USADA - Armstrong

Page 450 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
QuickStepper said:
Dude. I'm not apologizing for anyone or anything. You really are not clarivoyant, so stop pretending to be. Instead of reading between the lines (which is only white space) why not just read the words? Really, I'm not angry at anyone, but I just think USADA ought to, when they get around to announcing the punishments for the rest of the former teammates who "cooperated" mete out consistent punishments.

But you already got that idea. So I guess I don't have to say it again. But is it ok with you if I respond to those who have responded to my "tirade"? I mean, you don't have to read it if you already know what I'm going to say, right?
I didn't read it. I skimmed it. Law school skillz in 'da house!!!!

Past that, please explain again how the dealers and suppliers should receive the same punishment as the users. Thank you ahead of time.
 
Jul 23, 2010
270
0
0
OldManThyme said:
UCI will have to. Or they'll burn. But think they will anyway. And how is a lifetime ban heavy handed? If he doped and doped his team and conspired with organisations etc. all from '98 to retirement, why should he get to keep some of the 7? I'm lost on that logic. The rules are the rules. They've [USADA] just got to stick to them. And show no satisfaction in carrying out their duties. And then no one can complain.

My worry is that lowering what ought to be a minumum 2 year ban on all the others to 6 months (if gossip is to be believed) looks far to soft. 12 months at the least. But do all their results go from '98 too?
Just so others don't think I'm an apologist for anything or anyone, I absolutely agree with your take on this. I think everyone is ultimately going to respect and recognize the sanctions, including the UCI ultimately, even if they try to take a stab at a CAS appeal. Ultimately this may take a while to evolve and conclude, but in the end, the sanctions will stick, and no one is going to be happy about it.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
QuickStepper said:
Dude. I'm not apologizing for anyone or anything. You really are not clarivoyant, so stop pretending to be. Instead of reading between the lines (which is only white space) why not just read the words? Really, I'm not angry at anyone, but I just think USADA ought to, when they get around to announcing the punishments for the rest of the former teammates who "cooperated" mete out consistent punishments.

But you already got that idea. So I guess I don't have to say it again. But is it ok with you if I respond to those who have responded to my "tirade"? I mean, you don't have to read it if you already know what I'm going to say, right?
Also note: Armstrong was offered the same deal. He refused. I guess in your criminal prosecution world, that justifies the people who accepted receiving the same sentence as the guy who didn't.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I'm ashamed to say, and you will probably start disliking them, but both Robert Kiserlovski and Vladimir Miholjevic sided with LA strongly in an article in our daily newspapers.

You can check the article on this link

The English translation is quite readable, if someone finds some parts ambiguous I can translate them.
 
Jul 23, 2010
270
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
I didn't read it. I skimmed it. Law school skillz in 'da house!!!!

Past that, please explain again how the dealers and suppliers should receive the same punishment as the users. Thank you ahead of time.
You're welcome in advance.

Because this isn't bags of weed being sold at the coop (oh, I forgot, here in Los Angeles, you can buy it in stores, not on a street corner). The guys who are accused of distributing it and trafficking it are also the users too, at least some of them. Landis says he transported some of the bags, that he house-sat and made sure the temperature was just right for the stored red blood cells. Because in this instance, other than the procurement of pharmacuetical grade stuff, everyone is in on it, everyone is participating and everyone is conspiring together. Got it?
 
Jul 19, 2010
741
1
0
God, I hope USADA takes away all the record, not just the 7 Tours, but everything else. Screw the statute of limitation. That sack of sh!t deserves it.
 
ChewbaccaD said:
Well, it's always good to reserve just punishment for the greatest fraud in sporting history. Makes the Black Socks look quaint and old fashioned.
The black socks players had no delusions of building an empire and casting themselves as archetypes for society.

What makes this story so good (for me it's entertaining from the aspect of watching history unfold in microscopic detail) is that it's really incomparable. It's not Floyd, it's not contador, they are mere pimples compared to this festering sore. It's not the black socks, it's not OJ, it's not Paterno, it's not Michael Jackson. It's Armstrong. It stands alone.

The last 3 trump it in terms of actual harm to real people physically, but the Armstrong story is so different and in some ways bigger. Like it or not, society craves an iconic christ-like figure, and he inserted himself into that space knowingly, with forethought.

Does any other story parallel this one?

I see Michael Jackson as close but both of them wrote their own stories. Michael Jackson's music was at least real.

Sorry for the tangent.
 
Jul 13, 2012
59
0
0
QuickStepper said:
Riders are not under any duty? Really? Is that why the USADA maintains a "Rider Hotline" for reporting known or suspected drug use by other athletes? Or did they just set up that hotline to have another telephone line in the office?

In the law, keeping silent when one knows a crime has been committed and assisting the criminal by harboring him or further facilitating his criminal acts (and you're trying to tell me that being a part of a doped team isn't "facilitating?") are all enough to be acts in furtherance of an ongoing conspiracy. The acts of one are the acts of all, and everyone has co-extensive liability.

How do you define "covering up" positive tests?

How do you define "distributing drugs to riders in the team?"

What is the significance of the reported incident where the team bus pulled off the side of the road and everyone on board is alleged to have had their blood transfused?

Are you seriously trying to tell us that only George resisted the pressure to engage in blood transfusions when the bus pulled over?

Look, we just really don't know what happened. None of us know what any of these witnesses really testified to (unless you have an inside source at USADA or happen to be a member of their "Review Board"), so at this point, it's all a guessing game.

I just think it's highly hypocritical to claim that Armstrong engaged in a conspiracy to have the entire team, over a period of close to a decade, engage in blood doping, EPO and testosterone use, and other PED's, and that he winds up being the only one who receives something more than a 6 month, one year or two year ban. If you're going to punish them, do it to all of them.
1. What's true in the law doesn't matter. The USADA/WADA code governs. Nonetheles...

2. The cops maintain hotlines for citizens to report crimes but citizens aren't guilty of a crime for not using it, only for ading and abetting a cover up.

I'm not saying that they weren't all pretty darn guilty, but USADA is tied to the evidence it has.
 
Jul 17, 2009
4,317
1
0
Tygart "we will show all evidence in the appeals process" really, there is an appeal?
by whom?

I thought Lance was not talking about this any more
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
QuickStepper said:
You're welcome in advance.

Because this isn't bags of weed being sold at the coop (oh, I forgot, here in Los Angeles, you can buy it in stores, not on a street corner). The guys who are accused of distributing it and trafficking it are also the users too, at least some of them. Landis says he transported some of the bags, that he house-sat and made sure the temperature was just right for the stored red blood cells. Because in this instance, other than the procurement of pharmacuetical grade stuff, everyone is in on it, everyone is participating and everyone is conspiring together. Got it?
No, no I don't. You are ASSUMING things not in evidence again, and complaining when someone else does it. Me, I think it's fine, but I do find when others admonish for the same behavior they are displaying, I get a little bet vexed.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
QuickStepper said:
I'm almost ashamed to say it because I don't think even the people who liked him really "liked" him ever, but.....Richard Nixon.
Yea, except this time, Nixon got impeached! SWEET!!!!
 
TubularBills said:
"It leaves me a bit perplexed, because someone like him, with all the fame and popularity and millions of dollars he has, should fight to the end if he's innocent," Simeoni said. "But I guess he realized it was a useless fight and the evidence USADA had was too great."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/20120824/lance-armstrong-stripped-tour-de-france-titles/index.html

long winded article. i liked the fox sports one better. straight to the heart and brief.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
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.
When the media constantly refer to him in the future as "disgraced" cyclist the current commercial support will be looking closely to consumer surveys to establish whether he is toxic to their brand.

They will not be philanthropic to LA if it hurts their bottom line.
 
QuickStepper said:
I'm almost ashamed to say it because I don't think even the people who liked him really "liked" him ever, but.....Richard Nixon.
It's an interesting comparison but Nixon never proclaimed himself any type of archetype, he was a politician and by the very definition he was divisive.
 
Aug 21, 2012
84
0
0
David Harmon on Eurosport international said, as much as we hate it, the era was riddled with doping so you can't take away his wins. of the top 25 in the 2005 TdF only two people were not either banned or implicated in other investigations, he said. he disliked the way armstrong present himself as clean and used that for his charity. he said the general views of the teams is it was a pointless farce, it was too long ago.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Give it up. It is over. Wear a pink bracelet now.
Well, given the pleathora of evidence and arguementation presented by both yourself and USADA, its clearly not worth discussing ... what isn't even there.

The Lance haters, still substituting bile and personal insults in place of evidence, seem to forget that the next step is going to be UCI intervention and CAS. Lance simply failed to partake in a process that is fundamentally flawed, which is why you, as USADA did, have simply failed to address the process - as long as you get your white whale, eh Ahab?

Isn't that the very definition of witch hunt?

Now, as I have ten anonymous witnesses, its clear that you have doped. Time for you to stop wearing your ... bibs, and trade them in for an orange jump suit.

I do have ten anonymous witnesses after all, and there is no way we can have you intimidating the witnesses.

Hmmm .. our Constitution fundamentally guarantees such rights ... just not USADA. Odd.

Yep, best give up disagreeing with that process, or CPT Ahab will show up to call you a dreamer ...

Evidence. Its actually rather important, far more important than the rumor thereof.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
ÅSBJÖRN BENKT said:
David Harmon on Eurosport international said, as much as we hate it, the era was riddled with doping so you can't take away his wins. of the top 25 in the 2005 TdF only two people were not either banned or implicated in other investigations, he said. he disliked the way armstrong present himself as clean and used that for his charity. he said the general views of the teams is it was a pointless farce, it was too long ago.
Why don't you post that in a "Anyone who gives a **** what Harmon has to say, read this!" thread.
 
Aug 21, 2012
84
0
0
Velodude said:
When the media constantly refer to him in the future as "disgraced" cyclist the current commercial support will be looking closely to consumer surveys to establish whether he is toxic to their brand.

They will not be philanthropic to LA if it hurts their bottom line.
he was coming to the end of his sponsorship value in any event - he's 40 years old - but this will hurry up that process. but i very much doubt he will be viewed by the mainstream media as a disgraced person. he was just too consistently successful and has spent a lot of his life helping people (though i know people hate to be reminded of this)
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
gree0232 said:
Well, given the pleathora of evidence and arguementation presented by both yourself and USADA, its clearly not worth discussing ... what isn't even there.

The Lance haters, still substituting bile and personal insults in place of evidence, seem to forget that the next step is going to be UCI intervention and CAS. Lance simply failed to partake in a process that is fundamentally flawed, which is why you, as USADA did, have simply failed to address the process - as long as you get your white whale, eh Ahab?

Isn't that the very definition of witch hunt?

Now, as I have ten anonymous witnesses, its clear that you have doped. Time for you to stop wearing your ... bibs, and trade them in for an orange jump suit.

I do have ten anonymous witnesses after all, and there is no way we can have you intimidating the witnesses.

Hmmm .. our Constitution fundamentally guarantees such rights ... just not USADA. Odd.

Yep, best give up disagreeing with that process, or CPT Ahab will show up to call you a dreamer ...

Evidence. Its actually rather important, far more important than the rumor thereof.
If you catch actual witches, who gives a **** what you call it.

Put some salve on your injuries. They'll heal sooner or later.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
If you catch actual witches, who gives a **** what you call it.

Put some salve on your injuries. They'll heal sooner or later.
Well, once again, by failing to actually address any concerns, assuming pridefully that you just must be right, its best to simply attack those who have issues with the process ... more akin to GITMO than cycling.

Because we are all so anxious to get a former cyclist that we will create a process like the ones used to get terrorists? Makes perfect sense.

I mean you are clearly a witch too! I have ten anonymous witnesses that say you doped too! An estranged gay lover to boot! What more do I need witch! Orange jump suit for you too!

As long as the Ahab gets his white whale ... whatever the cost.

Well, I wonder, as I can now use ten anonymous witnesses to invalidate the claims of anyone who disagrees with me? Well, I am sure everyone sees a faor and balanced process rather than a substantiatially unfair system when its aimed at you of course?

After all, just ask the ten anonymous witnesses! What wonderful legal process cycling has given us. Dispute resolution, rather than mob mentality, at its finest.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
gree0232 said:
Well, once again, by failing to actually address any concerns, assuming pridefully that you just must be right, its best to simply attack those who have issues with the process ... more akin to GITMO than cycling.

Because we are all so anxious to get a former cyclist that we will create a process like the ones used to get terrorists? Makes perfect sense.

I mean you are clearly a witch too! I have ten anonymous witnesses that say you doped too! An estranged gay lover to boot! What more do I need witch! Orange jump suit for you too!

As long as the Ahab gets his white whale ... whatever the cost.

Well, I wonder, as I can now use ten anonymous witnesses to invalidate the claims of anyone who disagrees with me? Well, I am sure everyone sees a faor and balanced process rather than a substantiatially unfair system when its aimed at you of course?

After all, just ask the ten anonymous witnesses! What wonderful legal process cycling has given us. Dispute resolution, rather than mob mentality, at its finest.
Quite the little drama queen you are.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
gooner said:
"This thing is so much larger than Betsy and I," Andreu told Cyclingnews, in reference to USADA's investigation of Armstrong. "I'm like a speck of sand in this investigation and obviously I think there's a lot of information out there and my main point is my wife and I never told a lie about the hospital room, there were other people in that room, and I want the information to come out to show that they covered it up and made us look like the bad guys."

Andreu had read Armstrong's statement in which the embattled Texan likened USADA's investigation to an "unconstitutional witch hunt", and Andreu was left unimpressed.
On point.........................
 
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