records, etc. wiped off the records and all winnings should be paid back.
> 
> ...


USADA offered the same deal to Lance. He turned it down. Big mistake. 

There is zero evidence that Lance was protecting other riders. Not Ulrich, Basso, Pantani. None. It is a key part of USADA's case that the UCI is corrupt. It is clear the UCI is concerned as they continue to try to obstruct USADA's case

As for the evidence, late next week or the week after. You will have plenty to chew over. More to come later in the year as well.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Chris-X said:


> It's a simple question. Do you believe he was clean or not?
> 
> Why are you hesitant to vote on the question posed? :mad2:


The poll question was very simple...until he posted this as his response to his own question:



> After all this, who still really thinks Lance is clean and is a victim of a witch hunt and/or disgruntled associates?


That took it from a simple Yes/No question and made it into something completely different. "HE" added the "Witch Hunt" equation to his own poll...what part of that don't you get? :mad2:

If you want a simple yes/no answer than ask it and don't add your opinion...otherwise don't ask the question at all :thumbsup:


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> USADA offered the same deal to Lance. He turned it down. Big mistake.
> 
> There is zero evidence that Lance was protecting other riders. Not Ulrich, Basso, Pantani. None. It is a key part of USADA's case that the UCI is corrupt. It is clear the UCI is concerned as they continue to try to obstruct USADA's case
> 
> As for the evidence, late next week or the week after. You will have plenty to chew over. More to come later in the year as well.


So then...it's a witch hunt.

You yourself are stating that because LA wouldn't play nice they went after him while leaving the others alone. That in and of it's self says they wanted to make a point of LA...hence a witch hunt.

What is so hard to figure out about this?

BTW...Why would he protect Ullrich, Basso, Pantani, etc? They were competitors not teammates. There is no evidence showing that his payments were not used to cover up his teammates test results either! :blush2:


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

robdamanii said:


> There are plenty who are still believers.
> 
> I've actually been threatened both physically and legally on Facebook for posting links and discussing the facts of the USADA case.
> 
> Some people really don't take kindly to their preconceived notions being shattered.


That is cretinous beyond words. Can you get them banned or resort to the law? Threats of violence on the internet can be persued in the courts can't they?


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Chris-X said:


> The whole legal system apparently works like this?


And there is your problem...this didn't take place as part of the legal system. In fact the legal system threw it out because they couldn't prove their case.

It was an indepentent organization that acted as prosecutor, judge and jury that did this.

No legal system...which makes it a witch hunt. Prosecute those that don't play nice when offered a deal and let the others keep playing ball knowing that they were doping (and probably still are).


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Wookiebiker said:


> And there is your problem...this didn't take place as part of the legal system. In fact the legal system threw it out because they couldn't prove their case.
> 
> It was an indepentent organization that acted as prosecutor, judge and jury that did this.
> 
> No legal system...which makes it a witch hunt. Prosecute those that don't play nice when offered a deal and let the others keep playing ball knowing that they were doping (and probably still are).


two different cases, one a doping case the other federal fraud. 
as for the last part, at the moment that is pure speculation. Or as some would could it, hearsay.


----------



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

Wookiebiker said:


> The poll question was very simple...until he posted this as his response to his own question:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My question did not imply an opinion, despite what you read into it. Obviously I have an opinion. It's a yes or no question. Do you believe he was clean or not? If it makes you feel better I can edit out the witch hunt wording. Whether it's a witch hunt or not doesn't matter one whit whether he cheated and if you believe him or not. Having a witch hunt doesn't change any facts. If you don't want to answer yes or no question you don't have to, it's not a homework assignment and no one is grading you. Just don't bother debating it, there's nothing to debate.


----------



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

Wookiebiker said:


> The poll question was very simple...until he posted this as his response to his own question:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh and despite my putting it in my original post, I added it because I've heard others use the term, "witch hunt". What's you definition of that anyway?


----------



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

Chris-X said:


> Dude, you didn't vote! Why not?
> 
> Samadhi, you, Local Hero, Badge, Wookie, Chip? What's up?
> 
> Nolo contendre? We'll take that as a guilty....:lol:


I made the poll public on purpose. I'm assuming that those who still believe he was clean may not want to really admit it. Therefore, the numbers will probably be skewed because of that.

Oh, and if you believe he was clean, that's fine, it doesn't matter to me. Kind of how I view people who believe in invisible friends.....if you know what I mean.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Chris-X said:


> BTW, you're pulling an Armstrong by not answering the question. Clean or not?


Apparently your reading comprehension is lacking...if you read my first post on this subject in this thread...you will see clearly that I said I think he doped.

Reading comprehension is your friend


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

gregario said:


> Just don't bother debating it, there's nothing to debate.


So essentially you are just looking to find affirmation on your point of view from others? If so, I'm sorry that you have difficulty with your emotions and need others to help you feel better about your decisions.


----------



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

Wookiebiker said:


> So essentially you are just looking to find affirmation on your point of view from others? If so, I'm sorry that you have difficulty with your emotions and need others to help you feel better about your decisions.


No need to be a dick about it. It's a simple question. I'm just curious if there is anyone who still believes him. If you can't answer a simple question I gotta figure you're either a politician or an engineer. Either way, it makes no difference to me what you believe but you're wasting a lot of time debating it.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

gregario said:


> I'm just curious if there is anyone who still believes him. If you can't answer a simple question I gotta figure you're either a politician or an engineer. Either way, it makes no difference to me what you believe but you're wasting a lot of time debating it.


Pretty sure he answered both your questions from your OP in his first response.


----------



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

88 rex said:


> Pretty sure he answered both your questions from your OP in his first response.


OK, point taken.


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

Rolando said:


> Why should they go after anyone when the whole peloton was doped.
> 
> Put me into the "never thought he was clean but this in fact was a witch hunt" column.


First, he didn't just dope; his team systematically doped, which included drug trafficking and bribes. LA and team took it to a whole new level. So because the sport is rife with dopers, the authorities are suppose to give everyone a pass?

Second, if LA would stop grand standing that he is 100% CLEAN, and bullying anyone was said otherwise, then the so-called "witch hunt" would probably not be necessary. He's brought this on himself by being so stubborn and being a Class A arse to everyone around him.

Third, The USADA is doing what they are suppose to be doing. How is that a bad thing?


----------



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

hikenbike said:


> first, he didn't just dope; his team systematically doped, which included drug trafficking and bribes. La and team took it to a whole new level. So because the sport is rife with dopers, the authorities are suppose to give everyone a pass?
> 
> Second, if la would stop grand standing that he is 100% clean, and bullying anyone was said otherwise, then the so-called "witch hunt" would probably not be necessary. He's brought this on himself by being so stubborn and being a class a arse to everyone around him.
> 
> Third, the usada is doing what they are suppose to be doing. How is that a bad thing?


^this


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Wookiebiker said:


> So then...it's a witch hunt.
> 
> You yourself are stating that because LA wouldn't play nice they went after him while leaving the others alone. That in and of it's self says they wanted to make a point of LA...hence a witch hunt.
> 
> ...


You are confused again. 

The others got a better deal for 2 reasons

1. They came forward and told the truth about an organized doping program and the doctors who ran it

2. They did not conspire with the UCI to cover it up. 

Lance could have gotten the same deal. it would have been a great service to the sport. he chose to go down with the ship. Stupid move


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Wookiebiker said:


> And there is your problem...this didn't take place as part of the legal system. In fact the legal system threw it out because they couldn't prove their case.
> 
> It was an indepentent organization that acted as prosecutor, judge and jury that did this.
> 
> No legal system...which makes it a witch hunt. Prosecute those that don't play nice when offered a deal and let the others keep playing ball knowing that they were doping (and probably still are).


Wrong again. 

The investigators and Prosecutors recommended charges. They said there was overwhelming evidence of guilt. A political appointee ignored them and tossed it out without consulting them

You may want to actually read the WADA code. They are not the judge, or the jury. Independent arbitrators picked by Lance and USADA decide the case. Armstrong can appeal to CAS, also made up of independent arbitrators. There is ample due process in the WADA code. 

You misunderstand the "witch hunt". As in any case if you help the case you get a better sentence. If you obstruct it you don't. It is pretty simple. Lance chose obstruction. 

Perhaps instead of parroting talking points that have been proven wrong over and over and over you could take some time to actually read the process?


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

HikenBike said:


> First, he didn't just dope; his team systematically doped, which included drug trafficking and bribes. LA and team took it to a whole new level. So because the sport is rife with dopers, the authorities are suppose to give everyone a pass?
> 
> Second, if LA would stop grand standing that he is 100% CLEAN, and bullying anyone was said otherwise, then the so-called "witch hunt" would probably not be necessary. He's brought this on himself by being so stubborn and being a Class A arse to everyone around him.
> 
> Third, The USADA is doing what they are suppose to be doing. How is that a bad thing?


Here is the biggest problem with this response:

Postal wasn't the only team doing this...For the most part, the Peloton as a whole was. Look at the recent article by Cyclingnews by Jörg Jaksche where he is outing teamwide systematic doping by: Polti to Telekom, CSC to ONCE and Astana which were just the teams he rode for.

So they all participated in drug trafficing and bribes (if you think LA was the only one I'd suggest you are nieve).

There were american riders in the peloton at that time participating in the same practices...why not go after them? Just because LA doesn't want to play nice he's the target? 

It was the USADA's goal from day 1 to nail LA and forgive any rider that would speak up against him. That's the problem with all of this. If they were reputable, they would go after everybody, give lifetime bans, pull their wins, make them pay back winnings, etc. They need to stop showing favoritism and actually try and clean up their sport.

You might say they can only do that with American riders and for the most part you are correct, though...they are trying to take away the TDF titles that Armstrong won, which they had Zero to do with, so no jurisdiction to take those titles away.

If you think they have the right to do that, then they should be able to go after any Pro racer that participated in a team that was following a teamwide systematic doping program and raced in the United States.

Why are they not doing that? Isn't that part of their job when it comes to cleaning up the sport? Instead they are giving passes to all the others and trying to nail Armstrong to the wall while the others sneak quietly out the back.

The simple fact is we all "KNOW" that LA doped, just as did the rest of the peloton...so in the end, it's just a waste of time, money and resources to fulfill a vendetta against him. Nothing more, nothing less. The time, money and resources could have been spent trying to catch current riders, educating upcoming pro's/under 23 racers, better testing programs, etc.

I'd rather focus on the future than the past and move forward than go after people that are no longer competiting in the sport.

In the end though...doping will "NEVER" go away...it will evolve as does the testing. The best anybody can do is try and catch the stupid ones and move on. And if people think doping is limited to cycling or Track/Field, I feel sorry for you.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are confused again.
> 
> The others got a better deal for 2 reasons
> 
> ...


I disagree for this reason:

If you ask the average person on the street who any of those riders are...nobody would have a clue. However if you ask the average person who Lance Armstrong is, they can tell you.

He's the big name, the career changer, the one that will give you the corner office in Manhattan. He's the one you make a career off of which is why everybody went after him.

Politics, business, sports associations, etc. ... they are all the same and in the end it's about money and ego's. It never changes and this is no different.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

The problem with your post is that you don't seem to know anything about the USADA that you haven't heard from Lance's lips. The scope of their activities goes far beyond cycling and Lance Pharmstrong. Lance is not in any way unique or persecuted for receiving a lifetime ban or being stripped of results, and USADA will not exactly be out of work when they close the book on him. Lance just has a lot more money to spend on lawyers and public pissing and moaning than your run of the mill cheater. 

http://www.usada.org/sanctions/


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

Wookiebiker said:


> I disagree for this reason:
> 
> If you ask the average person on the street who any of those riders are...nobody would have a clue. However if you ask the average person who Lance Armstrong is, they can tell you.
> 
> ...


Now I get it. The USADA _shouldn't_ go after dopers who are famous, because going after dopers who are famous _proves_ that they are only going after them because of their fame. Do I have that right?


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

pretender said:


> Now I get it. The USADA _shouldn't_ go after dopers who are famous, because going after dopers who are famous _proves_ that they are only going after them because of their fame. Do I have that right?


Nope...they should go after everybody or nobody...they shouldn't pick or choose giving pardons to some and crucifying others.

However, when you need to make a name for yourself, you go after the big names. It's been that way forever.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Wookiebiker said:


> Nope...they should go after everybody or nobody...they shouldn't pick or choose giving pardons to some and crucifying others.
> 
> However, when you need to make a name for yourself, you go after the big names. It's been that way forever.


:idea:

Again, I suggest you read the WADA code as you are confused. It was Lance who "Chose". He chose to obstruct the investigation so he was sanctioned. Those who chose the aid the investigation got reduced sanctions. It is really simple. 

Lance has nobody to blame but himself


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

Wookiebiker said:


> Apparently your reading comprehension is lacking...if you read my first post on this subject in this thread...you will see clearly that I said I think he doped.
> 
> Reading comprehension is your friend


OK, so you think he DID dope. Then stop calling it a "witch hunt". 

If you think that he doped, therefore, you agree that he did what is charged against him. There is a certain degree of validity in the charges levied against Armstrong and others. If he did it, then there is reason to believe the USADA possesses valid evidence: re-tested samples, eyewitness testimony, bank transactions, etc.

How is this a "witch hunt"? A "witch hunt" assumes that the accused are innocent, and the prosecutors are making up charges for the sake of the harassment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
witch-hunt: A witch-hunt is an attempt to find and punish a particular group of people who are being blamed for something, often simply because of their opinions and *not because they have actually done anything wrong*.

If LA has done something wrong (doped) then by definition it can't be called a "witch hunt". It only means you disagree with the USADA doing their job.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

Wookiebiker said:


> Nope...they should go after everybody or nobody...they shouldn't pick or choose giving pardons to some and crucifying others.
> 
> However, when you need to make a name for yourself, you go after the big names. It's been that way forever.


Here is a list of USADA sanctions:
http://www.usada.org/sanctions/

All big names?


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You may want to actually read the WADA code. They are not the judge, or the jury. Independent arbitrators picked by Lance and USADA decide the case. Armstrong can appeal to CAS, also made up of independent arbitrators. There is ample due process in the WADA code.
> 
> You misunderstand the "witch hunt". As in any case if you help the case you get a better sentence. If you obstruct it you don't. It is pretty simple. Lance chose obstruction.
> 
> Perhaps instead of parroting talking points that have been proven wrong over and over and over you could take some time to actually read the process?


See, THIS is where the Lance-haters (LH) and the USADA-haters (UH) start talking past each other. 

The LH's answer to everything is "it's the process." BUT it is exactly The Process that the UH have a problem with. It doesn't matter to the UH that Lance, or anyone else, agreed to the process because they view the process as flawed. Also doesn't *matter* to the UH folks that Lance's agent, or even if Lance himself, helped write the process. They still see the process as flawed. 

Further, many also believe that racers and USAC/USADA are not really equal, consenting parties to the arbitration agreement either, but that's a different kettle of fish. 

Seeing the process as flawed DOESN'T mean they think Lance didn't dope!

For anyone else who has ever played AD&D, this is an excellent example of the difference between a Lawful Good and Neutral Good character alignment. :^D

The situation, like it or not, is that USADA IS de facto acting in the capacity of prosecutor, judge, and jury - necessitated by the fact the Lance declined arbitration. A better process would be for USADA to still go ahead and present their evidence to a neutral third party (essentially trying him in absentia) and THEN recommending a sanction if that third party returns a guilty verdict. This would avoid the perception (and perhaps the reality) that they are being unfair. Heck there could even be an "athlete advocate" appointed to defend the absent rider if you wanted to be even more fair. 

Granted, this is not the process right now, but maybe the process needs fixing. 

So please, stop answering every complaint with "but it's the process.". That won't move the discussion forward.


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

HikenBike said:


> witch-hunt: A witch-hunt is an attempt to find and punish a particular group of people who are being blamed for something, ****OFTEN**** simply because of their opinions and *not because they have actually done anything wrong*.
> 
> If LA has done something wrong (doped) then by definition it can't be called a "witch hunt". It only means you disagree with the USADA doing their job.


Again, reading comprehension is your friend. Another type of witch hunt is where someone is singled out for doing what everyone else is doing and given punishment in gross excess to the norm.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

OldChipper said:


> The situation, like it or not, is that USADA IS de facto acting in the capacity of prosecutor, judge, and jury
> .


When you write things like this it is clear you do not understand the process you are complaining about. 

USADA is only a prosecutor. The Judge and Jury are independent arbitrators chosen by Armstrong and USADA, and a third arbitrator chosen by the first two. He can appeal to another independent body, CAS, where it will be again judged by independent arbitrators. 

It is because of this Independence that multiple Federal judge's have ruled that there is ample due process in the WADA code. 

Pointing out the obvious does not make someone a hater.


----------



## tron (Jul 18, 2004)

Wookiebiker said:


> When the "Entire" peloton is using, all the witnesses you call have been using, it's been known to go on since the beginning of the sport...and you just go after "One" guy...that's a witch hunt.
> 
> If they stripped every win from everybody that testified, took away all their prize money...then went after every other rider that has done so...that I might agree it wasn't a witch hunt.



Didnt they push to ban at least 5 people including brunyheel and ferrari? Landis and Hamilton have already been dealt with as have many riders from their own jurisdictions. Operation Puerto busted Ullrich, Basso, Valvderde.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

OldChipper said:


> No Chris. Again, it's call nuance. :mad2: As I've said many times before, the views that Armstrong did indeed dope and that USADA's investigation is a "witch hunt" are not mutually exclusive. I'm with Wookie.


Ah, not so sure that's called "nuance" which is code for "give me a break, I'm trying to make a point that follows no reason, fact or logi." :mad2:


----------



## captain stubbing (Mar 30, 2011)

Chris-X said:


> Lance was singled out?
> 
> Everyone else was doing what Lance was doing? Trafficking PED's and flying them across international borders in private jets? Strongarming and bribing governing bodies? Setting up the most comprehensive and expensive teamwide doping program in sports history excepting communist bloc countries. Threatening the career of anyone who exposed his fraud? Witness tampering?
> 
> ...


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

captain stubbing said:


> Chris-X said:
> 
> 
> > Lance was singled out?
> ...


----------



## SFTifoso (Aug 17, 2011)

The poll should've asked: Do you think LA won his titles on a level playing field where everyone doped, or do you think he was the only one doping?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

SFTifoso said:


> The poll should've asked: Do you think LA won his titles on a level playing field where everyone doped, or do you think he was the only one doping?


Except it's not a level playing field even if everyone is doping...


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

SFTifoso said:


> The poll should've asked: Do you think LA won his titles on a level playing field where everyone doped, or do you think he was the only one doping?


every time the phrase "level playing field" is entered there ought to be an automatic reply of the type


----------



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

SFTifoso said:


> The poll should've asked: Do you think LA won his titles on a level playing field where everyone doped, or do you think he was the only one doping?


The poll is the poll. As I've said, it's a simple yes or no question. Do you believe him when he says he raced clean or do you not. You can create your own poll if you wish.


----------



## mmoose (Apr 2, 2004)

Haven't seen this over here, taken and cleaned up a bit from cyclingnews' thread...


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> When you write things like this it is clear you do not understand the process you are complaining about.
> 
> USADA is only a prosecutor. The Judge and Jury are independent arbitrators chosen by Armstrong and USADA, and a third arbitrator chosen by the first two. He can appeal to another independent body, CAS, where it will be again judged by independent arbitrators.
> 
> ...


OK, let's see... USADA has certified him as guilty. What does a jury do? Determine guilt or innocence. USADA has issued sanctions against him. What does a judge do? Issues sanctions against the guilty. 

Ergo... the USADA is DE FACTO acting as judge and jury. QED. 

***NOTE*** I said this was necessitated by Lance choosing not to go to arbitration. That doesn't change the fact that, in that situation, USADA acts as judge and jury (as well as prosecutor). It's a problem with the system - if they care at all about the process being perceived as fair.


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

captain stubbing said:


> Chris-X said:
> 
> 
> > Lance was singled out?
> ...


----------



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

Chris-X said:


> Funny how those arguing the "witch-hunt" nuances who know lance doped, still will not add to the "hell no" tally regarding lance's cleanliness.
> 
> Why is that?


yeah, that's why I kept saying that Wookie did not answer the question even though he did in his response. But, like I said, no one is being graded on their answer, if you still believe him that's fine. For Armstrong, my assumption is that nearly everyone who is a serious cycling fan knows he doped and the general public either doesn't care or believes the 500 clean tests line of BS.


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

Chris-X said:


> No Chip, it's called seeing what you want to see.
> 
> Here's one definition of "nuance."
> 
> ...


Why do you continue to selectively read Judge Sparks' decision? He clearly had grave reservations about both USADA's motives and process to that point. Calling me names (or treading close to that) doesn't change that and only weakens your position.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

SFTifoso said:


> The poll should've asked: Do you think LA won his titles on a level playing field where everyone doped, or do you think he was the only one doping?


Read Tyler's book to find out what a joke this level playing field nonsense is.

Armstrong ratted on riders who performed better than him so the UCI would stop them from beating him. When Hamilton outclimbed Armstrong at the Dauphine, Tyler was taken off Postal's doping program.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Chris-X said:


> Funny how those arguing the "witch-hunt" nuances who know lance doped, still will not add to the "hell no" tally regarding lance's cleanliness.
> 
> Why is that?


What's the point? 

There are two people in this thread looking to affirm their views by the yes/no vote when it's clearly not as simple.

The question it's self is a poor question based on the answers because it's leading to one side...he was clean or hell no! It should be labled he was clean or he wasn't clean for an appropriately labeled question...or Yes/No if you want to make it simple.

Essentially this thread is about somebody that wants to feel better about themselves because somebody stopped fighting, thus affirming their point of view. If it helps them sleep at night, I guess that's what they need to do. I'm sure a cork was popped when he announced he would stop fighting it by several people on this thread.

Why should anybody have to acutally pick an answer to the question if they posted their response in the thead? More affirmation for the OP and his minions?

Gotta love it I guess :thumbsup:

The real question is who do you hate on next? With LA finally "Exposed" what do you do with your life now? It appears like it has been centered around getting a guilty verdict against LA. That's over...so now what? Can you move to the NFL and see if you can get some of them to admit it? How about the NBA? Soccer?

You obviously need somebody to hate against...maybe you need to hate against me to keep your drive alive, if so, have fun :thumbsup:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

OldChipper said:


> OK, let's see... USADA has certified him as guilty. What does a jury do? Determine guilt or innocence. USADA has issued sanctions against him. What does a judge do? Issues sanctions against the guilty.
> 
> Ergo... the USADA is DE FACTO acting as judge and jury. QED.
> 
> ***NOTE*** I said this was necessitated by Lance choosing not to go to arbitration. That doesn't change the fact that, in that situation, USADA acts as judge and jury (as well as prosecutor). It's a problem with the system - if they care at all about the process being perceived as fair.


I can only assume you are joking

What happens in any case where the defendant pleads no contest?


----------



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

*Cool.*



Wookiebiker said:


> What's the point?
> 
> There are two people in this thread looking to affirm their views by the yes/no vote when it's clearly not as simple.
> 
> ...


I have minions! I've always wanted minions!

Dude, seriously, I never imagined someone would read so much into a simple question. You keep saying it's not simple, but it really was. Your continued criticism of me for asking the question in not PRECISELY how you would prefer is beyond silly. 

Now I'm a Hater because I dare even ask the question. You sound like the MAN himself. Honestly, I was a big fan when he was winning his Tours. I remember back when I was an anonymous bone marrow donor to someone with cancer and I bought his "not about the bike" book to send to them because it was inspiring. He is a f#$ing GREAT athlete. No amount of doping can turn a Cat 4 into a Tour winner, and the fact that probably everyone else at his level was doping still proves he was the best. Your repeated (and repeated...) attempts to defend him are fine. If he's your hero, I DON'T CARE. Again, I was just wondering if there was anyone left who still had the belief that he was clean. Jeez. 

You can leave your posters up...I haven't taken mine down yet, and yes I have a couple professionally framed posters of him that weren't cheap.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

den bakker said:


> every time the phrase "level playing field" is entered there ought to be an automatic reply of the type


You can add "hearsay", "witch hunt", and "no positives in 500 tests".


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I can only assume you are joking
> 
> What happens in any case where the defendant pleads no contest?


The judge imposes sentence, not the prosecutor. Fail.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

OldChipper said:


> The judge imposes sentence, not the prosecutor. Fail.


Fail again. The judge is the WADA code. Sentencing is spelled out. 

At this point you just look silly. You boy is guilty, He knows it and you know it. No amount of semantics and obfuscation will change this fact.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Chris-X said:


> What about you?:lol:


Who do you think is the greatest cyclist of all time?


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

88 rex said:


> Who do you think is the greatest cyclist of all time?


Coppi.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

PlatyPius said:


> Coppi.


Interesting choice. A great cyclist, but it makes me wonder if 50 years down the road people will say Armstrong. Some similar parallels.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Chris-X said:


> Marshall Taylor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Great cyclist, but the greatest? And a nitroglycerine user as well. Surprised you like him.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Chris-X said:


> Oh, completely clean greatest cyclist?


Wouldn't anyone on your greatest list have to be clean? I'm going to assume you never actually read the wiki you copied.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Chris-X said:


> You assume a lot of things. How about getting back on topic? Armstrong, clean or not?


I've already answered the question a number of times in various threads.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Chris-X said:


> You've spouted a lot of half baked "mitigating," potential defense argument silliness. Make it official! :thumbsup:


What are you talking about?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

88 rex said:


> Great cyclist, but the greatest? And a nitroglycerine user as well. Surprised you like him.


why? was the use forbidden at that time?


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

den bakker said:


> why? was the use forbidden at that time?


I'm not sure. I don't know if anything was forbidden at the time. 

There seems to be a couple themes coming from the threads on this forum:

1) All doping is bad because it's cheating.

2) Doping is bad because it's unnatural.

3) Doping is bad because it's unhealthy.

I just find it odd that someone who would rail so hard against doping would pick Marshall Taylor as their top pick for cyclists. A cyclist who came from an era of the alcohol, amphetamines, and nitroglyerine cocktail. Even Chris-X's repsonse of "Oh, you mean clean" implies that he thinks Marshall Taylor is dirty.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

88 rex said:


> I'm not sure. I don't know if anything was forbidden at the time.
> .


that would be a good place for you to start then, no?


----------



## albert owen (Jul 7, 2008)

Cycling was a dirty sport when Armstrong was at his peak - so he cheated along with many (but NOT all) others in the Peleton - no surprise unless your brain lives where the sun doesn't shine..
What particularly disgusted me, wasthe terrible attitude from him and his supporters/fan boys when he made his comeback - unpleasant and so mentally deranged they thought that he was some kind of God.
Thank goodness that this stain has finally been shown for what he is - a liar and a cheat, with no redeeming features.
Americans, in particular, who reviled LeMond should be ashamed of themselves. As for Trek.......................


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Chris-X said:


> I was humoring you with Major Taylor. I'm not 12. I don't worship sporting figures or anyone else for that matter.
> 
> I "mean clean" was more to yank your chain with my subsequent pick of LeMond.
> 
> ...


Yikes.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Chris-X said:


> Still have not seen your verdict.
> 
> 
> 
> *Who cares what "people" say? What do you say*? Are you still a believer?:idea:


Apparently you care. A LOT.


----------



## brianmcg (Oct 12, 2002)

And now for something completely different:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g


----------



## C6Rider (Nov 15, 2008)

*Anymore votes out there?*

Surely there must be more than 121 people with an opinion on this matter.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

Of course Lance NEVER doped. Why would he need to? He had the genius Chris Charmichael to show him the way to success.


----------



## ToF (Jan 18, 2008)

Edited to remove incoherent ramblings.... Leaving us with 
"Hmm maybe I should avoid opioid posting "


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

*Gosh dang it...*

My screen jumped and I clicked "yes" instead of "hell no". Can someone fix this for me? 

Apologies. 

Can we assume everyone else that clicked "yes" did so accidentally too?


----------



## Lick Skillet (Aug 21, 2011)

LA is clean as crystal...... Crystal Meth!


----------



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

*bump*

I'd like to see more votes. See if we can get 98%.


----------



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

.....I mean after all, this thread has been viewed nearly 3500 times.


----------

