the big ring
BANNED
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
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
the big ring said:Lance hasn't retired, dude. He's been banninated.
gree0232 said:What about all the other riders who claim they have no idea what they are talking about?
Right, omerta - conspiracy ... not a lot of evidence.
Onec again, if you know EXACTLY what is going on, and yet find it hard to produce evidence to back up statements?
The simple fact of the matter is that there statements were looked into by a CRIMINAL investigation, and the case they made did not rise to the standard to bring charges.
And this is about that process, and, quite frankly, if this is what it takes to get ONE cyclist? Then the anti-doping process is fundamentally flawed.
Take a good look at what AFLD did when they nabbed Ricco et. al. They knew what the guys were doing, they designed the tests to nab them ... viola, incontrovertable proof. That is what successful anti-doping looks like.
However, when Bradley Wiggins wins a tour and is sucker punched with cowardly innuendo and baseless accusations sans proof? How are a bunch of people hurling accusations from the shadows ... right? Productive?
Wiggins was right when he called such antics the c-word.
You don't have to 'love' Lance Armstrong to find the current process fundamentaly flawed in terms of due process.
Worse, as I scan the headlines on cyclingnews, I am not seeing anything new - I see **** Pound and Paul Kimmage - exacting their pound of flesh. It appears to be old hat, the CPT Ahab's of cycling out after the white whale.
Lance has retired, maybe his critics should too.
Finally, the courts seem to work for most criminals, why are we using an arbitration process where the accusers get two of three chairs? Why not simply adopt a criminal code, an adversarial system governed by objective judges ... seems to work every where else pretty well ...
Added bonus, it keeps the ingrained politics of UCI vs. WADA, etc. out of the process entirely. Which side wins? The side that presents the evidence and makes the best case ... as it should be.
Why isn't it?
gree0232 said:Thanks for that scintillating rebuttal that addressed none of the points and does nothing for cyclng or anti-doping. Another Lance hater out for the white whale ...
Animal said:"viola"...
Just goes to show...
gree0232 said:You don't have to 'love' Lance Armstrong to find the current process fundamentaly flawed in terms of due process.
Worse, as I scan the headlines on cyclingnews, I am not seeing anything new - I see **** Pound and Paul Kimmage - exacting their pound of flesh. It appears to be old hat, the CPT Ahab's of cycling out after the white whale.
Lance has retired, maybe his critics should too.
Finally, the courts seem to work for most criminals, why are we using an arbitration process where the accusers get two of three chairs? Why not simply adopt a criminal code, an adversarial system governed by objective judges ... seems to work every where else pretty well ...
Added bonus, it keeps the ingrained politics of UCI vs. WADA, etc. out of the process entirely. Which side wins? The side that presents the evidence and makes the best case ... as it should be.
Why isn't it?
MarkvW said:When will you stop posing argumentative questions?
Just wait, you'll see the full force of the evidence soon enough--evidence that caused Lance to quit rather than fight.
Sandeep said:This constant portrayal of Armstrong as the Great White Whale is very grating. He had the financial resources and the administrative recourse (Arbitration, CAS, a return to Sparks) to challenge these charges.
Yet he chose not to. And is getting on with his life. He hasn't bothered to defend himself. I'm amazed at the number of people who seem to be willing to stand up for him instead.
Personally, I find it very hard to believe that an innocent man would walk away from the opportunity for justice.
aphronesis said:No I suspect you're here ofg: tell me Mark: how did the USDA jump alive in the past couple of years and find all this radical evidence?
JA.Tri said:Removing the "cancer"
JIC you have not seen (probably posted on forum somewhere):
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/kimmage-uci-needs-root-and-branch-surgery
Excellent summation.
ps included link because if you are like me, I have been relying on others, while I spend all my time on the forums.
aphronesis said:No I suspect you're here ofg: tell me Mark: how did the USDA jump alive in the past couple of years and find all this radical evidence?
rhubroma said:I can only quote myself in having said before pretty much what Kimmage thinks in this piece. The only thing I regreted about Paul's positions was his wishy-washy and contradictory take on Vaughters and Garmin. Otherwise, amen.
gree0232 said:He spent 17 years fighting the charges and winning. When someone creates an entirely new system just to get you ... what's the point? CPT Ahab is after the white whale and will pursue him into retirement ... so ... what?
gree0232 said:I suppose he should do what Floyd did? Go bankrupt fighting the charges, and then, in a fight of vengence go after the entire peloton? And that helps ... what?
gree0232 said:The simple fact of the matter is that if people would actually apply standards, they would see why LA did what he did:
"A USADA proceeding would force Mr. Armstrong to arbitrate about jurisdiction in at least two, and perhaps three, arbitrations – AAA and then CAS – and perhaps later in a Swiss court. Then, when even USADA’s unfair multi-stage process confirms that USADA does not have authority or jurisdiction, USADA would then be free to submit the file to UCI for consideration and referral and start what would be another review by CAS prior to any dispositive proceeding. It is fundamentally unfair to put Mr. Armstrong through that costly and time-consuming process, particularly when it is already clear that USADA does not have authority to bring these charges. Mr. Armstrong will, instead, respect the decision of UCI with every confidence that his position should and will be vindicated through independent review by authorities with lawful jurisdiction over this matter. As you are aware, this has been the exclusive and required procedure invoked for every international cyclist except Mr. Armstrong."
http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/pdf/2012/Bock-letter.pdf
Why bother wasting your time in a kangaroo court where, even if you win, the CPT Ahab's of cycling will just take you to a different jurisdiction? Why not force USADA to actually produce the evidence and then actually get a fair hearing?
gree0232 said:Well, using one brain rather than commiting financial suicide is not cathartic enough for the Lance Haters?
If you doubt the claim of the white whale, the please tell me why we are only hearing the same tiured old voices? The Andreau's? Pound? Kimmage? Absolutely nothing new ... just the White Whalers who will take their Crusades to the grave - and where I get worried, is where they decide to create entirely new legal processes quite clearly aimed just at getting Lance ... and presumeably any other cyclist who stands up to their insinuations without proof ...
gree0232 said:Like Bradley Wiggins.
I wonder who through out those anonymous accusations of his doping in this TdF? Time the shadowy accusers learn how to use a fair system like everyone else in the world.
If we are so concerned with cheating? Well, what do you call creating an entirely new process, from an agency that does not have jurisdiction, trying alleged crimes in Europe, against non-US citizens (one of whom is already acquitted by an Italian Court), where innocence must be proven against evidence that has not been presented?
Well, that certainly sounds like doping due process to me.
gree0232 said:He spent 17 years fighting the charges and winning.........................more fanboyism
personal said:So, any chance of reopening Novitzky's investigation?
personal said:So, any chance of reopening Novitzky's investigation?
gree0232 said:The simple fact of the matter is that there statements were looked into by a CRIMINAL investigation, and the case they made did not rise to the standard to bring charges.
Lance has retired, maybe his critics should too.
Finally, the courts seem to work for most criminals, why are we using an arbitration process where the accusers get two of three chairs? Why not simply adopt a criminal code, an adversarial system governed by objective judges ... seems to work every where else pretty well ...
Why isn't it?
personal said:So, any chance of reopening Novitzky's investigation?
sniper said:agreed. he was praising Garmin/JV's anti-dopiong stance, yet at the same time expressing some concerns regarding certain decisions.
may I ask what's your take on Garmin /JV?
Should Kimmage have been more lauding or should he not have mentioned Garmin at all?