jakepounder

I dont believe he doped but i dont know! Lance is one of my hero's in life. Not only as a cyclist, but as a person. He not only battled a deadly cancer, but he has helped millions of people in the fight against cancer. I respect him in every way possible. But, besides the fact. What do you think happened? Do you think that he was part of the "most sophisticated doping cheat of all time"? OR do you believe he is innocent? I think he is innocent. There were hundreds of tests put up to him from various agencies and none of them actually found any REAL physical evidence that he doped. I think it is complete bull **** that he was on a 15 year investigation and there were no laws that kicked in from it. 15 YEARS!!! could you imagine that hell for 15 years?? I am really pissed off that it was allowed to go on that long with absolutely no evidence, other than the fact that he was dedicated human being, following his dreams. He has also done so much for cancer research, all he wanted was to help people. I feel really bad for him. As an unbiased fan, i am siding with him and do i believe he is innocent. What do you all think?

fly:yes/land:no

i've tried other peds



this one's the best.

tinrobot

This has gone pretty far beyond "allegations." The report has some very strong evidence.

Face it, your hero is a fraud. Welcome to the real world.

Jed19

Puh-Leeze, excuse me while I barf.

Athens80

You have direct testimony from multiple riders saying that Armstrong, Bruyneel and team doctors all discussed PED use, directed PED use, supplied PEDs, and Armstrong used PEDs. How complicated is it to follow that case?

JoeMan

Mr. Armstrong cheated and lied. Many young athletes came to admire him for his courage and work ethic. What shall we say to them? Win at any cost! Cheat if you must! He and the other cyclists implicated in the report could have done so much after their retirements to promote good will about competitive cycling. Not now. This is a terrible indictment of professional cycling.

Athens80

To reality, it's a lot like getting convicted of a crime because 26 people witnessed you doing it.

Angio Graham

I dont think he is a fraud. He was a cyclist taking drugs who beat all the other cyclists taking drugs.

colombo357

Read Tyler's book and see how you feel afterwards.

colombo357

Your timing in starting this thread is impeccable. George Hincapie just confessed today that he doped prior to 2006. He never tested positive. Then you come here and post this crap about Lance never testing positive.

Like many others, you desperately need to catch up on current news. Read Tyler's book for starters.

colombo357

What, like romantically? This is disgusting.

Your name, "jakepounder" makes a lot of sense now. Geez.

dcvelo

I think his doping allocations were carefully calculated to allow him to win 7 tours without being caught for doping, with the assistance of Dr. Ferrari.

I also think you didn't really mean "allocations"....

tagaproject6

:

bikerjp

I was a casual fan while he was winning and thought it was cool that someone could win so often. For a long time I felt the allegations were just that. Over time, however, his denials started to sound evasive and the stories of those who knew things sounding more consistent and damning. Looking over the USADA evidence it all starts to coalesce into a pretty clear picture. On top of that, Lance looks like a pretty big d-bag. Personally, I can overlook the doping because it was part of an era. Hopefully we are leaving, or have left, that era and cycling is becoming clean and honest. However, it's much harder to overlook the lies, denials, coverups, threats (seriously, texting Levi's wife to run - wtf), and the pressure to other cyclists to also dope really pisses me off. I was willing to just let bygones be bygones and the whole thing to eventually blow over. At this point, I hope Lance get sued, prosecuted and fined into oblivion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports...0a9_story.html

Beaker

How 'bout dem moon landings. Always looked suspiciously like southern California to me.

Beaker

In other news, OP read Tyler's book, watch his 60minutes interview, read the Reasoned Decision from USADA today. Do any of those things, really think about what they tell you and then post back here.

Davidxvx

Tests aren't perfect, and Lance has failed several non-evidential tests.

If I'm accused of shooting up with heroin, and a bunch of blood tests are done and don't produce positive proof that I had heroin in my veins, but 26 people say they saw me taking heroin, my bank records showed me paying my dealer, and I had track marks all down my arms, what would you think?

The focus on testing betrays a serious misunderstanding of the nature of drug testing and of how most drug cheats are caught. Testing isn't perfect and never has been.

I've been attempting to work today and only skimmed the report. Several of my colleagues practice in sports law on the side. The one - the most senior - who read it while waiting in Court this morning, called it damning. I'm inclined to agree.

Well, yes. That makes perfect sense, to a lawyer.

Before Lance abandoned his defence, USADA were expecting a hearing. So USADA lawyers would have been preparing to lead evidence orally. They would have prepared briefs of evidence, but probably not affidavits. Affidavits are sworn statements of evidence and are used as an alternative way of giving evidence from oral examination in the hearing. As a general rule, where witnesses will give evidence in person at a hearing, affidavits are not prepared.

So, USADA disclosed all its evidence to Armstrong, probably in the form of briefs of evidence with supporting source documents. That's normal.

Lance received the evidence, shat a brick, and abandoned his defence.

Now, no hearing. No evidence given orally. USADA needs to provide its decision and its evidence to UCI. But briefs of evidence technically aren't evidence; they're the notes of what the witness will say, not evidence themselves. They aren't sworn (generally). So USADA has to convert the statements and briefs of evidence and other documents into evidence. So the briefs get tweaked a bit, cleaned up, and turned into affidavits. Then they're sworn.

Nope. That's entirely normal. I've filed submissions that quote at length from affidavits sworn on the same day that the submissions were filed. USADA's lawyers will have been bouncing drafts of the affidavits backwards and forwards with the witnesses for weeks, and they're likely to be very similar to previous briefs or statements.

It can be really hard to actually get a damn affidavit sworn sometimes. Your witness is in - I've had this happen - Milan (just an example; could be anywhere). You've gotta deal with the time difference. You've gotta work out who on Earth can witness an affidavit being sworn in Italy, under your law and Italian law. Then you need to get him to swear the document properly, and then send you the original back.

I've had a finished, finalised affidavit waiting for over a week to be sworn, and affidavits sitting almost done for months while the witnesses compile supporting documents for just one paragraph that we need to add.

Often, the swearing of the affidavit is the thing that holds you up in filing all the other documents that rely on it. You and your witness have agreed on its content, and it's all finalised - but it's not sworn. Everything's ready to go, but you just need that document sworn.

Again, that is absolutely normal. Nothing weird there.

Anything to back this up except for the dates of the affidavits? Because, like I say, from a lawyer's perspective, that's normal.

surgeonstone

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19903716

Fox Farm

Unfortunately no. But I wonder who will be deemed the winners of those 7-tours now?

Dobso

It going to something in itself figuring out what to do

As I started reading the report that USADA released this morning I read this...

Twenty of the twenty-one podium finishers in the Tour de France from 1999 through 2005 have been directly tied to likely doping through admissions, sanctions, public investigations or exceeding the UCI hematocrit threshold. Of the forty-five (45) podium finishes during the time period between 1996 and 2010, thirty-six
(36) were by riders similarly tainted by doping.

Interesting...

tmac100

Time to leave this be...
Work on what YOU can do -like better fitness, nutrition etc.
Let Lance work on his charity. In spite of being retired, he can still twirl those pedals than I can ever dream of doing....

Homebrew01

The deniers would have to open their eyes first before they can read.
For those of us that have followed pro cycling to some degree, we've known all this for years. The USADA report just puts it all in one place. But the newbies are just finding out now, so I guess it's a shock to their brains.


Perhaps OP really did mean it
Allocation
earmarked Set aside for a particular purpose; allocated for use in specified ways; marked so as to be recognized

to apportion for a specific purpose or to particular persons or things : distribute

jolly_ross

This would make sense if posting about Lance Armstrong's travails somehow completely precluded working on my cycling - but I find I can do both. This amused me ...

https://newsthump.com/2012/10/11/lanc...ber-tourniquet

himespau 

:d

jolly_ross

https://newsthump.com/2012/10/11/beli...igious-status/