USADA - Armstrong

Page 440 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aug 21, 2012
90
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Have written to media@usada.org to express my appreciation.
Also have written to media.europe@nike.com to inform them of my boycott. Hope many will do the same.... Thanks :)
I feel inclined to, but is that not the same slippery slope that LA started down in his acts of intimidation? Pressure companies to impact upon another? Leave the process to complete and they'll suffer fine enough!
 
Mar 22, 2010
908
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Thats exactly what it does.

From the USADA press release:


The original SCA case was settled because LA was still the winner of all those Tours - today he is stripped of that.
Personally I am looking forward to him being brought into court and answer to the evidence. Not sure it would ever happen since this has always been about keeping the truth in the dark; so I imagine he'll settle out of court in every case. Same reason he couldn't go to arbitration.
 
Jul 19, 2010
741
1
0
Everything from August 1, 1998. Wow, 14 years down the drain including his triathlons. As if he never existed in sports in the last 14 years.

At least he can still say he's a former world champion.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
aphronesis said:
At the moment, yes. And, your point? I thought the jubilation tended toward exposure of fraud and reparation toward the "victims."

What do you think this momentous occasion signifies in the world at large? What are its salient aspects?
Because your argument is classic reductio ad absurdum. Regardless of breakdown, regardless of location, regardless of motivation for the way they voted, it doesn't matter.

Armstrong is banned.
 
Aug 21, 2012
90
0
0
alberto.legstrong said:
A guy I ride with a lot has one of Tyler's 'Believe' bibs, it says believe on the leg and it's frankly cool looking, I really hope a jersey for Lance comes out soon 'innocent' 'cancer' 'miracles' 'mom' something cool to give to my riding buddy would compliment the ensemble.
ha ha - it's not about the [doped] bike [rider]
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
webvan said:
So the "notice" was just an idle threat then? Pathetic till the end!

Clearly since a Federal Judge said USADA had jurisdiction and now they've just made use of it, there's really nowhere else for him to turn, Human Rights Court maybe? Hehe...
I think it's a bone-idle threat.

The federal judge said that the AAA process comported with due process. That's to be expected because that process is used by so very many litigants in everyday cases. You're never going to see a federal judge say otherwise.

Lance is never going to be able to say the process was unfair to him, because he didn't engage in the process. This hurts him, even with the UCI, because the process isn't just the AAA arbitration initiated by USADA--it is also the CAS process set up to review asserted USADA errors.

At this stage, Armstrong's doping case is just like anybody else's with a non-analytical finding. To win, it seems to me, Armstrong would have to demolish the entire antidoping structure from top (CAS) to bottom (USADA)--by arguing that it can never be fair in any case. That's an impossibly tall order. No court is going to go there.
 
MacRoadie said:
Because your argument is classic reductio ad absurdum. Regardless of breakdown, regardless of location, regardless of motivation for the way they voted, it doesn't matter.

Armstrong is banned.
Actually, no. I'd say that applies to your argument. And your priorities. And that's fine.

However, there are MANY on this board and elsewhere who have argued for years that the PR and image hit is what will be the most crippling to Armstrong: professionally, psychologically and financially. And yet, there is not yet any evidence that that will be the case. These are dinosaur values that you're arguing. In the US at least, this matters nil to most on the street.

Even if, as Glen said upthread, this is ultimately about the kids, it's not going to have the desired or stated effect. This is already a given.

So he's banned, so what? How long you think that stigma will last? Two weeks, two months? Not two years. Bet on it.

The fact that my argument does not accord with your interests does not make it simplistic. I'm dissenting from the social process that's expressed here; not the judgment of the individual. Check your knee at the door.
 
May 1, 2012
166
0
0
Page Mill Masochist said:
If LA is ancient news, then why do companies still sponsor him? Why do corporations still pay to hear his speeches? Why does a cancer awareness foundation still rely on his name for donations?

Because, the liar has gotten away with it.

.
Nope. Nike don't give a ****. Its the bottom line that counts for them, not the ethics. See Tiger.

I for one am sad today, justice may have been served to a degree. But very few, if any, are more deserving of those titles than he was. Lance didn't create the culture of doping, he may not have helped it, but there are others who are just as guilty and have done **** all for any good causes, who will inherit titles they simply did not win.

Lance was tenacious like I've never seen anyone else, beyond competitive. His tours still inspire me to ride my bike and always will do. Most of the other main culprits' influence in cycling is ever-dimishing. Pat won't last forever. Lets just forget the whole sorry affair and move on.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
alberto.legstrong said:
I've been boycotting Nike for 20+ years, not because of this or their child labor problems but just because every time I try one of their products it's cr@p. They can't get any less money or respect from me than they already do.
They don´t need to know it. Just pretend you are 16 years old and now disgusted that they still stand to their man, yet you believed in the honourable work of Nike. ;)
 
Aug 21, 2012
90
0
0
johnnycash said:
Nope. Nike don't give a ****. Its the bottom line that counts for them, not the ethics. See Tiger.

I for one am sad today, justice may have been served to a degree. But very few, if any, are more deserving of those titles than he was. Lance didn't create the culture of doping, he may not have helped it, but there are others who are just as guilty and have done **** all for any good causes, who will inherit titles they simply did not win.

Lance was tenacious like I've never seen anyone else, beyond competitive. His tours still inspire me to ride my bike and always will do. Most of the other main culprits' influence in cycling is ever-dimishing. Pat won't last forever. Lets just forget the whole sorry affair and move on.
LA is just the tail of the snake. Can't just nip the tail off. Got to take out the whole snake. Like LA - too tired? Want to give up because it suits your immediate purposes?
no pain, no gain. Got to lance the boil completely!
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
aphronesis said:
Actually, no. I'd say that applies to your argument. And your priorities. And that's fine.

However, there are MANY on this board and elsewhere who have argued for years that the PR and image hit is what will be the most crippling to Armstrong: professionally, psychologically and financially. And yet, there is not yet any evidence that that will be the case. These are dinosaur values that you're arguing. In the US at least, this matters nil to most on the street.
Who said - why not adress them rather than making random points?
Also - he was banned less than 24 hours ago - you expect evidence already?


aphronesis said:
The fact that my argument does not accord with your interests does not make it simplistic; it's dissent for the social process and not about the person. Check your knee at the door.

Even if, as Glen said upthread, this is ultimately about the kids, it's not going to have the desired or stated effect. This is already a given.

So he's banned, so what? How long you think that stigma will last? Two weeks, two months? Not two years. Bet on it.

The fact that my argument does not accord with your interests does not make it simplistic. I'm dissenting from the social process that's expressed here; not the judgment of the individual. Check your knee at the door.
The stigma will last as long as his ban - life.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
OldManThyme said:
I feel inclined to, but is that not the same slippery slope that LA started down in his acts of intimidation? Pressure companies to impact upon another? Leave the process to complete and they'll suffer fine enough!
No. We are small. Only big groups can change their behaviour. For them it´s all and only about the money.
A mail is send in 2 minutes. Just do it.
 
Aug 18, 2012
1,171
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Thats exactly what it does.

From the USADA press release:


The original SCA case was settled because LA was still the winner of all those Tours - today he is stripped of that.
Once the USADA release all their evidence, whether or not it comes out in arbitration of other people in the conspiracy or if USADA just make it public, I can't see how SCA wouldn't try to recoup the $7.5 million dollars they lost, Lance is still good for it.

Not to mention Lance perjuring himself, something which Marion Jones got 6 months in jail for in a similar case in that it was based off witness testimony.

Lance's power took a serious hit today, a power to undermine witnesses based off mutual self interest and greed, not based off loyalty and brotherhood.
 
Jul 13, 2012
59
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
Why not? Is it a rules of evidence/fraud thing? I'm out of my league here, so be patient.
Because its still an instance of he said/she said. For instance, if somewhat is charged with murder, gets on the stand and says "I did not murder the victim" but a jury finds the person guilty of murder, the guilty verdict in and of itself is not enough evidence to prove the convicted criminal lied.

During many trials, opposing parties each produce witnesses that present contradictory testimonies. Just because a court finds for one side does not automatically mean that the court would find the losing parties witnesses guilty of perjury or attempting to fraud the court.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
2
0
aphronesis said:
Actually, no. I'd say that applies to your argument. And your priorities. And that's fine.

However, there are MANY on this board and elsewhere who have argued for years that the PR and image hit is what will be the most crippling to Armstrong: professionally, psychologically and financially. And yet, there is not yet any evidence that that will be the case. These are dinosaur values that you're arguing. In the US at least, this matters nil to most on the street.

Even if, as Glen said upthread, this is ultimately about the kids, it's not going to have the desired or stated effect. This is already a given.

So he's banned, so what? How long you think that stigma will last? Two weeks, two months? Not two years. Bet on it.

The fact that my argument does not accord with your interests does not make it simplistic. I'm dissenting from the social process that's expressed here; not the judgment of the individual. Check your knee at the door.
I think I read somewhere that USADA stated the reason why they were going after these guys. To save the KIDS from PED's. Maybe so? :rolleyes:
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Briant_Gumble said:
Once the USADA release all their evidence, whether or not it comes out in arbitration of other people in the conspiracy or if USADA just make it public, I can't see how SCA wouldn't try to recoup the $7.5 million dollars they lost, Lance is still good for it.

Not to mention Lance perjuring himself, something which Marion Jones got 6 months in jail for in a similar case in that it was based off witness testimony.

Lance's power took a serious hit today, a power to undermine witnesses based off mutual self interest and greed, not based off loyalty and brotherhood.
It could potentially be more than the $7.5 million - as they paid out another $4.5 milllion for the Tours of 2001 - 2003.

And, if SCA were succesful it could open the way for 2 other companies that paid out bonuses too - (IIRC) Lloyds of London and Chubb.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
serottasyclist said:
Because its still an instance of he said/she said. For instance, if somewhat is charged with murder, gets on the stand and says "I did not murder the victim" but a jury finds the person guilty of murder, the guilty verdict in and of itself is not enough evidence to prove the convicted criminal lied.

During many trials, opposing parties each produce witnesses that present contradictory testimonies. Just because a court finds for one side does not automatically mean that the court would find the losing parties witnesses guilty of perjury or attempting to fraud the court.
How did the whole he said/she said thing work out for Jerry Sandusky?
 
It seems to me that either the UCI or the ASO will face problems with what the USADA has to submit to WADA and the UCI to explain Armstrong's sanction. Exceeding the statute of limitations has to be supported and that will lead back to one of the two, maybe both.

While people seem to be concentrating on the "cover-up" of a suspect Tour de Suisse sample, that looks shaky and inconclusive. It was certainly inappropriate for the UCI, and it is embarrassing. But it does not rise to what will be required for the SOL issue.

The best incident to use for SOL purposes is the backdated TUE. That is a clear and probably the best situation where Armstrong's doping should have been discovered and acted on by anti-doping authorities but the conspiracy's deception prevented it. It entailed creating a phony document. A team doctor signed it. Multiple people on the team had knowledge of the scheme. The ASO and/or the UCI accepted the phony document as though it had been filed earlier. That case is the smoking gun for why the SOL should not count, and it matches more closely with the existing precedent than acts of witness intimidation or lies outside an official anti-doping proceeding.
 
gooner said:
"I remember Frank Shorter, USADA's Chairman and an American Olympic marathon gold medalist, telling me during the Sydney Olympics, while were waiting to start a drug-testing news conference, 'Watch who comes late to the Games so they drop their positives before we can test them,' and Armstrong was one of those," Weiner said.* Armstrong then won his Olympic bronze in Sydney.* "There was nothing the science could do then, and now.* It misses huge quantities of dopers, though the testing is getting better and better and more sophisticated."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2
fmk_RoI The Clinic 23

ASK THE COMMUNITY