fly:yes/land:no

doesn't opt for arbitration, still threatens wada and usada with lawsuit if they seek sanctions. interesting:

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lanc...-france-titles

Jed19

My personal view is he does not want to go to arbitration because he's guilty. There are just too many ex-teammates who are ready to come out with the goods. Maybe we'll learn some of the true story through Bruyneel's arbitration.

I had salivated at the possibility of LA dragging the UCI's corrupt head down with him.

Savagewolf

I'm very disapointed it came to this. It's one of those things that should of never even gotten this far, whether he's guilty or not. I'm firmly in the camp of this being a witch hunt from the beginning. The sheer amount of money, time, and resources spent trying to nail down Lance is completely outrageous.

The allegations against him have taken over everything he has done from his first victory and through today. The man can't talk about anything without getting asked whether he doped or not or something related to the case against him. After all of these years, it's surprising he didn't crack before.

I'm not proclaiming him innocent or guilty. Only Lance and those who saw/helped him dope (if he did) really know. The fact that two of those who would testify against him, Floyd and Tyler, have shown very little in being honest in the past says a great deal to me in how far some people are willing to go to bring Lance down.

People have grown so tired and numb of the Lance saga that him being guilty or innocent means very little to most people these days. They simply don't care and most have already made up their mind. Cleaning up sports would of benefited far greater by using the resources that were spent chasing after Lance instead on more accurate drug tests, drug prevention, and clean sport advocation.

sakonnetclip

But not hard evidence. Not sure what the standard is but Lance does have a good case that with all the testing he was subjected to there was never a positive. Even if he did dope, and I believe he probably has, the USADA case does appear to be a witch hunt.

pgoat

That is all

scubapal68

So does the USDA have the authority to strip his titles? If not who does? TDF or the UCI?

pgoat

well, that and I just happened to finish watching the 1999 TdF DVD - and then I got an email from a friend about tonight's announcement that he is dropping his defense in the case.

https://lancearmstrong.com/news-event...august-23-2012

windhchaser

I bet ya it is because he aite a egg mcmuffin

Shimagnolo

Velonews announcement: https://velonews.competitor.com/2012/...-agency_235716

Velonews commentary: https://velonews.competitor.com/2012/...tration_235712

Hezz

This is not true. The money is already allocated for this purpose. And the FDA is the ones who spend all of the money. Lance is the one who is wasting money as well by trying to prove he's innocent. Lance thinks that this thing is over but it may not be because much will come out about him in Bryunel's arbitration.

Do you know how much money and actual lives Lance is wasting because of his continual support of mainstream cancer research which is known to be completely corrupt. There is no mainstream big pharma or government sponsored cancer research in the U.S. that has not been corrupted by the giant cancer money making machine. There are many inexpensive cures that work better to cure many types of cancer then the present methods. Go do some research. Lance is a fallen hero that needs to fall. Both for the sake of cycling and for the sake of humanity.

bikepro

Article in Dallas paper . . .

https://www.dallasnews.com/sports/mor...ping-fight.ece

Sounds final to me . . . Not going to arbitration is his choice, but he still looses all the titles and gets banned.

pgoat

on the one hand, i have to wonder if he knew some new evidence was gonna come out that he couldn't beat? But if that were true, I am sure we'll hear it from the anti-doping agencies soon enough anyway, to justify stripping him of 7 tour wins.

Otoh, I gotta agree with him - at this point, whatever. Go raise your kids and help cancer patients.

Shimagnolo

Bruyneel has opted for arbitration, so that will be the next thing to watch.

pgoat

Yup.

If Lance really was guilty I'm almost curious as to how he managed to avoid getting snagged all these years. That may have been harder than actually riding in & winning all those Tours.

In any case it won't change my opinion of him much. It would suck to know for sure he doped but the truth is, I am sure he beat other guys who were doping too.

mdk2500

I read this forum a lot for technical advice, but never post. But, I just have to ask, what is wrong with you? That is possibly the most uneducated post that i have ever read.

Shimagnolo

If you want to know some techniques for beating the tests, read Willy Voet's "Breaking the Chain".

windhchaser

I hate cheaters.I rather him lost the races but didnt cheat

fly:yes/land:no

quote from the letter sent from lance's lawyers to usada's lawyer - "You are on notice that if USADA makes any public statement claiming, without jurisdiction, to sanction Mr. Armstrong, or to falsely characterize Mr. Armstrong's reasons for not requesting an arbitration as anything other than a recognition of UCI jurisdiction and authority, USADA and anyone involved in the making of the statement will be liable."

don't think we have seen the end of this one yet.

chuckb

+1

Physical evidence is needed to justify something this severe. They don't have it. They have "witnesses" who've been coerced, offered deals, secret testimony from unspecified witnesses. Lance may have doped; he may not. Regardless of the truth on that point, the USADA is disgrace to kangaroo courts everywhere.

Waxbytes

So, I guess this means that Greg Lemond is the only US Tour winner? That's just sad.

fly:yes/land:no

no it isn't.

David Broon 

I'm glad. I think that the cycling community is glad too.

But here's my problem. Armstrong has chosen to take the cowards way out. By not stepping up, and admitting that he doped, he has chosen not to fight, because then he doesn't have to face what I believe scares him the most: Anonymity.

Sure, the greater cycling community know's that it's just not possible for him to naturally have had 6.8 or 7 watts per kilo, when the limit of human performance probably rests around 6-6.2watts/Kilo. We know that It's just not possible for a guy who won tours where the rest of the top five have admitted doping to be clean. But the general public doesn't know that. The millions of people wearing livestrong bracelets don't know that. Everyone who has started cycling because of the "work" Armstrong does for cancer doesn't know that.

By making this choice, Armstrong has decided that If it went to arbitration, he would be found guilty. That's the wort possible thing for him, because everything he has done would have the black cloud of "Doper" Hanging over it. And so much of what he's done would be forgotten.

That's where the problem is. We know that this is as close to an admission of guilt as we're going to get. Sure, he's getting stripped of all his victories, of his seven Yellow jerseys, but nobody is going to remember that. Nobody outside of cycling is going to remember him as the doper he is, because he chose not to face the issue, and instead hide behind his standard lines of "Witch-hunt" and "Unfair".

You know what's unfair Lance? The face that you're never going to be remembered as the cheater you are.

patentcad

Direct your hate at the entire pro peloton, c. 1995-2005. Oh wait. If they're ALL doping, who's the cheater? Oh, that's right, you can't tell, can you?

There's a Dr. Seuss story in there somewhere.

JakiChan

I don't think that's true. He's decided that in USADA's rigged game there is no way he *won't* be found guilty. The USADA is breaking it's own rules left and right. There might be a chance for a fair deal at CAS. We'll see.

Savagewolf

I would say that my statement is far more true than yours. Your arguement, in my opinion, holds no water. The money that has been spent in the case against Lance could have far better uses, much as I mentioned. Saying that the money is already allocated may be partially correct technically, but is definetely not correct in the actual use.

If I have a food budget of $100 and I spend $80 on Doritos, I am using the allocated money for a food item. I am, however, missing out on using it on more important items like milk, eggs, fruit, and vegetables for a healthier meal. Simply said, the money could of gone to a better use.

The cancer statement seems to really bring out your bias against Lance Armstrong. You're not going to win me over on this one in the slightest bit. You suggest doing research, but it appears instead that you've done little research and certainly are not looking at Livestrong efforts against cancer with a fair and unbiased mind.