Will Lance get to keep any TdF titles?

[SpartacusRox]

There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of "evidence" in the discussions about Lance Armstrong. Having read the very incomplete list (sic) of proof posted by 'Realist' I can say that, at best, some of it is 'as-yet unchallenged' testimony and the rest of it is merely conjecture. The continuity of the samples supposedly stored or found in someone's bedroom won't survive cross examination for a second. None of it is proof that Lance Armstrong took performance enhancing drugs. The assertion that Lance is guilty and will be stripped of anything is grossly premature. Unless they can come up with something concrete, something that will satisfy the burden of proof of the Court in which these hearings will be heard, unless the offences are tried in the jurisdiction in which they were allegedly committed, then Lance Armstrong will be found to have no case to answer.

Seeing this legal action as a 'done deal' is pretty naive to say the least. I mean we're talking about a system that let OJ Simpson walk.

For the record, I am skeptical about the 'condition' of the TdF podium finishers over the last 15 years. I am also skeptical about Floyd's testimony.

Thank you. I have been trying to point this out for some time, that you don't win court cases because you wish for convictions. As usual there is a totally unrealistic focus on what the prosecution will do when nobody even knows what their case will be or even if they have a case.

 

[Race Radio]

Moose, why don't you quit while you are behind.I admit, not all of your posts are dumb but this one was. In the extremely unlikely event of a conviction being handed down to Armstrong (and thats just allowing for one of your quantum leaps of speculation) there is no proof at all that any of his victories 00-05 were won as a result of doping so why would they or could they strip him of any titles.

Leave this theory now and move on to your next LA hate mail, some of them are amusing but I am bored with this one.

What is it with the fanboys? How easily they forget about the transfusion on the bus.

You are deluded if you think that Floyd is the only one talking and the US Federal investigation is the only one going.

 

[henryg]

If Landis' testimony is corroborated by other team members especially the business about them knowing when tests were occurring you can be sure that there will be repercussions at the UCI. Regardless of the legal outcomes of the fraud case in the US. There will be a mad rush to pile on and the French and Euro press, politicians and public will probably be demanding action by sporting authorities of all sorts against Armstrong and the UCI.

Once they smell blood the media everywhere will be on this like a pack of jackals. When was the last time the Wall Street Journal, the NYT and a mainstream TV news show like Nightline focused major attention on the sport of cycling? And the investigation has barely begun.

 

[Cervelo77]

There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of "evidence" in the discussions about Lance Armstrong. Having read the very incomplete list (sic) of proof posted by 'Realist' I can say that, at best, some of it is 'as-yet unchallenged' testimony and the rest of it is merely conjecture. The continuity of the samples supposedly stored or found in someone's bedroom won't survive cross examination for a second. None of it is proof that Lance Armstrong took performance enhancing drugs. The assertion that Lance is guilty and will be stripped of anything is grossly premature. Unless they can come up with something concrete, something that will satisfy the burden of proof of the Court in which these hearings will be heard, unless the offences are tried in the jurisdiction in which they were allegedly committed, then Lance Armstrong will be found to have no case to answer.

Seeing this legal action as a 'done deal' is pretty naive to say the least. I mean we're talking about a system that let OJ Simpson walk.

For the record, I am skeptical about the 'condition' of the TdF podium finishers over the last 15 years. I am also skeptical about Floyd's testimony.

Exactly. What we wish for is entirely different from what can be proven in court. He could be 100% guilty of everything people are throwing at him, but if none of the accusations can be substantiated with evidence that is satisfactory in court, the fraud stuff, especially the fraud stuff, will not stick.

 

[eleven]

Exactly. What we wish for is entirely different from what can be proven in court. He could be 100% guilty of everything people are throwing at him, but if none of the accusations can be substantiated with evidence that is satisfactory in court, the fraud stuff, especially the fraud stuff, will not stick.

The fraud stuff is, imho, just the oil to lubricate the investigation - the threat to get people talking. It would be unprecedented to convict someone of fraud because they relied on illicit substances to achieve results for their sponsors, and there would be a laundry list of potential fraud cases that would follow from such a precedent.

Novitsky wants the dealers, the sellers and distributors And he'll spend a decade and unlimited resources investigating to get to them. That's where the real problem comes in for the team folks.

 

[ErmOkk]

Even if they discover he's a fraud or anything else they won't do too much to him... If they do the whole sport collapses...

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

It would be unprecedented to convict someone of fraud because they relied on illicit substances to achieve results for their sponsors, and there would be a laundry list of potential fraud cases that would follow from such a precedent.

You missed the small detail that US taxpayer money may have gone to fund a drug program. And the part where Armstrong actually OWNED a portion of the team.

 

[eleven]

You missed the small detail that US taxpayer money may have gone to fund a drug program. And the part where Armstrong actually OWNED a portion of the team.

1. "US Taxpayer" money didn't go to fund the team. until a recent decline in revenues, the US postal service had been a self-funded and independent program for decades, relying on mail service revenues to fund itself.

2. Armstrong actually didn't own a portion of the team.

 

[eztarget]

How nice to see the Lance haters scurrying out in droves to post their latest bits of blind hatred. Still no proof,after 12 years, he's ever doped. You all deserve an "A" in persistance.
But I'm sure this time , the "truth" will come out. Please, hold your collective breaths until it does.

Sssh they are vaulted enlighted Europeans.

It's sad their blind hatred of LA makes them post so much crap about not caring if Americans follow the Tour. Kind of childish if you ask me. Personally I think it's GREAT for any sport when more people in the world become interested. I'm a huge ice hockey fan (and have played my entire life). I could tell you everything about hockey, and the NHL for the last 40 years. If I'm sitting next to a new fan at a game or chatting with one on a message board I don't belittle them. I explain the game to them.

Yes there were a lot of American riders before Armstrong but until Lemond won the race not many Amercians followed it. Lemond cracked opened the door and Armstrong slammed it open.

I now follow Tour BECAUSE of Armstrong and would have watched this year's Tour whether he was there or not. It's so funny how if you defend LA on here you're a "fanboy, Lanceboy, Lance Lover, or [insert-other-stupid-name-here]. I'm sure if you went to Spain and trashed AC or Indurain you'd get the same response from their fans. I watched the Tour in 2006, 2007 and 2008 without LA and actually can't wait until next year's Tour to see AS and AC go at it again.

 

[eztarget]

1. "US Taxpayer" money didn't go to fund the team. until a recent decline in revenues, the US postal service had been a self-funded and independent program for decades, relying on mail service revenues to fund itself.

2. Armstrong actually didn't own a portion of the team.

Facts? Why used them. It's easier to slam your hatred of LA when you just make stuff up.

The real waste of our tax money is paying some guy to see if LA or Barry Bonds cheated. The public really doesn't care if they did. It's like the "War on Drugs". The amount of tax payer money that is wasted to catch and jail people using marijuana is ridiculous. Marijuana is less harmful (an addictive) than hard liquor, yet the US wasted billions of dollars each year chasing something they can't stop. You'd figure that prohibition would have taught the US about how hard (impossible) it is to stop vices like liquor and marijuana.

 

[Comeback 2011]

The UCI know about Ulrich's doping but have not taken away his second places, so I'm not sure why Armstrong's TdF's would be in trouble.

The fraud case has nothing to do with that. That's an American legal issue to do with federal funding.

 

[eztarget]

The UCI know about Ulrich's doping but have not taken away his second places, so I'm not sure why Armstrong's TdF's would be in trouble.

The fraud case has nothing to do with that. That's an American legal issue to do with federal funding.

Don't forget that Ullrich won in 1997. I don't see any threads saying he should have that title stripped.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

1. "US Taxpayer" money didn't go to fund the team. until a recent decline in revenues, the US postal service had been a self-funded and independent program for decades, relying on mail service revenues to fund itself.

2. Armstrong actually didn't own a portion of the team.

Wrong on both accounts.

1. US Postal Service was a semi-independent federal agency. It is not fully self-funded, as it receives the Postal Service Fund each year. If portions of that fund went to funding doping, then it's a pretty serious offense.

2. Armstrong testified that he owned a portion of Tailwind sports. The only issue is timing. Unless you think you know better than he does, I'd suggest you get your facts straight.

 

[Comeback 2011]

2. Armstrong testified that he owned a portion of Tailwind sports.

He was vague in the testimony for good reason. His agent said in the same case that his decision to be a part owner was never executed during the USPS years.

He must be glad about that.

 

[eztarget]

Man Moosenuckles must wake up sweating in blind rage nightly. I've never seen such hatred carry on in multiple threads page after page.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

He was vague in the testimony for good reason. His agent said in the same case that his decision to be a part owner was never executed during the USPS years.

He must be glad about that.

He was vague about the timing, but he testified UNDER OATH that he owned part of Tailwind. What his agent said in an interview is irrelevant.

 

[eleven]

1. US Postal Service was a semi-independent federal agency. It is not fully self-funded, as it receives the Postal Service Fund each year.

The Postal Service's contribution from the federal government consists of a one-time annual reimbursement for legislatively-mandated reductions in postal rates for certain government and NGO entities. That's not US funding any more than it's US funding when the government uses FedEx.

2. Armstrong testified that he owned a portion of Tailwind sports. The only issue is timing.

Indeed, the timing is rather important - no?

Unless you think you know better than he does, I'd suggest you get your facts straight.

Unless you get your facts straight, I'd suggest you don't know enough.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

The Postal Service's contribution from the federal government consists of a one-time reimbursement for legislitively-mandated reductions in postal rates for certain government and NGO entities. That's not US funding any more than it's US funding when the government uses FedEx.



Indeed, the timing is rather important - no?


Unless you get your facts straight, I'd suggest you don't know enough.

Glad you shifted your stance. Before you said Lance wasn't an owner. Now you agree it's the timing. It's almost too easy to call you fanboys out on your lies.

As for the funding, you're referring to the Postal Service Fund only, which is $96M.

 

[eleven]

Glad you shifted your stance. Before you said Lance wasn't an owner. Now you agree it's the timing.

Surely you jest. The TIMING is the entirety of the case. If he became an owner in 2007, he was not an owner in 2002. If you don't understand that, I can be of no service.

As for the funding, you're referring to the Postal Service Fund only, which is $96M.

The "postal service fund" is the government reimbursing the postal service for legislatively-mandated discounts.

It's far too easy to correct your ongoing misinterpretations of fact. You have a great day, Moose!

 

[Comeback 2011]

He was vague about the timing, but he testified UNDER OATH that he owned part of Tailwind. What his agent said in an interview is irrelevant.

This is not correct. His agent testified in the same case - this is where the info came from.

Armstrong did not know the details of the arrangment because it was not important at that time. His agent did know the detail and testified UNDER OATH that he never became a part owner during the USPS period. This is critical.

 

[Comeback 2011]

Don't forget that Ullrich won in 1997. I don't see any threads saying he should have that title stripped.

Well it's a troll thread. Look at the other topics this user has started. I don't think he is a serious user.

 

[Benotti69]

This saga is going to be embarrassing for ASO and the TdF whatever way it goes down. They will be made look like fools at best or collaborators at worst.

Taking any titles off Uniballer will open the flood gates to the last 20 years of winners, second, third and even 4th placings. In all likely hood they will wave a white flag and do nothing (ie ask for MJs to be returned) like their reaction to Riis, but leave Liestrong as the official winner on their list of winners.

It would be very interesting if someone inside ASO piped up about what was known about riders and their PED use and how it was dealt with internally.

Will De Clerc ever talk about his dislike of Armstrong, i wonder?

 

[this_is_edie]

1. "US Taxpayer" money didn't go to fund the team. until a recent decline in revenues, the US postal service had been a self-funded and independent program for decades, relying on mail service revenues to fund itself.

2. Armstrong actually didn't own a portion of the team.

so you're saying that Armstrong lied under oath then?

 

[Mach Schnell]

I say strip them. Having a mid-grade pro with no GT talent juice his way to seven Tour titles discredits the sport. We might as well be watching professional wrestling.

Now THIS is funny stuff
That "mid-grade pro" soundly beat Jalabert to become the first American to win a classics race in the 95 edition of the San Sebastian

 

[eleven]

so you're saying that Armstrong lied under oath then?

No, I'm saying that Armstrong's testimony in 2005:

a) was wrong, according to his own attorney.

b) isn't relevant to actions that are alleged to have occurred in 2002.