# And so it ends..........



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Not with a bang, but with a wimper.

Lance Armstrong will not fight the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency through arbitration.

Congratulations to Greg LeMond, the only American to ever win the Tour de France.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

The Tedinator said:


> Not with a bang, but with a wimper.
> 
> Congratulations to Greg LeMond, the only American to ever win the Tour de France.


Just wait, I predict Bobby Julich will have won 1998 title!

PS: Christian Vandevelde has an outside shot at 2008 TdF as well.


----------



## AdamM (Jul 9, 2008)

> Congratulations to Greg LeMond, the only American to ever win the Tour de France.


Very true.

Vindication for Lemond.  Took a ton of cr*p for what turned out to be the truth.


----------



## agm2 (Sep 18, 2008)

It's not over. He's just stamping his feet and saying "You can't punish me" If the USADA goes after his titles, Lance will sue. This is just him saying "I don't recognize your authority so I won't take part in it, and if you do what your job is, I'll sue." 

This is not over in my predication.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

LeMond, Landis, Hamilton, Andreau - the list goes on and on. 

Lance is a total and utter punk. He deserves to be slapped in the face.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

The Tedinator said:


> *Not with a bang, but with a wimper.*
> 
> Lance Armstrong will not fight the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency through arbitration.
> 
> Congratulations to Greg LeMond, the only American to ever win the Tour de France.


Not over, revelations and lawsuits to come. :thumbsup:


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Chris-X, you are correct. JB is going to arbitration, isn't he?

All the gory details will come out then, if not later. The truth always does eventually.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Armstrong punks out. He continues to lie. Ten years from now he will write a book, "If I Did It, 2.0"


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

I regret ever having believed in this frigging tool.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Some of this will make you want to hurl:

TwitLonger — When you talk too much for Twitter


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

*man child*



The Tedinator said:


> Some of this will make you want to hurl:
> 
> TwitLonger — When you talk too much for Twitter


What an incredible looser, and a very terrible one at that. :thumbsup:


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

Good riddance!


----------



## nOOky (Mar 20, 2009)

I assume if he is stripped of his titles, the next in line "winner" will then be subject to the same allegations and have to start preparing their defense? Or was LA the only rider to ever have supposedly cheated, and all the other riders are clean, hehe what a joke.
I'm not a LA fan by any stretch of the imagination, but most every rider dopes, and if you think you're favorite rider doesn't, think again. I have as much proof that they do as you do that LA did, which is "I think".


----------



## aliensporebomb (Jul 2, 2002)

Man. What an unexpected conclusion.


----------



## MTBer4life (Dec 9, 2008)

I cant understand the Lance hate...innocent until proven guilty or was it innocent until I think your guilty?


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

*there's this*

USADA to strip Armstrong of Tour titles, ban him for life


----------



## agm2 (Sep 18, 2008)

Velonews has an interesting article which states it was the only decision he could make. If he trows his hands up like he did, then he can paint himself as a matyr. The general population will see him as a person who someone wanted to take down. There's no way he would have gotten through the arbitration. Wouldn't be surprised if this was the plan all along if the injunction didn't take.


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

I cant see how the USADA has the authority to strip his titles. And...with no positive tests from the races they want to take the titles from. 

Not trying to defend Lance here. I think hes guilty. I just dont see how he loses his titles without ASO, UCI, etc. involvement and/or postive tests from those races.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

If Lance does end up stripped of his TDF titles who do you give the titles to? Who in the top 10 of any of the years Lance won hasn't been associated with doping?


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

piano said:


> USADA to strip Armstrong of Tour titles, ban him for life


The fat lady is starting to sing!!


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

RkFast said:


> I cant see how the USADA has the authority to strip his titles. And...with no positive tests from the races they want to take the titles from.
> 
> Not trying to defend Lance here. I think hes guilty. I just dont see how he loses his titles without ASO, UCI, etc. involvement and/or postive tests from those races.


Th UCI has to abide by the WADA code. The UCI is in charge of results management, so they will be expected to adjust the results. Otherwise they will be in breach of the WADA regulations and in danger of having cycling kicked out of the Olympics. I think if the UCI fails to recognize the sanction then WADA can take the issue up with CAS.

The real question is what will the ASO do. I can see it doing nothing more than lip service to the title stripping.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

MTBer4life said:


> I cant understand the Lance hate...innocent until proven guilty or was it innocent until I think your guilty?


Innocent until the accused pleads no contest?


----------



## aliensporebomb (Jul 2, 2002)

Hold a "10 years later race" with the same parties whether they've trained or not and the winner gets the trophy?


----------



## frontierwolf (Jun 21, 2008)

This whole thing has been ridiculous. Hopefully people can move on now.


----------



## godot (Feb 3, 2004)

MTBer4life said:


> I cant understand the Lance hate...innocent until proven guilty or was it innocent until I think your guilty?


By not going to arbitration, Lance just admitted guilt.


----------



## pulser955 (Apr 18, 2009)

RkFast said:


> I cant see how the USADA has the authority to strip his titles. And...with no positive tests from the races they want to take the titles from.
> 
> Not trying to defend Lance here. I think hes guilty. I just dont see how he loses his titles without ASO, UCI, etc. involvement and/or postive tests from those races.


That's the fight I want to see. Time for the USADA to lay its cards on the table. Lets see the UCI cover up opened up for all to see. Maybe some good can come from the UCI going down and Pat Mcquaid being run out of cycling on a rail.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

MTBer4life said:


> I cant understand the Lance hate...innocent until proven guilty or was it innocent until I think your guilty?


I think Lance likely doped, along with the vast majority of the peloton.

But I find USADA's actions very disconcerting. If I were a professional athlete, I'd be concerned about how these proceedings have gone.

I think USADA won this battle, but the agency has probably taken actions that will see its demise or at least being majorly restructured.


----------



## Lazy Spinner (Aug 30, 2009)

My predictions:

UCI makes a big stink about jurisdiction for a few weeks but then accepts USADA's lifetime ban for Armstrong. In doing so, and thanks to lots of back room dealing, USADA concedes that UCI owns the record books and has the right to maintain them. In the process, the UCI tamps down what could have been an uncontrolled fire that would have likely destroyed the governing body and the sport.

Lance Armstrong keeps his titles. Fans and sportswriters can argue over whether an * should be placed next to them.

Johan Bruyneel waives his right to arbitration, accepts the lifetime ban, and quietly retires to his home in Spain.

A shaken and weakened UCI is forced to cede control of all doping controls and enforcement to the WADA going forward under threat of being banned from the Olympic movement. In addition, UCI will also be forced to accept a strong team association / rider's union which will re-shape and effectively control the professional sport. After 12-18 months of reforms and concessions, Pat McQuaid retires having created "a better, cleaner, and more stable sport" as his legacy.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

godot said:


> By not going to arbitration, Lance just admitted guilt.


Uh, I take it you didn't read the statement.


----------



## OneGear (Aug 19, 2005)

Der kaiser vinssssss! Los los los


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Well a few months ago he tried the martyr card then changed his mind. I think this really sums up the impact it will have...barring the JB hearing bring out a lot of skeletons.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...e-conversation-by-refusing-arbitration_235712

Short form people who know him for cancer won't care. Casual Joe Six Pack US fans will still see him as persecuted. In the cycling community it will something. Outside of it, not so much.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

aw come on, give a couple of wins to Jan Ullrich, he was clean right, right??!!


----------



## EuroSVT (Sep 15, 2011)

The Tedinator said:


> Some of this will make you want to hurl:


Just hit up his FB page and read what his fans are saying...supporting their dying king until the end.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

pulser955 said:


> That's the fight I want to see. Time for the USADA to lay its cards on the table. Lets see the UCI cover up opened up for all to see. Maybe some good can come from the UCI going down and Pat Mcquaid being run out of cycling on a rail.


Yep. I'd like to see this, too. But I doubt we will.

And I think USADA may have miscalculated in withholding the evidence from Armstrong. Because if they'd given him the evidence and he threw in the towel on arbitration it would look a hell of a lot more damming than it does now.


----------



## PJay (May 28, 2004)

*Even better than arbitration: Slander*

USADA has not proven anything, yet they have come out with a public statement clearly implying that they perceive Lance to be guilty simply because he is not intersted in participating in their process.

"USADA reacted quickly and treated Armstrong’s decision as an admission of guilt, hanging the label of drug cheat on an athlete who was a hero to thousands for overcoming life-threatening testicular cancer and for his foundation’s support for cancer research.

“ 'It is a sad day for all of us who love sport and athletes,” Tygart said. “It’s a heartbreaking example of win at all costs overtaking the fair and safe option. There’s no success in cheating to win.' "

Now, Lance can get them in the court on his terms. In this case, they are not just some person commenting on a public figure- like all of us goofballs. They are a governing body of Olympic sports (but not TdF) in the United States (but not France), and so their pronunciations carry weight beyon d the opinions of som eyayhoo on a discussion forum in the cyberspaces.

Their evidence is not great: some of it can be considered hearsay and some can be considered eyewitness evidence. But none of it has been aired in any sort of recognized due process.

To counter the hearsay and eyewitness testimony, biological evidence, and the lack of a formal process to arrive at a pronouncement, stands up more strongly.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

jorgy said:


> Uh, I take it you didn't read the statement.


Armstrong's statement? Get a grip. The guy is guilty.ut:


----------



## OldEndicottHiway (Jul 16, 2007)

jorgy said:


> I think Lance likely doped, along with the vast majority of the peloton.
> 
> But I find USADA's actions very disconcerting. If I were a professional athlete, I'd be concerned about how these proceedings have gone.
> 
> I think USADA won this battle, but the agency has probably taken actions that will see its demise or at least being majorly restructured.



Good points/ponders.


----------



## pulser955 (Apr 18, 2009)

jorgy said:


> Yep. I'd like to see this, too. But I doubt we will.
> 
> And I think USADA may have miscalculated in withholding the evidence from Armstrong. Because if they'd given him the evidence and he threw in the towel on arbitration it would look a hell of a lot more damming than it does now.


But they didn't have to give it to him till he agreed to go to arbitration. I think there is back room deal being cut with the UCI as we argue over this. Its not over and there will be allot of court fights before it is.


----------



## PaxRomana (Jan 16, 2012)

RkFast said:


> I cant see how the USADA has the authority to strip his titles. And...with no positive tests from the races they want to take the titles from.
> 
> Not trying to defend Lance here. I think hes guilty. I just dont see how he loses his titles without ASO, UCI, etc. involvement and/or postive tests from those races.


Positive tests?

How many times did Marion Jones, Ivan Basso, Jan Ullrich, or Alejandro Valverde test positive?

Zero. All have been banned.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

I could gloat..but naaa

It is not over. So much more on this train wreak. The Flood of evidence will be overwhelming to some. The Fed's? They haven't forgotten.


----------



## eriku16 (Jul 27, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I could gloat..but naaa
> 
> It is not over. So much more on this train wreak. The Flood of evidence will be overwhelming to some. The Fed's? They haven't *forgotten*.


Indeed! They are not the only ones...


----------



## Jason1500 (Apr 1, 2008)

godot said:


> By not going to arbitration, Lance just admitted guilt.


That's a bunch of crap. The burden of prove should never lie with the accused. If Lance doesn't want to defend himself so be it, but the burden of proof still lies with the USADA l say let them argue and present their evidence against Lance in an open court for a jury to decide.


----------



## metoou2 (Mar 18, 2009)

*The public hearing would almost certainly turn into a who’s-who gathering of U.S. cycling over the last 13 years. The allegations of mid-mountain blood doping stops in the team bus, unmarked motorcycles carrying blood bags and an extensive network of covert doctors and trainers would likely pour into the mainstream news, *

The above is from that Velonews article. Someone please explain the comment about "mid-mountain blood doping". Is that an allegation being put forth by some potential witness? 
I could see it being circulated as some form of RUMOR, but an allegation...............HUH? 
Has that allegation actually been floated out there?


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

.....


----------



## The Moontrane (Nov 28, 2005)

Lance should pull a Prince by changing his name to a symbol: * 

The USADA would be watering their pillows every night over that.


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

I'm not trying to be a total fanboy, but haters are jumping so fast to conclusions regardless if they're found right in the long run. Like said above this is by no means a way of Lance admitting to anything. 

Was this a cop-out though? Well I can see why.

But they've been at this for 7 years, and in his shoes - in the _hypothetical_ case he's actually innocent - what else are you going to do at this point?


----------



## Rolando (Jan 13, 2005)

It has been unbearably obvious that not only Lance doped but the vast majority of every other cyclist that he ever raced against were doping as well.

Congratulations you idiots at the USADA and the UCI etc.


----------



## Jason1500 (Apr 1, 2008)

trailrunner68 said:


> Innocent until the accused pleads no contest?


No innocent until proven guilty by the accuser or their representatives in a court.


----------



## Jason1500 (Apr 1, 2008)

PaxRomana said:


> Positive tests?
> 
> How many times did Marion Jones, Ivan Basso, Jan Ullrich, or Alejandro Valverde test positive?
> 
> Zero. All have been banned.


Marion Jones admitted using steroids it was only then that the USADA issued sanctions. The rest of them don't matter since they aren't subject to USADA.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

Jason1500 said:


> No innocent until proven guilty by the accuser or their representatives in a court.


So if you choose not to face a charge you can claim innocence? Please.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

Ventruck said:


> I'm not trying to be a total fanboy, but haters are jumping so fast to conclusions regardless if they're found right in the long run. Like said above this is by no means a way of Lance admitting to anything.
> 
> Was this a cop-out though? Well I can see why.
> 
> But they've been at this for 7 years, and in his shoes - in the _hypothetical_ case he's actually innocent - what else are you going to do at this point?


USADA hasn't been at this for 7 years. If Lance hadn't decided to race Triathlons I don't think this would ever have happened - the UCI could have swept everything under that massive rug they must keep in HQ.

Also, I'm not sure there's any jumping to conclusions. Lance signed up to this process. By not going to arbitration he admits guilt. That's the process, and that's what Lance agreed when he signed his name. 

One thing I'm realising more and more is there's still this huge chance that people outside cycling won't know what has happened or will believe the Lance PR machine. It has made front-page BBC news in the UK though so maybe the exposure will be bigger than I thought.


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

godot said:


> By not going to arbitration, Lance just admitted guilt.


And then got his lawyers to polish the turd so he still looks like a respectable person.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

kiwisimon said:


> And then got his lawyers to polish the turd so he still looks like a respectable person.


Pretty much. How many times do companies say "we are settling this case but deny any wrong doing...." blah blah blah.

Those who from the beginning of the case thought the company was wrong say "justice was served they are just trying to save face a minimize the damage" those in favor of the company say "they did nothing wrong but it would be prohibitively expense and perhaps futile to fight a case in the face of such persecution."

In the end some few people may change their minds, but unless something new happens 10 years from now we will see a TV special with Armstrong being interviewed on his sofa, talking about how he was a victim but that isn't important, what is important is the battle against cancer....yadda yadda.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

The Tedinator said:


> Not with a bang, but with a wimper.
> 
> Lance Armstrong will not fight the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency through arbitration.
> 
> Congratulations to Greg LeMond, the only American to ever win the Tour de France.


Nope, Greg was the only American not to get caught.


----------



## Jason1500 (Apr 1, 2008)

roddjbrown said:


> So if you choose not to face a charge you can claim innocence? Please.


Absolutely you can. The burden of proof should always lie with the accuser. The accused doesn't have to be present, its called being tried in absentia. I say let the usada present their evidence to the independent arbitrators or jury and make them prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Armstrong is guilty.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Ventruck said:


> I'm not trying to be a total fanboy, but haters are jumping so fast to conclusions regardless if they're found right in the long run. Like said above this is by no means a way of Lance admitting to anything.
> 
> Was this a cop-out though? Well I can see why.
> 
> But they've been at this for 7 years, and in his shoes - in the _hypothetical_ case he's actually innocent - what else are you going to do at this point?


I agree. I dont blame him. Save the money and move on. He was convicted in the Court of Opinion already. I hate RATS and will never by a Hincape Sports product either. GH sold his soul to save his own a$$!


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Lazy Spinner said:


> In addition, UCI will also be forced to accept a strong team association / rider's union which will re-shape and effectively control the professional sport.


Yeah someone should get Bernie Ecclestone on the phone and figure out how you take over a sport.

This is essentially what the UCI was trying with their Pro Tour or whatever it was/is called but it failed because the race organizers stood up to them and became largely meaningless.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Ventruck said:


> But they've been at this for 7 years, and in his shoes - in the _hypothetical_ case he's actually innocent - what else are you going to do at this point?


Go to arbitration and force USADA to make public their lack of evidence?

Of course there isn't going to be a lack of evidence which Armstrong knows all too well.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

roddjbrown said:


> One thing I'm realising more and more is there's still this huge chance that people outside cycling won't know what has happened or will believe the Lance PR machine. It has made front-page BBC news in the UK though so maybe the exposure will be bigger than I thought.


My experience is that outside of cycling practically everyone is profoundly ignorant on the doping issue in general and LA specifically.

What's more surprising is the number of folks who you would think being into cycling would at least have some grasp of it and don't and therefore buy Armstrong's PR nonsense.


----------



## zone5 (Aug 21, 2012)

Money wasted...Focus should be shifted on better testing protocol in the future. A lot of PROS dope and they don't all win TDF. Give it a rest.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Go to arbitration and force USADA to make public their lack of evidence?
> 
> Of course there isn't going to be a lack of evidence which Armstrong knows all too well.


Even though he doped though beyond saying "he didn't get away with it", which is a laudable, I think the bio-passport and other such programs will have a bigger impact on future prevention.

What got me was this question. Someone said that this will hurt his legacy as being one of the greatest cyclists ever. Will it? If being a great athlete is based only on athletic performance not personality and it is accepted that the other top riders he beat also doped, from a purely amoral and logic based point of view is he any less a champion. Even as I write this a BBC commentator states that he believes the majority of cyclists doped then and in 7 years the sport has made great strides but is still not dope free. 

I only say this in terms of a historical perspective. People say that Columbus and others during the age of discovery were perpetrators of genocide, that Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were hypocrites as they owned slaves and that Teddy Roosevelt was nothing more than an Imperialist. Others say they were men of their times doing what was simply done. Others in the Continental Congress wanted slavery outlawed or didn't think we had any business keeping the bits of the Spanish Empire we did or building the Panama canal etc. 

How will history see this in the long run? An indictment of an individual or simply further comment on the dark place the sport was in at the time?


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

DIRT BOY said:


> Nope, Greg was the only American not to get caught.


Or he may well be the only clean American TDF champion. We'll never know for certain, so it's just going to come down to personal opinion.
.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

badge118 said:


> How will history see this in the long run? An indictment of an individual or simply further comment on the dark place the sport was in at the time?


Well for me he's a great cyclist, if somewhat boring and lacking in ambition like Hinault or Merckx had, i.e., he could have been so much more. He was too calculating for my taste, but some of that may have been the necessities of the doping.

I have to say though the way he's handled all of this makes him a real shithead IMO and not the hard man he's always portrayed as being.

If he'd have owned up to it and simply explained to the rubes out there the nature of the game at that "dark place" in time I could even have forgiven his lack of ambition to win much of anything outside of the Tour.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

Jason1500 said:


> Absolutely you can. The burden of proof should always lie with the accuser. The accused doesn't have to be present, its called being tried in absentia. I say let the usada present their evidence to the independent arbitrators or jury and make them prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Armstrong is guilty.


It's arbitration not a court of law, it doesn't have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and under the terms Lance signed up to if he doesn't choose to face arbitration he admits guilt. He agreed to it.

Just out of interest, do you think he raced clean? That isn't meant in an accusatory way, I'm just interested about whether people think he's dirty but the process is dodgy or think he didn't dope


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

roddjbrown said:


> It's arbitration not a court of law, it doesn't have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and under the terms Lance signed up to if he doesn't choose to face arbitration he admits guilt. He agreed to it.


It's also disingenuous because for all anyone knows the evidence could very well convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Lance basically pleaded "no contest" if this were a criminal case, when you do that in a criminal court it absolves the state of proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt whereas Lance has absolved USADA of having to convince a panel of arbitrators that he doped using whatever the standard is (I don't recall the exact wording) he agreed upon when he signed his racing license, but again for all anyone knows this very well may reach "beyond a reasonable doubt" level.

Hell, I would say just on what is available to the public now there can be no reasonable doubt that Armstrong doped.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Lance knew he was going to lose anyway, and this way he has a chance of keeping the eyewitness testimony of his teammates and doctors out of the public eye.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> It's also disingenuous because for all anyone knows the evidence could very well convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
> 
> Lance basically pleaded "no contest" if this were a criminal case, when you do that in a criminal court it absolves the state of proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt whereas Lance has absolved USADA of having to convince a panel of arbitrators that he doped using whatever the standard is (I don't recall the exact wording) he agreed upon when he signed his racing license, but again for all anyone knows this very well may reach "beyond a reasonable doubt" level.
> 
> Hell, I would say just on what is available to the public now there can be no reasonable doubt that Armstrong doped.


Well that isn't quite the case. The same rules do not apply and it would be debated how much of the evidence would have made it before a criminal court. That is the power of the Arbitration system here. Bonds got off, Clemons got off and those cases had much the same type of evidence. Hell Clemons had a syringe with dope residue in it and his DNA on it. 

The USADA is something like 58 and 2 because they do not have the same rules of evidence and the burden of proof is far lower than a criminal court. BUT before anyone rages when you become a professional cyclist you agree to that system.

It is a HUGE stretch to try and compare this to a criminal court because it is pretty far from it. First I would bet you would have far fewer eye witnesses lining up, (if any beyond Landis, Hamilton and MAYBE JV) and that is the corner stone of the case. The bio-passport evidence would be inadmissible, the tour de suisse blood test cover up allegation would likely be inadmissible. You would basically end up with testimony not corroborated by physical evidence. Why do you think in Europe where the stuff is a crime a lot of times you end up with evidence going from the cops to the ADA? It's not because the cops don't want to arrest but often because they don't have enough for a conviction BUT there is enough for a WADA based ban.

That is half the reason Lance is doing this. He KNOWS a whole bunch of people out there thing "the USADA is unconstitutional but the courts say they don't have jurisdiction because it is based on an international arbitration. He is a persecuted hero." He just hopes there are enough of these people to preserve his legacy as a great athlete and a champion against cancer. He can take the financial hit from everything I was reading. Before the Ironman thing he was worth north of 120 mil and NPR said today he was making about 1 mil per Ironman appearance. He is concerned about preserving what legacy he can. Time will tell on that one.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Fireform said:


> Lance knew he was going to lose anyway, and this way he has a chance of keeping the eyewitness testimony of his teammates and doctors out of the public eye.


Which will keep the fanboys and the cancer folks in his corner. All you have to do is go read the comments on CNN or wherever and it's obvious that his PR machine works. The cancer folks don't think he doped, as far the fanboys it's impossible to tell whether they actually believe that or just don't want to admit it and therefore parrot his nonsensical PR.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

badge118 said:


> Well that isn't quite the case.


I was making an analogy not equating the two different systems.


----------



## pbrink1 (Feb 28, 2006)

This is far from over...His sponsors have paid him millions over the years and I'm sure there were doping clauses in his contracts. They are going to go after him big time. It's all about money.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

pbrink1 said:


> This is far from over...His sponsors have paid him millions over the years and I'm sure there were doping clauses in his contracts. They are going to go after him big time. It's all about money.


Some yes, others I bet not, else you would have seen more people filing suit than just one insurance company over LA Confidential. Since a civil case has an even smaller level of proof than a USADA arbitration the cases I think would have been pursued.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

I wonder how many sponsors were even aware of the doping issues back in the day. Let me say it again, all you have to do is read the comments on CNN or just talk to everyday folks, they are profoundly ignorant of the nature of the cycling game even today. Imagine the situation back then when the horse was just starting to bolt from the barn.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I was making an analogy not equating the two different systems.


Your first line there is much more than an analogy.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I wonder how many sponsors were even aware of the doping issues back in the day. Let me say it again, all you have to do is read the comments on CNN or just talk to everyday folks, they are profoundly ignorant of the nature of the cycling game even today. Imagine the situation back then when the horse was just starting to bolt from the barn.


I was also just talking with some of my co-workers. Remember the minute u enter a "real" court room the rules of evidence return. So even though the burden is less than before the AAA, the rules of evidence are more strict.

I think the various sponsors will wait and while a couple may consider action, most will instead try to limit the damage to their brands and just pull a post car crash Tiger Woods and withdraw the Sponsorships. They do math...which is more brand damage? A lengthy civil court battle or just dropping it and hoping it goes away?


----------



## PJay (May 28, 2004)

*Lance agreed to this USADA?*



roddjbrown said:


> USADA hasn't been at this for 7 years. If Lance hadn't decided to race Triathlons I don't think this would ever have happened - the UCI could have swept everything under that massive rug they must keep in HQ.
> 
> Also, I'm not sure there's any jumping to conclusions. Lance signed up to this process. By not going to arbitration he admits guilt. That's the process, and that's what Lance agreed when he signed his name.
> 
> .


I have casually followed pro cycling for over a decade now, and have apssingly learned some abt doping regulation. It is a mish mosh of governing bodies. Lance won his first TdF in 1999, and USADA was formed in 2000.

The pro cyclists of the recent decade have dealth with an ever-chaging kaleidoscope of rules, testing schedules, methods, and organizations.

From my position at the back of the late-departing Saturday morning 40-miler easy ride, if you are in that pro league, you simply accept that the rules by which you have to live will be an evar-changing kaleidescope.

I spelled kaleidescope two different ways so I know I have it correctly.


----------



## Kodi Crescent (Aug 3, 2011)

Maybe he didn't like the terms of "arbitration". Arbitration is far different than trial by jury. Whether innocent or guilty, why play a game that may already rigged?

When you get in a car accident and you need to settle with the insurance company, you have the choice of court or arbitration. I believe there have been studies showing that arbitration is biased due to the business relationship between the hiring party and the arbitration team. Court is the unbiased way to go, albeit the more expensive way. I wouldn't have played this game either. I wonder why no one is considering this aspect?


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

What happens to all the money that Lance won if he's stripped of the titles. Much of that money from "Nike" was paid on the condition that he win the tour and do it clean. Some of those bonuses were $10,000,000 per tour. 

I hope he's been saving his money, other wise he's going taking a major step down in lifestyle. 

The other thing is what is TREK going to do....perhaps start working with Lemond again?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

badge118 said:


> Your first line there is much more than an analogy.


My first line has nothing to do with the analogy, it is simply stating that there has been no evaluation of the evidence to see if it would meet the beyond a reasonable doubt criteria, which it may or may not. No one knows.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

PJay said:


> From my position at the back of the late-departing Saturday morning 40-miler easy ride, if you are in that pro league, you simply accept that the rules by which you have to live will be an evar-changing kaleidescope.


Exactly, you always have the option of not racing or doing something to get them changed so they are more agreeable to you. 

BTW, if you ever decide to race you'll have to agree to (most) of those same rules, including being bound by USADA when it comes to doping.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

heathb said:


> What happens to all the money that Lance won if he's stripped of the titles. Much of that money from "Nike" was paid on the condition that he win the tour and do it clean. Some of those bonuses were $10,000,000 per tour.
> 
> I hope he's been saving his money, other wise he's going taking a major step down in lifestyle.
> 
> The other thing is what is TREK going to do....perhaps start working with Lemond again?


Do you know the contract said clean? Do you realize the prize money from the ASO for those wins is about 1% of his net worth. The sponsorship contracts is a key point that is unknown and with the time frame it would NOT be the first time that Nike just canceled sponsorship.  Example. Michael Vick. I had his trainers. They just pulled the trainers but kept the money and I know for a fact that Nike contracts for NFL players have clauses about serious crime arrests due to the various drug, rape and even murder cases that have come up.

As for the prize money that is for ASO to take back. The USADA can say the official UCI record is purged but ASO is a private company that gives the prize money from their pockets. And again that is about 1% of his net worth. Big whoop.

That raises another question, who gets the Jersey. The ASO could say no one gets our prize using their rule they made after the Astana debacle about removing riders and teams for the good of the race.

I am going to be honest. I said this years ago. Hell I think I said it regarding the LA thing that what the sport needs to do is have a truth and reconcilliation committee. People called me an idiot. What did the USADA just call for? I think they are smart enough to realize what we now have. We either have one and simply put an * next to 1999-XXXX or we pretty much know, unless they give the jersey to the Lantern Rouge only a very naive person would say the guy with the title was clean.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

zone5 said:


> Money wasted...Focus should be shifted on better testing protocol in the future. A lot of PROS dope and they don't all win TDF. Give it a rest.


Very little money was spent. If Armstrong chose to fight the obvious then USADA would have had to spend a lot of $$$ but Lance gave up so there were few costs

Thanks for saving the taxpayer's money lance :thumbsup:


----------



## Jason1500 (Apr 1, 2008)

Dwayne Barry said:


> It's also disingenuous because for all anyone knows the evidence could very well convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
> 
> Lance basically pleaded "no contest" if this were a criminal case,


You can't plead no contest directly to your accuser. If he read that same statement in front of a court then ok, but that's not the case. With Armstrong it's been hearsay and witnesses who if testified would get a lesser penalty or no penalty at all. The guy has been investigated how many times now? Is that how justice works? You keep investigating someone over and over until you get the result you want? Make them spend money and time defending such charges and continue to open new investigations until you break the persons will to continue to defend himself. Then when he no longer wants to spend the time and money you automatically call him guilty without having to present any evidence. If that's not a witch hunt I don't know what is.
Unless they have a positive result or Armstrong confesses he will always be innocent until proven guilty not the other way around. Burden of proof should always be on the accuser, so why doesn't the USADA proceed and try Armstrong in absentia, present their evidence to a judge or jury or impartial panel. Let them decide if USADA meets their burden.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Ventruck said:


> I'm not trying to be a total fanboy, but haters are jumping so fast to conclusions regardless if they're found right in the long run. Like said above this is by no means a way of Lance admitting to anything.
> 
> Was this a cop-out though? Well I can see why.
> 
> But they've been at this for 7 years, and in his shoes - in the _hypothetical_ case he's actually innocent - what else are you going to do at this point?


USADA has been on this for 2 years. The UCI ignored it for a decade

It never should have got to this. Armstrong tested positive for Testosterone 3 times in the 90's and Cortisone in 1999. These positives were ignored by USAC and the UCI.....letting this mess grow for years


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Jason1500 said:


> You can't plead no contest directly to your accuser. If he read that same statement in front of a court then ok, but that's not the case. With Armstrong it's been hearsay and witnesses who if testified would get a lesser penalty or no penalty at all. The guy has been investigated how many times now? Is that how justice works? You keep investigating someone over and over until you get the result you want? Make them spend money and time defending such charges and continue to open new investigations until you break the persons will to continue to defend himself. Then when he no longer wants to spend the time and money you automatically call him guilty without having to present any evidence. If that's not a witch hunt I don't know what is.
> Unless they have a positive result or Armstrong confesses he will always be innocent until proven guilty not the other way around. Burden of proof should always be on the accuser, so why doesn't the USADA proceed and try Armstrong in absentia, present their evidence to a judge or jury or impartial panel. Let them decide if USADA meets their burden.


As far as I'm aware this is the only time USADA has gone after Armstrong. As far as I'm aware USADA is following the procedures that they and Armstrong agreed to. Are you saying they should create some sort of new procedure for Armstrong's sake?


----------



## nate (Jun 20, 2004)

Regarding who gets the Tour wins, a see a lot of talk about leaving them vacant. To me this makes sense since we all know there are convicted dopers that are next in line for a number of those Tours.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Jason1500 said:


> You can't plead no contest directly to your accuser.


It's just an analogy, not meant to correspond precisely to the legalese which I don't know and frankly wouldn't want to know 

The point is he's not contesting the charges.


----------



## goloso (Feb 4, 2004)

badge118 said:


> I am going to be honest. I said this years ago. Hell I think I said it regarding the LA thing that what the sport needs to do is have a truth and reconcilliation committee. People called me an idiot. What did the USADA just call for? I think they are smart enough to realize what we now have. We either have one and simply put an * next to 1999-XXXX or we pretty much know, unless they give the jersey to the Lantern Rouge only a very naive person would say the guy with the title was clean.


We disagree on a lot but I am totally with you on this. Testify to a comittie on where, when and how you cheated, answer questions truthfully and you are off the hook.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

goloso said:


> We disagree on a lot but I am totally with you on this. Testify to a comittie on where, when and how you cheated, answer questions truthfully and you are off the hook.


So as far as we know this could have been what Lance agreed to do right? Except he refused to meet with USADA when they first contacted him about the charges.


----------



## godot (Feb 3, 2004)

jorgy said:


> Uh, I take it you didn't read the statement.


I read his statement it's just spin, deflection and an attempt to control the message. In other words, typical Lance

Seems the head of WADA agrees with me
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...ht-charges-seems-an-admission-of-guilt_235755

"SYDNEY (AFP) — WADA chief John Fahey Friday said Lance Armstrong’s decision not to fight drug charges would be seen as an admission of guilt and he was disappointed the American would not face a tribunal."


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

godot said:


> I read his statement it's just spin, deflection and an attempt to control the message. In other words, typical Lance
> 
> Seems the head of WADA agrees with me
> http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...ht-charges-seems-an-admission-of-guilt_235755
> ...


The point about Spin is that it is targeted. It is not targeted to me, you or WADA, it's targeted at the people that did and likely still will support him. It still boggles my mind how many people refuse to acknowledge that this is not going to result in some revelation where suddenly the world stands up and says "yes Armstrong is a cheat." The battle lines in the general public will barely budge.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

jorgy said:


> I think Lance likely doped, along with the vast majority of the peloton.
> 
> But I find USADA's actions very disconcerting. If I were a professional athlete, I'd be concerned about how these proceedings have gone.
> 
> I think USADA won this battle, but the agency has probably taken actions that will see its demise or at least being majorly restructured.


:thumbsup: Good post.

Until there is scientific proof, I consider him innocent.


----------



## Jason1500 (Apr 1, 2008)

roddjbrown said:


> It's arbitration not a court of law, it doesn't have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and under the terms Lance signed up to if he doesn't choose to face arbitration he admits guilt. He agreed to it.
> 
> Just out of interest, do you think he raced clean? That isn't meant in an accusatory way, I'm just interested about whether people think he's dirty but the process is dodgy or think he didn't dope


IMO any proceeding should put the burden fully on the accuser. And what about the terms Lance signed up for? What about USADA follow the terms they agreed to those terms also had an 8yr Statue of limitations: Article 17 of the WADA Code states: No action may be commenced against an Athlete or other Person for an anti-doping rule violation contained in the Code unless such action is commenced within eight (8) years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred. Now the USADA's claim is that Armstrong fraudulently concealed his doping to prevent them from discovering it which is why they are ignoring the 8yr limitation. Was there ever a hearing regarding whether or not Armstrong committed fraud? USADA just levels an accusation of fraud without proof in order to get around the 8yr limitation? The USADA was judge and accuser how is that fair?

Do I think he raced clean? It's hard to dismiss the fact he won all those titles while beating everyone else who was found guilty of doping. I'm of the school that they all doped, and Armstrong still beat them and cycling should just move on. However, what I think is irrelevant my argument is Armstrong is not getting proper due process in regards to this matter.


----------



## PaleAleYum (Jan 12, 2006)

DIRT BOY said:


> I agree. I dont blame him. Save the money and move on. He was convicted in the Court of Opinion already. I hate RATS and will never by a Hincape Sports product either. GH sold his soul to save his own a$$!


Don't shed any tears for the Texan. Betcha his one day bump in donations today will far exceed the money he spent on attorneys. This is just a business decision. Can't sell bracelets if people don't worship the story you are selling.

Never understood the perspective that omerta trumps the truth. If that is the case, then all testimony under oath is worthless.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

What if one does not care? So what? Let Bonds into the Hall; let Pete Rose in, too. It's bad to dope, but that was the era. So what?


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

nOOky said:


> I assume if he is stripped of his titles, the next in line "winner" will then be subject to the same allegations and have to start preparing their defense? Or was LA the only rider to ever have supposedly cheated, and all the other riders are clean, hehe what a joke.
> I'm not a LA fan by any stretch of the imagination, but most every rider dopes, and if you think you're favorite rider doesn't, think again. I have as much proof that they do as you do that LA did, which is "I think".


He's just the only rider to repeatedly flip the bird when asked to cooperate with investigators and now tries to claim the moral high ground when the karma catches up with him. That's what I think.


----------



## JasonB176 (Aug 18, 2011)

nate said:


> Regarding who gets the Tour wins, a see a lot of talk about leaving them vacant. To me this makes sense since we all know there are convicted dopers that are next in line for a number of those Tours.


I agree. This makes the most sense.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> My first line has nothing to do with the analogy, it is simply stating that there has been no evaluation of the evidence to see if it would meet the beyond a reasonable doubt criteria, which it may or may not. No one knows.


Me thinks you changed the wording of that first line at one point because while now it says 



> It's also disingenuous because for all anyone knows the evidence could very well convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt


I believe the "for all anyone knows" was added later. Not saying that you are trying to cover anything up, we all type fast on occassion but I was going on the first reading. This reading makes more sense.


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

roddjbrown said:


> It's arbitration not a court of law, it doesn't have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and under the terms Lance signed up to if he doesn't choose to face arbitration he admits guilt. He agreed to it.
> 
> Just out of interest, do you think he raced clean? That isn't meant in an accusatory way, I'm just interested about whether people think he's dirty but the process is dodgy or think he didn't dope


Thank you for this correction. It really bothers me when anyone who's watch a few episodes of Perry Mason tries to apply it to sporting arbitration. They are separate universes.


----------



## Jason1500 (Apr 1, 2008)

Fogdweller said:


> Thank you for this correction. It really bothers me when anyone who's watch a few episodes of Perry Mason tries to apply it to sporting arbitration. They are separate universes.


Yeah, one actually has to follow laws and procedures. The USADA gets to break the rules in order to charge Armstrong. As I said before the rules state


> *No action may be commenced* against an Athlete or other Person for an anti-doping rule violation contained in the Code unless such action is commenced within eight (8) years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred


USADA without any hearing of any kind decided the 8yr limitation didn't apply because they claim Armstrong committed fraud to conceal involvement in doping...where's the proof that fraud was committed? The rule clearly states as that no action may commence, there was no independent hearing that found Armstrong guilty of fraud...just the accuser changing the rules to their own advantage against the accused. 

Shouldn't fairness and impartiality apply to any type of forum whether it be arbitration of sport or a court of law? Bottom line USADA believes Armstrong is guilty and they would've done anything, bent or broke any rule or statue and kept moving the goal post and burden of proof until they got the result they wanted.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

Jason1500 said:


> Yeah, one actually has to follow laws and procedures. The USADA gets to break the rules in order to charge Armstrong. As I said before the rules state
> 
> 
> USADA without any hearing of any kind decided the 8yr limitation didn't apply because they claim Armstrong committed fraud to conceal involvement in doping...where's the proof that fraud was committed? The rule clearly states as that no action may commence, there was no independent hearing that found Armstrong guilty of fraud...just the accuser changing the rules to their own advantage against the accused.
> ...


It is not fair or just. That is why LA declined to play. Why would a grown man knowingly walk into an ambush? Makes me want to buy another Mellow Johnny t-shirt.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> USADA has been on this for 2 years. The UCI ignored it for a decade
> 
> It never should have got to this. Armstrong tested positive for Testosterone 3 times in the 90's and Cortisone in 1999. These positives were ignored by USAC and the UCI.....letting this mess grow for years


Weren't these positives not during competition and years later? Even the test that show is positive form 99 are not 100% accurate because the samples are old. But the test was good enough to show something.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

David Loving said:


> It is not fair or just. That is why LA declined to play. Why would a grown man knowingly walk into an ambush? Makes me want to buy another Mellow Johnny t-shirt.


I agree and this is *stupid!* All his former teammates were CAUGHT doing in competition and the USDA has the goods on GH. So the USDA says, rat lance out and you will get a free pass. WE will NEVER know the truth, unless Lance comes clean or we have real evidence. GH and others are RATS that squealed to save their own BUTTS! I hate that!

You want to come clean? Fine, gibe up ALL your WINS, Prize money, etc and THEN speak the truth!


----------



## Kodi Crescent (Aug 3, 2011)

My old neighbor was a doper too!


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Jason1500 said:


> Yeah, one actually has to follow laws and procedures. The USADA gets to break the rules in order to charge Armstrong. As I said before the rules state
> 
> 
> USADA without any hearing of any kind decided the 8yr limitation didn't apply because they claim Armstrong committed fraud to conceal involvement in doping...where's the proof that fraud was committed? The rule clearly states as that no action may commence, there was no independent hearing that found Armstrong guilty of fraud...just the accuser changing the rules to their own advantage against the accused.
> ...


Don't confuse these people with the facts! This IS and WAS a with hunt and funded be someones vendetta against LA. Guilty or not, Lance brought more the the cycling world in this country than ANY rider will, maybe ever. he has done more with his foundation that any other rider in history.

So he doped, big deal. 5 yrs form now, no one will even remember or care. He WILL be remembered for his charity work. They only ones that care are a few passionate people here on this board, a few cycling die hards around the world and the Country of France.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

DIRT BOY said:


> Weren't these positives not during competition and years later? Even the test that show is positive form 99 are not 100% accurate because the samples are old. But the test was good enough to show something.


Cortisone positive from '99 is accurate and was covered up by fraudulent TUE.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Kodi Crescent said:


> My old neighbor was a doper too!


So was 99.9% percent of the peleton in the history of cycling or a cheater in one way or another.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Chris-X said:


> Cortisone positive from '99 is accurate and was covered up by fraudulent TUE.


Ok, thanks. TUE? But cortizone is NOT a PED. banned substance, yes. But maybe be used with doctors notice, correct? Approval of UCI and WADA?


----------



## goloso (Feb 4, 2004)

DIRT BOY said:


> I agree and this is *stupid!* All his former teammates were CAUGHT doing in competition and the USDA has the goods on GH. So the USDA says, rat lance out and you will get a free pass. WE will NEVER know the truth, unless Lance comes clean or we have real evidence. GH and others are RATS that squealed to save their own BUTTS! I hate that!
> 
> You want to come clean? Fine, gibe up ALL your WINS, Prize money, etc and THEN speak the truth!


LA was offered the same deal. He refused.


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

DIRT BOY said:


> Don't confuse these people with the facts! This IS and WAS a with hunt and funded be someones vendetta against LA.* Guilty or not*, Lance brought more the the cycling world in this country than ANY rider will, maybe ever. he has done more with his foundation that any other rider in history.


Wow, you are getting pretty excited over defending an admitted drug cheat. Can you understand that not defending charges equals a guilty plea? 



DIRT BOY said:


> So he doped, big deal. 5 yrs form now, no one will even remember or care. He WILL be *remembered for his charity work*. They only ones that care are a few passionate people here on this board, a few cycling die hards around the world and the Country of France.


No, he will be remembered as a cheat who had cancer and set up a foundation.
This story is getting more media play than any of his wins or his Livestrong foundation.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

kiwisimon said:


> Wow, you are getting pretty excited over defending an admitted drug cheat. Can you understand that not defending charges equals a guilty plea?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Pretty much wrong. Listen to the commentators. Read the comments on CNN from viewers. Unless something really big happens, those who thought he doped now can say they know he doped, those who defended him still do and will, and those who don't care will still not care. That is the macabre brilliance of this play. It changes no one's mind at a far lower cost both in terms of cash and reputation than going through the AAA process.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

DIRT BOY said:


> Ok, thanks. TUE? But cortizone is NOT a PED. banned substance, yes. But maybe be used with doctors notice, correct? Approval of UCI and WADA?


Yes it is. It is almost always listed amongst the drugs that admitted dopers cop to, several riders have failed tests for it.

It's PED effects operate via shifting fuel substrate use from glycogen to fat/muscle and possibly makes you feel good (sort of like amphetamines).

This is why Vaughters was refused a TUE when he was stung by that bee and had an allergic reaction.

Were not talking about cream on a saddle sore but injections.

The idea that Armstrong absorbed so much cortisone through his skin that he tested positive was almost certainly nonsense, and only accepted by the UCI because they were complicit in covering up the doping at the time. This appeared to be confirmed by Tygart in the interview he did with NPR where he said they had proof of a doping positive cover-up by the team in '99.


----------



## rockstar2083 (Aug 30, 2005)

DIRT BOY said:


> I agree. I dont blame him. Save the money and move on. He was convicted in the Court of Opinion already. I hate RATS and will never by a Hincape Sports product either. GH sold his soul to save his own a$$!


Hard to blame GH. They all got questioned separately, under oath with Federal perjury charges to worry about. If GH doesn't tell the truth and he gets implicated by Levi, Dave, etc., the GH is going down hard as well.

I do think it is crappy that the teammates haven't also been punished. Make it all public and take as many of them down as possible. Cycling needs a hard re-boot versus the past reactions to scandals.


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

badge118 said:


> Pretty much wrong. Listen to the commentators. Read the comments on CNN from viewers. Unless something really big happens, those who thought he doped now can say they know he doped, those who defended him still do and will, and those who don't care will still not care. That is the macabre brilliance of this play. It changes no one's mind at a far lower cost both in terms of cash and reputation than going through the AAA process.


Give it time and his legacy will lose the polish. Are you using 24 hours as a barometer of public opinion?


CNN opinions from readers? Seriously? 

Some of them still think Sarah Palin isn't stupid.


----------



## Kodi Crescent (Aug 3, 2011)

DIRT BOY said:


> So was 99.9% percent of the peleton in the history of cycling or a cheater in one way or another.


Yes, but did THEY scratch pictures onto their windows like my neighbor did?!?!? (See avatar pic).

Different kind of doping.


----------



## Kodi Crescent (Aug 3, 2011)

They say he is now has a lifetime ban from cycling. What happens if someone catches him riding his bike? I wonder if he'll sell them all?


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

sorry for the tl;dr if it's been covered, but IMO, LA's statement back-door logically substitutes as an admission of guilt.

Of course he rants about the "witch hunt" and plays the martyr. But he hinges this on a lack of due process - and specifically mentions that USADA didn't take this to arbitration v. UCI at the CAS.

But if that is what would satisfy him, all he needed to do was proceed. No matter the outcome with the USADA, it would go to CAS for arbitration. And with WADA over-ruling the UCI, a USADA-UCI arbitration is moot, except that when USADA presses for his titles to be stripped, they'll end up in arbitration for that, unless UCI sees the writing on the wall.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DIRT BOY said:


> Weren't these positives not during competition and years later? Even the test that show is positive form 99 are not 100% accurate because the samples are old. But the test was good enough to show something.


USAC ignore 3 positives for Testosterone in the 90's. The UCI ignored the 1999 positive for Cortisone and the 2001 positive for EPO. 

Hinault was right when he was asked for his input today



> "This is a problem that should have been sorted out 10 or 15 years ago but which never was."


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*

Knock off the personal stuff and stay on point everyone.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

kiwisimon said:


> Wow, you are getting pretty excited over defending an admitted drug cheat. Can you understand that not defending charges equals a guilty plea?


No they don't in reality. In the USADAs rules? Sure.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Yes it is. It is almost always listed amongst the drugs that admitted dopers cop to, several riders have failed tests for it.
> 
> It's PED effects operate via shifting fuel substrate use from glycogen to fat/muscle and possibly makes you feel good (sort of like amphetamines).
> 
> ...


Good explanation and thanks! I have has cortisone injections and never felt any performance related stuff, LOL!


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

DIRT BOY said:


> Good explanation and thanks! I have has cortisone injections and never felt any performance related stuff, LOL!


Not sure what kind of injection you're talking about but I doubt something like one around a tendon or something similar to treat inflammation would give the systemic effect but maybe?

Usually docs are fairly careful about not giving too much or so often that a systemic effect is achieved because it's not good for you. If you take too much you can develop Cushing's Syndrome.

I would think when cyclists take it, it is to get a systemic effect like when people with autoimmune diseases are given it to suppress their immune systems.


----------



## aliensporebomb (Jul 2, 2002)

Well he can ride his bike all he wants, he just can't compete in a USADA sanctioned event or probably UCI as well.


----------



## eriku16 (Jul 27, 2011)

aliensporebomb said:


> Well he can ride his bike all he wants, he just can't compete in a USADA sanctioned event or probably UCI as well.


Or run... Well at least he still can on a treadmill. 

Lance Armstrong's drug ban nixes any return to NYC Marathon


----------

