# Armsrong stipped of TDF



## Jaybo (Mar 5, 2002)

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/m...eal-article-1.1143295?localLinksEnabled=false


----------



## champamoore (Jul 30, 2012)

He hasn't been stripped of anything yet. That is for the authorities who ran the events he won to decide. Seems highly likely, though. 

Considering his fierce drive to win, his bowing to this before the fight was done seems very telling.


----------



## agm2 (Sep 18, 2008)

He never said he was stripped of his titles. He said stipped.

And IBTM (i've never got to do that!)


----------



## Jaybo (Mar 5, 2002)

He has all kinds of people who have turned on him and he is screwed. He seems like a douche bag but it sucks for American Cycling....


----------



## viciouscycle (Aug 22, 2009)

Jaybo said:


> He has all kinds of people who have turned on him and he is screwed. He seems like a douche bag but it sucks for Cycling ....




Fixed it for you


----------



## 3rensho (Aug 26, 2003)

Say 'goodnight' Lance.


----------



## pro from dover (Jul 5, 2010)

He should run for Congress, fit right in:thumbsup:


----------



## JC650 (Feb 8, 2012)

So just give the titles to the guys who finished second cause surely they didnt dope.


----------



## PaxRomana (Jan 16, 2012)

Lance was all about suing and bullying people for years when he had the upper hand.

Now that the evidence is stacked against him with an army of former teammates ready to testify to what really happened at US Postal, he turns tail and runs.

He's a coward and a cheat. This isn't a sad day for cycling. It's a sad day for Lance.

It's a good day for cycling because we see that no matter how successful and powerful, a cheater can be brought to justice.

Well done, Travis Tygart and USADA. Well done, indeed.


----------



## maxfrm (Jan 15, 2012)

USADA cannot assert control of a professional international sport and attempt to strip my seven Tour de France titles," he said.


read the whole story... not just the title

Why could they not catch him doping on any of his 7 Tour victories? Now the USADA still fighting in court? hmmm tax dollars being spent wisely? How can you not catch him? they are just creating a witch hunt until they get the answer they want. Not the truth... they couldn't even catch him when he tried to make his comeback in 2009 when he came in 3rd. Then they had their last chance in 2010 when he was well back in the pack 23rd place.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Thank God cycling is finally clean.


----------



## Defy (Apr 22, 2012)

It's all so stupid. If Lance doped, well he beat fellow doped cyclists. Jan Ulrich, Floyd Landis, Ivan Basso. The guy Lance said is crazy talented - Contador doped. Now Frank Schleck? Probably means Andy doped too. 

Cycling is hardly clean...and I really don't care. I'll still DVR the tour and watch the last 15-20 min. Or so.


----------



## gordy748 (Feb 11, 2007)

I think it's a very, very clever move. If you read the whole story there is a pretty clear threat that USADA will get a serious lawsuit should they ban him or strip him of anything before CAS rules whether they even have jurisdiction in the first place.

And now USA Cycling is involved. I reckon this is going to keep on rolling.

In other news, I'm amazed anyone could think that cycling is finally clean. It hasn't been since Ancquetil's days, it's not today, it won't be... probably forever. Nor are many other sports, like football, American football, baseball. Mix money with sport and dope happens.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Can we get this out of the racer forum? This is for racers, not Armstrong haters.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

.....


----------



## ralph1 (May 20, 2006)

*Something to brighten this thread up*

My 15 yr old daughter drew me this, taken from the cover of one of his books.

Here are the progress shots, and the finished product.




























What do you all think?

cheers

Pete


----------



## flatsix911 (Jun 28, 2009)

^^^ Well done! :thumbsup:


----------



## Rich_Racer (Jul 12, 2002)

Lance Armstrong was the best while taking the same drugs everyone else was taking! He won 7 TdF as they were then. The UCI will not strip him of anything because they know it's be impossible to find a rider in the top 10, 20 (how far down?) that wasn't doping. Everyone should just move on!

I do believe the peleton is a lot cleaner now than it was then.


----------



## aureliajulia (May 25, 2009)

Rich_Racer said:


> Lance Armstrong was the best while taking the same drugs everyone else was taking! He won 7 TdF as they were then. The UCI will not strip him of anything because they know it's be impossible to find a rider in the top 10, 20 (how far down?) that wasn't doping. Everyone should just move on!
> 
> I do believe the peleton is a lot cleaner now than it was then.


Agreed.


----------



## Dajianshan (Jul 15, 2007)

A canny move. This prevents a forum for the evidence to be presented, as what Armstrong is fighting for is the value of his brand. By not fighting he is winning by losing. This leaves him room to salvage his image without damning testimony introduced in a trial. He may also be betting that the USDA has pissed of the UCI as Armstrong passed all UCI doping controls set by that organization. After all, the UCI is like a club and they may not like someone else telling them how they are going to run it. On the other side, the UCI is facing pressure from teams that wish to splinter off into a competing "league". The UCI may back down and accept the sanctions to retain their credibility. Armstrong may be hoping they demonstrate a resolve not to be pushed around by outsiders.


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

...I don't know man....how does a guy do this after riding all day?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHJErrp4eOw


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Rich_Racer said:


> Lance Armstrong was the best while taking the same drugs everyone else was taking! He won 7 TdF as they were then. The UCI will not strip him of anything because they know it's be impossible to find a rider in the top 10, 20 (how far down?) that wasn't doping. Everyone should just move on!
> 
> I do believe the peleton is a lot cleaner now than it was then.


While I believe that is mostly true, it seems fairly clear there were some that weren't prepared to do the blood doping but that would only apply to his later Tours after the EPO test came on line in 2001 (or maybe it was 2002?).


----------



## ralph1 (May 20, 2006)

Hard bloody work I say, and your quote has something to do with it.


----------



## jamesdak (Aug 22, 2010)

Total joke by an agency that has no authority in the matter. Why are they even wasting the money. And like others say, so what? Do we really think athletes are clean? If they take Lance's wins where do they stop at, who else was competitive in that era and clean? Right or wrong (and I do think doping is wrong) I do believe Armstrong was competing at a fair level with his peers. And look at his second to last TDF where he got what 2nd? You think he was doping then as much as they tested him??


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

jamesdak said:


> You think he was doping then as much as they tested him??


According to the Biopassport data, yes.


----------



## clones2 (Jun 26, 2012)

Lance should HTFU... ;-)

He can go complain with McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, Clemens, and Marion Jones et all.... Sure he probably doped, with just about every other rider in those races. 

Guilty until proven innocent I guess. Trying to figure out what they have accomplished with this... I guess the lesson is dope all you want, just don't win.


----------



## PaxRomana (Jan 16, 2012)

The people supporting Lance at this point have either decided to ignore the mountain of evidence against him or just haven't kept up with the case and are completely ignorant of how carefully USADA has built up its case.

And yes, USADA does have authority. WADA came out in support.

Regarding stripping of titles, that has not been done yet.


----------



## viciouscycle (Aug 22, 2009)

PaxRomana said:


> The people supporting Lance at this point have either decided to ignore the mountain of evidence against him


So far all I have read is "reports" of evidence, I have not read anything new that has not been out for years, interweb rumors as well.

Just a question, if Lance gets all his titles stripped, will they go back and test the next in line and then hold him to the same standards as Lance?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

viciouscycle said:


> Just a question, if Lance gets all his titles stripped, will they go back and test the next in line and then hold him to the same standards as Lance?


That would be up to the agency that is brought evidence of their doping.

People seem to forget or not realize USADA did not decide to go after Armstrong out the blue, they were brought evidence that he doped. If they didn't pursue it they wouldn't have been doing their job.


----------



## nOOky (Mar 20, 2009)

Who is Armsrong, and what was he stipped of?


----------



## ron_g217 (May 11, 2011)

Rich_Racer said:


> Lance Armstrong was the best while taking the same drugs everyone else was taking! He won 7 TdF as they were then. The UCI will not strip him of anything because they know it's be impossible to find a rider in the top 10, 20 (how far down?) that wasn't doping. Everyone should just move on!
> 
> I do believe the peleton is a lot cleaner now than it was then.


Great point! 

I'm with Lance. As a new cyclist, He was the MJ of TDF imo. Alot of ppl look up to his achievements and get motivated to ride. The USDA should STFU. He passed all the doping test back when he won his 7 TDF. No one can't win a TDF w/o any teamates. His team was all dope up for sure and turned their back on him for a story. Lance said "He's tired of fighting the same allegations for years" and with this decision the USDA takes it as a guilty admittance. He's just putting an end to the "Witch Hunt".


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

viciouscycle said:


> So far all I have read is "reports" of evidence, I have not read anything new that has not been out for years, interweb rumors as well.
> 
> Just a question, if Lance gets all his titles stripped, will they go back and test the next in line and then hold him to the same standards as Lance?


This fact can't be overstated. They go after Armstrong because of his visibility, but the rampant doping the peleton for all those years means that the playing field was still relatively level for riders. If they really want to be accurate historically, they should remove all the places from all the riders. After all, as it's a team sport, if a doped domestique helped a protected rider achieve greater results, isn't that rider's results also tarnished by default? 

They "caught" Armstrong simply because Armstrong is the one they chose to catch. To ignore the obvious other variables in play is what causes some people to say "witch hunt". None of those riders were clean, or at the least, not all of their domestiques were, which in turn, gave them a perceived competitive advantage.


----------



## dino8031 (Aug 8, 2012)

It could be a smart move by Lance. He's betting the USADA doesn't have the authority over the UCI to do much of anything. If the USADA turns out to be a paper tiger then he wins.

He doesn't strike me as the kind of guy that would just roll over. There's a plan here. 

As for the morality of the whole thing I think it was a level playing field. His achievements were hard earned and should stand. He's done a lot of good. It's time for all of this to go away.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

The Human G-Nome said:


> They "caught" Armstrong simply because Armstrong is the one they chose to catch. To ignore the obvious other variables in play is what causes some people to say "witch hunt". None of those riders were clean, or at the least, not all of their domestiques were, which in turn, gave them a perceived competitive advantage.


Do tell?

How for instance is USADA suppose to get evidence on say Ullrich or Basso?

And short of any evidence why would they start an investigation in the first place?

It makes zero sense to call on USADA to randomly start going after riders as if that's what happened with Armstrong. It's not.


----------



## goloso (Feb 4, 2004)

The Human G-Nome said:


> This fact can't be overstated. They go after Armstrong because of his visibility, but the rampant doping the peleton for all those years means that the playing field was still relatively level for riders. If they really want to be accurate historically, they should remove all the places from all the riders. After all, as it's a team sport, if a doped domestique helped a protected rider achieve greater results, isn't that rider's results also tarnished by default?
> 
> They "caught" Armstrong simply because Armstrong is the one they chose to catch. To ignore the obvious other variables in play is what causes some people to say "witch hunt". None of those riders were clean, or at the least, not all of their domestiques were, which in turn, gave them a perceived competitive advantage.



He was offerered the same deal as those who agreed to testify against him. He refused.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

dino8031 said:


> It could be a smart move by Lance.


It was his only move. Otherwise he gets publicly exposed as a doper by former colleague after former colleague.

Now he gets to play the martyr.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

The Human G-Nome said:


> This *fantasy* can't be overstated. They go after Armstrong because of his visibility, but the rampant doping the peleton for all those years means that the playing field was still relatively level for riders. If they really want to be accurate historically, they should remove all the places from all the riders. After all, as it's a team sport, if a doped domestique helped a protected rider achieve greater results, isn't that rider's results also tarnished by default?
> 
> They "caught" Armstrong simply because Armstrong is the one they chose to catch. To ignore the obvious other variables in play is what causes some people to say "witch hunt". None of those riders were clean, or at the least, not all of their domestiques were, which in turn, gave them a perceived competitive advantage.


FIFY. The rest of your post is based on that one boldfaced word.


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Do tell?
> 
> How for instance is USADA suppose to get evidence on say Ullrich or Basso?
> 
> ...



Your making my point exactly. They can't go after Ullrich or Basso. They can't go after any one else except for the Americans. What issue does it solve in Pro Cycling. 

Why would they start an investigation of Ullrich or Basso? I don't know if that's rhetorical. Of course they won't do that. Both have already been caught and penalized and neither are Americans.

I am not asking that USADA go to randomly go after riders. It doesn't even make sense for them to go after Armstrong. That's my point.


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

goloso said:


> He was offerered the same deal as those who agreed to testify against him. He refused.


Not sure I understand your point. What is the end game here? To rid cycling of dopers? To rid American sports in general of doping? What are they accomplishing by banning Armstrong, a now retired racer, and is it worth all the resources to make that point?


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

MG537 said:


> FIFY. The rest of your post is based on that one boldfaced word.


Cool. Then you understand my post perfectly. This whole episode is nonsense.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

The Human G-Nome said:


> I am not asking that USADA go to randomly go after riders. It doesn't even make sense for them to go after Armstrong. That's my point.


Of course it does, they were given evidence he was a doper. Their entire mandate is to go after dopers so clean athletes can compete, they wouldn't be doing their job if they just looked the other way.


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> It was his only move. Otherwise he gets publicly exposed as a doper by former colleague after former colleague.
> 
> Now he gets to play the martyr.


I think it's interesting that somehow we hold the admitted dopers in higher regard than the dopers who haven't yet admitted to what they've done. Even in the admitted cases, those admissions weren't made voluntarily, but rather, were done to save their own ass when given no other choice. Do people honestly hold Jonathan Vaughters in some special place in their heart because he's now an admitted doper? He has very little left to lose at this point, but definitely something to gain if this is personal with Lance. He also gets to hold onto the "yeah, but at least I admit it!" moniker, but I fail to see why I should respect him or any of the dopers at all. As cycling fans, we deserve more than any of them have given us, and it doesn't make feel all warm and fuzzy inside to know that some have admitted their wrong doing once the gun was firmly held to their temples. 

There's also no denying that if Lance were merely a domestique, none of this would be an issue, and he wouldn't garner a single headline, much like the domestiques of his day that either were or were not caught, and now history views their story as a footnote and nothing more.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

The Human G-Nome said:


> Not sure I understand your point. What is the end game here? To rid cycling of dopers? To rid American sports in general of doping? What are they accomplishing by banning Armstrong, a now retired racer, and is it worth all the resources to make that point?


It's not their job to determine an end game, they are simply suppose to catch dopers in the hope that clean athletes can compete.

Armstrong was still competing in a WADA sanctioned sport. How could USADA not go after him, not to mention the others still in cycling?

I mean I have my doubts about triathletes in general  For a guy like Armstrong that must have been a doping field day, like going back to the early '00s.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

PaxRomana said:


> Lance was all about suing and bullying people for years when he had the upper hand.
> 
> Now that the evidence is stacked against him with an army of former teammates ready to testify to what really happened at US Postal, he turns tail and runs.
> 
> ...


This.


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Of course it does, they were given evidence he was a doper. Their entire mandate is to go after dopers so clean athletes can compete, they wouldn't be doing their job if they just looked the other way.


They're not doing their jobs either way. They go after Lance because of his high profile, not because he happens to be the biggest doping offender. If Lance was some forgotten domestique who doped just to get by, no one would be mouthing his name right now. They go after Lance with vigor because he's Lance. And to that end, he is no better and no worse than any of the other dopers, some caught, some not.


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> It's not their job to determine an end game, they are simply suppose to catch dopers in the hope that clean athletes can compete.
> 
> Armstrong was still competing in a WADA sanctioned sport. How could USADA not go after him, not to mention the others still in cycling?
> 
> I mean I have my doubts about triathletes in general  For a guy like Armstrong that must have been a doping field day, like going back to the early '00s.


I agree with your general point as long as the sidenote exists that says this is all utterly quixotic. The answer is not that they aren't paid to distinguish an end game, but rather, that there is no end game at all to distinguish. As for the triathletes, it's just hard for me to care much whether they're clean, but admittedly, my viewpoint on that one is entirely bias. ;-)


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

velodog said:


> This.


This.


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

The Human G-Nome said:


> They're not doing their jobs either way. They go after Lance because of his high profile, not because he happens to be the biggest doping offender. If Lance was some forgotten domestique who doped just to get by, no one would be mouthing his name right now. They go after Lance with vigor because he's Lance. And to that end, he is no better and no worse than any of the other dopers, some caught, some not.


I'd say going after the biggest fish to have ever doped in cycling and establishing himself as a living-legend is a good move. If I were in the pro-peloton, I'd take pause because it looks like a person will eventually get caught, no matter their success.... That's a pretty big deterrent.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

The Human G-Nome said:


> I think it's interesting that somehow we hold the admitted dopers in higher regard than the dopers who haven't yet admitted to what they've done.


Most people don't take kindly to being lied to when it's so obvious. They tend to find it insulting to their intelligence.

So I don't know if it's the admitted dopers that are held in higher regard, or the lying dopers that are held in lower regard.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

The Human G-Nome said:


> They're not doing their jobs either way. They go after Lance because of his high profile, not because he happens to be the biggest doping offender. If Lance was some forgotten domestique who doped just to get by, no one would be mouthing his name right now. They go after Lance with vigor because he's Lance. And to that end, he is no better and no worse than any of the other dopers, some caught, some not.


With all due respect, bullshit, there have been a bunch of nobodies that USADA has gone after just like they went after Armstrong.

Joe Papp?

Kyle Leogrande?

Guys who never even made it to the forgotten domestique level.


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Most people don't take kindly to being lied to when it's so obvious. They tend to find it insulting to their intelligence.
> 
> So I don't know if it's the admitted dopers that are held in higher regard, or the lying dopers that are held in lower regard.


A doper is lying to us and everyone he's ever competed against by default. Personally, I see know significant gradations between a doper who later admitted that he doped under duress and one that hasn't yet vocalized it. For example, nabbing Armstrong doesn't make me feel all suddenly giddy inside, or make me think that we've turned any kind of corner on doping. It's just a high profile case that the USADA can hang their hats on somewhat because they know it will garner them some positive headlines.


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> With all due respect, bullshit, there have been a bunch of nobodies that USADA has gone after just like they went after Armstrong.
> 
> Joe Papp?
> 
> ...


Bullshit? You want to tell me that there's no difference in resource allocation between Armstrong and the other names on your list?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

The Human G-Nome said:


> I agree with your general point as long as the sidenote exists that says this is all utterly quixotic. The answer is not that they aren't paid to distinguish an end game, but rather, that there is no end game at all to distinguish. As for the triathletes, it's just hard for me to care much whether they're clean, but admittedly, my viewpoint on that one is entirely bias. ;-)


Seems like the consensus is that cycling is far cleaner now than it was in Armstrong's day. That may not be an end game but it's an improvement if you happen to be someone who doesn't want to dope to compete.


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

MaddSkillz said:


> I'd say going after the biggest fish to have ever doped in cycling and establishing himself as a living-legend is a good move. If I were in the pro-peloton, I'd take pause because it looks like a person will eventually get caught, no matter their success.... That's a pretty big deterrent.



How is that a big deterrent? They have been going after dopers for decades, and it's never seemed to deter the riders that follow. Does anyone really believe that there are pro riders out there who see an Armstrong ban and then think "Oh well, now that Armstrong has been banned, I'm just going to stop using HGH." This won't affect those who would dope in the slightest. They will just think up more clever ways to attempt to avoid detection.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

The Human G-Nome said:


> Bullshit? You want to tell me that there's no difference in resource allocation between Armstrong and the other names on your list?


I have no idea. It takes what it takes to get to the bottom of a case.

Are you saying you know of cases where USADA became aware of someone possibly doping and decided not to pursue it due to financial considerations?


----------



## rhauft (Aug 8, 2006)

*Complete and total bullshit*


----------



## thechriswebb (Nov 21, 2008)

It doesn't make me feel better. I want a clean sport and for clean athletes to have a chance. This should have been resolved ages ago though and even though I know many of you disagree, I think it is simply too late. I don't think it will do much to deter at this point. Go to Lance's Facebook page and read the comments if you want to see what this has done to public opinion about him. 

I hate it that one of the most popular cyclists in the peloton (Jens) magnificently won his first race in two years yesterday and that when I log into the news, it is buried out of view under all of this crap.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

The Human G-Nome said:


> How is that a big deterrent? They have been going after dopers for decades, and it's never seemed to deter the riders that follow. Does anyone really believe that there are pro riders out there who see an Armstrong ban and then think "Oh well, now that Armstrong has been banned, I'm just going to stop using HGH." This won't affect those who would dope in the slightest. They will just think up more clever ways to attempt to avoid detection.


That simply doesn't appear to be the case all indications are that the peloton has cleaned up their act a good bit.

No one needs to put out the insane numbers Armstrong and those guys did to win the Tour these days.


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Seems like the consensus is that cycling is far cleaner now than it was in Armstrong's day. That may not be an end game but it's an improvement if you happen to be someone who doesn't want to dope to compete.


The jury is still out on that one. Is the doping diminished, or have the riders and doctors gotten even better at avoiding detection? It took an army of second person accounts to "get Armstrong". He still didn't officially fail the tests. Everyone will have to admit that when they saw Vino take Olympic gold this year, one thing immediately came to their minds.


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

viciouscycle said:


> So far all I have read is "reports" of evidence, I have not read anything new that has not been out for years, interweb rumors as well.
> 
> Just a question, if Lance gets all his titles stripped, will they go back and test the next in line and then hold him to the same standards as Lance?


Like Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich?


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

thechriswebb said:


> It doesn't make me feel better. I want a clean sport and for clean athletes to have a chance. This should have been resolved ages ago though and even though I know many of you disagree, I think it is simply too late. I don't think it will do much to deter at this point. Go to Lance's Facebook page and read the comments if you want to see what this has done to public opinion about him.
> 
> I hate it that one of the most popular cyclists in the peloton (Jens) magnificently won his first race in two years yesterday and that when I log into the news, it is buried out of view under all of this crap.


I agree 100%. I have no idea how people find interest in this story any longer. It feels about as relevant as Kristin Stewart and Robert Pattison for me, just a lot of endless gossip.


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> That simply doesn't appear to be the case all indications are that the peloton has cleaned up their act a good bit.
> 
> No one needs to put out the insane numbers Armstrong and those guys did to win the Tour these days.


"Appear" is the key word as it's always been. I hope you're right.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

The Human G-Nome said:


> The jury is still out on that one. Is the doping diminished, or have the riders and doctors gotten even better at avoiding detection? It took an army of second person accounts to "get Armstrong". He still didn't officially fail the tests. Everyone will have to admit that when they saw Vino take Olympic gold this year, one thing immediately came to their minds.


Not that it proves he's clean but anyone who had watched Vino in his other races and that one could see that was a tactical win as much as anything. He's a shadow of his former self.


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I have no idea. It takes what it takes to get to the bottom of a case.
> 
> Are you saying you know of cases where USADA became aware of someone possibly doping and decided not to pursue it due to financial considerations?


I am saying that USADA will spare no expense in going after the highest profile, biggest fish in the sea. Are you insinuating that somehow politics do not enter into this equation? And to put it back on you, are you saying that you know this for a fact? How do you know this? It works both ways.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

The Human G-Nome said:


> "Appear" is the key word as it's always been. I hope you're right.


Well based simply on power numbers if they're still doping they can't be taking nearly as much or using as effective drugs/methods.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

The Human G-Nome said:


> I am saying that USADA will spare no expense in going after the highest profile, biggest fish in the sea. Are you insinuating that somehow politics do not enter into this equation? And to put it back on you, are you saying that you know this for a fact? How do you know this? It works both ways.


Don't know but I can't fathom why they wouldn't have spared any expenses in going after Armstrong given their mandate.


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Not that it proves he's clean but anyone who had watched Vino in his other races and that one could see that was a tactical win as much as anything. He's a shadow of his former self.


<A shadow of his former self and an admitted doper won the Olympic gold medal in cycling. >

No matter how superior the tactics, something about that phrase doesn't sit all that well with me.


----------



## kini (Feb 19, 2010)

I keep seeing/reading "mountain of evidence" "all the evidence" etc....

From what I've read the so called "evidence" is anecdotal and hearsay at best. Much of which comes from the testimony (unsworn at this point) of persons found guilty of doping by legitimate testing or those jealous of his success or a combination of the two. 

They (the powers that be) had a decade of blood and urine testing to catch him and they didn't. That should have been the end of the story. 

Just because someone says something even under oath does not make it true. With no physical evidence the case is a joke pursued by petty, jealous, fat, lazy suits in an office with nothing better to do between their sessions of masturbating to their image in a mirror. Pathetic bunch of losers.


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Don't know but I can't fathom why they wouldn't have spared any expenses in going after Armstrong given their mandate.


Personally, knowing that they are using tax payer money in attempt to convict people like Barry Bonds and Lance Armstrong, I'd much rather they "waste" our resources going after people who at least aren't retired. An Armstrong conviction won't do a thing for me as a fan, and it's hard to fathom how it improves the sport in general. Do we just need more pretty asterisks in the history books? The entire Festina team was once busted, and that certainly didn't deter the riders that followed from doping.


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Well based simply on power numbers if they're still doping they can't be taking nearly as much or using as effective drugs/methods.


We are in agreement on that one. Similarly, you see baseball players getting busted for synthetic testosterone these days rather than 'roids.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

The Human G-Nome said:


> Personally, knowing that they are using tax payer money in attempt to convict people like Barry Bonds and Lance Armstrong, I'd much rather they "waste" our resources going after people who at least aren't retired. An Armstrong conviction won't do a thing for me as a fan, and it's hard to fathom how it improves the sport in general. Do we just need more pretty asterisks in the history books? The entire Festina team was once busted, and that certainly didn't deter the riders that followed from doping.


All of my favorite riders were dopers so I could care less from a sporting perspective if someone is caught doping and I loved the sport at the height of the doping. That's why I just don't get why anyone cares about whether they take his Tour wins or not. Anyone paying attention knows the score.

At the same time Lance has *****'d out and duped a bunch of people, and caused me to waste an inordinate amount of time trying to convince ill-informed people of the obvious  I've always had a thing for people who take advantage of others.

If he was really the hard ****er he's always claimed to be he'd give everybody what for and tell them the way it was. Instead we get all this nonsense still.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

The Human G-Nome said:


> Personally, knowing that they are using tax payer money in attempt to convict people like Barry Bonds and Lance Armstrong, I'd much rather they "waste" our resources going after people who at least aren't retired.


There's been no reason to think USADA has spared other dopers as they went after Armstrong. And I'll say it for the last time, Armstrong was not retired. He was participating in a WADA sanctioned sport. All the others charged were still involved in cycling.


----------



## Snakebit (Mar 18, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> That simply doesn't appear to be the case all indications are that the peloton has cleaned up their act a good bit.
> 
> No one needs to put out the insane numbers Armstrong and those guys did to win the Tour these days.


This year's TDF was exciting, huh?


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

The Human G-Nome said:


> Personally, knowing that they are using tax payer money in attempt to convict people like Barry Bonds and Lance Armstrong, I'd much rather they "waste" our resources going after people who at least aren't retired.


Armstrong was not retired. He was too stupid to retire. Up until being charged he was racing as a professional triathlete, getting paid from a deal with the WTC.


----------



## 1bamafan14 (Jan 24, 2012)

Amazing how a guy passes every test and still gets vilified! Smells of a witch hunt to me.


----------



## fontarin (Mar 28, 2009)

Heh, reading some of the responses here and elsewhere, I see that his tactic of accepting the suspension is working. Evidence won't get released (for now) based on the fact that he didn't go to arbitration, so then everyone says "where's the evidence? there isn't any, he must be clean!"


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Not that it proves he's clean but anyone who had watched Vino in his other races and that one could see that was a tactical win as much as anything. He's a shadow of his former self.


Shadows cannot win the biggest races. Post ban Vino has a L-B-L and an Olympic gold medal. We know enough about doping to know that a post ban, clean rider will never see the front half of the peloton again.



Dwayne Barry said:


> Well based simply on power numbers if they're still doping they can't be taking nearly as much or using as effective drugs/methods.


I read that Jani Brajkovic put out 7w/kg for the last 2 miles of stage 2 in Co. He lost to a couple of larger riders who were putting out bigger numbers. While that's not 20min threshold, it is pretty huge power for a little guy.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

fontarin said:


> Heh, reading some of the responses here and elsewhere, I see that his tactic of accepting the suspension is working. Evidence won't get released (for now) based on the fact that he didn't go to arbitration, so then everyone says "where's the evidence? there isn't any, he must be clean!"



Armstrong did not to contest a hearing, that doesn’t mean there won’t be a report about his case. In section 16, the copy reads, “USADA shall publicly report the disposition of anti-doping matters no later than five business days after … (2) such hearing has been waived.”

Additionally,* “After an anti-doping rule violation has been established, USADA may comment upon any aspect of the case.”*

http://www.usada.org/files/pdfs/usada-protocol.pdf


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> There's been no reason to think USADA has spared other dopers as they went after Armstrong. And I'll say it for the last time, Armstrong was not retired. He was participating in a WADA sanctioned sport. All the others charged were still involved in cycling.


From the judge who ruled on the case:

"USADA's conduct raises serious questions about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping, or if it is acting according to less noble motives," such as politics or publicity, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks wrote.


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

trailrunner68 said:


> Armstrong was not retired. He was too stupid to retire. Up until being charged he was racing as a professional triathlete, getting paid from a deal with the WTC.


Triathlon for Armstrong is a tricycle ride into retirement. No one can take that seriously.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

USADA decided this case long before the arbitration deadline. USADA has not proven dick. Besides the Tour is its own entity.


----------



## NextTime (Oct 13, 2007)

ralph1 said:


> What do you all think?
> 
> cheers
> 
> Pete


I'm seeing some talent! Thanks for sharing.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

I don't know what proof they have because the Dick all of a sudden doesn't want to fight. 

It's kinda like his other ball fell off.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

velodog said:


> I don't know what proof they have because the Dick all of a sudden doesn't want to fight.
> 
> _*It's kinda like his other ball fell off.*_


:lol: :eek6: :lol:



That's so wrong, yet appropriate  !


----------

