Lance Armstrong vs. USADA
Discussion
el stovey said:
To stand up to YOUR scrutiny perhaps.
It's more than enough for me and most other people apparently.
I'm happy to accept it actually, I what meant through inference, this is how widespread and accepted the practice must have been for it to have been carried off for this long at this level.It's more than enough for me and most other people apparently.
It's actually quite sickening when you think about it in those terms.
OneDs said:
el stovey said:
To stand up to YOUR scrutiny perhaps.
It's more than enough for me and most other people apparently.
I'm happy to accept it actually, I what meant through inference, this is how widespread and accepted the practice must have been for it to have been carried off for this long at this level.It's more than enough for me and most other people apparently.
It's actually quite sickening when you think about it in those terms.
As David Millar said yesterday. "It's all so sad".
el stovey said:
London424 said:
What I also find frustrating is that all of the testimony being used is by riders that didn't have the balls at the time to do or say anything about it, but are happy to have helped in recent weeks now they are approaching retirement. Very cowardly!
You can see why though, LA had massive influence in cycling. Anyone who spoke up against him ended up getting sued, journalists were vilified, Lance was like Jesus, especially after he survived cancer. Armstrong was untouchable. Anyone thinking about breaking the Omerta looked at black sheep Floyd Landis and decided to keep quiet. OneDs said:
Well thank f**k for Bradley & SKY if they are the shining beacon they proclaim to be and are accepted to be, then they may just about help save cycling because the pro-peleton set up would have to be demolished today without their stance and current record.
are you not worried by the complete dominance of the British cycling team?What this LA thing has done is set to question every cyclist out there.
Efbe said:
are you not worried by the complete dominance of the British cycling team?
What this LA thing has done is set to question every cyclist out there.
What about other sports? What this LA thing has done is set to question every cyclist out there.
If I recall correctly, cycling has always been the most tested sport.
What would happen if other sports were tested to these extremes?
London424 said:
el stovey said:
London424 said:
What I also find frustrating is that all of the testimony being used is by riders that didn't have the balls at the time to do or say anything about it, but are happy to have helped in recent weeks now they are approaching retirement. Very cowardly!
You can see why though, LA had massive influence in cycling. Anyone who spoke up against him ended up getting sued, journalists were vilified, Lance was like Jesus, especially after he survived cancer. Armstrong was untouchable. Anyone thinking about breaking the Omerta looked at black sheep Floyd Landis and decided to keep quiet. My understanding is that lots of LA's ex team mates got together and decided it was safe now for them all to come clean. A safety in numbers group confession.
funkyrobot said:
Efbe said:
are you not worried by the complete dominance of the British cycling team?
What this LA thing has done is set to question every cyclist out there.
What about other sports? What this LA thing has done is set to question every cyclist out there.
If I recall correctly, cycling has always been the most tested sport.
What would happen if other sports were tested to these extremes?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I remember reading that the drugs that the ADA states Armstrong (and others) was taking masked the symptoms of the type of cancer he had. The suggestion was that had he been clean the cancer would have been a minmor problem rather than life-threatening.London424 said:
What I also find frustrating is that all of the testimony being used is by riders that didn't have the balls at the time to do or say anything about it, but are happy to have helped in recent weeks now they are approaching retirement. Very cowardly!
Far from being cowards some did indeed try and implicate LA but there were legal threats. LA was a multi millionaire and had the power to carry out his threats. What seems to have started this is that at last it is not the case on one rider's word against saint Laury but a group of riders plus, as one can see in the report, concrete evidence.LA's main defence has been that he had 500 drugs tests and passed them all. Now we see that the tests were easily fooled, although even then he failed tests on the Tour de Suisse at least and it was covered up with little fuss.
funkyrobot said:
Efbe said:
are you not worried by the complete dominance of the British cycling team?
What this LA thing has done is set to question every cyclist out there.
What about other sports? What this LA thing has done is set to question every cyclist out there.
If I recall correctly, cycling has always been the most tested sport.
What would happen if other sports were tested to these extremes?
hornetrider said:
Silver993tt said:
Still waiting for USDA to provide any "evidence" they have to the UCI but the chances of that are diminshing as each day passes and meanwhile without any, LA is still totally innocent.
Gone a bit quiet, chap. What do you think of the evidence now?For the much anticipated "big bang" of evidence, its...limp. On the surface it is highly damning and given some of the folks involved I would be happy to believe them. Put it before a cpl of experienced litigation brawlers on trial in a courtroom though and I sure as hell wouldnt bet on its chances of remaining intact.
For the record I think Lance is highly likely of being as guilty as Tom Williams with a joke shop blood capsule, but that doesnt change how the USDA have gone about this or the evidence they have provided. Put it in a court of law and its flimsy. Armstrong could potentially be humiliated quite badly by a string of witnesses against him, but he would maul the USDA in return and his lawyers would maul every witness and rip the dossier to shreds. Anybody who thinks it wouldnt be a mutual bloodbath on either side is guilty of massively delusional and naive thinking.
el stovey said:
. . . and all this LA business is going on with a complete lack of positive test results.
Yes.As I said above, the science of catching the dopers needs a boost (no pun intended). Someone can be tested to death and never produce a positive. It seems to be others breaking their silence that is the main part of this investigation, not scientific proof.
Athletics, tennis, footbal, rowing etc etc would be ripped apart if their participants were tested to the same level that cyclists are.
As someone on another website has pointed out, there are parallels between LA and Jimmy Savile here. Both were seen as being untouchable due to their fame and good reputation though their charity work, and although many many people had known what they'd been up to for years no-one was willing to risk going public about it. Makes me wonder whether the whole Livestrong thing was devised at least partly as a smokescreen.
USADA report said:
“In order to evaluate whether Mr. Armstrong’s test(s) from the 2001 Tour de Suisse was merely “suspicious” (and therefore the probability of doping was high), or whether using the current EPO positivity criteria Mr. Armstrong’s samples could definitively establish the presence of synthetic EPO standing alone, USADA requested from UCI the test results from Mr. Armstrong’s samples from the Tour de Suisse. UCI denied that request, stating that UCI had asked for Mr. Armstrong’s consent to provide this information to USADA, but that Mr. Armstrong had refused.” (page 145)
I wonder why..?As someone on another website has pointed out, there are parallels between LA and Jimmy Savile here. Both were seen as being untouchable due to their fame and good reputation though their charity work, and although many many people had known what they'd been up to for years no-one was willing to risk going public about it. Makes me wonder whether the whole Livestrong thing was devised at least partly as a smokescreen.
DJRC said:
hornetrider said:
Silver993tt said:
Still waiting for USDA to provide any "evidence" they have to the UCI but the chances of that are diminshing as each day passes and meanwhile without any, LA is still totally innocent.
Gone a bit quiet, chap. What do you think of the evidence now?For the much anticipated "big bang" of evidence, its...limp. On the surface it is highly damning and given some of the folks involved I would be happy to believe them. Put it before a cpl of experienced litigation brawlers on trial in a courtroom though and I sure as hell wouldnt bet on its chances of remaining intact.
For the record I think Lance is highly likely of being as guilty as Tom Williams with a joke shop blood capsule, but that doesnt change how the USDA have gone about this or the evidence they have provided. Put it in a court of law and its flimsy. Armstrong could potentially be humiliated quite badly by a string of witnesses against him, but he would maul the USDA in return and his lawyers would maul every witness and rip the dossier to shreds. Anybody who thinks it wouldnt be a mutual bloodbath on either side is guilty of massively delusional and naive thinking.
London424 said:
What I also find frustrating is that all of the testimony being used is by riders that didn't have the balls at the time to do or say anything about it, but are happy to have helped in recent weeks now they are approaching retirement. Very cowardly!
Perhaps cowardly, but possibly understandable, when you look at say, Christophe Bassons and the way he was villified by L.A. & presumably others in the peloton? If it was indeed only L.A. who behaved like that to a fellow professional my views on him will be even nearer to verging on disgust! Bassons story could make for an interesting read. Digger said:
London424 said:
What I also find frustrating is that all of the testimony being used is by riders that didn't have the balls at the time to do or say anything about it, but are happy to have helped in recent weeks now they are approaching retirement. Very cowardly!
Perhaps cowardly, but possibly understandable, when you look at say, Christophe Bassons and the way he was villified by L.A. & presumably others in the peloton? If it was indeed only L.A. who behaved like that to a fellow professional my views on him will be even nearer to verging on disgust! Bassons story could make for an interesting read. If I was a bit more cynical I would suggest that George will be writing a tell-all book in due course as he'll have no income from cycling.
London424 said:
I can understand to a degree. What frustrates me the most is that there are riders such as Hincapie who have retired this season and have only recently spoken out. He could have come forward any number of times when others have stepped up, but hasn't as he wanted to continue making money from cycling.
If I was a bit more cynical I would suggest that George will be writing a tell-all book in due course as he'll have no income from cycling.
Indeed. no-one with any connection to Armstrong, USPS or the UCI emerges from this with any credit whatsoever.If I was a bit more cynical I would suggest that George will be writing a tell-all book in due course as he'll have no income from cycling.
I would be genuinely interested to hear what LA's most loyal fanboys have to say today. Have they finally accepted reality, or are they still trapped in delusion, denial and cognitive dissonance?
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff