• 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!

USADA - Armstrong

Page 110 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
ChrisE said:
I responded to your question about "condeming". Then you wrote I was depraved in a rambling post.

Perhaps within that rambling post I should have responded about why others got sanctioned and LA has not? I have stated my opinion before about OP, but to rehash I was not a fan of sanctions because of it. Neither was I a fan of Valverde getting universally canned due to CONI.

If people get caught by AAF's, or others witness doping real time and report it then I am all for it. That is pie-in-the-sky but this all falls down to the riders.

Face it, most riders have no problem with doping and entered the pro ranks with their eyes wide open, and benefited from it. Recall the remarks of TH about the sadness and sense of cooperation to circle the wagons within the peloton when somebody got caught. Now, those that have gotten caught admit years later under desperate circumstances, and the jury is out on whether or not others that have implicated LA will ever get sanctioned in return for their cooperation. As I wrote up-thread this stinks to me.

Because the people in this mindset, that chose to actively participate in and benefit from doping, got caught means all that have doped should have the same fate retroactively? And, the fact that I blame the system and the riders themselves instead of one individual means I am depraved? C'mon rubarb, you can do better than this.

Anti-doping is like a chess game. In order to win the match, if indeed it can be won, one has to sacrifice some pieces to arrive at the king.

My problem with OP was that only cyclists were sanctioned, but not athletes from other sports, which demonstrates how pro sport is just all about money, nothing else. I can only applaud Coni for doing what the Spanish disciplinary board was not able or willing to do.

Any current rider whose testimony will be valuable in implicating Armstrong, even if not sanctioned, will suffer repercussions beyond the benefits for going unpunished, if indeed they will be left unpunished. Hincapie has, for instance, announced his retirement, while he and others have announced thier non-selectability for the Olympics; thus a de facto ban will be served. I can't grasp, therefore, what you are on about in these nonsensical posts: that is what you either cynically overlook or stupidly fail to understand.

As per your last inquiry: systems are made up of individual people, as much as it is easy and convenient to want to label them as abstract entities in the impersonal sense. But since it is not possible to take each of the individuals down all at once, you should know the justice system simply doesn't work that way, hence it is not possible to destroy the entire system by punishing all the guilty simultaneously. However the foundation can be made brittle, or indeed be dealt a lethal blow, if certain key figures be brought to task, which leads to the whole building crashing down. In the case of Lance Armstrong and pro cycling, this is potentially such a case. Because if the accusations being made against him pan out to be confirmed in the arbitration hearings, as should be the case if there is any decency left in the judicial process, then Heine and Pat risk BIG TIME.
 
May 20, 2010
718
1
0
Visit site
SCA etc

For some time I have been hoping that Lance would lose sufficient jerseys to allow successful actions* by SCA et al.

In light of Botany Bay's recent post I amend that desire. I recon that if the ultimate result of USADA action is that LA is found to have probably doped during his "streak", then that will be sufficient.



*or at least a decent bite at the cherry :)
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
JA.Tri said:
For some time I have been hoping that Lance would lose sufficient jerseys to allow successful actions* by SCA et al.

In light of Botany Bay's recent post I amend that desire. I recon that if the ultimate result of USADA action is that LA is found to have probably doped during his "streak", then that will be sufficient.



*or at least a decent bite at the cherry :)

SCA has a lot to gain. Not just the $7.5 million from the settlement but also the $4.5 million they paid him in previous years.
 
JA.Tri said:
For some time I have been hoping that Lance would lose sufficient jerseys to allow successful actions* by SCA et al.

In light of Botany Bay's recent post I amend that desire. I recon that if the ultimate result of USADA action is that LA is found to have probably doped during his "streak", then that will be sufficient.



*or at least a decent bite at the cherry :)

I expect that Lance got paid a lot of contractual bonus money, by a lot of people, for "winning" the TdF. If the wins are overturned as sporting fraud, and Lance concealed that fraud for years . . . then the vultures will be circling. The *** equitable tolling theory in the criminal case doesn't apply in the civil context. Fraudulent concealment can toll the statute of limitations in a civil case.

Another reason Lance might not want the truth to see the light of day.
 
scalping the chris e's at VeloNews...

python said:
bravo mew ! you hit the nail on the head.

chris e is the armstrong apologist who is so upset with the developments that he has completely lost count of his own thoroughly debunked arguments.

to justify his boy's doping he is ready
for much

You can find a similar gaggle of poor, angry, confused, bitter flail-ers in the FB comments to the VeloNews article on LA's response:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...iew-board-to-dismiss-usada-allegations_225392

Somehow I got a comment in there reasonably early that's struck a chord w/ the more reasonable-minded, but there are still plenty of very angry people there who are ready to embrace any wacko theory, argument or tactic in a confused-attempt to "defend" their "hero."

Like shooting ducks in a barrel but if you've got a FB account that you don't mind commenting from, I recommend diving in and collecting some scalps before they all suffer simultaneous head explosions...
 
mewmewmew13 said:
Yes they are. Big time.
The USADA website is also very user friendly and Travis himself will prolly respond to your emails if you are polite.
They will help you find any document or rule that you are looking for.
Extremely accessible.

Does he not realize that none of that applies until the arbiters are selected, AFTER the Review Board has decided charges are warranted?

rhubroma said:
...I can't grasp, therefore, what you are on about in these nonesensical posts: that is what you either cynically overlook or stupidly fail to understand...

It's no wonder that in the US our leadership in gov't (if you can call it "leadership") is so pathetic and elected-officials are often such craven, cynical, self-interested, corrupt exploiters-of-the-system. The "average" person who votes here is as easily directed by scum-sucking politician as they are by Armstrong, who just has to appeal to their base instincts, since it's unlikely that they (the voter) have much interest in actually thinking critically or going beyond whatever their initial emotional reaction is (or they lack the capacity for higher order thinking).
 
joe_papp said:
It's no wonder that in the US our leadership in gov't (if you can call it "leadership") is so pathetic and elected-officials are often such craven, cynical, self-interested, corrupt exploiters-of-the-system. The "average" person who votes here is as easily directed by scum-sucking politician as they are by Armstrong, who just has to appeal to their base instincts, since it's unlikely that they (the voter) have much interest in actually thinking critically or going beyond whatever their initial emotional reaction is (or they lack the capacity for higher order thinking).

It's like I said before most people would be perfectly fine with continuing to believe in the attractive fairy tale and not the grotesque image of the fraud it really has been all along; to thus exchange facts for falsehood and vice versa: because it is much more reassuring to their simplistic worldview and to do otherwise would be far too upsetting.

Most people prefer to have the hood pulled over their eyes, rather than see the world for what it is: to exist in the semi-darkness. It's like living in a museum! Most people don't want to know facts, but believe the falsehood that's more appealing to their patriotic sentiments. That's also because to be a critical thinker would inevitably destroy everything they have always believed in since childhood, which created the reassuring world of the fairy tail they wanted to see that was exchanged for the ugly portrait of the real world they didn't want to look at or perceive. The politicians have usually ruthlessly exploited this appalling weakness among the masses for their own base ends, with sheer mendacity and without compunction.

In this sense, your comparison between Lance and the political class was well drawn and certainly not lacking in appropriateness. Both have taken access to the same horrific modus operandi, for which falsehood, ruthlessness, mendacity, unscrupulousness, baseness and "the ends justifies the means" have always been the order of the day.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Visit site
I have another prediction:

Lance soon becomes a megachurch Christian. And not because his conscience is bothering him. Because he needs them.

"I've found the Lord, and the Lord is telling me to fight this injustice". I can see him up onstage with Joel Osteen right now. He might even get a nice cut of that action. Think about it. This scenario is not beneath him in the slightest.
 
BotanyBay said:
I have another prediction:

Lance soon becomes a megachurch Christian. And not because his conscience is bothering him. Because he needs them.

"I've found the Lord, and the Lord is telling me to fight this injustice". I can see him up onstage with Joel Osteen right now. He might even get a nice cut of that action. Think about it. This scenario is not beneath him in the slightest.

..and the irony if he is stripped of all of his wins passing the titles across to Ullrich. Armstrong banished from the sport and Jan becomes DS of new Shleck team.

Couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Visit site
joe_papp said:
You can find a similar gaggle of poor, angry, confused, bitter flail-ers in the FB comments to the VeloNews article on LA's response:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...iew-board-to-dismiss-usada-allegations_225392

Somehow I got a comment in their reasonably early that's struck a chord w/ the more reasonable-minded, but there are still plenty of very angry people there who are ready to embrace any wacko theory, argument or tactic in a confused-attempt to "defend" their "hero."

Like shooting ducks in a barrel but if you've got a FB account that you don't mind commenting from, I recommend diving in and collecting some scalps before they all suffer simultaneous head explosions...

I was very tempted to violate my principles and get the FB acct just to help ya out, but getting a FB account is like the worst flypaper you've ever gotten stuck in. Great post BTW!
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Visit site
thehog said:
..and the irony if he is stripped of all of his wins passing the titles across to Ullrich. Armstrong banished from the sport and Jan becomes DS of new Shleck team.

Couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.

Think about it... Not only would some of these "pastors" be willing to stand up there with him, but some of them would be willing to have a bidding war in order to gain crossover access to his legion of "I'll believe anything inspirational" fans.

Lance needs an infusion of cash after the Birotte situation. He'll stoop this low before too long.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Visit site
peterst6906 said:

Anna doesn't understand LA that well. Lance knows he's F'd already in regards to the USADA. Every single bit of his current game plan is coming out of a play book, not out of stupidity. He's not trying to endear himself to Travis, but to his fan and sponsor base. Right now he needs the kinds of fans that would be willing to hole him up in their basement if he was caught molesting kids. He's looking for that kind of loyalty, and he is just rallying the troops.

All part of the plan, as the battle is soon to get uglier than we've ever seen it get.
 
Jun 18, 2012
90
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
..and the irony if he is stripped of all of his wins passing the titles across to Ullrich. Armstrong banished from the sport and Jan becomes DS of new Shleck team.

Couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.

well, apart from the fact that Der Jan didnt ride the Tour in 99, 02 and has already copped a dq for '05. It would be most generous of the ASO to award him the titles for the years he didn't ride the Tour.
 
BotanyBay said:
Think about it... Not only would some of these "pastors" be willing to stand up there with him, but some of them would be willing to have a bidding war in order to gain crossover access to his legion of "I'll believe anything inspirational" fans.

Lance needs an infusion of cash after the Birotte situation. He'll stoop this low before too long.

I will say Armstrong still holds some fairly decent cards. If he goes down he has a lot of dirt on those who were complicit at the time. Namely the UCI. I'm sure he is leaning on them now to intervene. The UCI are in a classic Catch-22 situation. If they do step in then they'll be accused of corruption. If they don't people will ask some very serious questions of them perhaps sporning the breakaway league. No wonder Vaugters was so keen for his riders to speak.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
peterst6906 said:

ha, very strong indeed!

this bit (amongst many other bits) is interesting:
To me, it is clear that they are expecting, or at least preparing for, Mr. Armstrong to be found guilty of all charges and are preparing for ten years of civil litigation and appeals. By making every imaginable allegation, even those that sound ludicrous and preposterous now, they are preserving every possible argument, complaint, and picogram of the kitchen sink they intend to throw back at the USADA in civil court.

QS: if the review board finds LA guilty as charged, can sanctions be applied (e.g. stripping of TDF titles) immediately, i.e. prior to any civil court appeals submitted by LA?
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,498
0
0
Visit site
We are talking about pro bike racing not a cat4 30 mins plus a lap crit. Lance doped,Eddy doped,Fuasto doped . The sport can be reinvented without radios and substances that keep riders on their bikes when they shouldn't be but Lance is not the start or the end or cause of the problem. If it's a problem at all.

All the anti doping authors at every level are allowed an opinion as well as the people that are 24/7 save our hero fanatics. The continued typing that cycling would be better without needles or medical treatments intended for people that ride 20 day races is all speculative. Pro racing has never existed without it.

This is about Armstrong not doping. The USADA has made that clear. No logical person can concluded anything else from the chronology of the events and the methods of data gathering. If Lance is as careful as his record would indicate dozens if not hundreds of lesser athletes, without multiple homes,mass cash, doctors on call,ect must have been discovered while tracking Lance's drug use.
 
BotanyBay said:
Anna doesn't understand LA that well. Lance knows he's F'd already in regards to the USADA. Every single bit of his current game plan is coming out of a play book, not out of stupidity. He's not trying to endear himself to Travis, but to his fan and sponsor base. Right now he needs the kinds of fans that would be willing to hole him up in their basement if he was caught molesting kids. He's looking for that kind of loyalty, and he is just rallying the troops.

All part of the plan, as the battle is soon to get uglier than we've ever seen it get.

Think you're spot on here. He is just trying to keep the final support of his last fanboy minions
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
sniper said:
ha, very strong indeed!

this bit (amongst many other bits) is interesting:


QS: if the review board finds LA guilty as charged, can sanctions be applied (e.g. stripping of TDF titles) immediately, i.e. prior to any civil court appeals submitted by LA?

Careful - the review board does not make a decision on guilt or innocence.
It is an independent committee usually made up of people from with legal, technical and medical backrounds in sport, their role to see if USADA have a case against people.
Only after they make the decision do the athletes (& others) have an opportunity to admit or request a hearing in front the AAA.

One point, that perhaps one of legal eagles here could clarify - am I correct to assume the panel could toss out the part that extends beyond the SOL?
 
fatandfast said:
We are talking about pro bike racing not a cat4 30 mins plus a lap crit. Lance doped,Eddy doped,Fuasto doped ... If it's a problem at all.

Hmm, yes killing kids with EPO is not a problem. How about Carmichael and Wenzel making a few kids sick? How about a bunch of elite Canadian weekend warriors being popped for EPO? Yeah, no problem there.

Let's bring it home one more time for you: FatandFast your kid can be the next athletic star! Except, she has to dope early and often. So, you are in charge of her doping program and administering it to her. No problem? What's first? EPO injections? Some HGH to boost recovery? If a procedure is botched, then what? Just pretend some more? Doping isn't a problem, so you dope your kid first and tell us all about it. Be specific too. I want to hear how you feel giving your kid her first EPO injection or HGH patch.

Somehow, I think you will ignore my response and just keep on pretending. Too bad I won't be able to see it.

fatandfast said:
This is about Armstrong not doping....

Just the opposite. The game (competitive cycling) has to maintain some semblance of rules in order for it to appear legitimate. Armstrong's case invalidates the foundation of the game. UCI's version of competitive cycling is so close to Entertainment Wrestling as it is, I'm not sure why you want to take it all the way to pre-determined endings.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
Careful - the review board does not make a decision on guilt or innocence.
It is an independent committee usually made up of people from with legal, technical and medical backrounds in sport, their role to see if USADA have a case against people.
Only after they make the decision do the athletes (& others) have an opportunity to admit or request a hearing in front the AAA.

One point, that perhaps one of legal eagles here could clarify - am I correct to assume the panel could toss out the part that extends beyond the SOL?

Independent committee? Independent of who?

Independent of Lance? - Yes.
Independent of the USADA? - No.

The "independent committee" is part of USADA. Maybe they were involved with the "charges" in the first place?

Heinous if you ask me. Scathingly Heinous. Malicious too. And Spitefull.
 
May 14, 2010
5,303
4
0
Visit site
DirtyWorks said:
Hmm, yes killing kids with EPO is not a problem. How about Carmichael and Wenzel making a few kids sick? How about a bunch of elite Canadian weekend warriors being popped for EPO? Yeah, no problem there.

Let's bring it home one more time for you: FatandFast your kid can be the next athletic star! Except, she has to dope early and often. So, you are in charge of her doping program and administering it to her. No problem? What's first? EPO injections? Some HGH to boost recovery? If a procedure is botched, then what? Just pretend some more? Doping isn't a problem, so you dope your kid first and tell us all about it. Be specific too. I want to hear how you feel giving your kid her first EPO injection or HGH patch.

Somehow, I think you will ignore my response and just keep on pretending. Too bad I won't be able to see it.



Just the opposite. The game (competitive cycling) has to maintain some semblance of rules in order for it to appear legitimate. Armstrong's case invalidates the foundation of the game. UCI's version of competitive cycling is so close to Entertainment Wrestling as it is, I'm not sure why you want to take it all the way to pre-determined endings.

+1. LA & co. (including his pals in the UCI, and even ASO) needed pre-determined endings because, for them, it was never about the sport or the competition, it was about bringing home as much bank as possible.

What could be more valuable than a fair-haired American cancer boy? But he/it only has real value if he wins. When he then goes beyond winning, to dominate, the money for all concerned increases exponentially. As for cycling, well, they care about it only insofar as it is the vehicle for making bank - beyond that they have nothing but contempt, a contempt which is seen in their actions.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
sniper said:
QS: if the review board finds LA guilty as charged, can sanctions be applied (e.g. stripping of TDF titles) immediately, i.e. prior to any civil court appeals submitted by LA?

The ASO is in charge of TdF Titles. Not the USADA.

Any Race Organization that tries to take Lance off their Honor Role of Victors will tarnish their race tremendously.

I predict that when the USADA sanctions Lance, some Race Organizations will say "BFD USADA - Lance STAYS on our list of winners". Prestigious Races that CARE about their Honor Roll of Victors. Example, Tour de France, Tour of Nevada City, and others too. They will never take Lance of their list. Be stupid to do so duh.

I also predict the French Organization ASO will thumb their nose at the USADA. Lance will stay on the Victor List and on the Alpe d'Huez turn markers. Duh. You win on the road, not in a heinous committee meeting.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
Visit site
Polish said:
Independent committee? Independent of who?

Independent of Lance? - Yes.
Independent of the USADA? - No.

The "independent committee" is part of USADA.

Well, once it gets to the arbitration panel it won't be independent of Lance. He gets to pick one, has to agree on the other. can't be found guilty if his own men don't agree. Will he be stabbed by his own servant? worst form of treachery.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
Visit site
Polish said:
I predict that when the USADA sanctions Lance, some Race Organizations will say "BFD USADA - Lance STAYS on our list of winners". Prestigious Races that CARE about their Honor Roll of Victors. Example, Tour de France, Tour of Nevada City, and others too. They will never take Lance of their list. Be stupid to do so duh.

Nevada City is a signatory to USADA via its USAC contract. Gila, too. I'll be moving up a spot! Prize money coming 13's way. Lance, paypal's cool... p.s.: let Levi know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS