USADA - Armstrong

Page 451 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Aw, c'mon. Lance didn't have any problems with the process! And a FEDERAL JUDGE said that the process complied with due process. Lance had no grounds to complain! And he didn't complain!

Lance was fairly taken down-town and schooled! He can still dope though, just not in an Olympic Movement sport! :p
 
Aug 21, 2012
84
0
0
Race Radio said:
There are more then 10
of the riders, i wonder how many of them would have testified in an open arbitration. they must be taking a huge sigh of relief today - USADA has put them through hell the last year.
 
TheEnoculator said:
Ah, I dream of the day of Armstrong coming clean. He should try it. It's good for soul.
At the end of the day Armstrong capitulated fairly easily. His smear campagin was brief and lacked bite. To be honest he was weak in this fight. Rolled over in a rather pathetic manner.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
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.
Asbjorn Benkt is the coolest name since D!ck Pound. Respect. Anyway, sure you can take away his wins. It's been done, actually. But you don't have to give them to anyone else if you truly want to make a point about that era in the sport.

gree0232 said:
...
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!
You compare USADA's tactics to anti-terrorism legislation and techniques? I'm not sure you have much of a grasp on either situation.

About the ten anonymous witnesses. They're only anonymous because Armstrong chose not to take this to arbitration. He would have had the right to disclosure of the evidence to prepare his defence. USADA had to cache-cache the names to avoid the intimidation tactics that the defendant is so well-known for.
 
TheEnoculator said:
Ah, I dream of the day of Armstrong coming clean. He should try it. It's good for soul.
I don't care if he ever comes clean if most/all of the evidence gets out there.

For those who think that there is no way that Armstrong could have done any of these things USADA have on him, then explain why several of the 'unknown' witnesses politely declined to go to the Olympics.
 
Aug 21, 2012
84
0
0
pedaling squares said:
Asbjorn Benkt is the coolest name since D!ck Pound. Respect. Anyway, sure you can take away his wins. It's been done, actually. But you don't have to give them to anyone else if you truly want to make a point about that era in the sport.
if you don't give them to somebody else, that in effect means he is still the winner.

i don't think they will take the wins away. not enough people will recognize it. he probably did deserve most of them anyway.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Quite the little drama queen you are.
Well, what a wonderful addition to the crime fighting abilities of lance haters.

If you are sucessful, and there are processes in place, no worries, we'll change the process and create a farce.

After all, one of your former gay lovers is one of the ten anonymous witnesses I have of your doping, bro.

I am sure you would like the information about who would say such a scandalous thing!?! Alas, we cannot have you endangering our witnesses and forcing them to recant their possibly false testimony. Ergo, you will just have to submit to MY process of arbitrartion, where we will parade a series of gay lovers in front of the public who will offer scintillating details of your alleged sex life ... but they will be open to cross examination ... and the more you deny being gay? Well, that just makes you more guilty you see!

Tests confirm you are not gay? Well, obviously you bilked the system in a vaste conspiracy - which BTW, we are also charging you with!!!!

If this process seems unfair, well, the alternative is to be given a life time ban from this forum and anything cycling related at all.

Those are your options, abandon cycling or let me parade a cavaclade of former gay lovers, even though you deny being gay (especially so actually) in public where they will dish publically about your multiple gay sexual adventures.

Sounds like justice doesn't it? Why are you not excited about such a process? Its good enough to get the white whale after all?

And that is the problem, its a process created specifically to get the white whale, and such a system is about as fair and blanaced as FOX News would be covering Woodstock.
 
Aug 21, 2012
84
0
0
mewmewmew13 said:
I don't care if he ever comes clean if most/all of the evidence gets out there.

For those who think that there is no way that Armstrong could have done any of these things USADA have on him, then explain why several of the 'unknown' witnesses politely declined to go to the Olympics.
quite a lot of the evidence is out there already - two prime time confessions, years of allegations. it doesn't seem to change much.

it seems to be a catch 22. The more people know about the sport and the evidence of widespread doping, the more they support armstrong as the rightful winner. people who understand that the top teams had medical programs back then usually support armstrong. and the more people don't know about the sport, the more they think he was the rightful winner as well.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
mewmewmew13 said:
I don't care if he ever comes clean if most/all of the evidence gets out there.

For those who think that there is no way that Armstrong could have done any of these things USADA have on him, then explain why several of the 'unknown' witnesses politely declined to go to the Olympics.
Agree with the first.

However, explain that now that Lance has been banned, these same dopers are not coming out and explaining their stories? What is there to be intimidated about now?

Its the anonymity, the whispered rumors, and the innuendo that are the problem. When 'sticking to your guns' to get someone equates to with holding evidence against the accused ... we have crossed a rubicon.

Its interesting to note that the judge who dismissed Lance's case did so without prejudice. That means Lance can bring it back after whatever happens next.

The anonymity is going to be lifted sooner or later, and the excuse of intimidation is now gone.

Its the same code of omerta that supposedly feeds doping, only now that its aimed at Lance? Its good?
 
Apr 7, 2010
612
0
0
gree0232 said:
Agree with the first.

However, explain that now that Lance has been banned, these same dopers are not coming out and explaining their stories? What is there to be intimidated about now?
christ, it hasnt even been 24 hours

be patient
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
pedaling squares said:
Asbjorn Benkt is the coolest name since D!ck Pound. Respect. Anyway, sure you can take away his wins. It's been done, actually. But you don't have to give them to anyone else if you truly want to make a point about that era in the sport.



You compare USADA's tactics to anti-terrorism legislation and techniques? I'm not sure you have much of a grasp on either situation.

About the ten anonymous witnesses. They're only anonymous because Armstrong chose not to take this to arbitration. He would have had the right to disclosure of the evidence to prepare his defence. USADA had to cache-cache the names to avoid the intimidation tactics that the defendant is so well-known for.
Yes, I do. They are exactly the same. Those cases went to the Supreme Court, and for the same reason. When you charge someone, lawyers - and you - get to see what evidence they have. That allows BOTH sides to look at the evidence and make a case before an impartial jury or judge (something I don't think we can get from with the UCI or USADA at this point).

The failure to do this in tribunals at GITMO was repeatedly challenged and shot down by the SCOTUS. Why is it now 'good' to get LA? Its EXACTLY the same thing, and simply because we want to get LA more than we want to get murdering terrorists doesn't make the process suddenly become fundamentally sound.

And tell me, who is being intimidated here? The anonymous witnesses? Or Lance?

And remember, the judge in question already left open that as more of this process is revealed, that Lance can come back and refile the claims.

In short, the ball is in USADA's court to present the evidence now, as required by the WADA and UCI code. If they do not, the same court that claimed it did not have jurisdiction, will invalidate the process.

Lance has been accused of being overly prideful, but he certainly bit his lip and took the wiser course here. The haters dancing in jubilee right now just may want to see which side it is that has a problem with pride.

And when we are treating cyclists like terrorists? And we are. Then cycling and the anti-doping fight have serious problems that go well beyond LA.

Remember, ANY cyclist in the peloton will be subject to these rules if they are not done away with. Cadel, LeMond, Wiggins, everyone. All it will take is ten anonymous witnessed and a charge sheet without a like of evidence.

BTW - most DA's, when they are looking for an all or nothing deal, generally proceed by actually displaying the overwhleming evidence to facillitate a deal.

As we know however, have often seen here on this forum, the deal is not the goal. The goal was the arbitrartion panel where we could get Lance in a lie and get him for perjury correct? It doesn't matter how minor, any mis-step and he's lied to a panel and stripped.

Now, anyone with a lawyer would avoid such a dung heap of justice and pursue a different ajudicative process.

Lance has a lawyer or two ...
 
Jun 15, 2010
38
0
0
lance in aspen

lance just raced the 4 peak run race in maroon wilderness area but got beat by ricky gates. took lance something like 5 + hours to complete this epic run. i didn't spot him at either stage in aspen, but someone said they did see him. not prominent presence on any stage. things are really getting pretty weird in this little town of aspen colorado. GO teeJay and taylor on the chris severy memorial stage on FLAGSTAFF finish. epic epic epic. of course lance took refuge in aspen like all the other cheats†
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
barn yard said:
christ, it hasnt even been 24 hours

be patient
Well, Andreaus waited hours ... no doubt two of the ten anonymous witnesses.

I am interested is seeing the ones that we haven't already heard from for the past ... nearly two decades.
 
Jul 13, 2009
283
0
0
gree0232 said:
Agree with the first.

However, explain that now that Lance has been banned, these same dopers are not coming out and explaining their stories? What is there to be intimidated about now?

Its the anonymity, the whispered rumors, and the innuendo that are the problem. When 'sticking to your guns' to get someone equates to with holding evidence against the accused ... we have crossed a rubicon.

Its interesting to note that the judge who dismissed Lance's case did so without prejudice. That means Lance can bring it back after whatever happens next.

The anonymity is going to be lifted sooner or later, and the excuse of intimidation is now gone.

Its the same code of omerta that supposedly feeds doping, only now that its aimed at Lance? Its good?
Haven't we already had Vaughters (in his oped piece) and Andreu as reported by cyclingnews at the USA Pro Cycling Challenge today come out and sort of explained themselves. I am making an assumption here of course that they are 2 of the more than 10 to have testified against Armstrong
 
Cobblestoned said:
Great, great work, Dave.
You feel important now, don't you ?
Must feel great, so I will participate too.

While you will make planet earth a better place, for you and for me and the entire human race - I will just send this mail to the Curiosity, to spread the message all over planet Mars. Sure there is a Nike branch somewhere there.
That will have a huge impact and raise the Marsian's awareness.

Thanks to you. Thanks again, Dave. Great work and a +10.000 on top of that. Outstanding piece.
Where are you coming from?

I realize you are participating on an Internet forum, but you may not have fully grasped the power of social media yet. Sending this letter, and posting it here, is using that power.

Me, I have to concede that I come from the corporate world. In that weird and bizarre place, this is hitting them where it hurts. Right in the value of the brand and where it came from.

If corporations sign up for an ethical code, they need to adhere to it. Shareholders don't like it if they don't.

In the case of Nike and Lance, this has to be one of the most blatant violations ever of such an ethical code. How can a sporting goods company stand behind someone who stole seven Tours?

How can they do that when the teammate of and second last person to see Pre (the first athlete under contract to Nike) alive, Frank Shorter, was one of the founders of USADA?

They are going against where they came from.

And now you want to make fun of all this?

What is your deal?

Dave.
 
Apr 7, 2010
612
0
0
gree0232 said:
Well, Andreaus waited hours ... no doubt two of the ten anonymous witnesses.

I am interested is seeing the ones that we haven't already heard from for the past ... nearly two decades.
perhaps consider that some/most of these witnesses do not want to talk about it yet as they are facing significant suspensions themselves
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
gree0232 said:
Yes, I do. They are exactly the same. Those cases went to the Supreme Court, and for the same reason. When you charge someone, lawyers - and you - get to see what evidence they have. That allows BOTH sides to look at the evidence and make a case before an impartial jury or judge (something I don't think we can get from with the UCI or USADA at this point).

The failure to do this in tribunals at GITMO was repeatedly challenged and shot down by the SCOTUS. Why is it now 'good' to get LA? Its EXACTLY the same thing, and simply because we want to get LA more than we want to get murdering terrorists doesn't make the process suddenly become fundamentally sound.

And tell me, who is being intimidated here? The anonymous witnesses? Or Lance?

And remember, the judge in question already left open that as more of this process is revealed, that Lance can come back and refile the claims.

In short, the ball is in USADA's court to present the evidence now, as required by the WADA and UCI code. If they do not, the same court that claimed it did not have jurisdiction, will invalidate the process.

Lance has been accused of being overly prideful, but he certainly bit his lip and took the wiser course here. The haters dancing in jubilee right now just may want to see which side it is that has a problem with pride.

And when we are treating cyclists like terrorists? And we are. Then cycling and the anti-doping fight have serious problems that go well beyond LA.

Remember, ANY cyclist in the peloton will be subject to these rules if they are not done away with. Cadel, LeMond, Wiggins, everyone. All it will take is ten anonymous witnessed and a charge sheet without a like of evidence.

BTW - most DA's, when they are looking for an all or nothing deal, generally proceed by actually displaying the overwhleming evidence to facillitate a deal.

As we know however, have often seen here on this forum, the deal is not the goal. The goal was the arbitrartion panel where we could get Lance in a lie and get him for perjury correct? It doesn't matter how minor, any mis-step and he's lied to a panel and stripped.

Now, anyone with a lawyer would avoid such a dung heap of justice and pursue a different ajudicative process.

Lance has a lawyer or two ...
The precedent for arbitration is not the same case law as the GITMO stuff at all. Stick to things you understand, like unicorns and "miracles."

Nor do you understand the ruling Sparks made at all. Lance took his ball and went home. The USADA is under no obligation anymore to disclose anything, though thankfully, they will.

You really should quit posting about this because you are totally clueless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY