# Should we waste millions more on an investigation of Armstrong?



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

The USADA investigation is over and unless the reports were false that Armstrong has said he's not going to fight this, all the money that is going to be spent has been spent.


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

I say no. Nobody cares. If we really start peeling that onion back, how far down the placings would you have to go to find a winner in some of those years. Save the millions. 

You want to go back to the past...here we go. Strip them too. How many do you want to de-thrown:

Jacques Anquetil of France never hid that he took drugs - a common practice at the time - and in a debate with a government minister on French television said that only a fool would imagine it was possible to ride Bordeaux–Paris on just water. He and other cyclists had to ride through "the cold, through heatwaves, in the rain and in the mountains", and they had the right to treat themselves as they wished, he said in a television interview, before adding: "Leave me in peace; everybody takes dope."<sup id="cite_ref-34" class="reference">[35]</sup> There was implied acceptance of doping right to the top of the state: the president, Charles de Gaulle, said of Anquetil: "Doping? What doping? Did he or did he not make them play the Marseillaise [the French national anthem] abroad?"<sup id="cite_ref-35" class="reference">[36]</sup> The veteran reporter Pierre Chany said: "Jacques had the strength - for which he was always criticised - to say out loud what others would only whisper. So, when I asked him 'What have you taken?' he didn't drop his eyes before replying. He had the strength of conviction."<sup id="cite_ref-36" class="reference">[37]</sup>
<sup></sup> 
<sup></sup> 
Eddy Merckx of Belgium tested positive for the stimulant Reactivan at Savona during the 1969 Giro d'Italia, after leading the race through 16 stages. Merckx was found positive at doping control and expelled from the Giro. Merckx steadfastly denied the charges. The controversy began to swirl when his test results were not handled in the ordinary manner. The positive doping control was released to the press before all parties (Merckx and team officials) involved were notified.<sup id="cite_ref-45" class="reference">[46]</sup>
<sup></sup> 
Eddy Merckx tested positive for a banned substance in the Giro di Lombardia classic. He was disqualified from first place. Runner-up Felice Gimondi was declared the winner.<sup id="cite_ref-55" class="reference">[56]</sup>
<sup></sup> 
Sean Kelly of Ireland was described in Willy Voet's book 'Massacre à la Chaine': He won the Tour of Lombardy three times (1983, 1985, 1991 (also won amateur version in 1976)) and on at least one occasion he did it with the help of a corticoide injection. Kelly was controlled positive after Paris–Brussels in 1984 and that came as a surprise because he used the urine of a mechanic. But the mechanic was using a banned substance himself because he had to work long hours at night and needed the lift to stay awake."<sup id="cite_ref-107" class="reference">[</sup>
<sup></sup> 
Stephen Roche of Ireland. According to an investigation in Italy into the practices of Francesco Conconi, Roche was involved in the case, having received EPO in 1993<sup id="cite_ref-118" class="reference">[119]</sup> In May 1990, Paul Kimmage published _Rough Ride_ exposing apparently endemic drug use in the peloton, and Roche threatened litigation. It was reported in the Rome newspaper, la Repubblica, in January 2000 that Francesco Conconi, a professor at the University of Ferrara involved with administering EPO to riders on the Carrera Jeans-Vagabond with which Roche had some of his best years, had provided riders including Roche with EPO. Roche denied the allegations.<sup id="cite_ref-119" class="reference">[120]</sup> This was further reported in the Irish Times several days later, Roche again denying EPO.<sup id="cite_ref-120" class="reference">[121]</sup> In March 2000 the Italian judge Franca Oliva published a report detailing the investigation into sports doctors including Conconi.<sup id="cite_ref-sportpro_121-0" class="reference">[122]</sup> This official judicial investigation concluded that Roche was administered EPO in 1993, his last year in the peloton.<sup id="cite_ref-times1_122-0" class="reference">[123]</sup> Files part of the investigation allegedly detail a number of aliases for Roche including Rocchi, Rossi, Rocca, Roncati, Righi and Rossini.<sup id="cite_ref-123" class="reference">[124]</sup> In 2004 Judge Oliva alleged that Roche had taken EPO during 1993 but due to the statute of limitations, neither Roche nor his team-mates at Carrera would be prosecuted

Bjarne Riis of Denmark won the 1996 Tour de France under the effects of EPO, growth hormone and cortisone. On 25 May 2007, he admitted "for a time doping was a part of everyday life for me".<sup id="cite_ref-protest_142-0" class="reference">[</sup>


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

God help us with these justifications. Stop with idolatry.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

RkFast said:


> Unless there is a positive test, nothing can be done.


Well at a minimum he can be suspended. I don't know how it works out if there are specific charges of doping during certain races and he doesn't contest them, thereby accepting the charges, can an organization strip him of his titles?

Who decides to take a title away anyway, the race organization, the UCI, USADA?

Seems kind of pointless anyone if the point is to have a non-doper get the title, as the title will just roll down to the next guy who was doping.


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

Chris-X said:


> God help us with these justifications. Stop with idolatry.


If you dont have a positive test from that competition, you cant strip his title. Just like you cant take away Barry Bonds' awards or ARODs home runs from past years when you dont know 1000000% that they took drugs when they won those accolades. 

A million people can come out and say they saw LA dope. Unless there is a in-competition positive test or an admission, nothing can be done. 

And not for nothing, Chris....your hard-on for seeing LA go down is on par with any kind of "idolatry" of those even remotely supporting him.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

Not $0.01 more.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

RkFast said:


> If you dont have a positive test from that competition, you cant strip his title. Just like you cant take away Barry Bonds' awards or ARODs home runs from past years when you dont know 1000000% that they took drugs when they won those accolades.
> 
> A million people can come out and say they saw LA dope. Unless there is a in-competition positive test or an admission, nothing can be done.


Get used to the term "nonanalytical positive". The USADA has banned several athletes recently based on evidence other than tests.

In this case they do have tests. Blood values from 2009 and 2010 show blood manipulation. Tell Pelizotti can you cannot be banned without a positive test.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

trailrunner68 said:


> Tell Pelizotti can you cannot be banned without a positive test.


Basso, Ullrich, Valverde were all suspended based on evidence that didn't involve testing at all, no?


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

RkFast said:


> But banned from future competition, not stripped of any titles, right? Im saying you cant be stripped of titles from past events without positive tests from those events. Correct?


Nope. The USADA has stripped many athletes of results from before their positive tests. Joe Papp had all his results from something like 2001 or 2002 onward stripped. By alleging a conspiracy from 1998 to 2011, the USADA looks like it is going after all results.


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Basso, Ullrich, Valverde were all suspended based on evidence that didn't involve testing at all, no?


But banned from future competition, not stripped of any titles, right? Im saying you cant be stripped of titles from past events without positive tests from those events. Correct?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

RkFast said:


> But banned from future competition, not stripped of any titles, right? Im saying you cant be stripped of titles from past events without positive tests from those events. Correct?


I see, I have no idea about stripping someone of titles.


----------



## godot (Feb 3, 2004)

RkFast said:


> But banned from future competition, not stripped of any titles, right? Im saying you cant be stripped of titles from past events without positive tests from those events. Correct?


I believe Ulrich was stripped of his podium spot in the 2005 tour


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*I like the truth myself.*



RkFast said:


> If you dont have a positive test from that competition, you cant strip his title. Just like you cant take away Barry Bonds' awards or ARODs home runs from past years when you dont know 1000000% that they took drugs when they won those accolades.
> 
> A million people can come out and say they saw LA dope. Unless there is a in-competition positive test or an admission, nothing can be done.
> 
> And not for nothing, Chris....your hard-on for seeing LA go down is on par with any kind of "idolatry" of those even remotely supporting him.


No dude. The guy has perpetuated a fraud on the public to his gigantic benefit for well over a decade. 

"Hope rides again?" Whatever dude. You see, you're so impressed with his supposed talent. I'm not, and I know that's not the measure of a person. 

Those who are impressed with him show they are .150 hitters impressed with a .250 hitter. As you were though.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

someone cheats at bicycle racing. bfd. doesn't affect my life at all.

I'd be more interested in prosecuting low-lifes in Congress and Wall Street that steal untold gazillions of dollars from taxpayers and investors.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

RkFast said:


> But banned from future competition, not stripped of any titles, right? Im saying you cant be stripped of titles from past events without positive tests from those events. Correct?


This is on point.



> It is also the law that evidence of doping throughout the entire time period described is relevant and will be admissible in any hearing for at least 2 reasons: (1) evidence of doping and evidence of conspiratorial acts outside any applicable limitations period can be used to corroborate evidence within the limitations period, and (2) as explained in USADA v. Hellebuyck (copy provided in Attachment D) results outside the limitations period can be disqualified where reliance on the statue of limitations has been waived through false statements, fraudulent concealment or other wrongful conduct.


That last section means they can go after TdF wins outside of the eight year limitation period because Armstrong engaged in a conspiracy to conceal his doping during his comeback.


----------



## Barry Muzzin (Sep 18, 2006)

trailrunner68 said:


> This is on point.
> 
> 
> 
> That last section means they can go after TdF wins outside of the eight year limitation period because Armstrong engaged in a conspiracy to conceal his doping during his comeback.


hu·bris/ˈ(h)yo͞obris/
Noun:	
Excessive pride or self-confidence.
(in Greek tragedy) Excessive pride toward or defiance of the gods, leading to nemesis.

If it had not been for comeback 2.0 that could only go after 2 of his titles. 

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Barry Muzzin said:


> hu·bris/ˈ(h)yo͞obris/
> Noun:
> Excessive pride or self-confidence.
> (in Greek tragedy) Excessive pride toward or defiance of the gods, leading to nemesis.
> ...


It is very fitting. It is like karma in action. Heck, if he just would have had it in him to throw Floyd a bone or two then all this would have been avoided.

Worst. Comback. Ever.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

trailrunner68 said:


> Nope. The USADA has stripped many athletes of results from before their positive tests. Joe Papp had all his results from something like 2001 or 2002 onward stripped. By alleging a conspiracy from 1998 to 2011, the USADA looks like it is going after all results.


Didn't Papp admit his doping?


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

In the real world, there are choices and limitations. Sometimes criminals get away with stuff because the witnesses against them aren't credible (see: John Edwards) or there just isn't enough non-circumstantial evidence to make the chance of a conviction likely enough to spend money for the prosecution. Happens All. The. Time.



Chris-X said:


> No dude. The guy has perpetuated a fraud on the public to his gigantic benefit for well over a decade.
> 
> "Hope rides again?" Whatever dude. You see, you're so impressed with his supposed talent. I'm not, and I know that's not the measure of a person.
> 
> Those who are impressed with him show they are .150 hitters impressed with a .250 hitter. As you were though.


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

You take the Tour finishing order and invert it. Award the podium to the original bottom three riders. They were too dumb to dope properly and should be recognized for either their honesty or ineptitude.

Or you go down the list of finishers and strip everyone who hasn't been directly tainted.

They way I see it (pic borrowed from Hampsten Cycles) Escartin wins 2 along with Evans and Azevedo. Zubeldia, Kivilev and Schleck (already awarded) win the others. Unless we can't grant them to Azevedo and Zubeldia because the rode with LA.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Escartin was a Kelme rider a known dirty, dirty entity.


----------



## peter584 (Aug 17, 2008)

So what happens if they say he doped? Stripped of titles and ban? I don't get the point, if he doesn't have to face criminal charges who cares.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

jorgy said:


> In the real world, there are choices and limitations. Sometimes criminals get away with stuff because the witnesses against them aren't credible (see: John Edwards) or there just isn't enough non-circumstantial evidence to make the chance of a conviction likely enough to spend money for the prosecution. Happens All. The. Time.


Well, in this real world it looks like finally all of LA's bs has caught up with him.

Never thought I would side with GWB on anything but, I agree with him here. Have to set a proper example for all the kiddies.:thumbsup:


----------



## Sasquatch (Feb 3, 2004)

Chris-X said:


> God help us with these justifications. Stop with idolatry.


Chris-X is the only person with some common sense in this thread. 

Jeez people, how can convicting a cheater be a waste of money? I say justice delayed is better than none. So many have lost their jobs because of the Armstrong PR machine. 

To the Andreus, I say, good things come to those who wait. We never doubted you.


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

peter584 said:


> So what happens if they say he doped? Stripped of titles and ban? I don't get the point, if he doesn't have to face criminal charges who cares.


There are people who will sleep better knowing that a cheater was cought, though it is all on circumstantial evidence. This whole topic gets personal. People who for years who have been beating the Lance is a cheater drum will finally get to say "I told you so". Others of us see no point in pursuing the point. As Terry B mentioned, how do we know the people below him weren't cheaters as well? Should he be put to greater scrutiny because the US Government spent millions of our dollars investigating him and not other riders? Sounds like a witch hunt to me.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

Dwayne Barry said:


> The USADA investigation is over and unless the reports were false that Armstrong has said he's not going to fight this, all the money that is going to be spent has been spent.


They're bringing it to (sporting) court it seems:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-and-authorities-comment-on-doping-charges


> As for next step, USADA's case will be heard by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) in a three-person panel (each side picks one representative; those two pick the third). The AAA decision can be appealed to CAS. One element is undeniable, this case has the potential to drag on.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

kbwh said:


> They're bringing it to (sporting) court it seems:
> Armstrong And Authorities Comment On Doping Charges | Cyclingnews.com


Good, I'd love more details to come out. Also like to see the Armstrong camp have to **** on guys like Hincapie.

I want some entertainment value for my tax dollars


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

trailrunner68 said:


> Get used to the term "nonanalytical positive". The USADA has banned several athletes recently based on evidence other than tests.
> 
> In this case they do have tests. Blood values from 2009 and 2010 show blood manipulation. Tell Pelizotti can you cannot be banned without a positive test.


Very interesting that they say they have samples that are now two and three years old and weren't acted upon back then.

Also interesting:
"It is noted that the proceedings are the result of evidence gathered by USADA under its mandate and does not include evidence obtained by the investigation of the US Department of Justice."

Read more: WADA, Ironman, Livestrong and USADA react to charges against Lance Armstrong and others


----------



## nate (Jun 20, 2004)

Although testing athletes and adjudication of results are only part of their mission, it certainly is a big part of what USADA is funded to do. To ignore the Armstrong case would be to take money to do the job then not follow through. Maybe we could argue about how they are funded or how big their budget should be, but if they believe Armstrong is guilty, they feel they have the evidence to prove it, and it fits within their budget then I feel they're obligated to pursue it.


----------



## usernametaken (Jul 26, 2010)

I like how the Lance supporters have shifted their argument from saying "He never cheated!!!!" to now after the evidence has kept surfacing to: "It would cost too much to do anything about it." SIGH.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

If you are concerned about wasting money I suggest focusing on concerns on Armstrong. It will be his legal team that will do their best to bankrupt USADA was their garbage.


----------



## mcfly (Feb 19, 2004)

all in all, did he cheat? yeah probably but he was never caught..so no evidence no case. he is out of bike racing (road racing) i think they should concentrate their efforts to those competing now...they listen to hamilton, andreu, landis....those that have been caught and or admitted to cheating and i dont count those as being credible..the only way i would listen is if when big geoge hincapie retires and tells all and i dont hink that will happen....gee, USADA let it go and if he is still doping then maybe the triathlon world will catch him!


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

mcfly said:


> all in all, did he cheat? yeah probably but he was never caught..so no evidence no case. he is out of bike racing (road racing) i think they should concentrate their efforts to those competing now...


I think you just offended quite a few triathletes there.


----------



## mcfly (Feb 19, 2004)

just saying that if ol' lance is still doping in triathlons then try and catch him there...not from his past. and i do believe they have caught triathletes doping too....so if your clean, no problem..right?


----------



## Cpk (Aug 1, 2009)

davidka said:


> Very interesting that they say they have samples that are now two and three years old and weren't acted upon back then.


I am sure that André Birotte Jr.and Jeff Novitzky are wondering why they didn't have this information. 2+2=5


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*Fify*



Oxtox said:


> everyone cheats at bicycle racing. bfd. doesn't affect my life at all.
> 
> I'd be more interested in prosecuting low-lifes in Congress and Wall Street that steal untold gazillions of dollars from taxpayers and investors.


agreed, look at all Lance's podium mates -all busted

cyclists dope, wait

athletes dope - tens shocked


----------



## Samadhi (Nov 1, 2011)

jorgy said:


> Not $0.01 more.


+1

Let's move on.


----------



## desertgeezer (Aug 28, 2011)

If it is true that LA never tested positive, then why is the USADA going forward with this? Sounds kind of like a witch hunt to me; not to mention the waste of time and money. Maybe the USADA are all French guys who are pissed that an American won their race seven times.

Same goes for Roger Clemens. Quit already and move on.


----------



## nate (Jun 20, 2004)

mcfly said:


> just saying that if ol' lance is still doping in triathlons then try and catch him there...not from his past. and i do believe they have caught triathletes doping too....so if your clean, no problem..right?


If they have the evidence they should wait to try to catch him some other way?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

desertgeezer said:


> If it is true that LA never tested positive, then why is the USADA going forward with this? Sounds kind of like a witch hunt to me; not to mention the waste of time and money. Maybe the USADA are all French guys who are pissed that an American won their race seven times.
> 
> Same goes for Roger Clemens. Quit already and move on.


Armstrong has tested positive multiple times
Michael Ashenden | NY Velocity - New York bike racing culture, news and events

USADA has more then 10 direct witnesses of Armstrong's doping. Should they ignore them? Should they ignore the doping of all riders or just Lance?


----------



## physasst (Oct 1, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Should they ignore the doping of all riders or just Lance?


Yes.....ignore them all.....just legalize it....


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

physasst said:


> Yes.....ignore them all.....just legalize it....


Nice example from a mature adult.:idea:

At what age do the kiddies start doping legally? 18 or 21?


----------



## physasst (Oct 1, 2005)

Chris-X said:


> Nice example from a mature adult.:idea:
> 
> At what age do the kiddies start doping legally? 18 or 21?


18 of course.......


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

physasst said:


> Yes.....ignore them all.....just legalize it....


When USADA presents their case they will have several riders tell the same story about how they were young, in one case 20, and they were presented by a team doctor with a choice



> "Take the shot or you do not start tomorrow"


Do you really want people like that around the sport? If you read the USADA letter you would see this is not just about Lance but a team of doctors who pushed riders to dope.... dozens of riders. 

Most people think getting them out of the sport is a good thing


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*Rule #5*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> When USADA presents their case they will have several riders tell the same story about how they were young, in one case 20, and they were presented by a team doctor with a choice
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Rule No. 5

At this point in life, I'm a little fearful of asking that question of some. 

There are people who belong to the "let them die" crowd.:sad:


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> If you are concerned about wasting money I suggest focusing on concerns on Armstrong. It will be his legal team that will do their best to bankrupt USADA was their garbage.


I usually don't get involved in this because I'm convinced that 90% of the peloton doped during the periods in question.

I'm no Lance "fanboy" but if he cheated and "stole" all those victories it's axiomatic that he cheated and stole all those victories from everybody else who was cheating and trying to steal those victories.

I don't know who you are "Doctor Falsetti" but you sure seem to spend an inordinate time on these forums singling out one rider among a slew who obviously were "dirty."

Get over it. I'm far more concerned with what's going on now and I support every effort to insure that my beloved sport is clean.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Richard said:


> I usually don't get involved in this because I'm convinced that 90% of the peloton doped during the periods in question.
> 
> I'm no Lance "fanboy" but if he cheated and "stole" all those victories it's axiomatic that he cheated and stole all those victories from everybody else who was cheating and trying to steal those victories.
> 
> ...


You usually don't get involved but Doctor Falsetti has gone too far!

Listen protector of false idols, there is no *if* in Lance cheating, and your boy did all he could to keep the sport filthy these last 13 years, more than anyone else at least, so save the phony outrage. And also the silliness of insuring that your beloved sport is clean...

I guess you weren't outraged when the cancer returned in 2009?


----------



## Guest (Jun 17, 2012)

physasst said:


> 18 of course.......


is your thinking along the lines of the "if you're old enough to die for your country, you're old enough to vote / buy a beer / performance enhancing drugs? argument?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Richard said:


> I usually don't get involved in this because I'm convinced that 90% of the peloton doped during the periods in question.
> 
> I'm no Lance "fanboy" but if he cheated and "stole" all those victories it's axiomatic that he cheated and stole all those victories from everybody else who was cheating and trying to steal those victories.
> 
> ...


Post, not poster. 

If you read this forum you will see that I write about many riders, the UCI, WADA, and many other topics.....but it appears you are only motivated to post when Armstrong is mentioned.

Sorry that you only care about one rider. Where were you when Basso, Ullrich, Valverde, Hamilton, Landis, etc. were sanctioned? Did you call for them to get a free pass on their doping because everyone was doing it? That excuse did not work with Mom and it does not work with USADA


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

I guess I shouldn't have said "if." I firmly believe Lance was doped to the gills for most (if not all) of his career. But what I, or anyone else, believes does not make it fact.

I must be a sucker for our system of jurisprudence.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

PhotonFreak said:


> is your thinking along the lines of the "if you're old enough to die for your country, you're old enough to vote / buy a beer / performance enhancing drugs? argument?


Won't somebody, please, think of the children?!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Richard said:


> I guess I shouldn't have said "if." I firmly believe Lance was doped to the gills for most (if not all) of his career. But what I, or anyone else, believes does not make it fact.
> 
> I must be a sucker for our system of jurisprudence.


Armstrong signed the WADA code every year he took a Pro License, including 2012 as he is currently racing as a professional triathlete. The key parts of the code he is crying about right now were written by his long time agent and business partner, Bill Stapleton, when he was the head of the ethics committee and a board member of USOC. 

The "Unconstitutional" BS is just a way to obfuscate and rally the loyal followers


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Richard said:


> I guess I shouldn't have said "if." I firmly believe Lance was doped to the gills for most (if not all) of his career. But what I, or anyone else, believes does not make it fact.
> 
> *I must be a sucker for our system of jurisprudence*.


Right! You want to stop the truth from being exposed by the dozen direct eyewitnesses to the crime!

I don't understand why the legal systems of Western civilized countries don't account for eyewitness testimony. 

I'm sorry? Eyewitness testimony _is_ admissable? I did not know that!:mad2:


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

I'm a cyclist for a long time but I've admittedly I've never followed the sport of cycling much (mainly because I don't watch TV). Then when I started to followed cycling a bit (because I happened to have access to cable TV), that was when I was struck by the Armstrong phenomena. I cheered for him, and even looked at him (not up to him) a bit of an inspiration since he was also fighting cancer. In this regard, I don't think I'm much different from many casual American males. And to many casual Americans, cycling is Armstrong, and Armstrong is cycling. (yeah yeah there's Lemond, but the Lemond phenomenon was never as big as the Armstrong one).

However, today I'm no longer a fan of LA. In fact, I'm pretty disenfranchised about the whole sport of cycling. There was a time when I thought track & field were the most doped sport, but after following cycling I now realized that track & field doping pales in comparison to pro cycling. Pro cycling doping during the Armstrong era is similar to the doping program of the East German women's swimming team of the 80s. Athletes basically experimental rats for the doctors. These women were so juiced up that some eventually suffered permanent physiological and psychological damage, partly because testosterone has a bigger effect on women than men. Like Armstrong, many of those East German women was never caught cheating, but does anyone sitting here today really believe that they were clean? No one. Even back then, nobody thought they were clean.

And it's not like these women had a choice. If they didn't take the dope, they were off the national team. In other words, it was a directive from the top down that they take the dope. And it appears that some of the cycling teams of the Armstrong era were ran like that, like the East German.

At this point, I thoroughly convinced that Armstrong is not only a doper, but the biggest doper of them all. I'm all for taking him down and then stripping all his titles but also not to reward his titles to anyone else because the 2nd place guys were also dopers. Let the titles go unclaimed as a stark and dark reminders to the dark period of cycling. I'll bet 20 years from now, many will look at the Armstrong era like they do the East German era; dope to the gills.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> I'm all for taking him down and then stripping all his titles but also not to reward his titles to anyone else because the 2nd place guys were also dopers. * Let the titles go unclaimed as a stark and dark reminders to the dark period of cycling.* I'll bet 20 years from now, many will look at the Armstrong era like they do the East German era; dope to the gills.


This really is the best option.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

And I have to wonder if there is any role, and if so to what extent, did Bristol Meyers play in concealing Armstrong's dope. BM was/is a big pharmco and they would certainly have all the expertise in-house to assist in beating any testing lab. And if they didn't have the expertise, well then they probably have lots of industry connection to make things happen or at the very least sway things to happen.

I say this because BM and Armstrong certainly had a strong mutual relationship. But we're never going to know the full extent of the relationship, but the way I look at it, in the real world lots of time there are lots of things happening in the background that the public don't know about. So I use the iceberg theory: when you see the tip, assume that there's 90% hidden underneath that you don't see.

What is clear is this, LA had access to the best medical and pharmaceutical resources available to him. I don't see any reason for him NOT to dope to the gills! I would too.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*Morals?*



aclinjury said:


> And I have to wonder if there is any role, and if so to what extent, did Bristol Meyers play in concealing Armstrong's dope. BM was/is a big pharmco and they would certainly have all the expertise in-house to assist in beating any testing lab. And if they didn't have the expertise, well then they probably have lots of industry connection to make things happen or at the very least sway things to happen.
> 
> I say this because BM and Armstrong certainly had a strong mutual relationship. But we're never going to know the full extent of the relationship, but the way I look at it, in the real world lots of time there are lots of things happening in the background that the public don't know about. So I use the iceberg theory: when you see the tip, assume that there's 90% hidden underneath that you don't see.
> 
> What is clear is this, LA had access to the best medical and pharmaceutical resources available to him. I don't see any reason for him NOT to dope to the gills! I would too.


You don't see any reason?:cryin:


----------



## g29er (Mar 28, 2009)

This whole thing is crazy. I'm not a fanboy, but say what you want about Lance, he has never tested positive..period. Everything else is hearsay and speculation. All I hear is how people wonder if this person or that person knew something or hid something. Unless you can prove it, it didn't happen. Speculation and guesses mean nothing in court.

This will get dragged on for years like Bonds and Clemens. In a court of law hearsay is not admissible most of the time , and it is hard to convict someone without a murder weapon, a body, or..... a positive test. All of the other people out there that say that he somehow paid people off or there was something sneaky happening don't really know. Its all speculation or testimony from people that supposedly witnessed something over a decade ago in some cases. 

Show a me positive test.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

^ in case you haven't been following the LA story, this is not a criminal case. Burden of proof is not that of a criminal case.

And FYI, Bonds and Clemens won't be going into the Hall of Fame.

It's pretty naive that there are still people thinking LA was clean.


----------



## Dresden (May 26, 2009)

Eye witness testimony isn't hearsay.


----------



## Samadhi (Nov 1, 2011)

Dresden said:


> Eye witness testimony isn't hearsay.


...and should be placed under the scutiny of cross-examination regardless of the type of proceeding - criminal or otherwise.

Will those testifying against LA be subjected to cross-examination?


----------



## Barry Muzzin (Sep 18, 2006)

*Hearsay*



Dresden said:


> Eye witness testimony isn't hearsay.


This +1000000.

If direct eyewitness testimony is hearsay then get ready to clear the prisons because it is one of the most common pieces of EVIDENCE used to PROVE guilt or innocence.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Dresden said:


> Eye witness testimony isn't hearsay.


You are not getting it. See, for some people no evidence against Armstrong can be considered evidence. They have heard the word "hearsay" bandied about and, although they don't know what the word means, they vaguely understand it to mean the evidence cannot be trusted. So any evidence they do not want to accept becomes hearsay and needs to be denounced as such. It's really quite simple.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Samadhi said:


> ...and should be placed under the scutiny of cross-examination regardless of the type of proceeding - criminal or otherwise.
> 
> Will those testifying against LA be subjected to cross-examination?


Yes, of course

don't buy into Armstron's media spin on this.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

g29er said:


> This whole thing is crazy. I'm not a fanboy, but say what you want about Lance, he has never tested positive..period. Everything else is hearsay and speculation. All I hear is how people wonder if this person or that person knew something or hid something. Unless you can prove it, it didn't happen. Speculation and guesses mean nothing in court.
> 
> This will get dragged on for years like Bonds and Clemens. In a court of law hearsay is not admissible most of the time , and it is hard to convict someone without a murder weapon, a body, or..... a positive test. All of the other people out there that say that he somehow paid people off or there was something sneaky happening don't really know. Its all speculation or testimony from people that supposedly witnessed something over a decade ago in some cases.
> 
> Show a me positive test.



6 positives for EPO
Michael Ashenden | NY Velocity - New York bike racing culture, news and events

Direct witnesses testimony from over a dozen witnesses is not hearsay


----------



## Samadhi (Nov 1, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yes, of course


Cool!

To a lot of people, this whole mess seems like a collossal hatchet job - kinda like they're going to simply railorad LA into the history books as the biggest cheat/fraud of all time.

Personally, I don't think the proceedings will change anything of any importance, except for the multiple, all-day orgasms some people will undoubtedlky experience when he's found guilty and stripped of his honors. By allowing cross-examination there is an element of fairness - something that is often absent is such discussions - and that's a big plus. It may not change anything, but at least there will be a semblance of fairness involved.

At least LAs attorneys well get to earn their retainers by being able to cross-examine testimony.

I hope, for their sakes, that the USADA has all their ducks in a row, because LAs lawyers will have a field day with any missteps they make.

I have a hunch that there's more at stake here than LAs future. I think anti-doping agencies will be on trial as well. If this turns into a pooch-screw, it's all over for them, too.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Samadhi said:


> Cool!
> 
> To a lot of people, this whole mess seems like a collossal hatchet job - kinda like they're going to simply railorad LA into the history books as the biggest cheat/fraud of all time.


Only to those who believe Armstrong's obfuscation on the topic. Most who have followed USADA cases for a while realize that he is intentionally miss representing the facts in the case, a sign of desperation.


----------



## gordy748 (Feb 11, 2007)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Only to those who believe Armstrong's obfuscation on the topic. Most who have followed USADA cases for a while realize that he is intentionally miss representing the facts in the case, a sign of desperation.


Doctor Falsetti, you really are blinded by your own clear hatred of Armstrong. It's also clear that you know very little about the case, doping or the American legal system.

Those that know about this case and have been following it know that the USADA is trying to convince one of the doctors to turn states' witness against Armstrong and Bruyneel. Without this most contend they have nothing but hearsay and suspicion.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

gordy748 said:


> Doctor Falsetti, you really are blinded by your own clear hatred of Armstrong. It's also clear that you know very little about the case, doping or the American legal system.
> 
> Those that know about this case and have been following it know that the USADA is trying to convince one of the doctors to turn states' witness against Armstrong and Bruyneel. Without this most contend they have nothing but hearsay and suspicion.


Please share with us how direct witness testimony from 10+ witnesses is "Hearsay"? You do realize USADA is not the Federal Government so nobody is turning "States Evidence" 

"Most contend"? Outside of Lance's loyal groupies most experts are saying he is in deep trouble

You do not have to be blinded by anything to see that Lance is in serious trouble


----------

