Tyler dishing dirt on Tex

[Cat4Lifer]

I have never posted about my thoughts on Lance and dopping (or Lance at all) until this thread. But going back to my post above I just don't see how he never got caught. Lance was huge winning TdF after TdF but yet nobody came foward with credible evidence he was doping. He didn't fail any drug test, etc. I am not saying the guy didn't do it as I just don't know. I can see some of the noname riders somewhere in the middle of the peleton doping and getting away with it for years. I am sure people know about the noname guys doping but nobody cares. But Lance Armstrong full of EPO and who knows what else not getting caught just doesn't sit right with me. I just can't explain this away to myself. But I can explain his success in that he is an athlete of a lifetime. He had the best teams. He never had any wrecks to speak of. You start adding up the perfect storm of a great athlete, great teams, sponsers, support, great luck in not wrecking and getting injured its not so hard to see how he did it. The last TdF, though I did not think he would win, he was plauged with bad luck and got 22nd. How he was able to get so lucky for 7 straight years is simply amazing to me. As someone stated above I will wait and see what people like George Hincapie, Levi (did he have to testify?), and others say under oath before I am convinced. I am not trying to bury my head in the sand it just seems impossible to me that he was able to pull off a HUGE conspiracy (making millions of dollars) for such a long, long time and get away with it. The simple explaination is he is an athlete of a lifetime with everything he needed in place to capitalize on it.

So if George and Levi said Lance doped, you'll believe it then?
Why not believe the testimony of other witnesses who have said that Armstrong doped?

[himespau]

I have never posted about my thoughts on Lance and dopping (or Lance at all) until this thread. But going back to my post above I just don't see how he never got caught. Lance was huge winning TdF after TdF but yet nobody came foward with credible evidence he was doping. He didn't fail any drug test, etc. I am not saying the guy didn't do it as I just don't know. I can see some of the noname riders somewhere in the middle of the peleton doping and getting away with it for years. I am sure people know about the noname guys doping but nobody cares. But Lance Armstrong full of EPO and who knows what else not getting caught just doesn't sit right with me. I just can't explain this away to myself. But I can explain his success in that he is an athlete of a lifetime. He had the best teams. He never had any wrecks to speak of. You start adding up the perfect storm of a great athlete, great teams, sponsers, support, great luck in not wrecking and getting injured its not so hard to see how he did it. The last TdF, though I did not think he would win, he was plauged with bad luck and got 22nd. How he was able to get so lucky for 7 straight years is simply amazing to me. As someone stated above I will wait and see what people like George Hincapie, Levi (did he have to testify?), and others say under oath before I am convinced. I am not trying to bury my head in the sand it just seems impossible to me that he was able to pull off a HUGE conspiracy (making millions of dollars) for such a long, long time and get away with it. The simple explaination is he is an athlete of a lifetime with everything he needed in place to capitalize on it.

Nah, just being a ball down means he was more aero and no longer too fat for the sport.

/thread

[Allez3]

So if George and Levi said Lance doped, you'll believe it then?
Why not believe the testimony of other witnesses who have said that Armstrong doped?

For Hamilton and Landis it’s like a thief getting caught then naming accomplices that may or may not exist in an effort to reduce their penalty or gain favor.

For me yes, if Levi and George say he did, then the dude is toast.

If there is a wall and the wall is going to tumble, it's going to tumble. But not because of Hamilton and Landis.

[Cat4Lifer]

For Hamilton and Landis it’s like a thief getting caught then naming accomplices that may or may not exist in an effort to reduce their penalty or gain favor.

For me yes, if Levi and George say he did, then the dude is toast.

which penalty are you saying they're looking to reduce and/or with whom are you saying they're looking to gain favor?

[Brazos]

The difference is that George H., Levi, and any other close teamates that are still out there and in the sport have more credibility. They have everything to loose if they testify Lance (and themselves) doped. The guys that got caught, lost their careers, money, and came out years later with new stories on how not only they doped, but Lance to, just doesn't have the same weight. None of us know what evidence the Feds have against Lance. But what I have seen so far I think Lance wins. He can go to court and say I was tested hundreds of times during my TdF victories and never failed a drug test. He followed the rules, passed his drug tests, declared the winner 7x. That's his defense. Maybe the feds have some backup samples they have tested with new technology. It's going to take that kind of hard evidence with a number of real, credible witnesses for Lance to loose this case. In the end I want justice to be served. I hope Lance is proven inocent. Not that I am a Lance Fan Boy. We all loose if Lance is found guilty. He has done tons for this sport. Also if he is innocent I know that it is possible to do great things on the bike. I want to believe there are great cyclist out there. 2 nights ago I watched Chris Horner in the Tour of CA race up the mountain and smash the field. Part of me says great. A 40 year old man (like me) just pulled off something amazing. The other side of me says I guess he dopes. I don't want to go thru life assuming since a person wins he dopes.

[Allez3]

which penalty are you saying they're looking to reduce and/or with whom are you saying they're looking to gain favor?

We don't know what prosecuters have or have not considered in the case. Grand Jury's are an odd thing. Less about a charge, more about fact finding that could lead to charges. Sometimes charges are reduced or eliminated in exchange for testimony in a grand jury. We really won't know until the grand jury findings are released. They could release a finding that says something like:

"Due to the proponderance of testimony, we beleive that its possible that Lance Armstrong doped, however there is no phycial credible evidence to support the conclusion. What we do know is that systematic doping was common in the sport from the late 1990's to the mid 2000's."

Grand Jury's are wierd like that.

[Smallguy]

I think that 2 people who have had their lives and cycling career's ruined are not exactly credible.

I want to see George and Levi testify as well

but what I wonder about the most is why does the US gov't care?

He has done allot for cancer patients giving them hope to to not only recover but possibly excel again after

he's raised allot of money to fund research

the drug tests he has taken were all passed with the testing available at the time why have a witch hunt trying to bust someone... it is like they've spent so much time on this and so much money they need to find him guilty.

How would the US gov't feel if someone decided that with the new methods every blood sample ever collected would now be tested for Olympic athlete's and started stripping medals left and right, I'd suspect outrage.

[chuckb]

I don't want to believe that Lance doped. Seeing him in the Tour got this 50 year old back on a bike and serious about it.

Without commenting on Tyler, I do find this amusing from Lance's facts4lance web page,

"David Walsh, points out the same fallacious claim on page 209 of his book From Lance to Landis: inside the American doping controversy at the Tour de France (2007). Walsh includes other examples of Hamilton’s “occasionally cavalier attitude toward the truth” in the same chapter, quoting brief passages from Hamilton’s cross-examination by USADA counsel Travis Tygart in the 2006 CAS appeal:"

Lance's attorney quoting DAVID WALSH(!) to undercut Hamilton. That's rich. They also make a point that Tyler claimed to have a college degree but really never finished college. I suppose this is just Lance's "go for jugular" approach, but it sounds kind of desperate.

I agree that if George or Levi say it's true, I'll have to believe it.

[Namenda]

Well, this is progress:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hami...ial-gold-medal

[Allez3]

but what I wonder about the most is why does the US gov't care?

My guess.... Government funds were used to sponsor the US Postal team. Just a hunch....

[Allez3]

Well, this is progress:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hami...ial-gold-medal

7 years too late. Dude got totally nailed and banned, but got to keep it.

[Second Mouse]

Well, this is progress:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hami...ial-gold-medal

Sounds like Mr. Armstrong is watching things pretty closely.

[collegeskier]

My guess.... Government funds were used to sponsor the US Postal team. Just a hunch....

Not really since the post-service does not use government money to function. And exactly how were they defrauded. Did they not get the publicity that they were paying for.

[Allez3]

Not really since the post-service does not use government money to function.

Its still a government agency which makes it public/government money. Its about using government money to cheat at sport. They sponsored a cycling team, not a doping league. Fraud comes from the misuse of funds for dope if that's what was done.

[himespau]

Not really since the post-service does not use government money to function.

Are you sure? Last I checked usps was losing money and had to be subsidized by the general fund?

[Cat4Lifer]

We don't know what prosecuters have or have not considered in the case. Grand Jury's are an odd thing. Less about a charge, more about fact finding that could lead to charges. Sometimes charges are reduced or eliminated in exchange for testimony in a grand jury. We really won't know until the grand jury findings are released. They could release a finding that says something like:

"Due to the proponderance of testimony, we beleive that its possible that Lance Armstrong doped, however there is no phycial credible evidence to support the conclusion. What we do know is that systematic doping was common in the sport from the late 1990's to the mid 2000's."

Grand Jury's are wierd like that.

What could Tyler be charged with? He had his second offense he's out of the sport; there is no crime for which he could be charged with.
The only "deal" i can possibly see was to tell the truth to the GJ and avoid a possible perjury charge later.

[Shimagnolo]

Its still a government agency which makes it public/government money. Its about using government money to cheat at sport. They sponsored a cycling team, not a doping league. Fraud comes from the misuse of funds for dope if that's what was done.

Maybe they shouldn't have picked a sport where doping is required just to be competitive.

[Allez3]

What could Tyler be charged with? He had his second offense he's out of the sport; there is no crime for which he could be charged with.
The only "deal" i can possibly see was to tell the truth to the GJ and avoid a possible perjury charge later.

We don't know or at least won't know until the Grand Jury completes their work.

[Cat4Lifer]

We don't know or at least won't know until the Grand Jury completes their work.

Right, maybe they offered to toss out some murder charge (the public knows nothing about) in exchange for Tyler dishing up the dirt on Lance.
So quick-thinking Tyler decides to lie about Lance and say they both used EPO. Now that I think about it, that does seem more likely that Tyler is just looking out for himself and poor ol' Lance is just caught in the crossfire. Much better that Tyler is finally just coming out and telling the truth to avoid a perjury charge.

[Allez3]

Right, maybe they offered to toss out some murder charge (the public knows nothing about) in exchange for Tyler dishing up the dirt on Lance.
So quick-thinking Tyler decides to lie about Lance and say they both used EPO. Now that I think about it, that does seem more likely that Tyler is just looking out for himself and poor ol' Lance is just caught in the crossfire. Much better that Tyler is finally just coming out and telling the truth to avoid a perjury charge.

Lets try and stick to facts. Like I said, we don't and won't know until the Grand Jury is done.

[Cat4Lifer]

Lets try and stick to facts. Like I said, we don't and won't know until the Grand Jury is done.

Which "facts" are you suggesting we stick to?
The speculating that Hamilton may have testified to "gain favor" or cut a deal to avoid a criminal charge?
Those "facts"?

[Dubbayoo]

Are you sure? Last I checked usps was losing money and had to be subsidized by the general fund?

Direct subsidy was phased out by the 80s. There may be a few years where a shortfall existed but generally today the entire budget comes from postal revenue.

[Allez3]

Which "facts" are you suggesting we stick to?
The speculating that Hamilton may have testified to "gain favor" or cut a deal to avoid a criminal charge?
Those "facts"?

I really think you need to re-read my post.

Here it is for you. I'm not speculating, I'm describing a process:

We don't know what prosecuters have or have not considered in the case. Grand Jury's are an odd thing. Less about a charge, more about fact finding that could lead to charges. Sometimes charges are reduced or eliminated in exchange for testimony in a grand jury. We really won't know until the grand jury findings are released. They could release a finding that says something like:

"Due to the proponderance of testimony, we beleive that its possible that Lance Armstrong doped, however there is no phycial credible evidence to support the conclusion. What we do know is that systematic doping was common in the sport from the late 1990's to the mid 2000's."

Grand Jury's are wierd like that.

[Allez3]

Direct subsidy was phased out by the 80s. There may be a few years where a shortfall existed but generally today the entire budget comes from postal revenue.

Still a government agency and still public money.

[Dubbayoo]

Still a government agency and still public money.

Quasi-government agency actually.