cycling USADA To Strip Lance Armstrong Of 7 Tour Titles

[CG-88]

I guess thats the difference, my original comments were based on personal feelings but pushing them aside its easy to see the "guilty" reasons push through and it really does make sense. Just seems a bit too perfect for him to give up tbh.

[Shane Nokes]

I understand and mostly agree with where you're coming from but we'll likely never have all the information and never know the truth for certain. We can only make an educated guess and I've made it clear where I stand.

Yeah, thanks. I'm not expecting everyone to agree with my conclusion but I try to be as objective as possible. I mean, we may see evidence come out in the near future exposing widespread USADA corruption in which case my opinion could change dramatically. I have no personal feelings about the matter one way or the other.

Yes, but by the same logic you propose I have something to say.

Supposedly (and just like everything else this is hearsay), the witnesses who were set to testify against Armstrong were granted immunity from USADA proceedings if they testified against him.

So to say they didn't have a vested interest could very well be false since it would allow them to compete and keep whatever reputations & titles they had intact.

Now if you get 10 people (who we have no idea who they are) to agree to immunity to testify against someone whether they are guilty or innocent, do you think they wouldn't do that?

So now the real question will be, since Lance stepped down, will those proceedings still happen against those athletes? If we don't read anything in the news anytime soon about these cases, then I'm going to call it a bluff.

[MightyJordan]

Actually it's not official. The USADA doesn't have the ability to strip the titles. All they can do is petition to have them removed. The agency that actually issues the titles has taken issue with the USADA findings, and are backing Lance.

Could you provide a source for that, please? I'm not doubting you, it's just that I searched around on Google to find that myself, and I couldn't find it; every news source I've come across has simply said the USADA has stripped him of his titles, and nothing else.

[The Laughing Man]

How can an organization that did not give him the medals, have them stripped away?

[Shane Nokes]

How can an organization that did not give him the medals, have them stripped away?

That's what I was stating. USADA cannot strip the titles. They can only ask for them to be stripped.

Could you provide a source for that, please? I'm not doubting you, it's just that I searched around on Google to find that myself, and I couldn't find it; every news source I've come across has simply said the USADA has stripped him of his titles, and nothing else.

Sure:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/uci-usada-lance-armstrong-doping-tour-de-france_n_1827217.html

UCI actually is the group that can strip the titles. They are being very careful with this, and even recently have stated that they support Lance. So they are going to need to see the hard evidence before making a decision against him.

So basically as I said, nothing has been stripped at this point. USADA doesn't have the authority to do so.

[Colin McGregor]

Whats worse? that this is news or that people looked up to a bicyclist?

[theyarecomingforyou]

Supposedly (and just like everything else this is hearsay), the witnesses who were set to testify against Armstrong were granted immunity from USADA proceedings if they testified against him.

So to say they didn't have a vested interest could very well be false since it would allow them to compete and keep whatever reputations & titles they had intact.

That is a valid point but the conspiracy seems to get more and more extreme when you go in that direction, with countless people involved (all of whom would have to have poor moral integrity to lie) and it still assumes a vendetta against Armstrong by the USADA. So while I accept that what you propose is plausible I don't consider it to be as likely.

[The Laughing Man]

Whats worse? that this is news or that people looked up to a bicyclist?

Please, go on, I would like to know where you are going with this discussion.

[Shane Nokes]

That is a valid point but the conspiracy seems to get more and more extreme when you go in that direction, with countless people involved (all of whom would have to have poor moral integrity to lie) and it still assumes a vendetta against Armstrong by the USADA. So while I accept that what you propose is plausible I don't consider it to be as likely.

Countless? It's supposedly 10.

Also if they were cheating, and willing to take a bribe to turn against a fellow teammate, they already are showing poor moral integrity.

Also USADA is an agency that is trying to make a name for itself...what better way than to hit a huge target so that they start being recognized more as an authority? They already are trying to presume that they can strip titles that they didn't give out. So to me that shows they are going for a power play in order to have more authority in such matters. So they have a vested interest in this too.

If Lance isn't stripped and their methods are shown to be shady they look like fools. If they manage to get him stripped they look like champions of the righteous and are restoring all that is good and pure to sports.

So yes, they have a reason to want this to go their way.

Please, go on, I would like to know where you are going with this discussion.

Same here. I'm honestly curious now...

I look up to all sorts of people. May I know who is on his approved list?

[Astra.Xtreme]

Let's consider this for a second. Perhaps Lance knows that the USADA can't take away his titles and really can't do much of anything but run their mouths. And because of that, he's deemed it a waste of his time to (once again) testify his innocence. If the UCI, who can take away his titles, decide to bring charges, I'm sure this will be a much much different story.

The big problem with all the media today is that they are completely wrong in saying Lance had his titles taken away. That's completely false in every aspect and people are jumping the gun.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1309716-lance-armstrong-vs-usada-are-armstrongs-tour-titles-reallyunder-threat

[theyarecomingforyou]

Countless? It's supposedly 10.

We're talking about 10 of his team mates and how many people at the USADA? It's unlikely that a single person could orchestrate such an elaborate fraud, when you're talking about money and covering up such behaviour. It's strange that you'd rather assume that dozens of people are guilty than the possibility that Armstrong was doping.

Also if they were cheating, and willing to take a bribe to turn against a fellow teammate, they already are showing poor moral integrity.

This is where your point starts to fall apart. It assumes that a) the USADA had a desire to frame Lance Armstrong, b) that they could approach 10 of his team mates and bribe them without them running to the media, c) that they were able to cover up such an arrangement. And isn't it also questionable that his entire team was doping but Armstrong was unaware of it? Because if he knew anything about it then he had a moral obligation to inform the USADA.

Also USADA is an agency that is trying to make a name for itself...what better way than to hit a huge target so that they start being recognized more as an authority?

I have a hard time believing that an organisation like the USADA needs to "make a name for itself" when it is already at established player in the industry and doesn't benefit from public exposure. Who's it trying to impress? Is it not more likely that they went after Armstrong legitimately because of his high profile, rather than faking it all? To me it just seems like you're grasping at straws to defend Armstrong in spite of the evidence.

As I have said repeatedly, I don't dismiss the possibility he's innocent but nothing you've put forward has done anything to alter my opinion.

The big problem with all the media today is that they are completely wrong in saying Lance had his titles taken away. That's completely false in every aspect and people are jumping the gun.

The media is not "completely wrong" because the USADA believes it has the legal authority to do so. All the articles I've read have stated that Lance Armstrong has contested that, so the media has been entirely upfront about it. Also, the articles all point out that the USADA will ban him and strip him of his titles, not that it already has.

[ahhell]

I have no idea why anyone looked up to him anyway. He's proven in the past that he's a ****ty human being (look at how he treated his wife) but I guess in Americans' eyes winning at all costs is what is important. Sad.

[Shane Nokes]

I have no idea why anyone looked up to him anyway. He's proven in the past that he's a ****ty human being (look at how he treated his wife) but I guess in Americans' eyes winning at all costs is what is important. Sad.

Indeed. So do you know how his wife may or may not have treated him in private? How do you know that the relationship falling apart wasn't because they weren't suited for each other?

I'm divorced, and still friends with my ex-wife. Just because a divorce happens (even if it's messy) doesn't mean it's the fault of the more famous half.

We're talking about 10 of his team mates and how many people at the USADA? It's unlikely that a single person could orchestrate such an elaborate fraud, when you're talking about money and covering up such behaviour. It's strange that you'd rather assume that dozens of people are guilty than the possibility that Armstrong was doping.

This is where your point starts to fall apart. It assumes that a) the USADA had a desire to frame Lance Armstrong, b) that they could approach 10 of his team mates and bribe them without them running to the media, c) that they were able to cover up such an arrangement. And isn't it also questionable that his entire team was doping but Armstrong was unaware of it? Because if he knew anything about it then he had a moral obligation to inform the USADA.

I have a hard time believing that an organisation like the USADA needs to "make a name for itself" when it is already at established player in the industry and doesn't benefit from public exposure. Who's it trying to impress? Is it not more likely that they went after Armstrong legitimately because of his high profile, rather than faking it all? To me it just seems like you're grasping at straws to defend Armstrong in spite of the evidence.

As I have said repeatedly, I don't dismiss the possibility he's innocent but nothing you've put forward has done anything to alter my opinion.

The media is not "completely wrong" because the USADA believes it has the legal authority to do so. All the articles I've read have stated that Lance Armstrong has contested that, so the media has been entirely upfront about it. Also, the articles all point out that the USADA will ban him and strip him of his titles, not that it already has.

Indeed. It would be hard for a single person to orchestrate something, such as passing hundreds of drug tests, even those administered AFTER this whole thing started, and passing them with flying colors. That would take a massive amount of effort and require always being on your guard for random testing.

You stated it would require low morals to behave in such a way. I suggest a group of cyclists that have already cheated, and are now turning against a teammate for immunity already have low morals. Would you suggest a group of known cheaters & snitches have high moral standing? Also evidently that's just what they've done if they really do have 10 of his teammates.

So do they have 10 of his teammates (who are supposedly remaining anonymous) or is it a bluff? If they do have them, then yes they have indeed kept their mouths shut. If they don't, then it's a bluff which makes it even more of a witchhunt since the USADA would have lied about having witnesses. So either way they have a group that is staying silent and have been granted immunity, or they don't have anyone.

EIther way it doesn't sound good.

As regards wanting a bigger name. Evidently their name isn't big enough if they want to control everything and are having a hard time doing so. A high profile win for them gives them more authority. It's simple logic on that one. Also what evidence are we talking about? The hundreds of drug tests he didn't fail, or the witnesses who may or may not exist?

I still see no evidence against him other than an agency claiming he did this, but failing to provide any witnesses or proof. Show me a single shred of evidence against him, and you might sway me...a single lone piece of evidence, aside from the cream used for saddle sores.

Also yes the media is completely wrong. USADA doesn't have the authority, they can ask, but they cannot themselves enforce this, no matter how badly they wish they could

[Shane Nokes]

Grr...double post again. This timeout on responses attaching to each other if no one else has posted is driving me nuts.

[Astra.Xtreme]

The media is not "completely wrong" because the USADA believes it has the legal authority to do so. All the articles I've read have stated that Lance Armstrong has contested that, so the media has been entirely upfront about it. Also, the articles all point out that the USADA will ban him and strip him of his titles, not that it already has.

No, I'm actually serious that the media is wrong. The USADA doesn't have that authority, period. It doesn't matter what they think they can do. All they can do is cause a ruckus and hope that the UCI steps in and actually does the deed. Regardless, almost every article out there specifically says that Lance has been stripped of his titles, which is false. Very few of them actually have the facts straight.

https://www.google.com/search?q=lance+armstrong+titles&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS456US456&sugexp=chrome,mod=5&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active

[Shane Nokes]

No, I'm actually serious that the media is wrong. The USADA doesn't have that authority, period. It doesn't matter what they think they can do. All they can do is cause a ruckus and hope that the UCI steps in and actually does the deed. Regardless, almost every article out there specifically says that Lance has been stripped of his titles, which is false. Very few of them actually have the facts straight.

https://www.google.c...F-8&safe=active

Hit the nail on the head as regards USADA authority and the media incorrectly reporting that the titles are being stripped or are already stripped.

[neufuse Veteran]

If you were arrested and subsequently charged with a crime and decided to take a plea bargain instead of going through with a full trial and verdict you will have admitted guilt...

but he didn't make a plea of guilty, just because you give up defending yourself doesn't automatically make you admitting guilt, in US courts you have to verbally admit guilt, saying I can't take this investigaiton anymore I'm done isn't the same as saying I am done defending myself I plea guilty. This is more like him saying I am done talking to the police I can't take your questions anymore they are just fishing at this point....

[Shane Nokes]

but he didn't make a plea of guilty, just because you give up defending yourself doesn't automatically make you admitting guilt, in US courts you have to verbally admit guilt, saying I can't take this investigaiton anymore I'm done isn't the same as saying I am done defending myself I plea guilty. This is more like him saying I am done talking to the police I can't take your questions anymore they are just fishing at this point....

Indeed. If that were the case I'd be guilty of a lot of things, or wrong on a lot of things because I get tired of arguing in the face of never-ending opposition, especially when it's ridiculous.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

but he didn't make a plea of guilty, just because you give up defending yourself doesn't automatically make you admitting guilt, in US courts you have to verbally admit guilt, saying I can't take this investigaiton anymore I'm done isn't the same as saying I am done defending myself I plea guilty. This is more like him saying I am done talking to the police I can't take your questions anymore they are just fishing at this point....

Umm... No.

If you are on trial and decide "I don't want to be here anymore I'm done" the trial won't end with a "well lets leave him alone" result.

The only way you can end a trial prior to a jury verdict is to enter a guilty plea... If you decide to "opt out" (if you're even allowed to) the trial will continue on in absentia.

My point is, if he were innocent then he would defend that innocence in venues where that defense is of any significance. Obviously, if you call me a thief I can just ignore you, but if I'm appearing before a court in a trial for my life where the charge is theft then I have to defend myself against that charge.

[neufuse Veteran]

Umm... No.

If you are on trial and decide "I don't want to be here anymore I'm done" the trial won't end with a "well lets leave him alone" result.

The only way you can end a trial prior to a jury verdict is to enter a guilty plea... If you decide to "opt out" (if you're even allowed to) the trial will continue on in absentia.

My point is, if he were innocent then he would defend that innocence in venues where that defense is of any significance. Obviously, if you call me a thief I can just ignore you, but if I'm appearing before a court in a trial for my life where the charge is theft then I have to defend myself against that charge.

I didn't say anything about leaving a trial, I was just trying to say you aren't guilty because you said you are done. just because a trial went on with you in absentia doesn't mean you are guilty...

but in a case like his, they've drug this out so long, had how much proof he didn't do it, they did all the dopeing tests all came back clean that mattered... yet they still went after him... even to me I'd say hey the proof is there I am done... This is more of a witch hunt then anything, they could of dragged this out forever if they really wanted to... I don't follow the guy or really care about his records, but even to me this does feel like a witch hunt because of who he is

[+LogicalApex MVC]

I didn't say anything about leaving a trial, I was just trying to say you aren't guilty because you said you are done. just because a trial went on with you in absentia doesn't mean you are guilty...

but in a case like his, they've drug this out so long, had how much proof he didn't do it, they did all the dopeing tests all came back clean that mattered... yet they still went after him... even to me I'd say hey the proof is there I am done... This is more of a witch hunt then anything, they could of dragged this out forever if they really wanted to... I don't follow the guy or really care about his records, but even to me this does feel like a witch hunt because of who he is

A witch hunt by who? There are a lot of athletes who win medals that are from the USA. Why would there be a witch hunt for him specifically?

[Shane Nokes]

A witch hunt by who? There are a lot of athletes who win medals that are from the USA. Why would there be a witch hunt for him specifically?

Why do witch hunts ever happen? The term witch hunt usually implies that the logic behind it is in error, or never existed to begin with.

So asking someone to justify a logical reason for a witch hunt is asking for the impossible to begin with.

[HawkMan]

Actually, 10 anonymous people who they have never revealed the identity of...hence no proof that they actually saw anything since it's never been stated who they are and how they had access to him.

"proven", after he paid off, yeah

anyway those 10 are not anonymous. at least not all of them.

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraaf.nl%2Ftelesport%2Ftour-de-france-2012%2F12494479%2F___Bizarre_deal_in_zaak-Armstrong___.html

Also apparently as I can see from a Nrowegian source, in 2001, frozen tests from 1999, where retested with new technology, and 6 of them where found to be EPO enhanced.

Translated from a Norwegian article about the earlier events, which explains why there was a "witch" hunt. the lcue is, overwhelming previous evidence.

The charges against Lance Armstrong

Fall 1995: Lance Armstrong will enter into a partnership with the highly controversial Italian doctor Michele Ferrari.

October 27, 1996: a cancer sick Armstrong should have inntr?mmet with two doctors that he had used anabolic steroids, growth hormone, EPO, cortisone and testosterone.

Summer 1998: Armstrong Massager in Emma O'Reilly argues in his book "l. a. Confidentiel" that Armstrong asked her to throw a bag along a road, because he wouldn't put it back in the hotel room. Inside the bag was the empty syringes.

May 1999: Armstrong is said to have prompted O'Reilly to drive to Spain to pick up a jar of pills for him.

4 July 1999: after the first stage of the Tour de France, Armstrong was tested a doping which showed traces of a banned substance-synthetic corticosteroid. Values, however, was not so high that it was considered a positive test. The case was not made public until the French newspaper LeMonde wrote about it 20. in July of that year. UCI claims Armstrong had an exemption for use of a product with the banned substance.

July 1999: it was not possible to trace EPO in urine tests in 1999. Several of Armstrong's urine samples had been frozen. In a research project in 2004, a number of samples tested. The French sports newspaper L ' ?quipe got hold of the result. Six urine tests that were made by Armstrong during the six stages in the Tour de France in 1999, contained EPO.

June 2001: Floyd Landis claims in interviews with The Wall Street Journal that Lance Armstrong took a positive doping test in Switzerland around. Landis claims that Armstrong and team manager Johan Bruyneel is said to have paid a representative from the International Cycling Union to hide the positive EPO test.

June 2002: according to Landis, he receives a package with testosterone tablets of Armstrong.

2003: Landis claims he got doping products by Armstrong. He also claims that he had had the right temperature in a refrigerator that was placed in a closet in Armstrong's apartment in Spain Girona. He claims it was stored blood from both Landis, Armstrong and George Hincapie.

March 2004: Landis claims about 60 cycles that Armstrong's team has gotten of the Trek is being sold. Landis claims that team manager Johan Bruyneel telling him that they sell the bikes in order to finance the team's doping program.

July 12, 2004: Landis claims he is witness to the fact that Lance Armstrong and other team received a blood transfusion in a separate room at the team hotel which was completely cordoned off. R?ykvarslerne was dismounted. Peep hole in the door was the loss again.

July 2004: Landis claims bus to U.s. Postal team stopped an hour on a remote mountain road during the Tour de France and that the entire team was given blood transfusions for one hour, including Lance Armstrong.

In summary of Stortinget.no procycling: possession of forbidden substances, trafficking of prohibited substances, administration, or attempts by the administration of prohibited substances, assistering, encouragement, help, support, cover up violating the rules and under aggravating circumstances justify the use of the standard penalty.

[Shane Nokes]

Yes, the same Floyd Landis that has committed fraud...not exactly a reliable source.

[Vice]

I think it is sad that they are taking away his wins even though he passed every drug test. It really sends the message to potential future athletes that just because you win a lot and there is suspicion you could lose your accomplishments even without evidence.

I understand they are saying he did things that couldn't be detected at the time (and even now) but they have no evidence to prove it beyond suspicion and I don't think that should be enough to take away his accomplishments. They should invest their time in better testing.