Lance Armstrong to be stripped of Tour de France titles and banned for life

[paul_e]

Yes a lot of the evidence is anecdotal or open for interpretation but the body of evidence is clearly enough to make USADA think there's a case to answer.  The idea that he's tired and has decided they'll never let him have any peace is crazy.  It's taken 10 years to get anywhere because he's presented numerous reasons for his improved performance that have subsequently been proven to be a pile of crap.

It's clear that he's been involved in doping, anyone who thinks he's entirely innocent is naive in the extreme.  The question is whether testing years after the event which subsequently finds the evidence is admissible to effect his titles, which it isn't.

Armstrong just played the system at the time better than everyone else and has his name up in lights as his reward.

[N'Rexy]

So, let’s get over the Armstrong inspired BS that he has never failed a test. He has failed 3. He got away with two (one in the Tour and the other at the US Olympic trials) as the B samples were 'tampered with'. Both of these samples were taken and tampered with shortly after he donated $500k (yes $500,000) to the UCI anti-doping campaign. He also failed a test on A and B sample for cortisone on the Tour that he got away with via a back dated medical certificate for extreme saddle sore. Medical certificate was produced 5 days after B sample was positive.

Secondly let’s look at the list of 'disgruntled' former riders. Bobby Julich, Frankie Andreu, Tyler Hamilton, George Hincapie, Floyd Landis have all testified. Of the core US Postal team all have been done for doping except Lance, George Hincapie and Haimar Zubeldia. Strange the whole team dopes except him. Strange that he is so much better than the dopers.

Then let’s look at the anecdotal evidence. Trek bikes for sale at the start of a season with the full team livery and equipment second hand on eBay and through bike shops in Colorado (where Armstrong’s company is based). I was offered one for $5k, it was brand new and hadn’t been ridden and was that seasons team bike. Why were the team selling them? Landis said they were always short of bikes yet they got 200+ per season from Trek.

Combine that with an incredibly limited race program. As much time as possible spent in Mexico and the Rockies training and minimal time in Europe. Difficult movements for testers (moving 2-3 times a week) to track and limited contact with anyone in cycling outside races.


Finally who else is involved? Well the aforementioned 'disgruntled athletes', a Dr who has ben banned from involvement with cyclists for life (Michele Ferrari) and a team manager (Bruyneel) who won’t even travel to France now with his team (Radio Shack) for fear of arrest on trafficking charges by the French coppers.

And now the man himself (the serial winner, the man who never gives in) throws in the towel.

Case closed. He is a doper, always was, and now the shit caught up with him. About time.

[The Left Side]

bad week for the family!

[N'Rexy]

True. Say what you want about him but as first man on the moon he already had a great legacy...

[Dave Cooper please]

As I keep saying, there just isn't enough evidence here to decide someone is guilty. A disproportionate amount of weight is being given to the words of disgruntled ex-teammates.

And ex-competitors, and ex-doctors, and ex-team secretaries, and ex-journalists, and ex-team directors......

[lovejoy]

I have followed cycling for some time. If you listen to those who understand the sport and have no vested interests, it is widely understood LA doped during his career and was almost too big to fail a test. A lot of deniers on here are clutching at staws in what is an area which isn't black and white.

The question I have is why have ey only gone after him now and not while he was competing?

[paul_e]

I have followed cycling for some time. If you listen to those who understand the sport and have no vested interests, it is widely understood LA doped during his career and was almost too big to fail a test. A lot of deniers on here are clutching at staws in what is an area which isn't black and white.

The question I have is why have ey only gone after him now and not while he was competing?

He was worth more winning tours than being banned from them, now he's retired that's no longer a concern.

[Dante Lavelli]

I don’t think Ad@m is saying he did not dope, more that the current known evidence is insufficient to have already withdrawn his titles. 

I have been following this through the Times and they definitely have an agenda against LA.  He sued the paper for a large amount of money after they serialised one of their journalist’s books.  I understand it is because of this case that a lot of the information will become public i.e. they paid up on the basis that there was no proof of doping yet now there appears to be enough to strip him of his titles.

Regardless, Armstrong has a history of taking court action against anyone that speaks against him so it is little wonder that the evidence has not been released in full to the general public.  Hopefully the Times case will ensure that some sort of public inquest is held.

[Dave Cooper please]

I don’t think Ad@m is saying he did not dope, more that the current known evidence is insufficient to have already withdrawn his titles. 

He was stripped of his titles because he has refused to answer the allegations. In most sports this is the equivalent of missing a drugs test. It doesn't mean you took drugs but by missing the test you effectively fail it. By refusing to stand up in court and answer USADA's allegations Armstrong is, in the eyes of the drug testers, pleading guilty, therefore he's a drug cheat and will be stripped of everything he won whilst cheating.
 He could, of course, get them back by going to court and proving his innocence?

[Ad@m]

I don’t think Ad@m is saying he did not dope, more that the current known evidence is insufficient to have already withdrawn his titles. 

He was stripped of his titles because he has refused to answer the allegations. In most sports this is the equivalent of missing a drugs test. It doesn't mean you took drugs but by missing the test you effectively fail it. By refusing to stand up in court and answer USADA's allegations Armstrong is, in the eyes of the drug testers, pleading guilty, therefore he's a drug cheat and will be stripped of everything he won whilst cheating.
 He could, of course, get them back by going to court and proving his innocence?

But he's already satisfied the UCI and US Federal investigators that he doesn't have a case to answer.  Do you honestly believe that if the USADA case went to trial and the USADA lost, that they'd give it up and let him get on with his life?  Because he doesn't.  His view is that this is a witch-hunt and that even if he defended himself and won it still wouldn't be the end of it so what's the point.

Given what's happened so far you can understand why he feels that way.

[pauliewalnuts]

It's a little bit too convenient an answer though, "I am not going to contest these charges because I don't think they'll ever leave me alone".

Hmmm.

[pauliewalnuts]

There's no hat hanging going on and I haven't said he's definitely innocent.  All I've consistently said is that I don't see that there's enough/any reliable evidence to justify finding him guilty.

But by refusing to answer USADA's allegations he is effectively saying he is guilty, that's the way it works I'm afraid.
Why has he fought for 20+ years against every allegation only to give up now? Because he is tired and fed up? Well as a multimillionaire I'm sure it must be desperately tiring taking a daily phone call from your team of top notch lawyers who are doing all the work.
Or maybe it's because he has had the nod that USADA do have something damning, and to drop it all now will at least give him some sort of moral high ground among his supporters?

That's the thing - he's giving up fighting charges he reckons he is innocent of, and which if upheld, will see his reputation dragged through the gutter, and all his major achievements stripped from him?

Whys that, then?

[Ad@m]

There's no hat hanging going on and I haven't said he's definitely innocent.  All I've consistently said is that I don't see that there's enough/any reliable evidence to justify finding him guilty.

But by refusing to answer USADA's allegations he is effectively saying he is guilty, that's the way it works I'm afraid.
Why has he fought for 20+ years against every allegation only to give up now? Because he is tired and fed up? Well as a multimillionaire I'm sure it must be desperately tiring taking a daily phone call from your team of top notch lawyers who are doing all the work.
Or maybe it's because he has had the nod that USADA do have something damning, and to drop it all now will at least give him some sort of moral high ground among his supporters?

That's the thing - he's giving up fighting charges he reckons he is innocent of, and which if upheld, will see his reputation dragged through the gutter, and all his major achievements stripped from him?

Whys that, then?

He's been defending himself from these allegations for 13 years.  That's a serious chunk of his life.  I can't even begin to imagine the toll that would take on his finances, his family and his own emotions.  But I can certainly understand that if he thinks that by carrying on with this it may well continue for another 13 years or more, then he wants no further part in it.

I've never once said I think he's completely innocent, but I don't think that either there is enough evidence to decide he's guilty, nor is his cessation of the process a confession.

[Dave Cooper please]

But he's already satisfied the UCI and US Federal investigators that he doesn't have a case to answer. 

The UCI have a massive vested interest. When he was competing he was their biggest name, biggest money-spinner and the man who finally sent cycling around the World rather than just a corner of north-east Europe. Plus part of the USADA evidence apparently points to collusion by UCI in hiding positive drug tests by Armstrong.

The Feds decided that doping wasn't a federal offence and so dropped that part of the case and then decided they didn't have enough evidence to prosecute Armstrong with intent to supply, so they dropped that as well. I suppose they naiaively thought that UCI would investigate the doping in order to clean up the sport...yeah right!

[paul_e]

But he's already satisfied the UCI and US Federal investigators that he doesn't have a case to answer. 

The UCI have a massive vested interest. When he was competing he was their biggest name, biggest money-spinner and the man who finally sent cycling around the World rather than just a corner of north-east Europe. Plus part of the USADA evidence apparently points to collusion by UCI in hiding positive drug tests by Armstrong.

The Feds decided that doping wasn't a federal offence and so dropped that part of the case and then decided they didn't have enough evidence to prosecute Armstrong with intent to supply, so they dropped that as well. I suppose they naiaively thought that UCI would investigate the doping in order to clean up the sport...yeah right!

I'd be intrigued to see whether a new federal case opens up once the evidence is all made public, not necessarily into Armstrong but into a lot of people involved in the team.  If the evidence is irrefutable as USADA seem to claim then surely it will show that someone has done something illegal, not sure what has already happened though as I know there have been a lot of bans handed out already.