Looks as if Lance Armstrong will lose it all

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by mtrunner

The entire USDA process is a witch hunt and is completely unfair. There is really no way for an athlete to prove themselves innocent. He really had no options and if he did go into arbitration with the USDA all evidence would be out in the open including several other riders testifying against Lance. Many of these riders are well respected in the peleton.

It is also absolutely ridiculous he received a lifetime ban. Rider after rider has been caught and almost all riders get a 2 year ban on their first offense. Why would Lance receive a lifetime ban? And why would the USDA give the riders who would testify against him 6 month bans? The process is beyond flawed. The entire process is ridiculous and athletes need more rights when they enter into arbitration. There is too much on the line and the system is currently set up to prove your innocence when the USDA should have to prove guilt!

Having said that I still think Lance doped. The only consolation is the rest of the riders around him were doping as well. A majority of the peleton in the 90s and early 00s were using performance enhancing drugs. And testing means nothing. Athletes have surrounded themselves with good doctors who know how to circumvent the testing process. Numerous athletes have doped for years and passed numerous tests before finally making a mistake and getting caught.

Gary, you summed up my opinion perfectly and I agree with everything you said 100% I'm just too much of a Dorklehead to express it clearly enough. Thanks,

[Route 66]

Maybe they should just allow all athletes to use performance enhancing drugs and then we'll know who's really the best at their particular sport.

[RACER_X]

well at least for the time being, donations to LIVESTRONG have surged

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...162605579.html

being wife is a Cancer Nurse Navigator, she is greatly saddened of waht the future holds for LS

[MoBe]

Originally Posted by RACER_X

well at least for the time being, donations to LIVESTRONG have surged

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...162605579.html

being wife is a Cancer Nurse Navigator, she is greatly saddened of waht the future holds for LS

It`s true...........any publicity is good publicity and there`s one born every minute.

[subtona]

Originally Posted by mtrunner

...

It is also absolutely ridiculous he received a lifetime ban. Rider after rider has been caught and almost all riders get a 2 year ban on their first offense. Why would Lance receive a lifetime ban? And why would the USDA give the riders who would testify against him 6 month bans? The process is beyond flawed. The entire process is ridiculous and athletes need more rights when they enter into arbitration. There is too much on the line and the system is currently set up to prove your innocence when the USDA should have to prove guilt!

Having said that I still think Lance doped. The only consolation is the rest of the riders around him were doping as well. ...

i feel differently about the lifetime ban,

if we assume he is guilty, that means in 7 races (many more races of course) his competitors were deprived of a victory in their lifetimes work, if you will, by a competitor who gained an unfair advantage... ie cheating. he has directly affected the lives & livelihood of those competitors and their families and their trainers etc.

a competitor who cheats and loses, perhaps could justify a lessor of a punishment (i wouldn't agree with this) but someone who wins, repeatedly, again if we take it for a given that lance is guilty, seems to be an abundant amount of evidence.

imho he should be banned for life and every competitor caught doping should be treated the same, how else can you curtail the desire to cheat/dope?

if doping were overlooked or allowed even in a small way, and if the punishment is not severe enough, athletes would surely suffer greatly with medical problems and death... the competitive nature of the athletes if left unchecked would have them go to any extremes to win.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by mgent

First, I am a fan so may be a bit biased...

I don't think he is 'quitting' fighting the charges. I think he is taking advantage of the process, as messed up as it is. Here's my thoughts:

- He wants to avoid an open hearing at all costs, especially one in which he is assumed guilty, and has to prove otherwise. Have you ever tried to disprove a negative? its literally impossible.
- Let the USADA ban him. He wasn't planning on racing anyways, and triathalon's aren't that important to him...
- Per their own charter, the USADA can't strip his titles, that falls on the UCI and the ASO. He stands a much better chance of the UCI saying they do not agree with the USADA's decision, and not only leave the titles, but deem him 'innocent'.
- If the UCI did strip the titles, he can appeal to the CAS, which is not open, and is more like our court system - must be proven guilty beyond a doubt, and the 500 test samples will be huge, and as well all the deals the USADA made with their witnesses are not enforcable, meaning they are subject to exposure as well as punishment.

In addition, the USADA can't say they are stripping his titles, as they actually can't do that. He is then able to sue them for defamation, which gets the case in federal court - where he wanted it in the first place. It is exactly what the judge in Texas suggested - he can not rule on jurisdiction now, but if the USADA screws up, then it will fall in federal court. They now screwed up, and I would suspect he will now take it back to court in Texas, which lets him challenge their jurisdiction, their statute of limitations, their witnesses and their evidence.

I believe this is a risky, but well thought out legal move.

As a lawyer, I can appreciate the intricacies of such a legal maneuver. However, I am completely unaware of the facts underlying your theory....threfore, if you would, keep us posted to see if this legal "hand" is played. From the last portion of his statement, as quoted above, however, it just does not seem likely that he is positioning himself in that manner. Personally, I hope he does, but I'm not holding out too much hope.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by subtona

i feel differently about the lifetime ban,

if we assume he is guilty....

Of course, if we assume he's guilty then his punishment can be justified.

However, if we first assume his innocence until proven guilty, then perhaps we might conclude differently.

Then, there is the fact that very many riders have been caught red-handed doping who've been given far less severe penalties.

I tend to give the benefit of the doubt.

I tend to put my faith in substantive, empirical evidence and somewhat less in the testimony of those who've had their punishments reduced in exchange for that testimony.

I think Armstrong did the right thing. He's retired. He has more important things to be concerned with than perpetual harassment by a quasi-legitimate agency with an ax to grind.

Or, perhaps, as someone else noted, he may be working the system to get his case into a different, more fair venue.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

Do we really need to drag the United States Department of Agriculture into this?

Too funny, Grady!

[subtona]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

Of course, if we assume he's guilty then his punishment can be justified.

However, if we first assume his innocence until proven guilty, then perhaps we might conclude differently.

Then, there is the fact that very many riders have been caught red-handed doping who've been given far less severe penalties.

I tend to give the benefit of the doubt.

I tend to put my faith in substantive, empirical evidence and somewhat less in the testimony of those who've had their punishments reduced in exchange for that testimony.

I think Armstrong did the right thing. He's retired. He has more important things to be concerned with than perpetual harassment by a quasi-legitimate agency with an ax to grind.

Or, perhaps, as someone else noted, he may be working the system to get his case into a different, more fair venue.

Grady, my point was not to assume the man is guilty, but to say that the punishment, imho is justified if the man were guilty.

floyd landis was stripped of his win when they found him guilty... he turned on lance... they say he wore a wire and a camera... i can appreciate that we may never know all the facts and the inner workings of the sport and those that police it...

just like i will probably never know where jimmy hoffa is buried, who was behind the shooting of jfk, who killed nicole and ron, or even if my high school girlfriend cheated on me, but those making the call are saying they have enough evidence to justify their actions.

those many riders that have been caught before imho cant hold a candle to a guy that has taken a TDF title 7 times... lance is a household name, like bandaid and ketchup, he has attained a higher station with that comes greater rewards and a greater penalty.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by subtona

Grady, my point was not to assume the man is guilty, but to say that the punishment, imho is justified if the man were guilty.

Thanks for the clarification.

[david_ord]

Originally Posted by SteveArn

Maybe they should just allow all athletes to use performance enhancing drugs and then we'll know who's really the best at their particular sport.

Sounds radical, but I have to agree. One of the most awe-inspiring moments in history, for me, was the sight of Ben Johnson clocking 9.79 in 1988. The fact that he tested positive did nothing to take away my admiration of him.

[wantonebad]

Originally Posted by david_ord

Sounds radical, but I have to agree. One of the most awe-inspiring moments in history, for me, was the sight of Ben Johnson clocking 9.79 in 1988. The fact that he tested positive did nothing to take away my admiration of him.

So now we devolve sports into "Those with the best chemicals win" scenario? No thanks, want no part of that. Much as I loved the Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire battle at the time, right now it makes me sick! It also proves how awesome Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron and Roger Maris were! I don't care about laboratories or chemical science. I care about honest physical achievement.

[airchitect]

He can never be proven innocent (or guilty for that matter) this many years later, but once thats stuff is in the heads of the ignorant they never forget. To me (unless indisputable proof emerges) he will be the top guy. By the way, didnt they test for all of this then? And nothing was found? So why give any credibility to these allegations now. Very stupid, IMHO.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by wantonebad

Much as I loved the Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire battle at the time, right now it makes me sick!

I agree.

I remember watching and thinking how history was in the making and even recorded the game that McGwire broke the home run record, but none of that has any meaning to me now, except how sad it all is.

[MoBe]

Originally Posted by david_ord

Sounds radical, but I have to agree. One of the most awe-inspiring moments in history, for me, was the sight of Ben Johnson clocking 9.79 in 1988. The fact that he tested positive did nothing to take away my admiration of him.

It makes me wonder how the current WR in the 100 is two tenths faster at 9.59.

Have training and nutrition gotten so much better in the last 25 years?

The genie is out of the bottle and I don`t think it`s ever going back.

You can believe that Armstrong rode clean while all those surrounding him doped if you like just don`t expect it from me.

[kkwn98]

Originally Posted by MoBe

It`s true...........any publicity is good publicity and there`s one born every minute.

Very charitable of you to label donors to a good cause as suckers.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by kkwn98

Very charitable of you to label donors to a good cause as suckers.

I think we need to keep his charity work separate from his athletic life, his organization has done lots of good for people in real need (cancer patients). As far as I know, there has never been any questions on the funds or operations of that part of Lance Armstrong's life. Persucute him if you like for his (alleged-non alleged-cheating (?), but unless someone knows something dishonest about his charities, I don't think that's a part of this discussion.

[kkwn98]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

I think we need to keep his charity work separate from his athletic life, his organization has done lots of good for people in real need (cancer patients). As far as I know, there has never been any questions on the funds or operations of that part of Lance Armstrong's life. Persucute him if you like for his (alleged-non alleged-cheating (?), but unless someone knows something dishonest about his charities, I don't think that's a part of this discussion.

You should say this to the guy I quoted, not me. He's the one who thinks the donors to the good cause are suckers, not me.

[Jimbits76]

Originally Posted by daveathall

I dont know whether he is guilty of what he is accused, not really bothered TBH.

What I will say is that if, through his foundation, a life has been saved, just one, that for me eclipses all of his tour victories together, that is a far greater achievement. I suspect that the life save count will be much higher though, I also believe that through his foundation many sufferers will have found comfort. I would like to remember him for the undoubted good he has done.

Fantastic words and sentiment. I could not agree more!



J

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by kkwn98

You should say this to the guy I quoted, not me. He's the one who thinks the donors to the good cause are suckers, not me.

Uh... Maybe it was lost in the translation.... I was sticking up for you....

[Pup]

Originally Posted by wantonebad

So now we devolve sports into "Those with the best chemicals win" scenario? No thanks, want no part of that. Much as I loved the Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire battle at the time, right now it makes me sick! It also proves how awesome Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron and Roger Maris were! I don't care about laboratories or chemical science. I care about honest physical achievement.

Especially when you think how, (with the probable exception of Aaron), how the substances they abused actually DECREASED, rather than enhanced their performance. Think if Ruth, Maris, Mantle, etc., hadn't smoked, drank to excess, partied all night, and had trained with the singular and scientific intensity of many current world class athletes today....their accomplishments may have staggered the imagination for all time.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by Pup

Think if Ruth, Maris, Mantle, etc., hadn't smoked, drank to excess, partied all night....

I think that I can truthfully say that compared to Ruth and Mantle, Roger Maris was a regular stick in the mud. It was actually Billy Martin and Whitey Ford who were Mantle's Big League drinking buddies in every sense of the term.

Maris's biggest problems were his being prone to injury in the years after his breaking Ruth's record of 60 home runs and his detractors in the New York sports media, who treated Maris so spitefully that it caused him to become physically ill.

Mantle was treated in much the same way when he hit 52 homers in 1956, but with somewhat less intensity.

Mantle didn't have the 162 game schedule hanging over his head for the entire season that he challenged Ruth's record either.

[77T]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

I think we need to keep his charity work separate from his athletic life, his organization has done lots of good for people in real need (cancer patients). As far as I know, there has never been any questions on the funds or operations of that part of Lance Armstrong's life. Persucute him if you like for his (alleged-non alleged-cheating (?), but unless someone knows something dishonest about his charities, I don't think that's a part of this discussion.

I agree in principle.

Looking at the Foundation's 2011 records reveals about 70-80% of donations and earnings go to helping cancer research, victims, etc. Only super efficient orgs. can hit 85%. So no hanky-panky inferred. Most charity watchdog orgs. can't assign LAF a rating for lack of data on program spending at the Foundation.

They already had higher than normal fundraising costs (5 points more than average) and now are facing a debacle. In other words, his actions in one area has significant impact in the charity work. SO much less will be going to the good work they do.

That's the only part where the cycling controversy is linked to the Foundation IMHO.

[kkwn98]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Uh... Maybe it was lost in the translation.... I was sticking up for you....

Separated by a common language... apologies and thanks.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by kkwn98

Separated by a common language... apologies and thanks.

I wish you Brits would speak proper English... Like we Americans do...



(Ducking, waiting for the onslaught from across the pond).

[Pup]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

I think that I can truthfully say that compared to Ruth and Mantle, Roger Maris was a regular stick in the mud......Maris's biggest problems were his being prone to injury in the years after his breaking Ruth's record of 60 home runs and his detractors in the New York sports media, who treated Maris so spitefully that it caused him to become physically ill......

Thanks, Grady...totally agree with the exception that I'm pretty sure Maris smoked cigarettes when he wasn't on the field. That'll sure put a "hitch in your athletic git-along."

[mtrunner]

Looks like Lance Armstrong is going to go to do an interview with Oprah to finally confess that he used performance enhancing drugs. From what I read he is hoping to get his lifetime ban reduced so he can continue competing in Triathlons. Should be an interesting interview if he answers the questions honestly.

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by mtrunner

Looks like Lance Armstrong is going to go to do an interview with Oprah to finally confess that he used performance enhancing drugs. From what I read he is hoping to get his lifetime ban reduced so he can continue competing in Triathlons. Should be an interesting interview if he answers the questions honestly.

Yeah but, does anybody truly believe that he can be believed or trusted at this point in time?

You know why they say he chose Oprah?


She's never asked the tough questions of those who have confessed to her to this point.

[advocatia]

The Pete Rose of cycling. Rightfully, a pariah. Shame for the charities. He messed up bad. The cover-up is usually worse than the crime.

[Cesium133]

Originally Posted by JasoninDenver

Stripping the title is in the hands of the UCI and the Tour itself. I do not know what action will be taken. Especially in light of the fact that the second place finishers in 4 of the 7 races Lance won also later faced doping suspensions themselves.

So 3rd place racers will now go down in the record books as the winners of the Tour?