# Armstrong’s ex-wife involved in doping scheme



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

More evidence released:




> *Hincapie said to have lied to US Customs about EPO in luggage*
> 
> Lance Armstrong's ex-wife, Kristin, is said to have not only known about but also participated in his doping practices, helping to refrigerate EPO and distribute drugs to US riders at the 1998 World Championships, according to a report with alleged details from the USADA's "reasoned decision" on its lifetime ban for Armstrong.
> 
> The report also claims that George Hincapie said that he lied to US Customers officials about EPO in his luggage. Armstrong has always denied doping but decided not to fight USADA's charges.


Report: Armstrong’s Ex-wife Involved In Doping Scheme | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

The wheels are falling off. . . .


----------



## brianmcg (Oct 12, 2002)

If this keeps up they will probably ask that all his TDF titles be stripped.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Ooops.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

umm.....no comment


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

oh darnit


----------



## Tomahawk (May 4, 2012)

Where's the "evidence" I'm missing? You people will jump at anything.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Tomahawk said:


> Where's the "evidence" I'm missing? You people will jump at anything.



Reading comprehension owns you.....


----------



## Tomahawk (May 4, 2012)

The article claims that basically -

"Supposed witness apparently claims so and so did this." The article isn't confirmed, we don't know who the witness is - and the "witness" has no actual evidence whatsoever on their side.

Quite the journalist's standards you have going there.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

You guys wouldn't believe what my second ex wife (RIP) had to say about me!


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Tomahawk said:


> The article claims that basically -
> 
> "Supposed witness apparently claims so and so did this." The article isn't confirmed, we don't know who the witness is - and the "witness" has no actual evidence whatsoever on their side.
> 
> Quite the journalist's standards you have going there.


From the article (And the answer to your first and second poast):



> The US agency's next step is to submit its "reasoned decision" on the matter to the UCI and WADA, which is expected to happen within the next two weeks.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Also from the article:










and we've all seen this: 










Coincidence?!


----------



## Tomahawk (May 4, 2012)

I like how they're trying to include a story on Kristin Armstrong's involvement in doping in their report to the UCI, as if they're trying to get a lifetime ban for Kristin also. Adds more to the mess that their argument is.

2 weeks away? That's what they said the day Armstrong chose to give up fighting them over a month ago. Personally I hope there's no more delays, because it's pretty pathetic they obviously hadn't even completed gathering enough evidence to make a convincing case.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Are you really worried about the delay? I am not. 

I also don't worry about the number of people involved. If somebody accepts that Armstrong doped, what difference does it make if his wife, gardener, masseuse, and electrician helped? I don't doubt that the people closest to Armstrong knew what was happening. I agree: Why does it matter if his wife knew or helped? 

Also, Armstrong disarms any unnecessary personal (family) attacks by saying that he's moving on and not going to fight it. So what if they pile up evidence that shows Armstrong's wife hid EPO in the butter? Who are they arguing against? And why? 

I understand proving the case to the UCI but the more this goes on the more it appears to be vindictive mudslinging. Maybe next they'll introduce evidence that Armstrong verbally abused the family dog while shooting up.


----------



## Tomahawk (May 4, 2012)

I'd rather have all this smoke and mirrors out of the way and actually see what they've based their decision to ban Armstrong for life on. 
More and more it's looking like he's been punished for having passed all their lame ass tests and being a winner. I guess since USADA's tests fail to catch anyone they need to pull down a big name every once in a while to stay relevant.

It's slightly troubling that such a mess of an organization has the fate of athletes in their hands.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Tomahawk said:


> I like how they're trying to include a story on Kristin Armstrong's involvement in doping in their report to the UCI, as if they're trying to get a lifetime ban for Kristin also. Adds more to the mess that their argument is.
> 
> 2 weeks away? That's what they said the day Armstrong chose to give up fighting them over a month ago. Personally I hope there's no more delays, because it's pretty pathetic they obviously hadn't even completed gathering enough evidence to make a convincing case.



It appears you don't know the process of litigation, etc.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Who are they arguing against? And why?
> 
> I understand proving the case to the UCI but the more this goes on the more it appears to be vindictive mudslinging. Maybe next they'll introduce evidence that Armstrong verbally abused the family dog while shooting up.


Who is this "They" You refer to? Walsh's source is not USADA but several witnesses in the case. It is odd how people demand evidence of long term, systematic doping but then dismiss it as "Vindictive mudslinging" 

This incidence it important for multiple reasons. Note that took place in 1998, that the drugs were delivered by Armstrong's wife, and they were given only to members of the USPS team who were riding the Worlds that year. On it's own it is not a huge piece of evidence but if they are trying to show a a long term pattern of systematic doping it is a valid piece of evidence. 

"Who are they arguing against".....Really? Lance likes to pretend he is done but the fact is he has been actively trying to obstruct USADA. He has lobbyist working in D.C. who are actively working to cut off USADA. The UCI is very likely to appeal. He has legions of groupies pretending there is no evidence.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Tomahawk said:


> I'd rather have all this smoke and mirrors out of the way and actually see what they've based their decision to ban Armstrong for life on.
> More and more it's looking like he's been punished for having passed all their lame ass tests and being a winner. I guess since USADA's tests fail to catch anyone they need to pull down a big name every once in a while to stay relevant.
> 
> It's slightly troubling that such a mess of an organization has the fate of athletes in their hands.


Yet another one late to the party  .



You're in a forum dedicated to doping. Why not bring yourself up to speed before you poast such worn out comments?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

cda 455 said:


> It appears you don't know the process of litigation, etc.


Can you explain _the process of litigation, etc._?


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Tomahawk said:


> I'd rather have all this smoke and mirrors out of the way and actually see what they've based their decision to ban Armstrong for life on.
> More and more it's looking like he's been punished for having passed all their lame ass tests and being a winner. I guess since USADA's tests fail to catch anyone they need to pull down a big name every once in a while to stay relevant.
> 
> It's slightly troubling that such a mess of an organization has the fate of athletes in their hands.


What???????????????????????????????? Read. The. Book. Read. In. General.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

rydbyk said:


> What???????????????????????????????? Read. The. Book. Read. In. General.



A. Men. !


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Don't be too sure about that!

Lol.


----------



## superjesus (Jul 26, 2010)

Tomahawk said:


> *I like how they're trying to include a story on Kristin Armstrong's involvement in doping in their report to the UCI, as if they're trying to get a lifetime ban for Kristin also. Adds more to the mess that their argument is.
> *
> 2 weeks away? That's what they said the day Armstrong chose to give up fighting them over a month ago. Personally I hope there's no more delays, because it's pretty pathetic they obviously hadn't even completed gathering enough evidence to make a convincing case.


Are you aware that Kristin Armstrong, Lance's ex-wife, is not the same person as Kristin Armstrong, the two-time Olympic gold medal winning cyclist? Or was the bit about banning Lance's ex-wife sarcasm?


----------



## brentley (Jul 20, 2008)

Tomahawk said:


> I'd rather have all this smoke and mirrors out of the way and actually see what they've based their decision to ban Armstrong for life on.
> More and more it's looking like he's been punished for having passed all their lame ass tests and being a winner. I guess since USADA's tests fail to catch anyone they need to pull down a big name every once in a while to stay relevant.
> 
> It's slightly troubling that such a mess of an organization has the fate of athletes in their hands.


Really? My friends have told me about those who still believe that LA was clean; I thought it was like seeing a unicorn in the wild, but I am proven wrong by you.

It is pretty apparent what they are going to base all of this on, just read Tylers book and the numerous posts in this forum. You will get a variety of opinions and if you are in the LA never got popped camp you will most likely not be convinced, but if you really look at all of the arguments with an open mind you may change your position.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

I said something about Lance on Facebook and was aggressively spammed by one of his minions. True believers are still plentiful.


----------

