Lance Armstrong vs. USADA
Discussion
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/betsy-andreu-n...
Some more reading for the few Lance apologists still left.
There's having a ruthless competitive streak, and there's being a grade A **** and everything I read about "the great man" suggests he falls into the latter category. I prefer my sporting greats to have at least something likeable about them, but then according to the Lance fanboys "nice guys finish last".
Enjoy your hero.
Some more reading for the few Lance apologists still left.
There's having a ruthless competitive streak, and there's being a grade A **** and everything I read about "the great man" suggests he falls into the latter category. I prefer my sporting greats to have at least something likeable about them, but then according to the Lance fanboys "nice guys finish last".
Enjoy your hero.
aspender said:
TedMaul said:
Honestly? You think there is a chance he will be tried, never mind convicted of anything? I suspect the costs would be prohibitive, the benefits non existant. He is found guilty? No surprise, he is found innocent, the whole world will remain suspicious. I've probably missed something, but I see no benefit to the sport or the general public in taking him to court. i doubt it would be worthwhile for those he has let down commercially either. As I say above, there is no win in this, no matter how it plays out.
I'd agree with everything you say if I had said he would be tried for doping, but I didn't. The justification of trying people for perjury is fairly clear.http://www.skysports.com/video/inline/0,,16315_815...
Eh WTF? Wiggins never raced against Lance Armstrong in the Tour de France! (around 2:30 in the interview)
Eh WTF? Wiggins never raced against Lance Armstrong in the Tour de France! (around 2:30 in the interview)
HundredthIdiot said:
TedMaul said:
But what would achieve, what is the public benefit?
Discouraging people from perjuring themselves. Justice. Due process being seen to be done. All the usual stuff that justifies prosecuting people for crimes.If LA is not brought to court on perjury, even though it is not doping it will essentially give the green light to trying to get past the drugs checks any way you can
Cycling needs to do something about its image right now. Though I don't agree with setting an example, he amount of damage LA has done to the sport is horrendous and needs to be dealt with.
maturin23 said:
There seem to be a few people blindly saying this.
He created and nurtured an environment where you either joined in the doping or you were driven out of the sport.
What if there was someone who was capable of beating him if no drugs were taken? If this person refused to take drugs he'd never be able to beat a 'doped' Lance Armstrong.
It was NOT a level playing field and it's idiocy to suggest it was.
I think it may be a little OTT to credit LA with creating the doping culture in cycling - Tom Simpson died before Armstrong was born...He created and nurtured an environment where you either joined in the doping or you were driven out of the sport.
What if there was someone who was capable of beating him if no drugs were taken? If this person refused to take drugs he'd never be able to beat a 'doped' Lance Armstrong.
It was NOT a level playing field and it's idiocy to suggest it was.
IroningMan said:
maturin23 said:
There seem to be a few people blindly saying this.
He created and nurtured an environment where you either joined in the doping or you were driven out of the sport.
What if there was someone who was capable of beating him if no drugs were taken? If this person refused to take drugs he'd never be able to beat a 'doped' Lance Armstrong.
It was NOT a level playing field and it's idiocy to suggest it was.
I think it may be a little OTT to credit LA with creating the doping culture in cycling - Tom Simpson died before Armstrong was born...He created and nurtured an environment where you either joined in the doping or you were driven out of the sport.
What if there was someone who was capable of beating him if no drugs were taken? If this person refused to take drugs he'd never be able to beat a 'doped' Lance Armstrong.
It was NOT a level playing field and it's idiocy to suggest it was.
I think it would be more accurate to say that he stoked the drugs arms race to new and untold heights, by institutionalising drug use within the sport, and introducing highly skilled and highly rewarded medical input and oversight to the process. DJRC said:
Erm the perjury angle...has he perjured himself in court?
Under oath at a 2005 Arbitration hearing in Dallas, he repeatedly told the court that he'd never used, trafficked or been involved in any way with PED's, when asked whether there was any truth in the rumours about him using EPO, testosterone, HGF and cortisone.This hearing was his doing - he took SCA Promotions and Hamman Insurance Services to court after SCA refused to give a $5m bonus after the LA Confidential book was published which contained those allegations.
After his sworn testimony, SCA settled before judgment and gave him $7.5m to cover the bonus, fees and legal costs.
dangerousB said:
Under oath at a 2005 Arbitration hearing in Dallas, he repeatedly told the court that he'd never used, trafficked or been involved in any way with PED's, when asked whether there was any truth in the rumours about him using EPO, testosterone, HGF and cortisone.
This hearing was his doing - he took SCA Promotions and Hamman Insurance Services to court after SCA refused to give a $5m bonus after the LA Confidential book was published which contained those allegations.
After his sworn testimony, SCA settled before judgment and gave him $7.5m to cover the bonus, fees and legal costs.
I've been reading about this case, and would expect SCA to be filing a suit to re-claim the monies paid to LA in due course... which could (should a court find against LA), kick off the perjury case.This hearing was his doing - he took SCA Promotions and Hamman Insurance Services to court after SCA refused to give a $5m bonus after the LA Confidential book was published which contained those allegations.
After his sworn testimony, SCA settled before judgment and gave him $7.5m to cover the bonus, fees and legal costs.
dangerousB said:
DJRC said:
Erm the perjury angle...has he perjured himself in court?
Under oath at a 2005 Arbitration hearing in Dallas, he repeatedly told the court that he'd never used, trafficked or been involved in any way with PED's, when asked whether there was any truth in the rumours about him using EPO, testosterone, HGF and cortisone.This hearing was his doing - he took SCA Promotions and Hamman Insurance Services to court after SCA refused to give a $5m bonus after the LA Confidential book was published which contained those allegations.
After his sworn testimony, SCA settled before judgment and gave him $7.5m to cover the bonus, fees and legal costs.
Which if all true then is what the authorities in the US should have done in the first place. Take the USDA dossier and rather than dick about in public with it all, use it to build a perjury case against LA and hit him with it on trial, fully prepped to the works, perfected by the lawyers. Not gone off in their half arsed manner.
DJRC said:
dangerousB said:
DJRC said:
Erm the perjury angle...has he perjured himself in court?
Under oath at a 2005 Arbitration hearing in Dallas, he repeatedly told the court that he'd never used, trafficked or been involved in any way with PED's, when asked whether there was any truth in the rumours about him using EPO, testosterone, HGF and cortisone.This hearing was his doing - he took SCA Promotions and Hamman Insurance Services to court after SCA refused to give a $5m bonus after the LA Confidential book was published which contained those allegations.
After his sworn testimony, SCA settled before judgment and gave him $7.5m to cover the bonus, fees and legal costs.
Which if all true then is what the authorities in the US should have done in the first place. Take the USDA dossier and rather than dick about in public with it all, use it to build a perjury case against LA and hit him with it on trial, fully prepped to the works, perfected by the lawyers. Not gone off in their half arsed manner.
Efbe said:
HundredthIdiot said:
TedMaul said:
But what would achieve, what is the public benefit?
Discouraging people from perjuring themselves. Justice. Due process being seen to be done. All the usual stuff that justifies prosecuting people for crimes.If LA is not brought to court on perjury, even though it is not doping it will essentially give the green light to trying to get past the drugs checks any way you can
Cycling needs to do something about its image right now. Though I don't agree with setting an example, he amount of damage LA has done to the sport is horrendous and needs to be dealt with.
As for cycling sorting out its reputation, I agree, there needs to be something dramatic to restore confidence, but unless LA and all dopers lose their wealth making their whole life plight pointless, it doesnt discourage others from doing likewise in the future. Every incentive to cheat......
TedMaul said:
He may end up stripped of his titles, but I doubt he will lose out financially, not as a proportion of his overall wealth anyway. His reputation is in tatters, would a perjury verdict take him that much lower? I agree he should be punished, but what can anyone actually do, jail him? He'd probably get a suspended sentance due to all the charity work and wouldnt see the inside of a cell.
As for cycling sorting out its reputation, I agree, there needs to be something dramatic to restore confidence, but unless LA and all dopers lose their wealth making their whole life plight pointless, it doesnt discourage others from doing likewise in the future. Every incentive to cheat......
Google SCA promotions. I suspect they beg to differ, but we shall see in due course. If his large sponsors turn on him too he could be right in the financial s**t. As for cycling sorting out its reputation, I agree, there needs to be something dramatic to restore confidence, but unless LA and all dopers lose their wealth making their whole life plight pointless, it doesnt discourage others from doing likewise in the future. Every incentive to cheat......
TedMaul said:
Efbe said:
HundredthIdiot said:
TedMaul said:
But what would achieve, what is the public benefit?
Discouraging people from perjuring themselves. Justice. Due process being seen to be done. All the usual stuff that justifies prosecuting people for crimes.If LA is not brought to court on perjury, even though it is not doping it will essentially give the green light to trying to get past the drugs checks any way you can
Cycling needs to do something about its image right now. Though I don't agree with setting an example, he amount of damage LA has done to the sport is horrendous and needs to be dealt with.
what can anyone actually do, jail him? He'd probably get a suspended sentance due to all the charity work and wouldnt see the inside of a cell.
As for cycling sorting out its reputation, I agree, there needs to be something dramatic to restore confidence, but unless LA and all dopers lose their wealth making their whole life plight pointless, it doesnt discourage others from doing likewise in
the future. Every incentive to cheat......
A few will still chance it because of the rewards of success are great but when a couple of big names are banished for ever then the penny will drop!
Robsti said:
I have been given a hard time over my views on life bans but the only way to stop drugs cheats is to make the being caught the end of their careers!
A few will still chance it because of the rewards of success are great but when a couple of big names are banished for ever then the penny will drop!
No it won't. Because sport is not like a normal career job, sport is a meritocracy that judges you absolutely on your last result, if someone feels that taking drugs will allow them to win and they are of the mindset that winning is all (as most champions are), they will take them - if they win they will continue to take them until they are caught or retire. These people are not like you and I, to get a chance of a top level sporting career you've already sacrificed must of your childhood and education to training and competing, some people are happy to just be ther but the ones who win win because they are prepared to go the extra distance.A few will still chance it because of the rewards of success are great but when a couple of big names are banished for ever then the penny will drop!
Armstrong would have gotten away with this had it not been for the fact that tour ricing is a team sport and he needed his team mates to succeed for him to succeed and he had the power to create a culture (although cycling culture has included doping for many years)
It's my belief that top level sport is riddled with drugs and the doping technology is at least two or three years ahead of the testing technology.
It's a pretty fine line between securing an advantage through good training practice and use of diet and supplements and cheating by doping anyway. Beetroot juice, should we ban it?
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff