Lance Armstrong vs. USADA

[London424]

el stovey said:

HundredthIdiot said:

Indeed. Sky shunned Millar yet welcomed Barry and Leinders. Why?

And now we have Sky rider Alex Dowsett defending Lance:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19910165

Wiggo has also given Lance far too much respect in my view.

Barry told Brailsford he hadn't doped, obviously it was a lie.

Unfortunately the USADA report also mentions Sean Yates SKY DS who not only tested positive for doping himself in 1989 but also worked with Armstrong in Discovery and also worked with Astana. I thought Leinders was no longer with SKY.

Just found this. You're right...his contract is not being extended.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/leinders-not-renew...

[Highway Star]

HundredthIdiot said:

el stovey said:

Barry told Brailsford he hadn't doped, obviously it was a lie.

If that's the case they must dismiss him immediately.

el stovey said:

Unfortunately the USADA report also mentions Sean Yates SKY DS who not only tested positive for doping himself in 1989 but also worked with Armstrong in Discovery and also worked with Astana.

Indeed, Yates's doping is common knowledge.

el stovey said:

I thought Leinders was no longer with SKY.

Ah, I'd missed that they'd canned Leinders. Busy news day yesterday!

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/leinders-not-renew...

No need to dismiss Barry, he retired and then admitted doping yesterday.

[anonymous-user]

HundredthIdiot said:

Indeed. Sky shunned Millar yet welcomed Barry and Leinders. Why?

And now we have Sky rider Alex Dowsett defending Lance:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19910165

Wiggo has also given Lance far too much respect in my view.

and? I read the article and i cant see the bit where Dowsett is defending Lance, sure he says Lance was a nice guy and has done some good things for the sport but thats hardly screaming Armstrong's innocence...

[ewenm]

HundredthIdiot said:

Wiggo has also given Lance far too much respect in my view.

I don't see why Wiggins would voice a public opinion on Armstrong, other than expressing his frustration with the whole mess. He doesn't need to get involved at all. This merry-go-round is one where the only winners are those who don't get on.

[HundredthIdiot]

ewenm said:

I don't see why Wiggins would voice a public opinion on Armstrong, other than expressing his frustration with the whole mess. He doesn't need to get involved at all.

Why wouldn't he express an opinion? Lance's cheating epitomises everything that Wiggins used to vocally despise.

ewenm said:

This merry-go-round is one where the only winners are those who don't get on.

The winners are all those people who have had to suffer through Lance fans bleating on about how incredible he was, in the face of an obvious but unproven truth. The David Walshes, The Paul Kimmages. Those cyclists who abandoned their dreams because they wouldn't dope.

[ewenm]

HundredthIdiot said:

ewenm said:

I don't see why Wiggins would voice a public opinion on Armstrong, other than expressing his frustration with the whole mess. He doesn't need to get involved at all.

Why wouldn't he express an opinion? Lance's cheating epitomises everything that Wiggins used to vocally despise.

Because whatever he says someone will say he hasn't been vocal enough about it. If I had to, I'd make a statement along the lines of "You all know my views on doping, they haven't changed. I'm proud that I'm riding and winning cleanly."

HundredthIdiot said:

ewenm said:

This merry-go-round is one where the only winners are those who don't get on.

The winners are all those people who have had to suffer through Lance fans bleating on about how incredible he was, in the face of an obvious but unproven truth. The David Walshes, The Paul Kimmages. Those cyclists who abandoned their dreams because they wouldn't dope.

So their dreams are now returned to them are they? They haven't won, they've still lost; those dreams will never return. It's a big fking mess.

[okgo]

London424 said:

Just found this. You're right...his contract is not being extended.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/leinders-not-renew...

He was retiring anyway, all a bit convieniet tbh.

And its obviously utter bks that Brailsford didn't know about Barry. The wool is being pulled in all directions here. I still maintain that nobody can tell from their sofa if a rider is doping or not, but I'm beginning to wonder about Sky purely because of all the crap he spouts.

[Robsti]

Wiggo interview on Sky sports news!

[mcelliott]

HundredthIdiot said:

Wiggo has also given Lance far too much respect in my view.

Wiggins said:

"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefited from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense. I don't think this sport will ever realise what he's brought it or how big he's made it. Cycling was in the dark ages before he came along, in many ways. You only have to look at the support along the roads, compared to what it was 20 years ago. The majority of that is because of Lance Armstrong."

He's a self confessed fan boy, I wonder what his views are now?

[Robsti]

mcelliott said:

HundredthIdiot said:

Wiggo has also given Lance far too much respect in my view.

Wiggins said:

"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefited from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense. I don't think this sport will ever realise what he's brought it or how big he's made it. Cycling was in the dark ages before he came along, in many ways. You only have to look at the support along the roads, compared to what it was 20 years ago. The majority of that is because of Lance Armstrong."

He's a self confessed fan boy, I wonder what his views are now?

No fanboy anymore!

[mcelliott]

Robsti said:

mcelliott said:

HundredthIdiot said:

Wiggo has also given Lance far too much respect in my view.

Wiggins said:

"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefited from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense. I don't think this sport will ever realise what he's brought it or how big he's made it. Cycling was in the dark ages before he came along, in many ways. You only have to look at the support along the roads, compared to what it was 20 years ago. The majority of that is because of Lance Armstrong."

He's a self confessed fan boy, I wonder what his views are now?

No fanboy anymore!

Ah, so fair weather friend then!

[Robsti]

mcelliott said:

Ah, so fair weather friend then!

His team will be telling him exactly what he thinks like the U turn of his team mate who said Lance was a "legend" and "it didn't matter" which now translates to Sky speak into legend for raising money for charity and doesn't matter because all racing is clean now!

[mcelliott]

I never saw anything guv!

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/yates-denies-seein...

[HundredthIdiot]

Robsti said:

Wiggo interview on Sky sports news!

Here:

http://news.sky.com/story/996262/armstrong-stored-...

In the panel "Video: Wiggins: Armstrong Claims Shocking"

Good interview from Wiggo IMO. He's being fairly measured, but it's all there.

[DJRC]

Derek Smith said:

DJRC said:

You would go to court with that????????????

No wonder the police lose so many cases. If you genuinely do not think a cpl of bd lawyers ... esp Yank courtroom brawlers... would regard that as prime meat then you are vastly more naive than I thought possible. The presenting quality is just outright amateur and if you produced it as an official piece of plod work your boss would have told you to write it again before it ever went anywhere near publication. The adversarial nature of the courts is the only thing that matters, the truth is irrelevent. The truth became irrelevent as soon as this became a war and that was a long time ago.

The evidence is clear. There are quite a number of fellow cyclists with eye witness testimony which puts LA in the frame. There is considerable circumstantial evidence, including those whom LA 'ssociated' with.

As for the dig at police, the quality of the file is immaterial at the moment as it is not, and is not intended to be, a prosecution file. It is merely the prima facie evidence, disclosure if you will, and it should be viewed as such. Your opinion as to its quality of presentation may or may not be spot on, but is immaterial. The evidence is damning: eye witness and corrobative circumstantial evidence. It hits the sweet spot.

The police do not charge for court, that is a function of the CPS. The police cannot and do not 'lose cases' anymore. I would suggest that if this file came to me, in a proper format, then my recommendation to the CPS would be to prosecute.

LA's defence has been two-fold:

That he did not fail one of the 500+ drugs test he underwent, and

That the agency is picking on him.

The 'never failed' is make-believe (as must be the 500 figure as well) and the agency has only to suggest that there is no other rider who has had so many other riders condemning them.

The fact remains that LA has not chosen to defend himself in front of a tribunal where at least two of the officials will not be picking on him but instead has resorted to press releases. If, as you suggest, a coupe of aggressive briefs could tear the agency's case apart without difficulty, one wonders why he hasn't opted to do so. Perhaps because the case is better founded than you think?

I repeat: a number of riders who have given evidence against him together with corrobative circumstantial evidence. There is also some real and documentary evidence as well. I'm not sure what else one would require from a prosecution file. I think the reason the CPS lose so many cases is that they often do not have such overwelming evidence. One thing which the CPS would consider is the likely defence. I'm bemused as to what LA's could defence be? From what I can see is that all the other riders are telling lies, Ferrari is innocent and that it is all a conspiracy.

Don't reckon the chances of that being successful. Even bruisers have to have something to back up a story.

Going by the report, I'd say I'm convinced that LA is a drugs cheat.

I think it probable that all successful riders, as well as many of the domestiques, were on drugs at the same time. It would appear thought that LA not only shot up hills to a greater extent than all the other riders.

In proper format then yes it gets much better, alas they have released out to the world as its formal version, therefore that is its formal version as far as the world press goes. That alone would give meat to a cpl of brawlers when presented with a revised version in court.

You also miss the ethos of my original point which was that I have no doubt that LA would be subject to humiliating witness testimony presented against him, but equally any lawyers of his would subject the USDA to a humiliating mauling aswell about the way they have gone about this. Which brings me back to said original point...anybody who thinks this would not be a messy humiliating blood bath for all involved is living in la la land. So why would Lance go to a court or tribunal? The wider public is still pouring money into his foundation, he still have popular support and every 2 steps forward the USDA makes it takes 1 step back shooting itself in the foot. As far as Lance is concerned...he is winning. The truth stopped being relevent a long time ago. You seem to think I think the case against him is weak...I dont, I think he is likely to be as guilty as Tom Williams with a blood capsule and that he would have a humiliating time in a public trial with witness statement after witness statement. Im also fairly sure that a cpl of s such Tonker & Soovy LLP would make it just as much as nightmare for the USDA. My money is very firmly on Tonker & Soovy LLP.

[anonymous-user]

There was a real sports lawyer on the news yesterday. He said the amount of evidence against Armstrong would be enough in any kind of legal proceeding.

[DrMekon]

I see people are going after LiveStrong now - apparently none of their money goes on research, senior people on big money, the self-monitoring site being a separate commercial entity.

[Derek Smith]

DJRC said:

In proper format then yes it gets much better, alas they have released out to the world as its formal version, therefore that is its formal version as far as the world press goes. That alone would give meat to a cpl of brawlers when presented with a revised version in court.

You also miss the ethos of my original point which was that I have no doubt that LA would be subject to humiliating witness testimony presented against him, but equally any lawyers of his would subject the USDA to a humiliating mauling aswell about the way they have gone about this. Which brings me back to said original point...anybody who thinks this would not be a messy humiliating blood bath for all involved is living in la la land. So why would Lance go to a court or tribunal? The wider public is still pouring money into his foundation, he still have popular support and every 2 steps forward the USDA makes it takes 1 step back shooting itself in the foot. As far as Lance is concerned...he is winning. The truth stopped being relevent a long time ago. You seem to think I think the case against him is weak...I dont, I think he is likely to be as guilty as Tom Williams with a blood capsule and that he would have a humiliating time in a public trial with witness statement after witness statement. Im also fairly sure that a cpl of s such Tonker & Soovy LLP would make it just as much as nightmare for the USDA. My money is very firmly on Tonker & Soovy LLP.

I'm not sure that LA is 'winning'. If the ADA had not done anything then he would b e in a much stronger place that he is now. Whilst Nike is giving out verbals about support, I would suggest that they might well jump ship.

LA is an American hero and as such is about as untouchable as you can get, a Savile for the States. The ADA has 17 riders suggesting that LA took drugs. Not only that that the USP team was about as corrupt as could be. This is early days. LA might not be mortally wounded but he is injured. He's got lots of money, oddles of the stuff, and that, in the USA, makes for lots of blin-eye-turning, but he will never reach the same level as he would had the ADA not produced the cse against him.

He's gone for the only route he could: nothing's been proved. The ADA has, to the open-minded (and I might add to some who regarded him as something of an inspiration) proved him to e a cheat. So he's lost a lot. There are many sponsors out there who will not, at least in the medium term, consider him.

Had LA admitted the use of drugs, but challenged the level, or at least his knowledge of how bad it was, then he would have probably come away with much less damage, and it would have healed quicker. He could even have gained some sympathy.

If hed' said something along the lines of:

I won't challenge the conclusion of the ADA's report, although I would say that much of it is not accurate. However, I must admit to using drugs on occasion. The problem from the Team UPS point of view, many people had invested heavily in the team and, as has been shown, drug taking was endemic int he sport. The only way of competing was to follow their example. The UPS team's level of drug taking was lower than most, probably all, of the leading teams. We did only as much as we needed to do to return the faith and investment of those who supported the team. Whilst I regret the drug taking, I do not regret trying to level the playing field. People put their faith in the team and there is no way I could have let them down. To suggest, however, that Team UPS' performance was down solely to drugs is nonsense. We did only as much as we had to.

That's winning.

[anonymous-user]

Derek Smith said:

I'm not sure that LA is 'winning'. If the ADA had not done anything then he would b e in a much stronger place that he is now. Whilst Nike is giving out verbals about support, I would suggest that they might well jump ship.

LA is an American hero and as such is about as untouchable as you can get, a Savile for the States. The ADA has 17 riders suggesting that LA took drugs. Not only that that the USP team was about as corrupt as could be. This is early days. LA might not be mortally wounded but he is injured. He's got lots of money, oddles of the stuff, and that, in the USA, makes for lots of blin-eye-turning, but he will never reach the same level as he would had the ADA not produced the cse against him.

He's gone for the only route he could: nothing's been proved. The ADA has, to the open-minded (and I might add to some who regarded him as something of an inspiration) proved him to e a cheat. So he's lost a lot. There are many sponsors out there who will not, at least in the medium term, consider him.

Had LA admitted the use of drugs, but challenged the level, or at least his knowledge of how bad it was, then he would have probably come away with much less damage, and it would have healed quicker. He could even have gained some sympathy.

If hed' said something along the lines of:

I won't challenge the conclusion of the ADA's report, although I would say that much of it is not accurate. However, I must admit to using drugs on occasion. The problem from the Team UPS point of view, many people had invested heavily in the team and, as has been shown, drug taking was endemic int he sport. The only way of competing was to follow their example. The UPS team's level of drug taking was lower than most, probably all, of the leading teams. We did only as much as we needed to do to return the faith and investment of those who supported the team. Whilst I regret the drug taking, I do not regret trying to level the playing field. People put their faith in the team and there is no way I could have let them down. To suggest, however, that Team UPS' performance was down solely to drugs is nonsense. We did only as much as we had to.

That's winning.

Thank god you're not his publicist! If Lance said that I would laugh in his face!

What he needs to say is "i doped, i'm sorry, i will do all i can to help make the sport drug free" and that is all. Any excuses that other teams did it or UPS did it as little and as infrequent as possible to level the field would be a complete farce.

Armstrong is very much losing this fight now. His silence is laughable and his reputation is in tatters. Lance needs to confess now. As i said, when I thought it was just Landis on a "knives out" publicity charge, I was the same as many other, show me a credible witness, well guys like DZ, VdV and Hincapie I can believe, so now I want a confession and we move on.

for those to whom Lance was a hero, he should confess, no one sold their bikes in disgust when the others admitted doping... he will be just another cyclist who doped.

I hope the livestrong foundation can survive and prosper however, its far bigger the Lance alone. it does offer a lot of support to millions of people and has massively raised the profile of testicular cancer and cancer as a whole. Above all this, long before the doping incidents were said to have taken place, the guy was given a slim chance of survival and fought back to survive, for that he deserves credit.

Or put another way, it wasnt doping which helped Lance survive cancer.

[DJRC]

DrMekon said:

I see people are going after LiveStrong now - apparently none of their money goes on research, senior people on big money, the self-monitoring site being a separate commercial entity.

Thats the real battle and if there is anything dodgy happening there then it will be a real and absolute bloodbath in court. Drugs and sports is one thing, frankly its just pissing about on the sidelines. Money and fraud is big boy time.