# IF Lance is found guilty of doping...



## dasho (Apr 8, 2002)

the damage it would cause not just to cycling (sponsors) and his Cancer Foundation but to the millions of Americans who believed in him is immeasurable. 

It seems to me it is having a much bigger story than the Bonds and Clemmons cases maybe because it's more of a world wide sport than baseball. 

I hope this is all put to bed, one way or another, in the near future.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

dasho said:


> the damage it would cause not just to cycling (sponsors) and his Cancer Foundation but to the millions of Americans who believed in him is immeasurable.
> 
> It seems to me it is having a much bigger story than the Bonds and Clemmons cases maybe because it's more of a world wide sport than baseball.
> 
> I hope this is all put to bed, one way or another, in the near future.


My prediction is that federal investigation will drag out for years and in the end nothing will be proven one way or the other.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

55x11 said:


> My prediction is that federal investigation will drag out for years and in the end nothing will be proven one way or the other.



ditto on most likely result. i think 25% chance he goes down. he is doper/cheater, maybe the greatest doper ever. i'm still hoping he wins the tour tho.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

dasho said:


> the damage it would cause not just to cycling (sponsors) and his Cancer Foundation but to the millions of Americans who believed in him is immeasurable.
> 
> It seems to me it is having a much bigger story than the Bonds and Clemmons cases maybe because it's more of a world wide sport than baseball.
> 
> I hope this is all put to bed, one way or another, in the near future.



The thing is though this case will go NO WHERE. The Bonds thing etc started with an unrelated investigation. They got info that BALCO was illegaling dispensing drugs, they then connected this criminal activity to athletes.

Here we have an investigation being started by a guy whose statements while perhaps true are also HIGHLY questionable in both veracity and motive. If the feds weren't afraid of being accused of white washing they likely would not even have started anything. Unless they get legit dirt on someone who doesn't have a percieved axe to grind that they can then use as leverage, they aren't going to get anything that can be used to get a conviction.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

55x11 said:


> My prediction is that federal investigation will drag out for years and in the end nothing will be proven one way or the other.


Pretty much. When your greatest witness has zero credibility, there's not much to go on. Besides, when do statutes of limitations begin? I thought Ulrich didn't lose a medal in some event because it was proven entirely too late.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

badge118 said:


> The thing is though this case will go NO WHERE. The Bonds thing etc started with an unrelated investigation. They got info that BALCO was illegaling dispensing drugs, they then connected this criminal activity to athletes.
> 
> Here we have an investigation being started by a guy whose statements while perhaps true are also HIGHLY questionable in both veracity and motive. If the feds weren't afraid of being accused of white washing they likely would not even have started anything. Unless they get legit dirt on someone who doesn't have a percieved axe to grind that they can then use as leverage, they aren't going to get anything that can be used to get a conviction.



Don't forget that BALCO started with a syringe with 'The Clear' in it. Landis' accusations are only VaporCharges. No way, no how anyone is going down over them.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

jorgy said:


> Don't forget that BALCO started with a syringe with 'The Clear' in it. Landis' accusations are only VaporCharges. No way, no how anyone is going down over them.


Also, when Landis book "If I did it..." comes out, it will be easy to dismiss his allegations as motivated by desperate attempts to cash in through making scandalous accusations for his financial gain. Unless there's hard evidence, the "he said, they said" won't go very far.


----------



## cheddarlove (Oct 17, 2005)

If Lance went down because of all this, I would still support his foundation. I think most cancer patients would. The information and support is immeasurable to people with cancer!
I am not a cancer patient but my mom was/is.


----------



## cmdrpiffle (Mar 28, 2006)

dasho said:


> the damage it would cause not just to cycling (sponsors) and his Cancer Foundation but to the millions of Americans who believed in him is immeasurable.
> 
> It seems to me it is having a much bigger story than the Bonds and Clemmons cases maybe because it's more of a world wide sport than baseball.
> 
> I hope this is all put to bed, one way or another, in the near future.


Damage? "believed in him"?'
Maybe that sums up typical American attitudes on self worth. Lance may (for all I know) be into Albanian midget porn, but that doesn't change in any way all that he and his foundation has done for cancer research.

Do you really think people are shallow enough to suddenly say: oi! that Lance is is a dirty old bastard, I believe I'll not donate to cancer research any longer?

Stop with the 'beliefmongering' and take a stand that's personal-and not the self supported, aggrandized fears of mass beliefs, real or imagined.

just sayin


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

cmdrpiffle said:


> Damage? "believed in him"?'
> Maybe that sums up typical American attitudes on self worth. Lance may (for all I know) be into Albanian midget porn, but that doesn't change in any way all that he and his foundation has done for cancer research.
> 
> Do you really think people are shallow enough to suddenly say: oi! that Lance is is a dirty old bastard, I believe I'll not donate to cancer research any longer?
> ...


I believe there will be substantial damage. Armstrong is the face of the whole Livestrong campaign, and if his reputation is sullied, people will donate to other cancer organizations instead.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

55x11 said:


> I believe there will be substantial damage. Armstrong is the face of the whole Livestrong campaign, and if his reputation is sullied, people will donate to other cancer organizations instead.



This I believe to be a likely outcome. Some 99ers seem to believe that Livestrong is THE non-profit for cancer research.

The CRI, Susan G Komen for the Cure, Team in Training. As a matter of fact the LAF routinely is judged to be a poor fundraiser. $100 raised it is recommended to not spend more that $35.00. LAF routinely spends at least $45.00 to raise each $100.00. In 2005 they spent 10 million to raise 22 million. 

Here is a list of the AIP (American Philathropy Institute) grades for the top organizations raising money for cancer research.

CANCER AIP GRADE 
Breast Cancer Fund A– 
Breast Cancer Research Foundation A+ 
Cancer Care B+ 
Cancer Research Institute A 
CureSearch/National Childhood Cancer Foundation A 
Leukemia & Lymphoma Society B+ 
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center A 
Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation A 
National Breast Cancer Coalition Fund A 
Prevent Cancer Foundation A– 
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (ALSAC) B+ 
Susan G. Komen for the Cure B+ 


Livestrong didn't make the cut. This being the case, while the Livestrong Foundation is a good cause, it could probably disappear tomorrow with little effect to the overall fight against cancer.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

This is a delightful thread - unfortunately encapsulating what many in the rest of the world think of the insularity of Americans.

There are many cancer charities across the globe, all doing sterling work, yet apparently any and all donations should go to Livestrong for without Livestrong millions will die - even though they contribute very little to funding research. Livestrong is for the winners - the implication is that the losers are losers because they didn't fight hard enough, not because not enough money is contributed to fund research.

The very insinuation that an alleged liar and cheat, should be be proven guilty, should be given some kind of 'free pass' because of his fundraising efforts is not only shallow but insulting to the millions of cancer sufferers outside the US. And implying that a massive grassroots organisation can't survive without a figurehead is insulting to the ordinary people who have driven that organisation from the bottom up without the private jets and the huge appearance fees that went straight into the pocket and not to the charity.

Take off the blinkers.


----------



## JimT (Jul 18, 2007)

I think it is funny how some actually think mainstream America has a finger on the pulse of the world of cycling. Go to you local stores and ask who Cancellara Contador or Leipheimer are. Ask people what products Specialized or Cervelo or even Trek produce. I would say 90% of the people questioned wont have a clue....
If he is found guilty there would be a 45 second blurb on the news channels and most Americans wont even care about it I wish I was wrong but I dont think so. .


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

JimT said:


> I think it is funny how some actually think mainstream America has a finger on the pulse of the world of cycling. Go to you local stores and ask who Cancellara Contador or Leipheimer are. Ask people what products Specialized or Cervelo or even Trek produce. I would say 90% of the people questioned wont have a clue....
> If he is found guilty there would be a 45 second blurb on the news channels and most Americans wont even care about it I wish I was wrong but I dont think so. .


Yep, gotta keep things in perspective.

If Clinton can recover from Monicagate and being impeached, Armstrong can recover from all the doping allegations Landis can throw at him (and I say allegations because I think there is ZERO chance they'll go further than that).


----------



## RRRoubaix (Aug 27, 2008)

JimT said:


> I think it is funny how some actually think mainstream America has a finger on the pulse of the world of cycling. Go to you local stores and ask who Cancellara Contador or Leipheimer are. Ask people what products Specialized or Cervelo or even Trek produce. I would say 90% of the people questioned wont have a clue....
> If he is found guilty there would be a 45 second blurb on the news channels and most Americans wont even care about it I wish I was wrong but I dont think so. .


45 seconds?
You're kidding, right?
Lance IS cycling for 99% of America. For most of the USA there is only one race and only one rider. Whatever LA does, whatever he says is the only cycling-related thing that gets any airtime on US news or ESPN, etc..
When the Landis thing broke, ESPN had bits about it every 15 minutes, hour after hour...
When he announced this was his last tour, I saw updates twice an hour on ESPN. If he were caught doping it would be non-stop doping/cheating interspersed w/ NASCAR updates. 
It's retarded, but that's what would happen.
(Unless Lance made a sizeable donation to ... every American media outlet, heh!)


----------



## FTF (Aug 5, 2003)

cmdrpiffle said:


> Do you really think people are shallow enough to suddenly say: oi! that Lance is is a dirty old bastard, I believe I'll not donate to cancer research any longer?


Do I believe people are shallow.... Yes.


----------



## aptivaboy (Nov 21, 2009)

_My prediction is that federal investigation will drag out for years and in the end nothing will be proven one way or the other._

Yup, I absolutely agree with you. Plus, even if the Feds do investigate in a tough and thorough manner, they would need something to get Lance: *evidence*. All of the evidence that is out there indicates that he didn't dope. Just think about all of the dope tests that Lance has passed over the years: the Olympics, the Tour, all of the other European events, WADA... The list goes on. The Feds would need something more than the hearsay of Floyd Landis' crazy claims, and I do say crazy. Let's see, yeah, the team bus stopped on the side of the road to blood dope Lance after a Tour stage. Right, and no one in the press noticed a team bus just stopped there for how long? Oh, and let's not forget his claim that Lance doped in the Tour of Switzerland - the year he didn't compete in it! Way to go Floyd...

I don't know if Lance ever doped, or not. None of us do. What I do know is that barring the discovery of some miraculous piece or pieces of incontrovertible evidence, Lance will most likely go down in history as the most dope tested cyclist ever, and the one whose samples came back as officially clean every time. 

Robert


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

Interpol


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

aptivaboy said:


> _My prediction is that federal investigation will drag out for years and in the end nothing will be proven one way or the other._
> 
> Yup, I absolutely agree with you. Plus, even if the Feds do investigate in a tough and thorough manner, they would need something to get Lance: *evidence*. All of the evidence that is out there indicates that he didn't dope. Just think about all of the dope tests that Lance has passed over the years: the Olympics, the Tour, all of the other European events, WADA... The list goes on. The Feds would need something more than the hearsay of Floyd Landis' crazy claims, and I do say crazy. Let's see, yeah, the team bus stopped on the side of the road to blood dope Lance after a Tour stage. Right, and no one in the press noticed a team bus just stopped there for how long? Oh, and let's not forget his claim that Lance doped in the Tour of Switzerland - the year he didn't compete in it! Way to go Floyd...
> 
> ...


All it needs is one other person to come forward, willingly or under subpoena, with corroborating evidence for FL's claims or another incident. Then the authorities, US or International, have a way in to examine LA, JB or USPS more closely. LA was a co-owner of Tailwind Sports, which ran the USPS team. So any perceived wrongdoing, like selling bikes for dope or the like, makes that a target for investigation.

On the subject of _"most dope tested cyclist ever" _claim, you're way way off. Armstrong has long claimed this but also been shown to be wrong. Cipollini would have been tested far more, as would any sprinter, due to the sheer volume of wins in a season. This claim should be filed with the one about weight loss under "Smoke & Mirrors" or "Bull****"


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

ultimobici said:


> All it needs is one other person to come forward, willingly or under subpoena, with corroborating evidence for FL's claims or another incident. Then the authorities, US or International, have a way in to examine LA, JB or USPS more closely. LA was a co-owner of Tailwind Sports, which ran the USPS team. So any perceived wrongdoing, like selling bikes for dope or the like, makes that a target for investigation.
> 
> On the subject of _"most dope tested cyclist ever" _claim, you're way way off. Armstrong has long claimed this but also been shown to be wrong. Cipollini would have been tested far more, as would any sprinter, due to the sheer volume of wins in a season. This claim should be filed with the one about weight loss under "Smoke & Mirrors" or "Bull****"


Marion Jones was actually the most tested athlete at the time of Armstrong's TdF superiority - and look what happened to her...

There are plenty of paper trails to follow already - the Swiss bank accounts, the resold Trek bikes (did you know Pat's brother Darach McQuaid, was offering an Armstrong 
Trek on ebay?), the _photocopy of a receipt in a file marked 'confidential', the $25,000 cheque co-signed by Armstrong's wife (although Verbruggen, who was actually in charge of the UCI at the time) says the donation was made in cash. There's plenty of stuff to occupy the Feds without even touching the doping angle - I'm sure that will adequately be covered by OCLAESP who are now part of the Armstrong investigation and still running the 99 Astana transfusion kit enquiries (and are at the TdF this year, too).

As for the allegations you cite:

1) Did you know that team buses routinely use 'alternative routes' to the test of the Tour cavalcade? Quite easy to evade journalists - and don't you think they'd have learned their lesson after Actovegin 2000?
2) Read the emails properly - Landis doesn't actually date the TdS win to 2002, but pegs it to time frame somewhere between 2000-2002 (Armstrong as we all know won the race in 2001)
3) Do you want the full list of riders who have since been suspended for doping offenses without ever testing positive? Many of the BALCO athletes never tested positive in their careers either and there is a wealth of entirely credible evidence to support how easy it is to evade the tests (unless you believe an ex-doper is somehow lying about what they did to their own body and witnessed first hand?)_


----------



## grrrah (Jul 22, 2005)

badge118 said:


> This I believe to be a likely outcome. Some 99ers seem to believe that Livestrong is THE non-profit for cancer research.
> 
> The CRI, Susan G Komen for the Cure, Team in Training. As a matter of fact the LAF routinely is judged to be a poor fundraiser. $100 raised it is recommended to not spend more that $35.00. LAF routinely spends at least $45.00 to raise each $100.00. In 2005 they spent 10 million to raise 22 million.
> 
> ...


Livestrong actually doesn't support cancer research at all, its a support charity for cancer victims. Much of the spending is on events and outreach to raise awareness, which you are correct, may not be as efficient, but in my small expeience is very successfull in raising awareness, etc. I was amazed at the production level put on for the Livestrong challenges, but then I realized how many people it attracted from outside of cycling fans and without an immediate impact from cancer. 

count me as one of the big Livestrong fans, but rooting against LA in the tour.


----------



## malanb (Oct 26, 2009)

I doubt landis is the biggest wittness.

look at this blog. No one remembers when Lance was seeing Dr. Ferrari, for me that is the biggest sign he was doping. Why visit secretly a Dr. that juice up athlete? 

http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2009/11/8-things-on-lance-armstrong-from-other.html

he has always been a DB now he just is an ODB


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

Bianchigirl said:


> 2) Read the emails properly - Landis doesn't actually date the TdS win to 2002, but pegs it to time frame somewhere between 2000-2002 (Armstrong as we all know won the race in 2001)


Two points that suggest Landis did mean 2002 for the TdS:

Landis wasn't on Postal in 2000 or 2001.

Landis did say he was coming forward because the statute of limitations would run out. For WADA, it's 8 years. Anything from 2000 or 2001 would be moot as far as prosecutions go.


----------



## RHRoop (Nov 1, 2006)

A point that no one has considered about Landis' allegations. He is well represented by attorneys and I am sure they have told him the consequences of making false statements. Granted, he is an avowed liar and if he is lying again it may be just has hard to prove as Armostrong et al's alleged doping. You might also say that he is "crazy" enough or so motivated by revenge that he would say anything to anyone to bring Armstrong down. 

I kind of doubt that given everything Landis has lost that he is willing to risk what he has left- personal freedom, more large legal bills or fines for lying to the police or federal investigators.

Anyone else caught up in the investigation in the U.S. will either have to lie (and keep their story straight with all the others), plead the fifth, remain silent or simply try to say nothing at all.

I thought the bike sales allegations were interesting. From an investigative POV this could lead to conspiracy, money laundering, fraud, tax evasion and who knows what else. It might not be the smoking gun but it might be enough to start unraveling the story.


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

I will say that Lance threads have the largest percentage of people who know NOTHING acting like they know EVERYTHING of anything I've ever seen on the interwbz.

Absolute certainty through hearsay must be comforting.


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

JohnHemlock said:


> I will say that Lance threads have the largest percentage of people who know NOTHING acting like they know EVERYTHING of anything I've ever seen on the interwbz.
> 
> Absolute certainty through hearsay must be comforting.



Is that an echo?
________
LIVE SEX WEBSHOWS


----------



## bruce_wayne (Apr 30, 2010)

IF Lance was doping, and IF he goes down for it, my hunch is things will unravel a la Watergate. It's not a perfect analogy, but remember when the Watergate investigation started out it was a simple case of breaking and entering in a DC hotel. No one was thinking about the Prez at first but as bit players started to talk and different minor events were strung together, the body of evidence slowly but surely reached a critical mass and it became harder and harder for Nixon to maintain his innocence. Therefore, resign before impeachment.
That's why if something, for instance, like an unauthorized sale of bikes can be confirmed, things could become increasingly ugly. I interpreted Lance's statement that this would be his last tour as his way of announcing retirement from the pro peloton. If he retires, the doping allegations take a back seat?
Certainly don't claim to be an expert on Watergate or the doping scandal, just my little hunch FWIW...


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

JohnHemlock said:


> I will say that Lance threads have the largest percentage of people who know NOTHING acting like they know EVERYTHING of anything I've ever seen on the interwbz.
> 
> Absolute certainty through hearsay must be comforting.


Perhaps you'd care to revisit the Armstrong testimony in the SCA hearing. Several of the statements he makes _under oath_ have been directly contradicted by people on his own side (like McQuaid & Verbruggen).

So are you painting Armstrong's sworn testimony as unreliable? Or mere hearsay? Perhaps you might make better informed comments if you were better informed yourself?


----------



## ronnoX (Mar 30, 2009)

They are not investigating Lance's doping practices. They are investigating team management and did they institute a formal doping program. Lance never recieved U.S.Postal money. He was paind by Tailwind Sports


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

How will they "find him guilty"?

All he has to do is sit there are deny the charges, forever. Barring a box of blood bags in the trunk of Dr. Ferrari's Ferrari, it will never come down to anything other than a bunch of people saying something and him denying it. Obscure paper trails can be explained away, so can "eyewitness testimony." 

Marion Jones got nailed because she confessed to lying under oath. And then confessed to drugging. She was never "found guilty". Barry Bonds was indicted 3 years ago and that case is still dragging on.

They could of course indict LA for the perjury piece but still the burden will be on the prosecutors to place the needles in his arm, so to speak. And I'll bet anyone $100 that LA in front of a jury is not going to receive the same presumption of guilt as Bonds and Jones received.

This one is going nowhere.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

JohnHemlock said:


> Absolute certainty through hearsay must be comforting.


I don't think "hearsay" means what you think it means.


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

Bianchigirl said:


> Perhaps you'd care to revisit the Armstrong testimony in the SCA hearing. Several of the statements he makes _under oath_ have been directly contradicted by people on his own side (like McQuaid & Verbruggen).
> 
> So are you painting Armstrong's sworn testimony as unreliable? Or mere hearsay? Perhaps you might make better informed comments if you were better informed yourself?


This post makes no sense to me. What I was talking about was everyone pretending to have some insight or special knowledge when all they are going on is pellets of info being spun and shat out through the media. They take these pellets, combine them with a legal knowledge obtained from watching LA Law reruns, and suddenly Lance is sharing a cell with Bernie Madoff.

But enjoy your absolute certaintly, by all means!


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I don't think "hearsay" means what you think it means.


Poor choice of word, perhaps. Contested testimony? Betsy Andreu says Lance discussed EPO, doctor says it never happened. Floyd says Andy Rihs agreed Phonak needed a doping program to win, Rihs says it never happened. etc etc etc etc etc for 10 years. Floyd said Hincapie transfused on the team bus, Hincapie says it never happened.

Bring me a smoking gun and by all means put the guy in Spandau if it makes you feel better. They want to prove he used government money to fund a doping program. Once they do that, he gets what he gets.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

terry b said:


> They could of course indict LA for the perjury piece but still the burden will be on the prosecutors to place the needles in his arm, so to speak.


Perjury. Stop right there. That's the biggest risk to Tex. He will likely be asked to give compulsory testimony before a grand jury. Take the Fifth Amendment? Might be the smartest thing to do...


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

JohnHemlock said:


> Hincapie says it never happened.
> .


Did I somehow miss that? I wasn't aware GH had addressed the particular allegations directly.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

JohnHemlock said:


> Poor choice of word, perhaps. Contested testimony? Betsy Andreu says Lance discussed EPO, doctor says it never happened.


Just to for the sake of keeping the facts straight. The doctor that Betsy says she heard Armstrong discuss his drug taking with has never been identified.

Plus you really think Betsy doesn't know what was going on via Frankie whether she overheard Lance tell a doctor he doped or not?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

JohnHemlock said:


> Bring me a smoking gun and by all means put the guy in Spandau if it makes you feel better. They want to prove he used government money to fund a doping program. Once they do that, he gets what he gets.


Lance shouldn't be punished at all, he wasn't doing anything substantially different than the rest. He should come clean and tell the truth though.

Why isn't the EPO that was in his urine from the '99 Tour a smoking gun? Why isn't the undisputed fact that he worked with one of the top doping doctors for years a smoking gun? You really think he was paying him six figures and not letting him prepare is rivals all for some LT threshold testing and a training program? That is ridiculous.

Then again, some people believe Scheck was really just sending thousands of dollars to a gynecologist in Spain for a training program!


----------

