USADA - Armstrong

Page 454 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jul 29, 2012
102
0
0
JA.Tri said:
Bock's letter to USADA, in closing:

I feel sick. The UCI increasingly complict in this mess...from Start to Finish. Even now through their inaction they, UCI/Pat, muddy the already stuffed up pig pen.

UCI get off your fat butts and do something constructive for once in your lives!
Just an opinion but I don't think the UCI are pulling any strings here. Everything about the way they have have acted strikes me as 'testing the water' to see what the response would be. The letters, the pressure on USAC, is all half-hearted and half-a***ed.

Right now they are busy writing the conclusion to the 'public' enquiry which will happen if the evidence against them as an organisation goes public. Sacrificial pawns, Swiss bank transfers, Phat moved sideways into some newly created BS role as Overlord and Grand Vizier of the Promotion of Cleanliness and Godliness in Sport, and the IOC are happy because they have been seen to do the right thing.

Square 1.
 
Aug 17, 2009
125
0
0
Cobblestoned said:
....while you still look like kind of those Bettys that are surrounding some cool skaterboarders.
Looking sweet, applauding your beloved group of posters, scoring by moaning about Lance, supporting the clinics' echochamber by giving some useless comments that are lacking of any substance or are totally irrelevant most of the time. Ok, you are female, but really........beeing something like an appendage of the caecum - what does that feel like, dear Betty ? ;) :p

Man up!
Good night.

PS: I like her nevertheless. Don't get it wrong, please. :D

You are an A$$h0le
 
ÅSBJÖRN BENKT said:
people lauded the brave witnesses for coming forward in secret, but to me it always seemed rather cowardly. as you say, they had a lot less to lose than armstrong, and it doesn't seem brave to work for someone for years - have no problem with what was going on - and then stab them in the back to save your own skin. armstrong is a very difficult character but i've never thought of him as weasel.
One former employee of Armstrong moved to New Zealand because of the harassment he received from Armstrong and his hired thugs. When dealing with a sociopath, brave has its price.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
frenchfry said:
One former employee of Armstrong moved to New Zealand because of the harassment he received from Armstrong and his hired thugs. When dealing with a sociopath, brave has its price.
I suppose this former employee is also anonymous?

Tell me, why is Lance a sociopath ... but those who have persued a vendetta for 16 years ... not? Or is it simply demonizing the side you disagree with that is ... justice?

Can't beat 'em on the bike, just accuse of being a sociopath who doped? Nice way to, er, win a bike race?
 
Feb 28, 2010
1,661
0
0
gree0232 said:
I suppose this former employee is also anonymous?

Tell me, why is Lance a sociopath ... but those who have persued a vendetta for 16 years ... not? Or is it simply demonizing the side you disagree with that is ... justice?

Can't beat 'em on the bike, just accuse of being a sociopath who doped? Nice way to, er, win a bike race?
I think Armstrong's character comes out plainly in the Simeoni iincident in the 2004 Tour, look it up if you don't know about it. The incident even left Phil Liggett, a big Armstrong fanboy, unimpressed.
 
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
gree0232 said:
I suppose this former employee is also anonymous?

Tell me, why is Lance a sociopath ... but those who have persued a vendetta for 16 years ... not? Or is it simply demonizing the side you disagree with that is ... justice?

Can't beat 'em on the bike, just accuse of being a sociopath who doped? Nice way to, er, win a bike race?
Pretty sure Armstrong didn't want his mechanic to beat him on the bike, but I wouldn't mind seeing Anderson bringing him a wrench.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
gree0232 said:
I suppose this former employee is also anonymous?

Tell me, why is Lance a sociopath ... but those who have persued a vendetta for 16 years ... not? Or is it simply demonizing the side you disagree with that is ... justice?

Can't beat 'em on the bike, just accuse of being a sociopath who doped? Nice way to, er, win a bike race?
No he is not anonymous. He actually regularly contributes posts, 599 to date, to this forum over the last 2 years and is known to most forum members.

Why is Lance a sociopath? Maybe you should ask his shrink.He certainly displays most if not all of the characteristics of a sociopath.


Here is an abridged extract from a website:

#1) Sociopaths are charming. Sociopaths have high charisma and tend to attract a following just because people want to be around them.

#2) Sociopaths are more spontaneous and intense than other people. They tend to do bizarre, sometimes erratic things that most regular people wouldn't do. They are unbound by normal social contracts. Their behavior often seems irrational or extremely risky.

#3) Sociopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse. Their brains simply lack the circuitry to process such emotions. This allows them to betray people, threaten people or harm people without giving it a second thought. They pursue any action that serves their own self interest even if it seriously harms others.

#4) Sociopaths invent outrageous lies about their experiences.

#5) Sociopaths seek to dominate others and "win" at all costs. They hate to lose any argument or fight and will viciously defend their web of lies, even to the point of logical absurdity.

#6) Sociopaths tend to be highly intelligent, but they use their brainpower to deceive others rather than empower them.

#7) Sociopaths are incapable of love and are entirely self-serving.

#8) Sociopaths speak poetically. They are master wordsmiths, able to deliver a running "stream of consciousness" monologue that is both intriguing and hypnotic.

#9) Sociopaths never apologize. They are never wrong. They never feel guilt. They can never apologize. Even if shown proof that they were wrong, they will refuse to apologize and instead go on the attack.

#10) Sociopaths are delusional and literally believe that what they say becomes truth merely because they say it!
 
Aug 18, 2012
1,171
0
0
gree0232 said:
I suppose this former employee is also anonymous?

Tell me, why is Lance a sociopath ... but those who have persued a vendetta for 16 years ... not? Or is it simply demonizing the side you disagree with that is ... justice?

Can't beat 'em on the bike, just accuse of being a sociopath who doped? Nice way to, er, win a bike race?
How have the USADA in any way pursued a 16 year vendetta? As recently as 2011 Lance praised the work of USADA so I can't think he was feeling persecuted then. First it was a crazed French conspiracy but no one in France followed the story until he refused to carry on.
 
I did It

I recall a Prison Sit-Com on UK TV an Inmate was Asked by a Visiting Politician
.............'What are You in for?'

obvious Answer..................'I was Caught!

so I am AmaZed to see at this Late Stage Posters going through the Legal Procedures with a Fine Tooth Comb..............Why?
lance is Guilty of Cheating in Sport using PEDS and Manipulating the Process to Avoid Detection................FACT!

perhaps the Question should be How did He get Away with it for so Long?
in Retrospect it's Easy to See what was Happening ......this is just Sport
the Truth should Not be Hard to Stomach

and for Posters adding 'I'm Not Really an Armstrong Fan........but!'
Man Up if You have Something Worthwhile to Say do so......Proudly
......Stand by Your Man......if Not................Shut Up!
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
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.
That's how they prosecute murders, thiefs, rapists etc etc eye witness testimony.

Because Armstrong is your deity he is somehow above that.

Fanboys, time to sell the treks, USPS/Discovery/Astana/Motorola Jerseys and let the dog chew on the yella bracelet.

This is not like the past where the media have sided with Armstrong, they are calling it as it is. He doped, he ran a doping program. He cheated. Amazing to see newspapers in the UK, where litigation is the easiest in the world, saying he cheated.

It is over.

We are prepraring the gibbet for UCI now.

Why not stay and watch. Get some snacks and few beers (anything that doesn't start with M)
 
Mar 10, 2009
251
0
0
ebandit said:
I recall a Prison Sit-Com on UK TV an Inmate was Asked by a Visiting Politician
.............'What are You in for?'

obvious Answer..................'I was Caught!

so I am AmaZed to see at this Late Stage Posters going through the Legal Procedures with a Fine Tooth Comb..............Why?
lance is Guilty of Cheating in Sport using PEDS and Manipulating the Process to Avoid Detection................FACT!

perhaps the Question should be How did He get Away with it for so Long?
in Retrospect it's Easy to See what was Happening ......this is just Sport
the Truth should Not be Hard to Stomach

and for Posters adding 'I'm Not Really an Armstrong Fan........but!'
Man Up if You have Something Worthwhile to Say do so......Proudly
......Stand by Your Man......if Not................Shut Up!

What's with all the weird capital letters. I don't think verbs were capitalised in olden times.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
uspostal said:
I thought there was no parallel between USADA and Federal court. Judge Sparks ruled the Fed court system was no place for this, so yes I would expect no better treatment for the witnesses than for LA. Doping is doping where do we draw the line that doping is lifetime ban or its only a 6 month suspension ???
Non argument. Where do you draw the line for killing someone?

Murder, homicide, manslaughter etc etc

As someone said Armstrong is now officially a quitter. He quit the fight, becasue he is a cheat and he has always cheated to win. Now he couldn't cheat this one so he quit like the sore loser at the end of the day he is.

It refelcts badly on the people who support a person like Arstrong his behaviour, especially in this has been immature at best and down right sociopathic.
 
gree0232 said:
I suppose this former employee is also anonymous?

Tell me, why is Lance a sociopath ... but those who have persued a vendetta for 16 years ... not? Or is it simply demonizing the side you disagree with that is ... justice?

Can't beat 'em on the bike, just accuse of being a sociopath who doped? Nice way to, er, win a bike race?
So you don't know who the former employee is that I referred to, yet you know enough to affirm that there is a 16 year vendetta going on. This would suggest that you haven't fully read the intern's handbook. Maybe you should do so before making comments that confirm you don't know what you are posting about.
 
Mar 10, 2009
251
0
0
ebandit said:
are You Playing.................TEACHER

Creative Grammer....................
............are You Suggesting that He did Not do it?
eh?

I was just curious. Though I suppose multiple dots are interesting too.
 
Nov 29, 2010
2,326
0
0
Can someone explain this issue I'm not quite understanding ?

From what I've read USADA has banned Armstrong for life and disqualified him of his results, and this is what all the media is reporting. My understanding though is only the UCI can actually remove Armstrong's results, but USADA being americans ... :D reckon they have the power to do so. Now the UCI don't seem to have yet made many comments about this (please correct me if I am wrong).

So despite what has been said by the USADA and all the media jumping on board, Armstrong (as of right now) is still the 7 time TDF champion.

Is this right or am I completely missing something ? (there's been way to many articles to follow) Thanks.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
deValtos said:
Can someone explain this issue I'm not quite understanding ?

From what I've read USADA has banned Armstrong for life and disqualified him of his results, and this is what all the media is reporting. My understanding though is only the UCI can actually remove Armstrong's results, but USADA being americans ... :D reckon they have the power to do so. Now the UCI don't seem to have yet made many comments about this (please correct me if I am wrong).

So despite what has been said by the USADA and all the media jumping on board, Armstrong (as of right now) is still the 7 time TDF champion.

Is this right or am I completely missing something ? (there's been way to many articles to follow) Thanks.
USADA have the right. If UCI disagree they must take it to CAS.

Interesting note, WADA have backed USADA so IOC will most likely back WADA which leaves UCI out in the cold and in danger of having cycling thrown out of the olympics which is a big earner to UCI.

CONI banned Valverde. Valverde/SpanishFeds took it to CAS, CAS backed CONI.

It will be suicide for UCI to go against USADA as UCI are complicit in enabling armstrongs TdF wins
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
QuickStepper said:
As to the first part of the quoted material, I think you have it exactly backwards. Any witness who is called before the grand jury must either (a) testify and answer all the questions put to him/her or (b) must refuse to answer based on a valid assertion of 5th amendment against self-incrimination. If a witness asserts the 5th and refuses to testify, the only way he/she can be compelled to answer is if the witness is given immunity from prosecution. But no witness is "entitled" to receive a grant of immunity in exchange for testifying. I don't know where you came up with that but it's not correct. The legal thread is full of this stuff and it was discussed ad nauseum there during the grand jury investigation of Armstrong, so if you want to read more about it, I suggest you visit that thread, so we can stay on topic here.

As to your second point, well, since your first example was completely incorrect, I suppose the analogy doesn't hold at all. Oh, and by the way, under neither the WADA Code nor the USADA Protocols is anyone "entitled" to immiunity or a reduction in sanction. The question of an athlete's cooperation in any investigation "may" be taken into account in reducing a sanction, but it's not a matter of right.
He's not legally trained, so your condescension is truly misplaced there. As to his final point, no it isn't wrong at all. Again, you explain how one is to investigate and expose a conspiracy with no incentives given to the members of the conspiracy who can give up the bigger fish.

Contrary to your ignorant assertion that Armstrong was just another one of the guys, he was the driving force behind this. He was the star who promoted himself as a savior. He was the one with enough marketability to provide actual pressure to overlook or to force other organizations and people to become complicit in his lie. Lets face it, he made a lot of people A LOT of money. He became a marketing machine, superhero figure by his own hand. He is addicted to the hero status. A person like that can make a lot of people do a lot of things. You keep acting like he was just one of the guys. Deserves no more attention than anyone else. That is a false narrative. It is either willfully ignorant of reality, or just plain ignorant.

You keep pretending that you are just a dispassioned observer. Your narrative is easy enough to pick up on, so it doesn't really matter how much you yell your belief in your own objectivity. Anyone with a sense of reason can tell you are blind to your own bias. Me, I am biased as hell against Armstrong. That doesn't alter the fact that what the USADA did with the witnesses was nothing unprecedented, and completely consistent with the model of criminal prosecutions. Again, the pushers and dealers always deserve to be more harshly punished than the users. You will not be able to pretend that Armstrong was just one of the guys for too much longer. Better get your hits in now while you can. Not to mention the fact that Armstrong was offered the same deal as everyone else, but he refused to even talk to the USADA. Bad choice that, I think we can all agree.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
gree0232 said:
I suppose this former employee is also anonymous?

Tell me, why is Lance a sociopath ... but those who have persued a vendetta for 16 years ... not? Or is it simply demonizing the side you disagree with that is ... justice?

Can't beat 'em on the bike, just accuse of being a sociopath who doped? Nice way to, er, win a bike race?
Well, to be fair, it isn't an "accusation;" it's an actual fact.

Lance is the biggest fraud in sporting history. Is there like an anti-Disneyland for people like that to go to when are awarded such titles?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Why does Quickstep bother?

Plenty have shot his not so obvious pro Armstrong leanings down.

Lastest claim that 'Armstrong was only a rider' like the others.

It that doesn't totally show wilful ignorance, lack of knowledge or higher level of trolling in here or a combination of all 3 well give LA his titles back!

QS,no one is convinced.

I still think you are a legal intern for Liestrong/Herman/Demand/PublicStragies etc
 
Aug 18, 2012
1,171
0
0
Benotti69 said:
USADA have the right. If UCI disagree they must take it to CAS.

Interesting note, WADA have backed USADA so IOC will most likely back WADA which leaves UCI out in the cold and in danger of having cycling thrown out of the olympics which is a big earner to UCI.

CONI banned Valverde. Valverde/SpanishFeds took it to CAS, CAS backed CONI.

It will be suicide for UCI to go against USADA as UCI are complicit in enabling armstrongs TdF wins
The ball is in the UCI's court right now. Once the evidence is released by USADA then Lance has to be pining for them to not recognise the verdict and take it to CAS.

He has to be thinking he can discredit some of the witness testimony and make others seem vague or pressured, plus the statements won't be as significant as they won't be under oath.

I don't think he has a chance in hell of getting anything done at CAS, but if he asks UCI to indulge him and they don't then they might dish the dirt on them.
 
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

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts