When Tyler Hamilton left US Postal, having seen the writing on the wall concerning Armstrong's treatment of other teammates, who had served their purpose and then been discarded, he became one of the biggest threats to Armstrong's domination. Hamilton and Armstrong had similar natural levels of haematocrit, so the use of EPO gave them similar (and high) percentage boosts. Seeing the threat, Armstrong ratted Tyler out to his buddies at the UCI, for doing exactly what he himself was doing. That is the worst example of a 'fink': a hypocritical fink.

So when Tyler was subpoenaed before the grand jury, (with limited immunity giving no option to not testify), he should have committed perjury, (subjecting himself to criminal prosecution), in order to protect the jacka$$ who had threatened to destroy him, and had gone to the UCI accusing Tyler of doping???

If you really want some perspective, go to the Professional Cycling For the Fans sub-forum here and start reading:

https://www.bikeforums.net/forumdispl...g-For-the-Fans

Be sure to click on the links to the other newspaper articles about this.

You'll find out what Armstrong is really like, although it's still up to the reader to make up their minds on the veracity of it all.

It's not pleasant reading, especially the investigative articles.

Well, he still could have refused to testify. Of course, rather than lying and subjecting himself to possible charges, and even then being given the chance to post bail and remain free pending trial, what definitely would have happened had he made that choice was being hauled in front of a Federal judge, who would have found him in summary contempt, and he would have been hauled off to jail on the spot. And he would have stayed there, until he either decided to testify, or until the grand jury hearing the matter was disbanded. Federal grand juries on these types of cases can sit for several years.

There have been several cases of investigative reporters who refused to give up their sources, and had the same thing happen to them. One had her marriage fall apart and lost her kids as a result.

He, and the others, made the right choice: both for themselves, and for the sport of professional cycling.

I agree. Sweeping the doping under the rug does not help any sport

I think you have the facts wrong. I read his book and after he left Postal, he upped the ante in doping and started using a doc that froze the blood. This allowed Hamilton to gain advantage on Armstrong at the start of a tour. He collected his own blood at his leisure in the year and was able to top off his hematocrit at the start of a grand tour. That is compared to Armstrong who allegedly drew blood a couple of weeks before the start to use later in the race and was weaker. Fresh blood only lasts 30 days. When Hamilton's results were too good in the first race against Armstrong using the enhanced doping system that Armstrong allegedly did not have, Armstrong knew he was doping and allegedly ratted him out to UCI. IMO, Hamilton, by his own admission, left Postal and raised the doping bar.

Armstrong doper = cheater. Hamilton better doper = cheater.

That brings to mind a quote by Robert Shaw after the poker game on the train ride with Paul Newman in The Sting "What can I say, he cheats better than me??"

Except that didn't work out so well for Tyler. He was apparently given someone else's blood, which made him sick and was also caught by a test. That got him called to UCI HQ, but not sanctioned (IIRC, because the B sample was bad). There were also Armstrong's secret solo trips for final preparation before the TdF's, ostensibly to gain a chemical advantage that wasn't being shared with the rest of the team. Nothing has come out yet about those, nor did I get the impression Tyler knew how many "BB's" were being used by Armstrong during a tour - not after he left, anyway. During that period, the focus was clearly shifting from EPO-centric to transfusion-centric, so the riders were looking for ways to increase the frequency of the transfusions.

The transfusions are undoubtedly still going on today.

I'll be 59 years old next week, on November 1st. I haven't lived the honorable life most of you seem to have led. At least, not until July 9, 1993. That's the day I crawled through the doors of Narcotics Anonymous. I was given a chance at a new life that I so desperately wanted, but didn't even know was available. I grabbed hold of what I heard there, applied it to my life, and here I sit today.

I practice the principles I learned there on a daily basis. One of the principles being: "You keep what you have by giving it away".I visit jails, institutions, prisons, and I sponsor new comers. I want to see everyone who needs this program "get it". Unfortunately, most who come here needing help don't get it. You see, you can't just need it, you have to WANT it. There is no better feeling than seeing someone who walked through the doors wanting this as bad as I do, and handing them a "One Year" medallion. And seeing them go on to become hard working productive members of society. Raising families, graduating college, healing the many wounds they caused their families and loved ones. It is truly the most rewarding thing I have ever experienced.

I have seen many come into "The Rooms" on paper of some sort. Parole, probation, restraining order.... The list goes on. When a person is "on paper" they have to submit to a urinalysis when they report to their PO. Some are required to submit to random tests. I have seen many not make it, far too many. But I have also seen many people make it. Week after week, month after month, year after year. Until the day comes when they have finally completed their requirements and are freed by the court, to go, and sin no more. That is a day of great joy and also apprehension. Because now they don't have the court and prison hanging over their heads. But the truth is, most continue living their lives the same. Because now they know a new way to live.

Now, I have said all that to say this. If I knew someone who had passed every urinalysis, every one. But for some reason the court just couldn't believe they were doing this well. So they hounded him with investigation after investigation. Finally, they were able to assemble a nefarious bunch of accusers who, in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary, were willing to testify that they had not only seen this person use drugs but had even used with them. And the court, in spite of no scientific evidence to back up their charges, were going to revoke this person's probation, strip them of their rights and lock them up. Thereby ruining their life they had fought so hard to build for themselves. Well, that would be a sin and disgrace. And to say I would be LIVID, would be a gross understatement.

That's how my eyes view the whole Armstrong debacle.

You may or may not agree with my assessment, I don't care. But to me, L.A. is a hero. He beat a deadly disease, and beat the best in his sport seven times. USADA should be ashamed, in my opinion. And his accusers and all the people reveling in his demise should also be ashamed. I don't know why we try and destroy our heroes, but we do.

I am ever so grateful that people believed in me when I needed it. They saved my life. And I, for one, won't bail on the man now.

HOLD YOUR HEAD HIGH LANCE! (Followed by A bunch of words which would be censored regarding all of the accusers and what they can do to themselves!)

Yep..^^^ I am with you .

He Beat Cancer, WON 7 TDF, Beat The Dope Police 275 Times.

Keep pedaling Lance.

im with you....... he is a hero....he is the best...... i spent some time in the same hospital that helped him and they put me back together

Well written and heartfelt. Now put on the asbestos suit and prepare to get flamed by the LA haters.

Ha ha, they can't hurt me. They are as weak as the so called evidence. Most criminal attorneys will agree that eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable evidence allowed in court. Hence, all the charges being overturned today. Saw an article in the paper yesterday about a family applying for clemency for a man who had already been executed. Evidence proves he was innocent today. But thanks! And thanks to all the others who responded so far! By the threads I've read I thought I was one of the few. It's good to see at least a few rational people when it concerns a mans life.

I can't believe people still idolize that cheater.

I know a thing or two about the legal system and the criminal legal system in particular.

Eyewitness testimony can be potentially unreliable.

BTW, the hating has already started.

Regardless of what Lance did or did not do the way the agency has gone about this is scary. If they can go after you years after the fact by intimidating your friends into testifying against you that's scary

OTOH, new methods of doping to beat the test are always being invented. If they can't examine older samples once new tests are devised, then we are essentially saying that cheating is fine as long as you don't get caught in real time. Which means anyone who has the capacity to cheat in a manner not detectable today has every incentive to do so.

I do not see whether Lance Armstrong used performance enhancing drugs or not detracts in any way from his work with and for the Livestrong foundation. That makes him a hero. You are a hero for your work with people entangled in the grip of addiction.

Cycling at that level has always been among the cyclists, "what ever it takes to finish the tour". The cyclists have always used anything they could to just get through it. Every guy who finished on the podium in Armstrong's years of winning the tour was convicted of using performance enhancing drugs. Many of those people were estimable fellows. It was just part of what you did to make it in the pro peleton. I believe that the sponsers, coaches and whole industry knew it or turned a blind eye to it. Now we hear all this pontificating about it. Baseball was happy to have Sammy Sousa and Mark McGuire put fannys in the seats during the steroid era. Later, baseball was shocked, shocked that the sport was not clean. Give me a break. You put an athelete in a position that if they want to compete at the top level, they have to take the stuff and then the power structure blames them for doing so later on. It is hypocrisy.

There is no statute of limitations for murder. All other crimes have an SOL.

Did LA murder anyone?

The Lance problem has been done to death now. For may years I felt that for someone to be that good he had to be on something- along with a lot of others. That has been proved but it is Lance that is acting as the scapegoat for the regime that existed at the time.

Difference is that Cycling is doing something about doping where many other sports are not. It is headline news whenever a big name star is found out and punished. Difference to other sports is that not enough effort is going to find the cheaters so not so many are found out.

The major change came about a few years within cycling and OK- a few have found to be cheating since then- and I dare say a few have not been found but how about other sports? Have they put the effort- time and money into their anti drug regime? I don't know but one thing I think can be said- Cycling is now a clean sport and any that do decide to cheat are going to be found.

And I am not a Lance Liker or hater- just someone that can see the situation from different ground.

Assuming that all the top contenders, between 1998 and 2006, were all doping, which is the implication, then the playing field was level. I've no doubt that LA would have beat them all if they ALL were NOT doing dope.

BTW, he's a real jerk, he cheated on his good Christian wife of many years (who, btw, had stood by him all the contested years), claimed to be a good Christian, then dumped it all. It is no wonder so many hate the guy, he was and will always be a scum sucking pig. But, he's the greatest road bike racer since EM, in my opinion.

Also, unicorns are real.

He in fact did not beat the dope police.

He in fact did not compete on a level playing field.

He in fact destroyed and tried to destroy the lives of many people whom he regarded as a threat.

He in fact had his opportunity to contest the USADA charges in arbitration; he chose not to.