• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Official lance armstrong thread, part 2 (from september 2012)

Page 65 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Tinman

Tinman

Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
Visit site
MarkvW said:
Yeah, somebody oughta ask those "experts" to outline precisely just what doping offense the feds could still charge Lance Armstrong with, along with the facts that would support such a charge. I guarantee you're never going to see that . . .
Click to expand...

More of the same "lack of content and defeatism. And I thought you did have something to contribute.

A reopening of the Fed case will not be on doping offenses, It will be on misuse of funds, etc. Presumably. But hopefully we have other experts in the house.
 
S

sairyder

Jul 16, 2012
201
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
The video here has to be seen. F.brilliant.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...jury-charges-following-USADA-allegations.html
Click to expand...
Video compilation (i never doped) is brilliant. God the guy is so brazen. And i like this part:

"A federal investigation into Armstrong and alleged doping was dropped in February this year, but the US Attorney’s office said it could be reopened if new evidence emerged. That could include the findings of the USADA report which, as well as accusing Armstrong of being the “ringleader of the biggest doping conspiracy in sporting history”, accuses him of making seven false statements to win a 2005 Dallas court case where a $5 million performance bonus was at stake."
 
JRTinMA

JRTinMA

Jul 29, 2010
1,440
0
10,480
Visit site
Tinman said:
I think you miss my point. I am trying to coax our heckler senior poster on this forum to make a positive contribution using his presumed skill set, for the betterment of cycling.

I also have an opinion on jurisdiction by the way. And I got the pre-empt bit. But I wouldn't have a clue how UCI would fight the jurisdiction/discovery bit, and that I would like to know.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are getting all jammed up about. Did you even read the report? Cycling has been clean since 2006! Sure maybe there was a small relapse of one single person in 2009 and 2010, a little blood doping is all. Why can't we celebrate the clean era of cycling since 2006, all of these good people who brought down the evil doper/pusher have been CLEAN! I read it in the REASONED decision.
 
Tinman

Tinman

Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
Visit site
JRTinMA said:
I'm not sure what you are getting all jammed up about. Did you even read the report? Cycling has been clean since 2006! Sure maybe there was a small relapse of one single person in 2009 and 2010, a little blood doping is all. Why can't we celebrate the clean era of cycling since 2006, all of these good people who brought down the evil doper/pusher have been CLEAN! I read it in the REASONED decision.
Click to expand...

Funny that. I was waiting for you folk to pop back in. It's been quiet for several days. We've had some good discussion here meanwhile.
 
JRTinMA

JRTinMA

Jul 29, 2010
1,440
0
10,480
Visit site
Tinman said:
Funny that. I was waiting for you folk to pop back in. It's been quiet for several days. We've had some good discussion here meanwhile.
Click to expand...

It must be hell being so righteous. The report clearly states they have all been clean since 2006, the year that horrible Lance left cycling. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. Carry on being righteous, I probably won't be back for three or four days, my usual "pop back in" schedule.
 
thehog

thehog

BANNED
Jul 27, 2009
31,285
2
22,485
Visit site
The BBC finally join the party.

Armstrong has frequently stated that he passed more than 500 drug-tests during his career. It is another defence exploded by Usada's relentless detail. Not only was that number probably closer to 250, but so easy were the tests to evade or deceive that it appears Armstrong often found it comical.
There was no test for EPO until 2000. The window for detection, when there was, was tiny; when Ferrari advised injection direct into the vein rather than skin, it almost closed entirely.

Blood transfusions remained undetectable. When testers were on their way, Armstrong and his team frequently knew in advance; when they did arrive, saline drips could mask any evidence.

Neither was Armstrong's doping a one-off reaction to unrelenting external pressure. He doped before cancer; he doped after cancer; he doped through his glory years; and he doped in his comeback. His blood values in his valedictory 2009 and 2010 Tours, state an expert, had "less than a one in a million chance" of being natural.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19907683
 
S

stefank

Mar 10, 2009
346
80
9,380
Visit site
JRTinMA said:
It must be hell being so righteous. The report clearly states they have all been clean since 2006, the year that horrible Lance left cycling. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. Carry on being righteous, I probably won't be back for three or four days, my usual "pop back in" schedule.
Click to expand...

Are you SURE Lance left cycling in 2006? Never to come back?
 
veganrob

veganrob

Aug 30, 2010
3,617
241
13,880
Visit site
JRTinMA said:
I had noted in a prior post that there had been a relapse of doping after 2006 for a short time in 2009 and 2010.
Click to expand...

Maybe we all read different USADA report than you. I did not see anywhere that cycling has been clean since 2006. Perhaps you could point out what page that was on.
There was a few riders claiming to be clean since then. Not the same thing as "cycling" And I don't believe they were all clean after 2006.
But really, if you want to make an arguement, have the facts from the report first.
 
JRTinMA

JRTinMA

Jul 29, 2010
1,440
0
10,480
Visit site
veganrob said:
Maybe we all read different USADA report than you. I did not see anywhere that cycling has been clean since 2006. Perhaps you could point out what page that was on.
There was a few riders claiming to be clean since then. Not the same thing as "cycling" And I don't believe they were all clean after 2006.
But really, if you want to make an arguement, have the facts from the report first.
Click to expand...

Yea, good point. The most of the key contributors in the report have all been clean since 2006. Since I was referencing the report it seemed obvious, actually I suspect you knew this.
 
JRTinMA

JRTinMA

Jul 29, 2010
1,440
0
10,480
Visit site
Maxiton said:
ASO says it will vacate titles if UCI upholds USADA decision. No winner during Lance years.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/nati...c819c1ab1a46d382375a88ff981124-173893421.html
Click to expand...

Maybe this should be in a different thread but if those second place riders were not sanctioned why shouldn't they get the win? Should they go back and take Oscar Pereiro's 2006 win away? Not sure about who was second to lance in all of them but Ullrich would pick up two more wins and I would be cool with that.
 
Arnout

Arnout

Mar 10, 2009
4,704
34
15,530
Visit site
JRTinMA said:
Maybe this should be in a different thread but if those second place riders were not sanctioned why shouldn't they get the win? Should they go back and take Oscar Pereiro's 2006 win away? Not sure about who was second to lance in all of them but Ullrich would pick up two more wins and I would be cool with that.
Click to expand...

Why? Ullrich doped too. So did Klöden, and all the other potential Tourwinners from 99-05. There's no point. I'm in favour of the leaving it empty idea, it is in my opinion a proper reminder of how bad those years were.
 
Maxiton

Maxiton

May 14, 2010
5,303
4
0
Visit site
JRTinMA said:
Maybe this should be in a different thread but if those second place riders were not sanctioned why shouldn't they get the win? Should they go back and take Oscar Pereiro's 2006 win away? Not sure about who was second to lance in all of them but Ullrich would pick up two more wins and I would be cool with that.
Click to expand...

Precisely because they were all doping and everyone knows they were all doping; and, because it was a long time ago now; and, as a testament to a corrupt race and corrupt system; the titles should remain vacant.

However, I would be in favor of subjecting every single blood sample extant for those years to the most rigorous testing, if money can be found to do it.
 
JRTinMA

JRTinMA

Jul 29, 2010
1,440
0
10,480
Visit site
Maxiton said:
Precisely because they were all doping and everyone knows they were all doping; and, because it was a long time ago now; and, as a testament to a corrupt race and corrupt system; the titles should remain vacant.

However, I would be in favor of subjecting every single blood sample extant for those years to the most rigorous testing, if money can be found to do it.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree they were possibly all doping but with the lack of evidence you may be cheating a clean rider out of a deserved win or podium.
 
C

Cloxxki

Mar 19, 2009
2,819
1
11,485
Visit site
Maxiton said:
ASO says it will vacate titles if UCI upholds USADA decision. No winner during Lance years.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/nati...c819c1ab1a46d382375a88ff981124-173893421.html
Click to expand...

I am strongly of the opinion that federations should seek out a clean winner that no-one has gripes with. There's not going to be many.
If Sastre or Evans want the wins, they will be scrutinized, but it gets you the prize money the dopers returned. Could be a prize worth fighting for in board room meetings. Multiple prizes returned per GC race, fewer takers to divide it.

Perhaps Bassons would qualify for some titles, and could convince a less outspoken other rider to come forward and admitting to have not been on any dope, maybe even faking it to their team.

I am serious, find that one clean guy and make him winner. Lance doesn't deserve the titles to be kept from clean riders. That's just too easy, after all the effort invested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom