|
Originally Posted by Surfer34
(Post 14353541)
Thats what the letter claims, but if its true how come they didnt come forward at the time and how come the feds didnt use it ?
Doped or not, something stinks to high heaven. |
1 Attachment(s)
Anyone see the current issue of "Men's Journal" in the news racks?
The subtitle to "Lance's Next Challenge" is "Troubles Behind Him and Out to Dominate a New Sport". Bad timing.:( http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=255887 |
I find this whole business utterly distasteful.
|
Originally Posted by Surfer34
(Post 14353192)
What I dont understand is that the US Justice Department, the biggest and most heavily funded government justice agency in the world just spent 3 years, millions upon millions of dollars and hundreds of the best agents in the world investigating Armstrong and they couldnt (or wouldnt) indict him.
Everyone knows the Justice Dept is "indict happy" and the old saying "you can indict a ham sandwich" came from the agencies reputation and heavy handed bully tactics of screwing anyone that dared challenge them. Ever single federal prosecutor and investigator at the Justice Department is an aspiring politician and/or beaurocrat whose carereer would be aced by indicting and convicting Armstrong. Yet, with all that, and the mountains of supposed evidence against Armstrong and the supposed numerous failed drug tests, they decided not to even indict him. How then does a private, non government agency with no subpeona power and no authority to compel someone under oath, level "undesputable" charges against Armstrong and ban him from racing ? But they did turn over their evidence to the USADA and we are seeing the results of that now. |
Originally Posted by LemondFanForeve
(Post 14352780)
Not sure, hate to sound like a broken record......
I guess since LA couldn't be criminally indicted by the US Department of Justice, he'll be crucified by this "quasi-government" agency. Was so looking forward to a TdF and cycling season of recovery now that Albertogate is over.....thanks USADA. I'm sure none of this will be settled in a timely manner and would be willing to bet they wind up with nothing, just like everyone else who has investigated. Anyone know if taxpayer $'s are used to fund the USADA or is it funded privately? |
Originally Posted by canam73
(Post 14353821)
The feds weren't investigating whether he doped or not. That isn't a federal crime. Their interest was in fraud of using Postal sponsorship funds to purchase drugs and conspiracy to coerce other cyclists to take drugs. Apparently they didn't have enough to support either of those criminal charges.
But they did turn over their evidence to the USADA and we are seeing the results of that now. If he indeed failed those tests then why wasnt that enough evidence to ban him at the time ? I am extremely skeptical of these supposed failed drug tests in 2009 and 2010 and all the other allegations are from many years ago and information that has been known for many years. I guess we'll see how it plays out. |
Originally Posted by Surfer34
(Post 14353907)
Your point about the feds and violations of federal law are absolutely correct. However, it cant be the case that the feds uncoverd or discovered labs tests that showed Armstrong failed a drug test (2009, 2010) and then turned them over to USADA.
If he indeed failed those tests then why wasnt that enough evidence to ban him at the time ? I am extremely skeptical of these supposed failed drug tests in 2009 and 2010 and all the other allegations are from many years ago and information that has been known for many years. I guess we'll see how it plays out. |
Originally Posted by canam73
(Post 14353949)
It doesn't sound to me like he had a 'hard fail' on any single test. I probably haven't read everything that is out, but is sounded more like he has test pattern over time that indicated artificial manipulation.
|
Also sounds like they have the testimony of 10 other cyclists.
|
How does going after LA help clean up the sport of cycling? Wouldn’t all of this time and money be better spent on athletes currently competing? I’m so tired of this; I really think it’s time to move on. Enough already!
|
Originally Posted by canam73
(Post 14353949)
It doesn't sound to me like he had a 'hard fail' on any single test. I probably haven't read everything that is out, but is sounded more like he has test pattern over time that indicated artificial manipulation.
Another thing that bothers me is the over-targeting of Armstrong (and other winners like Contador). I wish the testing could be uniform among all cyclists competing in a given class (World Tour, etc). |
Who the f**k cares? I'm so tired of this story. Lance Armstrong is irrelevant in cycling now. USADA is just like the stupid government, hell bent on wasting everyone's time going after guys like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. This whole story is ridiculous...everyone just go the f**k away and let me focus on BIKE RACING.
|
Am I understanding this correct? They are charging LA, team doctors, directors, and trainers with several violations of doping, trafficking etc. but no other riders on the team? Just LA? Seems odd if that's the case.
|
Originally Posted by Allez3
(Post 14352962)
Letter from USADA says UCI tests "consistent with doping" in 2009 and 2010 (Page 11), if true he's the biggest idiot on the planet. If they did a sting operation on him, then why wait two years? Ban him then and be done with it.
Everything else is he said, she said rehash: http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...arging0613.pdf |
American baseball. Widespread use of steroids. U.S. government spent years and years and millions and millions to prove a charge on one of them, Barry Bonds. A short probation is the final penalty.
|
Originally Posted by Hapsmo911
(Post 14354114)
Am I understanding this correct? They are charging LA, team doctors, directors, and trainers with several violations of doping, trafficking etc. but no other riders on the team? Just LA? Seems odd if that's the case.
Out of the riders who have given evidence, only Armstrong was the only one who refused to cooperate with USADA. It is no surprise that he is the only rider named. And it was only last year when Armstrong stated that, "Great to hear that USADA is investigating some of SI's claims. I look forward to being vindicated." http://www.courier-journal.com/usato...t%7CSports%7Cs |
It has become horribly apparent that these witch hunt type investigations (Clemens/Bonds/etc) where millions are spent in court after the fact are a waste of time. Lance might have cheated in 2009/2010, but wasn't caught in 2009 or 2010. Why must we spend our time proving he wasn't clean two years later?
Focus on cleaning up the sport from this moment forward. A US quasi-government agency investigating LA again is laughable considering the state of things in this country. Lets not even begin to talk about the doping in every other "American" sport. You know, the ones most cherish and think are better than all other sports. Spend the time/money to begin testing athletes across the board to the extent that cyclist are tested. |
There might be 10 other cyclists, but all those testifying remain anonymous. To me, an anonymous testimony or letter or phone call or whatever is useless and baseless and not worth anything.
|
Originally Posted by Manweiser
(Post 14354532)
Focus on cleaning up the sport from this moment forward.
If this all related to 2005 and before, and everyone involved was retired, then I'd tend to agree. But as long as people involved are still in the sport, and the same things are occurring, then it is part of cleaning up the sport now. |
There is a huge difference between criminal law and the battle against doping use.
In a criminal law trial, anyone accused is innocent until proven guilty. For anti doping agencies any athlete is guilty of using illegal substances, unless proven innocent. And innocence can only be proven be giving piss, or blood, most of the time. People are banned for not turning up for these tests. Or even worse, for having used WADA where-abouts system incorrectly more than once. And whereas is most countries people can't be convicted just on 'hearsay', I don't know how doping agencies weigh sworn testimonies. |
Originally Posted by Laminarman
(Post 14354580)
There might be 10 other cyclists, but all those testifying remain anonymous. To me, an anonymous testimony or letter or phone call or whatever is useless and baseless and not worth anything.
Besides, I can tell you offf the top of my head who most of the 10 are, with a pretty high level of confidence. Tyler Hamilton, Floyd Landis, Frankie Andreu, Betsy Andreu, Mike Anderson, Emma O'Reilly, Steve Swart, George Hincapie. |
Well the book on Bonds, Game of Shadows, told lots of stories from anonymous sources on Bonds. No way to investigate their stories, no one can identify them let alone question them. The authors made a fortune on the book. And then they refused to give any information to a court of law. And they got away with that crap.
Hope there are no books making money with anonymous accusations against Armstrong. All we need are real facts told in the open by real witnesses. When everyone knows who these witnesses' identity are their stories can be investigated. |
What is the over/under on how many weeks/months/years/decades this "investigation" is going to take?
<sigh> |
Originally Posted by Namenda
(Post 14354788)
What is the over/under on how many weeks/months/years/decades this "investigation" is going to take?
<sigh> USADA's estimating that hearing would be by November 2012. Those things usually get continued at least once, so early mid 2013 is more likely. Then the loser at the Arbitration hearing can appeal to the Court of Arbitartion for Sport. That will take another 6-9 months to set, and then a few more months for a ruling. Hence the 24 month over/under. That's a bit longer than Contador's, for example, but the complexity of this "non analytical" case will likely take longer than a simple analytical case (i.e. single positive drug test.) |
Does anyone here truly believe that lance didn't dope?
In a world where EVERYONE doped lance was still the best of the best. I have some sympathy with this view yet if what we really want is for a future of clean cycling then what we need is truth and reconciliation. When you have a most successful athlete still saying that he did nothing wrong and that he beat all the dopers while he was clean then you fail to promote the reconciliation that you need to clean up the sport. If he was stupid enough to be doping in 2009-2010 then he deserves what he gets. Anthony |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:07 PM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.