• 10-24-2012
    Circlip
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 50calray View Post
    I heard the other day that companies/endorsements are trying to sue LA and the government may get involved as well.

    I have not heard of any companies that Armstrong had endorsement contracts with proposing to sue him. He does have very real financial exposure in a couple of other areas, primarily from SCA Promotions whom he quite obviously defrauded of several million dollars in bonus payouts (although due to legal technicalities they might not be able to recover) and also ASO which owns and operates the TdF which is also saying they want several million in prize winnings returned. A seven figure libel payout to Armstrong by a UK newspaper is also very likely to be overturned now.

    The largest issue may be a Qui Tam suit brought by the U.S. feds that could total tens of millions of dollars, but that's another matter entirely which doesn't have much in the way of firm information available to the public at this time, given that the case was previously shelved by the Department of Justice (for undisclosed reasons) and they're still not talking about it.
  • 10-24-2012
    shekky
    "P.S. no reason to neg rep the mentally challenged. That's just wrong."

    "Everyone doped and everyone is still doping...if you think otherwise, you must be on dope"

    two jewels from this thread...that and the quip about "the flat earth society"...

    good god.
  • 10-24-2012
    dwt
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by FireDog46 View Post
    Too many are still in denial. There can no longer be any question of what happened in that era. I too was drawn into the excitement of the Lance Armstrong years. But as one after another a rider left or was kicked off his teams only to be caught later for doping...my doubts grew about how clean LA was. Something strange was going on.

    You are far from alone. I remember many a mountain stage party at my house in the early years when I was the only one in my crowd who could get Versus on satellite. We sat on the edges of our seats and cheered. In 2002 I had my own bout of cancer and when the Livestrong bracelets came out mine never came off. It wasn't until Floyd's debacle that I gave up on cycling and realized everyone was dirty My oldest son, who raced in the SF Bay Area, had warned me years earlier. "doping is endemic; if a performance looks too good to be true, it's not." Over and over again, some guy was over the top. Rasmussen and Contador, both dominant both busted. The Spanish Armada,2012. And so many seeming suspicious, Gilbert 2011 (was there a race he didn't win?); Horner and Levi (doper), 2011 Tour of California( two old men dropping 20 and 30 somethings. Really, Chris?) Then this years boring Tour: UK Postal riding together full team up mountains, 2 riders out climbing and out TT'ing everybody. Sagan winning stages and getting points on vertical terrain.

    I really hope Gilbert, Boonen, Evans, Cancellera, Hejsdal, TJ, Voigt, Voeckler, and Sagan, even Cavendish (to name a few) are the real deal. Wiggins and Froome not so much. WTF know with them ? Suspicious team doctors. The blue train being too f'ing good; too much really like Lance's teams. I'm sure there are others.

    Amnesty and reconciliation. Dissolve thev UCI. Start over. It's too good a sport to just die off.





    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • 10-24-2012
    shekky
    "Amnesty and reconciliation. Dissolve thev UCI. Start over. It's too good a sport to just die off."

    thank you.
  • 10-24-2012
    FireDog46
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by shekky View Post
    "Amnesty and reconciliation. Dissolve thev UCI. Start over. It's too good a sport to just die off."

    thank you.

    another vote for that idea
  • 10-24-2012
    FireDog46
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dwt View Post
    It wasn't until Floyd's debacle that I gave up on cycling and realized everyone was dirty

    That was the beginning of the end for me. I remember that TDF as if it happened yesterday. His recovery ride was one for the ages. "i told the team car, i'm going for it, keep me supplied with water" his words after the stage, or something like it. Then weeks later "game over". It is a beautiful sport. Clean it up. Let's get back to honest racing. The TDF will survive.
  • 10-24-2012
    tl1
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by FireDog46 View Post
    That was the beginning of the end for me. I remember that TDF as if it happened yesterday. His recovery ride was one for the ages. "i told the team car, i'm going for it, keep me supplied with water" his words after the stage, or something like it. Then weeks later "game over". It is a beautiful sport. Clean it up. Let's get back to honest racing. The TDF will survive.

    The beginning of the truth about Armstrong for me was when Frankie Andreu and his wife both said they witnessed Lancey Pants tell his cancer doctor that he had used EPO and steroids in his past. At that point in time in the hospital room it was October of 1996 but this was revealed by the Andreus later.

    I think the only way to get illegal drugs and illegal practices out of professional racing is to take the money (endorsements and everything) out of professional racing because the drug chemists always have been and will always be one or two steps ahead of the drug testers. The ultimate solution though is to stop worshiping and idolizing sports stars as some kind of heroes. Good luck with either case given that amateur racers making no money still dope and most people love to make heroes for themselves.
  • 10-25-2012
    DeeEight
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by FireDog46 View Post
    That was the beginning of the end for me. I remember that TDF as if it happened yesterday. His recovery ride was one for the ages. "i told the team car, i'm going for it, keep me supplied with water" his words after the stage, or something like it. Then weeks later "game over". It is a beautiful sport. Clean it up. Let's get back to honest racing. The TDF will survive.


    Get back to honest racing ?!? I'm sorry... but apparently you don't know your TdF history very well. One of the earliest rule books stated the organizers were not responsible for paying for the stimulants and drugs used by the riders. Drug usage was always going on in the tour from the very beginning, and its only because of the french press finally making it widely known to the public that any sort of measures were ever adopted to try and get rid of them, and that only started in like the third decade of the tour. And they only adopted them because the public cried foul (not realizing that their own french heroes were using drugs and relying on various drugs to win.... just like everyone else).

    Do i think lance doped? yep... but then so did everyone else...remember when greg lemond kept saying lance doped... greg would of \course had known...since he doped himself... eddy mercx doped, miguel indurein doped... EVERYONE doped. There are a host of drugs not on the banned lists that can enhance a rider's performance... but you don't see them getting hassled for them. Why? Because it simply would not be possible to do a month of back to back double-century rides, at speeds that make it enjoyable to watch the stages on television, with all the ad revenue and money involved. Yeah Lance made money in purses and bonuses...big deal. The TdF organizers made more. And their bribes to the UCI to ignore test results were no doubt quite extensive. The Olympic Commitee and the UCI and other such groups are organized crime wrapped in a fancy wrapper... that's it.
  • 10-25-2012
    Crunch406
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SimpleJon View Post
    I voted yes, but he should still keep his titles:
    -partly because I think the USADA is BS.
    -partly because it was endemic in the late 90's and early mid 2000's.
    I don't think that there many who made it into the GC top 20, without doping and their team mates had to dope to help them. It should be the team managers and the UCI taking the rap for this not individual cyclists; it was a systemic problem not fraud or abuse by an individual.
    I think the USADA is BS because I don't see what good muck racking through ancient history to witch hunt an individual has to do with their stated mission of protecting atheletes who don't cheat. All they are doing is tying up resources and budgets that should be used to protect todays atheletes over a sport that has done a lot more than most to clean up its act over the last few years. This appears to me to be either a personal vendetta or publicity stunt by USADA and its management.

    My thoughts as well. Although I polled that I only recently believed so.
  • 10-25-2012
    bigbadwulff
    He did it but so did everyone else. All should be equally-recognized and stripped of any awards/finishes. Any money they got from US taxpayers should be returned. The whole thing was one big witch hunt but if they are going to do it, by God they should go after EVERYONE!
  • 10-25-2012
    Circlip
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bigbadwulff View Post
    He did it but so did everyone else. All should be equally-recognized and stripped of any awards/finishes. Any money they got from US taxpayers should be returned. The whole thing was one big witch hunt but if they are going to do it, by God they should go after EVERYONE!

    When you say "EVERYONE" do you mean other than the 10 other people (riders, team doctors, team manager) who have also been charged or sanctioned in this same case together with Armstrong? Or are you looking for a different everyone? Maybe the 15 individuals that are that are going through the last stages before facing criminal charges in Italy for similar cycling-related doping activities?
  • 10-25-2012
    SV11
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DeeEight View Post
    Why? Because it simply would not be possible to do a month of back to back double-century rides, at speeds that make it enjoyable to watch the stages on television, with all the ad revenue and money involved.

    Wrong, EVERYONE did not dope.
    You say that, but the tour was won by someone who wasn't doped up, Evans!! I have no doubt on other riders being clean.
    You saying the tour can't be won by any rider unless they are doped up is ridiculous, and you've been proved wrong.Your problem is that you are generalizing.
  • 10-25-2012
    Tone's
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SV11 View Post
    Wrong, EVERYONE did not dope.
    You say that, but the tour was won by someone who wasn't doped up, Evans!!
    You saying the tour can't be won by any rider unless they are doped up is ridiculous, and you've been proved wrong.Your problem is that you are generalizing.

    The riders them selves have a term for clean riders and thats ''bread and water riders' yes they are still around and have always been around the riders say this themselves, everybody thats ever been associated with Cadel says hes clean, you only have to look at the hurt in his eyes n his face during the end of the race to see it, but im not naive to say hes never used, but at this point in time i'll give him the benifit of the doubt, but im not wearing rose coloured glasses when it comes to him or any other rider, anythings possible these days.
    But yes there are clean riders for sure.
  • 10-25-2012
    SV11
    Thats true, no one can completely know someone's past. But I'm pretty confident that he was clean when he won the tour ( you had better be clean Evans, don't make me look like a fool) :D
  • 10-25-2012
    Bro
    Well, this whole thing became a personal issue for me tonight.

    I was talking with one of my friends while I was wearing my team kit -- I had just gotten home from a road ride with a few teammates. Seeing my kit, he said, "You know that you're forever linked with doping now, right?" I'm hoping that he was being sarcastic, but I can't be too sure, and there are people who legitimately believe that; I still replied that there is massive change occurring in the professional ranks right now. I don't know if I've ever been more offended.

    And this is all because of two primary reasons: there are riders who decided to take illegal drugs, and there are officials who decided to turn a blind eye towards it all. It's too late to change the past, but we need to make sure this never happens again.

    Pat McQuaid, Hein Verbruggen, and all other officials in UCI and USADA who have ever shirked your professional and moral responsibilities, step down now and leave the sport of cycling forever. You've done far too much damage to be able to make up for it. Levi, George, David, all other cyclists who doped, whether you confessed or not, it's time to come clean. Make your peace, and leave the sport. To those who came clean and subsequently lost their jobs, thank you for attempting to do the right thing. I appreciate that you cared enough to be honest with your past, but the truly right thing to do would have been to say "No" in the first place. It's time to clean house and start again.

    I love this sport far too much, and I have far too much pride to be linked, however distantly, with cheaters.
  • 10-25-2012
    Tone's
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by erik1245 View Post
    Well, this whole thing became a personal issue for me tonight.

    I was talking with one of my friends while I was wearing my team kit -- I had just gotten home from a road ride with a few teammates. Seeing my kit, he said, "You know that you're forever linked with doping now, right?" I'm hoping that he was being sarcastic, but I can't be too sure, and there are people who legitimately believe that; I still replied that there is massive change occurring in the professional ranks right now. I don't know if I've ever been more offended.

    And this is all because of two primary reasons: there are riders who decided to take illegal drugs, and there are officials who decided to turn a blind eye towards it all. It's too late to change the past, but we need to make sure this never happens again.

    Pat McQuaid, Hein Verbruggen, and all other officials in UCI and USADA who have ever shirked your professional and moral responsibilities, step down now and leave the sport of cycling forever. You've done far too much damage to be able to make up for it. Levi, George, David, all other cyclists who doped, whether you confessed or not, it's time to come clean. Make your peace, and leave the sport. To those who came clean and subsequently lost their jobs, thank you for attempting to do the right thing. I appreciate that you cared enough to be honest with your past, but the truly right thing to do would have been to say "No" in the first place. It's time to clean house and start again.

    I love this sport far too much, and I have far too much pride to be linked, however distantly, with cheaters.

    Erik, i'll second that, im not sure why but ive always linked you directly to doping and think you should take this opportunity to come clean, we wont judge you, and im sure you wont get booted off MTBR for it, so send me a PM if you want to get it off your chest, :D
  • 10-26-2012
    cda 455
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by erik1245 View Post
    Just saw this post from my teammate:

    "I went to see the Levi Leipheimer Documentary tonight. Showed up, no sound, choppy image, movie cancelled. First he admits and gets sacked by OPQS, now the omerta's claiming his movie. Dang."

    :lol:


    :lol:



    Karma's a b!tch :D !
  • 11-25-2012
    DIRTJUNKIE
    I jumped off the Armstrong bandwagon after...
    I watched this Lance Armstrong documentary on CNN.
    Watch CNN listing for reruns of it, you may change your mind.
    http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discu...85-825351.html
  • 11-25-2012
    OscarW
    I saw that same CNN piece. I do question the motives of the people coming clean and throwing Arrmstrong under the bus in exchange for immunity or reduced sentences with regards to banishment from the sport.
    He did dope for sure but so did everyone else. Lance just leveled the playing field. He did ride 7 tours and still had to pedal, but now everyone is piling sh^t on him as-if he was the only one doping...
    "He who is without sin, cast the first stone" comes to mind. I am not defending the doping part but do admire his tenacity in beating cancer and riding all those miles. His foundation does great work and I am glad that he stepped down from it as not to distract from the good work that has come from it.
    I lost my dad through cancer and hope one day there is a cure. Foundations like Livestrong are needed to help find a cure.YMMV
  • 11-25-2012
    DIRTJUNKIE
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by OscarW View Post
    I saw that same CNN piece. I do question the motives of the people coming clean and throwing Arrmstrong under the bus in exchange for immunity or reduced sentences with regards to banishment from the sport.
    He did dope for sure but so did everyone else. Lance just leveled the playing field. He did ride 7 tours and still had to pedal, but now everyone is piling sh^t on him as-if he was the only one doping...
    "He who is without sin, cast the first stone" comes to mind. I am not defending the doping part but do admire his tenacity in beating cancer and riding all those miles. His foundation does great work and I am glad that he stepped down from it as not to distract from the good work that has come from it.
    I lost my dad through cancer and hope one day there is a cure. Foundations like Livestrong are needed to help find a cure.YMMV

    No doubt they were all guilty of it. And it was all admitted in the documentary. They had little proof of Lance doing it so they had to give immunity to the little fish for testimony against the big fish [Lance]. My mom just died of lung cancer so I can understand your thoughts on the foundation.
  • 11-25-2012
    Bigfoot
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by OscarW View Post
    Foundations like Livestrong are needed to help find a cure.YMMV

    There are many other organizations that do that deserve support. But Livestrong doesn't do anything toward research and hasn't for years. Your Livestrong donation will not hasten that cure. It does help cancer patients and their families "navigate" the patchy and hostile realms of the US healthcare system. But it also does quite a lot to boost the stature and brand value of one Lance Armstrong. In August 2009, for example, the foundation spent about $7m – a quarter of its annual spend – on a Dublin "summit" whose main purpose seems to have been presenting Armstrong as a kind of global statesman, on the same plane as his role models, Bono and Bill Clinton.

    Perhaps Livestrong should strip Lance Armstrong of one more title: chairman | Bill Gifford | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

    Here's s'more interesting reading regarding Livestrong and Lance's personal finances. roopstigo | The Soul of Sports | Inside Livestrong
  • 11-25-2012
    OscarW
    ^^ Interesting read from roopstigo... Sad story all around really..
  • 11-27-2012
    gelo354
    absolutely NO.
  • 12-08-2012
    hokihigh
    Don't wanna believe he did, but who knows...
  • 12-08-2012
    car bone
    I voted #4

    That is I think they all dope, or at least did as much as they possibly could, and always have been. its that type of sport where small gains count. Either your last of first.

    I don't think this sport will ever be clean, but its still a sport. And they do their best out there.
    Thats what we all want to see.
  • 12-08-2012
    AZ
    The thread that keeps on giving.
  • 12-08-2012
    car bone
    Hehe its only 2 months old :)

    I hadn't seen it at least. wasn't looking either really but still.
    I have to vote right??
  • 12-08-2012
    turbogrover
    Geez, I am truly amazed at how naive and gullible some of the replies are, in this thread.
    It isn't about whether LA is innocent or guilty in a court of law. Did he take PED's? Yes.
    The reason he's being exposed, is for the level of deception, and corruption he created.
  • 12-09-2012
    lapinGTI
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    If everyone in the field was cheating, what does it matter as far as race results go?

    Exact what i try to explain to my teacher. I hope she will come to reason and let me pass my grade. :D
  • 12-09-2012
    Spinning Lizard
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    If everyone in the field was cheating, what does it matter as far as race results go?

    Because not everybody gets to cheat at the same level. Lance paid the testers ahead of time to know when testing was coming days in advance. The other riders did not get a warning. Lance got to stay doped up longer, so it was not all the same for everyone.
  • 12-09-2012
    AZ
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    If everyone in the field was cheating, what does it matter as far as race results go?




    Not everyone was cheating. This is just one more fallacy that is propagated by the legions of fans that cannot support any argument about doping without resorting to lies, half truthes and innuendo. When the truth wont do, baffle them with bullsh!t.
  • 12-09-2012
    SV11
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    If everyone in the field was cheating, what does it matter as far as race results go?

    It matters because Evans and Wiggins and etc did not cheat. They won the tour on their own without the aid of dope. If you need to take dope, you know for a fact that you're no good at the sport and need a way to "cheat" to win. Most can be successful while doped, not everyone can win while clean. Lance needed dope to remain at a high level, to me that says he isn't good at the sport at an elite level (but he's competitive when juiced up), compared to Evans or Wiggins.

    LA is singled out, mainly because of his antics. But, the guy is pretty dense. Who on earth was he trying to fool by winning 7 TDF titles, it had never been done before and something that no one could of done. He farked himself over, he did it by himself without the help of anyone, what does that say about him?
  • 12-09-2012
    turbogrover
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Ok, if everyone was cheating, of course some could cheat better than others. Does that degrade the sport element of things? Of course, it does, but so does the fact that everyone is cheating. So, the argument that all were cheating but Lance cheated better than others (and is therefore a bad dude) is not one I find convincing - personally.

    If it is true that cheating was not universal or near-universal, then yes, that changes everything. What I've seen including interviews with Landis and Andreu seems to imply it was quite widespread. But I don't have firsthand knowledge of that. The story I got from what I've seen and read was that he started cheating because the Europeans were doing it all over the place already.

    Why pick on poor Lance?
    Because he deceived millions, and corrupted an entire sport. The others just doped. Big difference.
  • 12-10-2012
    SV11
    Everyone has this "follow the leader" kind of mentality, thats why "because everyone was doping" gets bought up a lot. Who cares if others were doping, latter winners of the TDF proved that you don't need to be doped up to win the tour among doped riders. So that kind of bs (because everyone was doping) holds no water, it never had and it never will.
    People don't realise how obsurd they are starting to sound.
  • 12-10-2012
    SV11
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Why is it absurd.

    Mainly, because LA's fans are iggnorant to the facts.
    They create hypotheticals, rather than looking at the facts.

    The reason why they are focusing on one guy is becasue he is right in the middle of the biggest fraud in the history of sport. This goes way beyond doping.
  • 12-10-2012
    Tone's
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Why is it absurd?

    I think it is absurd that we have an "Anti Doping Agency" that receives federal funds, that prosecutes athletes who competed years earlier in international cycling events that are privately sanctioned and located in France. Someone show me that in the Constitution.

    But aside from that, if everyone was doping, during those years, then it is absurd to focus on one guy who won, on the basis he was doping.

    Dave, i think its absurd that there are people that hold the views that you do, mate your a classic case of somebody who actually knows very little on the topic who has his head buried firmly in the sand....
  • 12-10-2012
    SV11
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Yep, everyone in LA is 'iggnorant" and "creates hypotheticals" ummm-hmmm, yeah, that sounds like some solid logic there.

    So then explain it - if i am "giving hypotehticals" you are just giving a conclusion...show your analysis.


    Dude, LA = Lance Armstrong.
  • 12-10-2012
    Tone's
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    to the contrary, my head isn't buried in the sand "mate"...

    See if you can follow along now:

    I posted a belief that as far as race results go, who cares if he was doping, since everyone else was too.

    There have been some responses that say "not everyone was doping." Ok, well, what's your source, why do you think that? I'd love to know. But to just say I am wrong and ignorant and have my head int he sand without pointing to a single fact, is pretty weak.

    Mate, wheres your source to say every body was doping.
    Your carrying on that they are only targeting the guy that won, thats ridiculous, 21 from the last 26 place getters from the tour have been caught and exposed as drug cheats, is that just targeting lance is it?

    Pro cyclists have a term for clean riders they call them 'bread and water' riders, even pro cyclists admit there are still plenty in the tour, more often than not they are not top place getters.
    Cadel Evens is a world renound anti doper, and you can see it in his face at the end of a race.
    Yes i agree that the majority of them are , but that doesnt mean every or all...
    Thats the old chestnut thats put out by lance lovers.
    The USADA put egg in all a lot of peoples faces, they got their man big time, they only have the juristriction to investigate US cyclists not every other cyclist in the world.
    they have done the states proud, got the biggest fish in the biggest pond and some like yourself cant accept that a fellow American who you thought was the greatest has turned out to be the biggest cheat in the history of sport.
    Suck it up mate, and stop trying to make up ******** to get over your butthurt..
  • 12-10-2012
    Tone's
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Yep, everyone in LA is 'iggnorant" and "creates hypotheticals" ummm-hmmm, yeah, that sounds like some solid logic there.
    ,
    So then explain it - if i am "giving hypotehticals," you are just giving a conclusion...show your analysis.

    LOL, the first paragraph really says it all about Daves knowledge on the subject, i'll leave it here and let the quote above do all the talking.....
  • 12-10-2012
    Mr Cup
    I don't think it's fair to put any of the riders or especially the winners on a higher level of anti-doping yet. They haven't been proven to have cheated and speak out against it of course, but so did Lance and all the others over the years. For all we know, Wiggins could win the next few tours as well and then 10 years from now we could find out that him and the rest of his team was on some new drug that couldn't be detected at the time.

    This entire thing sadely makes it impossible to really trust any of them.....
  • 12-23-2012
    Stugotz
    Lance just can't catch a break
    Sunday Times sues Lance Armstrong

    LONDON -- Lance Armstrong is being sued for more than $1.5 million by a British newspaper over the settlement of a libel action, which followed doping allegations against the cyclist that it published.


    It is clear that the proceedings were baseless and fraudulent. Your representations that you had never taken performance enhancing drugs were deliberately false.

    -- Sunday Times, in letter to Lance Armstrong's lawyers
    The Sunday Times paid Armstrong 300,000 pounds (now about $485,000) in 2006 to settle a case after it reprinted claims from a book in 2004 that he took performance-enhancing drugs.

    The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency concluded this year that Armstrong led a massive doping program on his teams. Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and banned from cycling for life.

    The Sunday Times announced in an article in its latest edition that it has issued legal papers against Armstrong.

    "It is clear that the proceedings were baseless and fraudulent," the paper said in a letter to Armstrong's lawyers. "Your representations that you had never taken performance enhancing drugs were deliberately false."

    The paper, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., said its total claim against Armstrong is "likely to exceed" 1 million pounds ($1.6 million).

    "The Sunday Times is now demanding a return of the settlement payment plus interest, as well as its costs in defending the case," the paper said.
  • 12-23-2012
    heyyall
    He has many more of these to face.
  • 12-23-2012
    Fishbucket
    Well, If Barry Bonds is saying he didn't... who am I to argue. :rolleyes:
  • 12-24-2012
    DavyRay
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Stugotz View Post
    Sunday Times sues Lance Armstrong

    LONDON -- Lance Armstrong is being sued for more than $1.5 million by a British newspaper over the settlement of a libel action, which followed doping allegations against the cyclist that it published.


    It is clear that the proceedings were baseless and fraudulent. Your representations that you had never taken performance enhancing drugs were deliberately false.

    -- Sunday Times, in letter to Lance Armstrong's lawyers
    The Sunday Times paid Armstrong 300,000 pounds (now about $485,000) in 2006 to settle a case after it reprinted claims from a book in 2004 that he took performance-enhancing drugs.

    The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency concluded this year that Armstrong led a massive doping program on his teams. Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and banned from cycling for life.

    The Sunday Times announced in an article in its latest edition that it has issued legal papers against Armstrong.

    "It is clear that the proceedings were baseless and fraudulent," the paper said in a letter to Armstrong's lawyers. "Your representations that you had never taken performance enhancing drugs were deliberately false."

    The paper, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., said its total claim against Armstrong is "likely to exceed" 1 million pounds ($1.6 million).

    "The Sunday Times is now demanding a return of the settlement payment plus interest, as well as its costs in defending the case," the paper said.

    To see Rupert Murdock facing off with Lance Armstrong in lawsuits over ethics is, well, entertaining. Ironic is perhaps a better word for it.
  • 12-24-2012
    monogod
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    I think it is absurd that we have an "Anti Doping Agency" that receives federal funds, that prosecutes athletes who competed years earlier in international cycling events that are privately sanctioned and located in France. Someone show me that in the Constitution.

    the Constitution has absolutely NOTHING to do with this. when a racer applies for and is granted a racing license they willingly and voluntarily subjugate themselves to the various governing bodies of the sport.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daves4mtb
    But aside from that, if everyone was doping, during those years, then it is absurd to focus on one guy who won, on the basis he was doping.

    you indeed have had your head buried in the sand if you think LA's the only rider of focus during those years or any other. specific to the period in question he was merely the most prominent and one of the few that maintained innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence -- to the extent of suing in retaliation those who even suggested he doped.

    hence, this is but the first of many lawsuits that he will enjoy subsequent to this guilt being firmly and irrevocably established.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dave4mtb
    I posted a belief that as far as race results go, who cares if he was doping, since everyone else was too.

    the guys who weren't doping certainly cared. the guys who had the integrity to race clean even if it meant never standing on the podium. the guys who weren't worthless bags of excrement who eschewed the philosophy of "win at any cost and by any means" certainly cared.

    the whole "who cares cuz everyone was doping" is a blind fanboi statement uttered out of pure ignorance of the facts and of road racing in general -- not to mention belying the same questionable personal ethics mirroring those who thought it was ok to lie/cheat/bully to win.
  • 12-24-2012
    rockerc
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by monogod View Post
    -- not to mention belying the same questionable personal ethics mirroring those who thought it was ok to lie/cheat/bully to win.

    Yup... this...
  • 12-24-2012
    DeeEight
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by monogod View Post
    the Constitution has absolutely NOTHING to do with this. when a racer applies for and is granted a racing license they willingly and voluntarily subjugate themselves to the various governing bodies of the sport.

    yep, but the USADA wasn't actually a governing body when Lance first started racing. it didn't exist. It actually has zero power outside the USA and in fact has been proven many times as leading witch hunts against athletes to try and give the public image to the media that the USA is tough on drug users. That's its sole purpose for existing. If there had been actual real provable evidence against lance, the justice department would NOT have dropped their case against him last year. They'd have filed criminal charges and taken him into a court of law. Not a court of public opinion.

    Quote:

    hence, this is but the first of many lawsuits that he will enjoy subsequent to this guilt being firmly and irrevocably established.
    In what court was this guilt firmly established? Oh wait... none. Maybe in the puppet court of the backroom of the USADA headquarters when they decided ahead of time that Lance was guilty. Its amusing how all the racers who were dopers who were "witnesses" have gotten slap on the wrist suspensions for their "reliable" testimonies and Lance is given a lifetime ban. The UCI was well within their rights to deny the USADA's claims, as is IOC still (since he was no doubt blood tested at the time he won his bronze medal and didn't test positive for anything they were testing for). All the evidence since the USADA didn't actually ever have access to his actual blood and urine tests, nor the authority to ever gain access to them was based on personal testimony of proven liars. Only a complete moron would believe that is enough to firmly and irrevocably prove Lance was guilty also.
  • 12-24-2012
    Tone's
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DeeEight View Post
    yep, but the USADA wasn't actually a governing body when Lance first started racing. it didn't exist. It actually has zero power outside the USA and in fact has been proven many times as leading witch hunts against athletes to try and give the public image to the media that the USA is tough on drug users. That's its sole purpose for existing. If there had been actual real provable evidence against lance, the justice department would NOT have dropped their case against him last year. They'd have filed criminal charges and taken him into a court of law. Not a court of public opinion.



    In what court was this guilt firmly established? Oh wait... none. Maybe in the puppet court of the backroom of the USADA headquarters when they decided ahead of time that Lance was guilty. Its amusing how all the racers who were dopers who were "witnesses" have gotten slap on the wrist suspensions for their "reliable" testimonies and Lance is given a lifetime ban. The UCI was well within their rights to deny the USADA's claims, as is IOC still (since he was no doubt blood tested at the time he won his bronze medal and didn't test positive for anything they were testing for).

    Please, really...... you need to do some research, the USADA had a mountain of evidence, from first hand witnesses, to finacial records, phone records, paper trails, failed blood tests that were covered up by team doctors etc, the reason Lance ran away from the evidence is that he knew it was unbeatable, he knew he would look like a liar and a cheat and he would loose everything to litigation against him.
    The USADA put egg and humble pie in many peoples faces, they proved the doubters wrong.
    Are you saying that over 20 first hand witnesses are lying and its a big conspiricy lol
    To say he passed all blood tests is outright false information, mate the guy is as guilty as sin, he doesnt have a leg to stand on and he is a boarderline sociopath.

    The USADA is the only thing that give the whole situation ant credit at all, they have done the states proud, and bought down the biggest cheat, bully and liar in the history of sport, and thats a fact....
  • 12-24-2012
    DeeEight
    If there was a mountain of evidence, why didn't they submit it to the US justice department or even to a US federal prosecutor in some random state looking to make a name for him/herself ? Why was this not presented in an ACTUAL courtroom where there is a real burden of proof to be met... oh that's right...because it wasn't real proof. It was a stacked deck of heresay and slander where they'd decided his guilt ahead of time, and done everything they could to manufacture the proof of that afterwards, even going so far as to solicit testimony from other proven liars, in exchange for sweet deals.
  • 12-24-2012
    dwt
    There are people who believe OJ did not kill his wife, that Elvis lives, that alien beings live among us, and that Lance Armstrong was clean.

    And that Tonight Santa Claus will land on their roof. If they are lucky he will give them Tyler Hamilton's book, "The Secret Race" and they will learn something true about professional cycling in the 90's and the first decade of the 00's.
  • 12-24-2012
    Tone's
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DeeEight View Post
    If there was a mountain of evidence, why didn't they submit it to the US justice department or even to a US federal prosecutor in some random state looking to make a name for him/herself ? Why was this not presented in an ACTUAL courtroom where there is a real burden of proof to be met... oh that's right...because it wasn't real proof. It was a stacked deck of heresay and slander where they'd decided his guilt ahead of time, and done everything they could to manufacture the proof of that afterwards, even going so far as to solicit testimony from other proven liars, in exchange for sweet deals.

    So i gather you think he is clean?
    i gather you think the first hand eye witnesses are all lying?
    suppose you think that all the evidence is fabricated?
    Suppose you think that poor lance was just over it and too tired to fight the charges?

    Suppose you think the earth is still flat and the world was going to end a few days ago?

    I have read the key points of the USADA report, seen many eye witness accounts, if it was a murder charge, it would be more than enough hard evidence to lock somebody up for life, if you think theres no proof, you need to do some actual research..

    lol, im just gonna leave it here i have no intentions of arguing with somebody thats clear bias has totally skewed his vision, you know what they say about 1 in 10 people?
  • 12-24-2012
    Tone's
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dwt View Post
    There are people who believe OJ did not kill his wife, that Elvis lives, that alien beings live among us, and that Lance Armstrong was clean.

    And that Tonight Santa Claus will land on their roof. If they are lucky he will give them Tyler Hamilton's book, "The Secret Race" and they will learn something true about professional cycling in the 90's and the first decade of the 00's.

    LOL, well said, but i guarentee you those same people will say Tyler is making it all up and so is every other witness, and that they have been paid off and its all a big conspiracy, same old story, as i said dwt, you know what they say about 1 in 10 people, in the poll above 8% thinks he never doped, it was 10% for a long time, that proves the 1 in 10 theory spot on, and theres no point arguing with these people or even trying to have a rational conversation with them, that would be the definition of madness lol.......:thumbsup:
  • 12-24-2012
    Burnt-Orange
    I think Lance is clean right "wait for it, wait for it"
    NOW


    Sj
  • 12-24-2012
    DeeEight
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tone's View Post
    So i gather you think he is clean?

    Nope, I believe he and everyone else that were "contenders" for the overall title were riding dirty. If you look at the finishing results for the TdF races when Lance was riding, most of the top-5 were proven in other investigations to be dopers. For several of the years they invalidated Lance's wins, they couldn't elevate second or third to the wins because they'd been caught and convicted of doping already. But they never actually proved he was riding dirty at the time, and retroactively convicting people for things with heresay evidence and testing that couldn't actually prove at the time... well DwT mentioning OJ simpson is appropriate. They couldn't convict him in a criminal court because the burden of proof is higher, so what did they do... find him guilty in a civil case that he was financially liable for the deaths, where the burden of proof is much lower. Same thing happened here with Lance. Attempting to argue any different just proves you're a moron.

    Quote:

    i gather you think the first hand eye witnesses are all lying?
    I believe they'd say whatever they think the USADA wanted to hear them say, in order to get cheesecake sweet deals for themselves.

    Levi Leipheimer for example got a six month suspension that's in effect from september 2012 thru march 2013, which prevents him from doing exactly NO major races. Oh and they took away his results for a 7 year span in which he really didn't do anything spectacular anyway. Oh boo hoo hoo.

    Quote:

    suppose you think that all the evidence is fabricated?
    I've read the report and think enough of it was fabricated as to cast doubt on the whole report and all the findings. Again it comes down to what can actually be proven under law, versus under "we make our own rules and will change the rules to meet what flimsy evidence we have if we don't like the first results" that is how the USADA has operated since its inception 13 years ago.

    Quote:

    Suppose you think that poor lance was just over it and too tired to fight the charges?
    I think so. I think it was pointless to go into a game where the deck is marked and stacked by the dealers, and try and think you can play against that and still win.

    Quote:

    Suppose you think the earth is still flat and the world was going to end a few days ago?
    Nope but I know you are a moron and that's enough for me to sleep at night.
  • 12-24-2012
    dwt
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Tone's "can see it in Cadel Evan's face" that he doesn't dope, currently, at the end of a race..

    Tyler Hamilton, an admitted doper who was privy in his era to inside information in the peloton, as to who was doing what, as well as who was clean, is on record that Cadel was/is clean.

    If you want a hero with a record which is not likely ever to be broken, he's the guy. Only rider ever to have been both Mtb and Road World Champ, and TdF winner to boot. And clean. No one can touch that. Mate.
  • 12-24-2012
    DeeEight
    Yep, after years of merely winning the "other" jerseys of the tour, he finally reached a stage where all the people with drugs were retired or suspended/banned.
  • 12-24-2012
    dru
    D8, I'm curious about your interpretation of reality......

    If armstrong is innocent?

    Could you explain why Armstrong severed all ties with Ferrari on Oct 1st, 2004, confirmed by Stapleton in 2005, and reconfirmed by Armstrong spokesman Mark Fabiani on April 15, 2010, “Lance has not had a professional relationship with Ferrari since 2004", yet the payments and working together continued in secret?

    2005 $100,000
    12/31/2006: $110,000.
    and in 2009:

    On September 1, 2009, Stefano writes, “Schumi asked me if you could process the
    payment (25.000 EUR) for the season as agreed last March. You can forward the payment
    when’s best for you to my account in MC [Monte Carlo].”428 To which Armstrong responds,
    “Can I pay it in cash when I see you?”429

    So in your interpretation it doesn't matter if Armstrong is a liar?

    Or was this stuff fabricated by the USADA and various police agencies from around the world just to get your hero?

    The fact that Ferrari has long been linked to doping carries no weight with you either?

    In all honesty, contrary to what you claim, many many people have gone to prison on circumstantial evidence, and rightfully so.

    Armstrong is guilty as sin.

    I'll be waiting for the 'moron' rebuttal; it seems to make you feel better.
  • 12-24-2012
    osokolo
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by .WestCoastHucker. View Post
    OJ disagrees with your theory...

    even the GLOVE didn't help.

    if it doesn't fit - you must acquit.

    brilliant piece of american judicial system...
  • 12-24-2012
    osokolo
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AZ.MTNS View Post
    The thread that keeps on giving.

    THE DEADEST HORSE EVER...

    is taking more beating...
  • 12-24-2012
    osokolo
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Yes, it does, if taxpayer money is used to support the US Anti Doping Agency. Please read the Constitution and show me where it says that is a proper role of the federal government. (AND, YES, I AM AWARE THE USADA IS NOT A PART OF THE GOVERNMENT, BUT IT GETS PUBLIC FUNDING).



    If you read my other posts you will hopefully understand that I am well aware that doping was widespread and I commented on other top riders being found guilty of it during the same era.



    Okay, during the time when Lance was winning, who were those guys?



    Not a fanboi. I just posed a very logical question. Do you have facts or just more factless ranting? I've said many times in this thread I am willing to listen to facts. You're just displaying the ability to reach opposite conclusions, but you haven't shared why you think that or what your analysis is.

    again-

    I did not say Lance is or was clean
    I did not say it is a plot against America
    I did not say that I am an expert

    I posed a rhetorical question, and your response to it is a dismal failure.

    actually Dave - if you have any doubts about Lance's guilt - after all the info that was made available to general public - i must inform you that you really should do a reality check...

    i mean this in the most gentle way... seriously...

    Lance was my hero, and if he simply said: "yep, i did it. i am sorry" he would have remained being my hero.

    But defending what is really defenceless, he is treating me and all others that believed in him - as trash with no intelligence. I take offence to it.

    Big man, even with only one nut, should own to his mistakes. I don't fault him for doping as much - it is human to make mistakes - particularly in sports. Been there and I understand the desire to win - completely. However, I fault him for not admitting and apologizing. That made him a small man. He can not fit his hero shoes anymore. Sorry Dave. I hope you accept my approach to this debate...
  • 12-24-2012
    Fishbucket
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DeeEight View Post
    Nope but I know you are a moron and that's enough for me to sleep at night.

    You were doing so well... untill then. :rolleyes:
  • 12-24-2012
    DeeEight
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Fishbucket View Post
    You were doing so well... untill then. :rolleyes:

    You're actually new here aren't you?
  • 12-24-2012
    Lance Strongarm
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DeeEight View Post
    yep, but the USADA wasn't actually a governing body when Lance first started racing. it didn't exist. It actually has zero power outside the USA and in fact has been proven many times as leading witch hunts against athletes to try and give the public image to the media that the USA is tough on drug users. That's its sole purpose for existing. If there had been actual real provable evidence against lance, the justice department would NOT have dropped their case against him last year. They'd have filed criminal charges and taken him into a court of law. Not a court of public opinion.



    In what court was this guilt firmly established? Oh wait... none. Maybe in the puppet court of the backroom of the USADA headquarters when they decided ahead of time that Lance was guilty. Its amusing how all the racers who were dopers who were "witnesses" have gotten slap on the wrist suspensions for their "reliable" testimonies and Lance is given a lifetime ban. The UCI was well within their rights to deny the USADA's claims, as is IOC still (since he was no doubt blood tested at the time he won his bronze medal and didn't test positive for anything they were testing for). All the evidence since the USADA didn't actually ever have access to his actual blood and urine tests, nor the authority to ever gain access to them was based on personal testimony of proven liars. Only a complete moron would believe that is enough to firmly and irrevocably prove Lance was guilty also.



    Checks in the mail Brah.
  • 12-24-2012
    osokolo
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Lance Strongarm View Post
    Checks in the mail Brah.

    priceless...

    i see the potential in you Lance... :thumbsup:
  • 12-24-2012
    TripleB67
    Innocent until proven guilty....show me the proof, not just a bunch of people saying he did. If OJ isn't guilty then Lance isn't guilty :)

    TripleB67
  • 12-24-2012
    Fishbucket
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DeeEight View Post
    You're actually new here aren't you?

    And ?
  • 12-24-2012
    monogod
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DeeEight View Post
    You're actually new here aren't you?

    appears he is, but that didn't stop him from virtually instantly realizing what the rest of us already know... that you REALLY need to change the last half of your sig. at this point it's right on par with lance's adamant stance of innocence. :thumbsup:
  • 12-24-2012
    monogod
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DeeEight View Post
    If there was a mountain of evidence, why didn't they submit it to the US justice department or even to a US federal prosecutor in some random state looking to make a name for him/herself ? Why was this not presented in an ACTUAL courtroom where there is a real burden of proof to be met... oh that's right...because it wasn't real proof. It was a stacked deck of heresay and slander where they'd decided his guilt ahead of time, and done everything they could to manufacture the proof of that afterwards, even going so far as to solicit testimony from other proven liars, in exchange for sweet deals.

    yeah... the evidence was so weak and inconclusive that LA withdrew his contention and took a lifetime ban from the sport and willingly accepted being stripped of all of his TDF victories rather than face and respond to it in an open hearing.

    what makes it even better is that this is from a dude that spent MILLIONS suing and retaliating against people who dared to even insinuate that he might be doping.

    LA had the chance to answer to the evidence and discredit all of it. he had the opportunity to vindicate himself. he had the opportunity to crush the haters and show what an honest, clean, fair, man/racer of integrity he was. BUT HE CHOSE NOT TO. he WILLINGLY accepted the punitive measures rather than facing the weak and inconclusive evidence in an actual hearing.

    ask yourself why sometime, champ. :thumbsup:
  • 12-24-2012
    Vespasianus
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DeeEight View Post
    Nope, I believe he and everyone else that were "contenders" for the overall title were riding dirty. If you look at the finishing results for the TdF races when Lance was riding, most of the top-5 were proven in other investigations to be dopers.
    Nope but I know you are a moron and that's enough for me to sleep at night.


    That is the key part, not the last part about someone being a moron, but the first part. If you believe in what everyone that has testified has said, even Lemond, pretty much the entire peleton is on some sort of illegal substance. The heck with the top 5, they were all cheating. Does that make what Lance did right? No not at all but I think you have to put it into perspective.

    I actually wonder, if everyone was clean, would lance still have won? Each person responds differently to EPO and people can see little improvement or dramatic improvement depending upon their baseline levels.
  • 12-24-2012
    roadie scum
    Lance was nothing more than pack filler before doping. Was he clean? Yep and Santa is coming down my chimney tonight.
  • 12-24-2012
    osokolo
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by roadie scum View Post
    Lance was nothing more than pack filler before doping. Was he clean? Yep and Santa is coming down my chimney tonight.

    hey scum, when you see the fat guy tonight, ask him about AZ's bike, will you please?

    AZ is starting to concern me as of late, which I think is due to the fact that he still hasn't gotten his black bike.
  • 12-24-2012
    SV11
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Vespasianus View Post
    I actually wonder, if everyone was clean, would lance still have won? Each person responds differently to EPO and people can see little improvement or dramatic improvement depending upon their baseline levels.

    I seriously and highly doubt that he would of won. You take drugs only for one reason, to gain the extra performance over the rest. If you do take drugs, you consciously know that you're unable to win without it, otherwise why would you dope up. He knew at the time he wasn't world class material, not even close. Doping up from his first TDF to the last really says a lot.
  • 12-24-2012
    osokolo
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SV11 View Post
    I seriously and highly doubt that he would of won. You take drugs only for one reason, to gain the extra performance over the rest. If you do take drugs, you consciously know that you're unable to win without it, otherwise why would you dope up. He knew at the time he wasn't world class material, not even close. Doping up from his first TDF to the last really says a lot.

    everyone responds to EPO very similarly - it is a simple math. the more oxygen carriers - the more oxygen can be fed into the burner...

    the catch is to dope as much as possible short of exploding the burner. that is where Lance was the king, plus masking it successfully (by changing his blood) after every session - so that he is not caught - that was the ultimate perfection...

    without it? pack filler, as someone suggested it...
  • 12-24-2012
    SV11
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by osokolo View Post
    everyone responds to EPO very similarly - it is a simple math. the more oxygen carriers - the more oxygen can be fed into the burner...

    the catch is to dope as much as possible short of exploding the burner. that is where Lance was the king, plus masking it successfully (by changing his blood) after every session - so that he is not caught - that was the ultimate perfection...

    without it? pack filler, as someone suggested it...

    It's funny, why didn't he just put all that extra work into training, rather than finding shortcuts and deceiving people, maybe he would of amounted to something.
  • 12-24-2012
    Bro
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DeeEight View Post
    I believe they'd say whatever they think the USADA wanted to hear them say, in order to get cheesecake sweet deals for themselves.

    Levi Leipheimer for example got a six month suspension that's in effect from september 2012 thru march 2013, which prevents him from doing exactly NO major races. Oh and they took away his results for a 7 year span in which he really didn't do anything spectacular anyway. Oh boo hoo hoo.

    Most of the witnesses in the Armstrong case are not racers. A racing ban doesn't hold much water for them, now does it? Additionally, Leipheimer knew that in testifying, he would have to admit to his own drug use as well. He did, and he received that suspension; later he was fired from his team at Omega-Pharma Quickstep for this confession. If he hadn't been 100% sure that he was right to testify, why would he have done so? He lost his job, and likely ended his career, just to testify against Armstrong. Have you heard what happens to those who go against Armstrong? He makes it a personal vendetta and tries very hard to make their lives a living hell.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by osokolo View Post
    everyone responds to EPO very similarly - it is a simple math. the more oxygen carriers - the more oxygen can be fed into the burner...

    Actually, everyone responds differently to EPO. Armstrong just happened to be one of those people who react very strongly to it, and then of course he knew those people so that he could scrape by most of the drug controls without any positives.
  • 12-24-2012
    DeeEight
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by monogod View Post
    appears he is, but that didn't stop him from virtually instantly realizing what the rest of us already know... that you REALLY need to change the last half of your sig. at this point it's right on par with lance's adamant stance of innocence. :thumbsup:

    And hasn't ever stopped me from and others from realizing you love to stick your nose into any and every thread hoping someone will listen to your diatribe and rep you for it. The whole revealing identities feature francois implemented let me see that you left me one in october, for a thread that hasn't had a post in it since Jan 24, 2011, and which you weren't even ever ****ing involved in.
  • 12-24-2012
    osokolo
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by erik1245 View Post
    Actually, everyone responds differently to EPO

    just out of curiosity - can you describe how different athletes would respond differently to EPO?

    the goal when using rEPO is to increase the erythrocyte level by 3-4% - same as blood doping. but with rEPO it is achieved within days, compared to months of altitude training.

    how do different athletes react differently to increased erythrocyte levels? as far as i understand the mechanism - the difference is insignificant, compared to overall gain...

    but i'd love to learn more accurate explanation...
  • 12-24-2012
    monogod
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DeeEight View Post
    And hasn't ever stopped me from and others from realizing you love to stick your nose into any and every thread hoping someone will listen to your diatribe and rep you for it. The whole revealing identities feature francois implemented let me see that you left me one in october, for a thread that hasn't had a post in it since Jan 24, 2011, and which you weren't even ever ****ing involved in.

  • 12-24-2012
    Fix the Spade
    In other news:

    The Sunday Times of London plans to sue Armstrong - Yahoo! Sports
    Sunday Times to sue Armstrong

    How long before all that money gets ripped right out of his grubby little hands?
  • 12-24-2012
    monogod
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Fix the Spade View Post
    In other news:

    The Sunday Times of London plans to sue Armstrong - Yahoo! Sports
    Sunday Times to sue Armstrong

    How long before all that money gets ripped right out of his grubby little hands?

    it is likely only the first in a long series of lawsuits to recover monies paid out in either settlements or legal defense against his attacks of those whom he targeted as enemies for revealing, admitting, or even suggesting he was doping.
  • 12-24-2012
    osokolo
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daves4mtb
    All that being said, I am still back to my original point: Does it matter? If the whole field was doped up and roided out and transfusioned full of EPO, why go back and "prosecute" if you call it that Lance Armstrong? What for? We all know that darned near the whole field in that era was dirty. They aren't planning on giving the title to anyone else. It just serves no or little purpose. If the end result is that cycling will now be clean, that is wonderful. But somehow I suspect there will always be those that are trying to get an edge.

    wow... you are a lawyer?

    Merry Christmas...
  • 12-24-2012
    SV11
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    We all know that darned near the whole field in that era was dirty.

    This is ignorance at it's best, enough with the excuses.
  • 12-24-2012
    osokolo
    1 Attachment(s)
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Yes, and the only relevance that has here is the fact that there are issues of dropped DOJ prosecutions, and different burdens of proof at issue here. You seem to be trying really hard to take issue with something I say here. This must be all you have left.

    Merry Christmas indeed.

    i am surprised that a lawyer would use language that you used in your PM to me, which i had to delete as apparently it is against the rules to post PMs. Thanks - you know who you are - for the advice.

    plus a negative rep.

    cheers and good luck in your career.
  • 12-24-2012
    SV11
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Please show me some reason to believe that during the years Lance was winning, that damn near the whole field wasn't doping.

    Well, you're the one who made the statement, so how about you pony up? (submit your findings)
  • 12-24-2012
    SV11
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    I don't make "findings" but I'll cite to Floyd Landis, Frankie Andreu, and someone else in this thread mentioned even Greg LeMond saying the whole field was doping then.

    Now it is your turn.

    Cadel Evans was doping? I've heard enough...
    Carry on.
  • 12-24-2012
    osokolo
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    You've made several personal attacks, whilst claiming to be "gentle". Not only is it phony, but you deserved the neg rep.

    And no, it doesn't make it okay when you 1. insult someone 2. misconstrue their arguments repeatedly, but claim you are doing it "gently" and then say Merry Christmas.

    you must have mistaken me for someone else:

    i responded to your post only once and i referred to you only with this statement:

    Quote:

    actually Dave - if you have any doubts about Lance's guilt - after all the info that was made available to general public - i must inform you that you really should do a reality check...

    i mean this in the most gentle way... seriously...
    the second time i referred to you was with this:

    Quote:

    wow... you are a lawyer?
    if these two are "several personal attacks" i apologize.

    however, i think you have way more serious issues than your angle on Lance Armstrong.

    thanks for your second, and i hope the last PM to me - which i deleted here as well - as it is against rules to post PMs.

    all this after my two above comments to you? :p:p:p
  • 12-24-2012
    monogod
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Yes, and the only relevance that has here is the fact that there are issues of dropped DOJ prosecutions, and different burdens of proof at issue here. You seem to be trying really hard to take issue with something I say here. This must be all you have left.

    Merry Christmas indeed.

    the DOJ isn't necessarily through with lance.... linky

    of equal relevance is that LA refused to face the evidence in a hearing. if the 30+ witnesses against him are all liars and easily discredited then why didn't he face them? why did he pull his defense at the last minute after filing countless injunctions and motions and willingly accept a lifetime ban and being stripped of his TDF wins? why will you not address these points?

    one possibility is that with such a "nolo contendere" resolution by not admitting guilt and by not being adjudicated guilty via standard venues he can always claim never to have been "proven" to dope and thus claim innocence. this is still his claim DESPITE failed urine tests and a crushing mountain of evidence of his lies and deception.

    being adjudicated as "guilty" in a formal hearing would strip him of this last vestige of maintaining his facade of innocence.
  • 12-24-2012
    monogod
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by osokolo View Post
    i am surprised that a lawyer would use language that you used in your PM to me:

    plus a negative rep.

    cheers and good luck in your career.

    wow... you got PMs from him??? lucky!

    all i got was neg rep with the exact same comment.
  • 12-24-2012
    osokolo
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by monogod View Post
    wow... you got PMs from him??? lucky!

    all i got was neg rep with the exact same comment.

    lol... i feel special... and he says:

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daves4mtb
    As this thread has been taken over by people who think that Lance was dirty, and the only thing that should happen is maximum prosecution and punishment of him for that, and that anyone who disagrees one little bit with their view of that part of the world is a psychopathic liar who hates kittens and puppies, it is pretty clear that no meaningful conversation can take place within this thread.

    lol... he is a victim now... must be a "different angle"...

    smiley shaking head...
  • 12-24-2012
    osokolo
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Yep, you're probably right about that. The reason I am not addressing those points is that I agree with them. At least as to the first paragraph. Please re-read my post where I discuss that he possibly would have prevailed in federal court, but lost in the USADA proceeding, and that might be why he did what he did. And in the same post I state my belief he was probably doping (so you can stop trying to misconstrue me as claiming he was clean - YET AGAIN).

    As far as nolo contender - are you sure there is such a thing as a nolo plea in a USADA action? Generally that is left for criminal proceedings. And a nolo plea doesn't have all the benefits that non-lawyers think it does in most jurisdictions in modern times. Further, how is a plea of "no contest" different from simply not "contesting" as far as Lance "maintaining that he has never proven to have doped". He still hasn't been so proven. They didn't have a trial in absentia. (But yes, probably he doped).

    Yes, being found guilty in a court of law, depending on the jurisdiction, the fairness of the proceeding, and the burden of proof employed, can have a legal effect on other obligations.

    it never ceases to amaze me how lawyers can skew even the simplest case - making judicial system a pure travesty sometimes... OJ just comes to mind as a glaring example...... now this "angle" on Lance Armstrong...

    "yeah, he doped, but so did everyone else. why are we witch hunting poor Lance"

    geez...
  • 12-24-2012
    monogod
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Yep, you're probably right about that. The reason I am not addressing those points is that I agree with them. At least as to the first paragraph. Please re-read my post where I discuss that he possibly would have prevailed in federal court, but lost in the USADA proceeding, and that might be why he did what he did. And in the same post I state my belief he was probably doping (so you can stop trying to misconstrue me as claiming he was clean - YET AGAIN).

    incorrect. i wasn't misconstruing anything nor was i insinuating, implying, nor could any reasonably sane person infer that i was suggesting with that post that you were claiming LA was clean. i was asking you to specifically address various and specific points about LA's actions. nothing more and nothing less. it was you who misconstrued by inferring anything extraneous into it.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daves4mtb
    As far as nolo contender - are you sure there is such a thing as a nolo plea in a USADA action? Generally that is left for criminal proceedings. And a nolo plea doesn't have all the benefits that non-lawyers think it does in most jurisdictions in modern times.

    i never said there was such a plea in a USADA action. what i said is "such a "nolo contendere" resolution". with nolo contendere being in quotation marks it should be obvious that i was referring to the STYLE of resolution (i.e. not contesting the charges but likewise not admitting guilt) rather than saying he entered a plea of nolo contendere and that's how the case was resolved.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daves4mtb
    Further, how is a plea of "no contest" different from simply not "contesting" as far as Lance "maintaining that he has never proven to have doped". He still hasn't been so proven. They didn't have a trial in absentia. (But yes, probably he doped).

    no, it still hasn't been proven in a hearing. that was precisely my point.

    to repeat: by refusing to confront/rebut the voluminous and plethoric evidence against him he was able to avoid an adjudication of guilt in a formal hearing. by avoiding an adjudication of guilt in a formal hearing LA is still able to claim his doping has never been proven. of course by "proven" he means definitively adjudicated in a formal hearing because it has been well established and demonstrated that he was doping, lying, engaging in blackmail and coercion, and a host of other nefarious actions.
  • 12-24-2012
    osokolo
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Once again, for you

    It isn't about "poor Lance". it is about a non court proceeding to go back in time to prove an athlete, competing in international sporting events, was breaking the rules, during a time when absolutely everyone was breaking the rules, and to say that even though the governing bodies of the sport gave him a clean bill of health repeatedly, that he wasn't clean after all and should therefore be stripped of his titles. I think it is unfair to the competitors and to the fans of the sport.

    I think that cycling should move on, and come up with a way to test people and to establish they are clean. If one passes and is found to be clean, that should be it for that test and that period of time (unless someone can show that the test was fraudulent - which probably happened sometimes). They should clean up the field in real time.

    I don't know if Cadel Evans ever did or didn't do anything with EPO, etc. But people who know a heck of lot of more than either of us (even Lance's accusers, and multiple TdF winners Le Mond and Landis) say the whole sport was doping then at the top level.

    From a fan's perspective (fan of the sport not Lance specifically) we still got to see a great athletic competition.

    Let me make an analogy. In formula 1 racing, in the early 90s there were electronic traction control devices that were used. They would cut power if wheel slip was detected, among other things. This was outlawed. Then, in 94 (IIRC) Michael Schumacher won the title, in a car that behaved a lot like it had the outlawed traction control. Even Ayrton Senna commendted that Schumacher's car behaved nothing like his teammmate's. Months or years later it was discovered that Schumacher's team had the software codes for traction control and that it was a question of whether they were activated or not. That was never determined.

    If he had been the only doing this, well, it would stand to reason that he duped the field and doesn't deserve a title. If on the other hand, everyone else did it too, and they still lost, that changes the context quite a bit.

    Maybe you're right, maybe the solution is to go after lance, have no TdF winner for a period of several years, and to make him out to be the devil. It just seems to me he is a fallible human who was competing in the sport as it existed, at that level, at that time. Maybe that doesn't make him "innocent" but perhaps it is a "mitigating factor". And I still don't see what cycling, especially cycling in the U.S, gains out of this. That's all.

    And Merry Christmas, seriously.

    Ignorance of the law excuses no man -- from practicing it. Adison Mizner
  • 12-24-2012
    Stugotz
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Vespasianus View Post
    I actually wonder, if everyone was clean, would lance still have won? Each person responds differently to EPO and people can see little improvement or dramatic improvement depending upon their baseline levels.

    Not a chance! With a documented VO2 max in the upper 70's physiologically it would be impossible...
  • 12-24-2012
    monogod
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    It isn't about "poor Lance". it is about a non court proceeding to go back in time to prove an athlete, competing in international sporting events, was breaking the rules, during a time when absolutely everyone was breaking the rules, and to say that even though the governing bodies of the sport gave him a clean bill of health repeatedly, that he wasn't clean after all and should therefore be stripped of his titles. I think it is unfair to the competitors and to the fans of the sport.

    it's not unfair to strip a cheater of unfairly gotten wins. doesn't matter how many of the riders were doping.

    you're arguing situational ethics and very few are buying it or on board with you.

    also, not only was he repeatedly given a clean bill of health but he repeatedly failed drug tests. you're aware of this... right?

    he repeatedly dodged drug tests and even dropped out of races to avoid being tested. you're aware of this... right?

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daves4mtb
    Maybe you're right, maybe the solution is to go after lance, have no TdF winner for a period of several years, and to make him out to be the devil. It just seems to me he is a fallible human who was competing in the sport as it existed, at that level, at that time. Maybe that doesn't make him "innocent" but perhaps it is a "mitigating factor". And I still don't see what cycling, especially cycling in the U.S, gains out of this. That's all.

    excuse me? "make him out to be the devil"?!?!?!?

    hardly.

    you know why such a ruckus was made about him? because nearly ALL of the others implicated in this huge doping scandal CAME CLEAN when confronted. lance did not. lance aggressively pursued and intimidated and retaliated against people who spoke out against him. lance maintained his innocence when busted in outright in lies. lance insisted that he never failed a drug test when he failed many. lance lied under oath in depositions about doping. and it goes on and on ad nauseum.

    lance made himself out to be the devil and now he gets to reap the whirlwind.

    it's interesting you're so willing to give him a pass for lying, perjury, cheating, doping, blackmailing, bullying, and retaliation with "he's a fallible human being" as some sort of excusable "mitigating factor" while you've neg repped and shat upon anyone who's dared to discuss this with you.

    don't look now but your disingenuous prejudicial "tolerance" is showing.... :rolleyes:
  • 12-24-2012
    osokolo
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by monogod View Post
    it's not unfair to strip a cheater of unfairly gotten wins. doesn't matter how many of the riders were doping.

    you're arguing situational ethics and very few are buying it or on board with you.

    also, not only was he repeatedly given a clean bill of health but he repeatedly failed drug tests. you're aware of this... right?

    he repeatedly dodged drug tests and even dropped out of races to avoid being tested. you're aware of this... right?


    excuse me? "make him out to be the devil"?!?!?!?

    hardly.

    you know why such a ruckus was made about him? because nearly ALL of the others implicated in this huge doping scandal CAME CLEAN when confronted. lance did not. lance aggressively pursued and intimidated and retaliated against people who spoke out against him. lance maintained his innocence when busted in outright in lies. lance insisted that he never failed a drug test when he failed many. lance lied under oath in depositions about doping. and it goes on and on ad nauseum.

    lance made himself out to be the devil and now he gets to reap the whirlwind.

    it's interesting you're so willing to give him a pass for lying, perjury, cheating, doping, blackmailing, bullying, and retaliation with "he's a fallible human being" as some sort of excusable "mitigating factor" while you've neg repped and shat upon anyone who's dared to discuss this with you.

    don't look now but your disingenuous prejudicial "tolerance" is showing.... :rolleyes:

    well said.

    end of the story. let's move on, please. there is no winning here...
  • 12-24-2012
    Stugotz
    I stand corrected. Lance Armstrong actually has a documented VO2 max of 84. (Still not in the realm of a GC winner).

    Documented VO2 max figures.
  • 12-24-2012
    RollingAround
    All I know is it make sme feel better about huffing and puffing up a hill since it took Lance blood transfusions ect ect to get those titles. I feel less inferior, at least I'm 100% natural blood sweat and beers.
  • 12-25-2012
    Bro
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by osokolo View Post
    just out of curiosity - can you describe how different athletes would respond differently to EPO?

    the goal when using rEPO is to increase the erythrocyte level by 3-4% - same as blood doping. but with rEPO it is achieved within days, compared to months of altitude training.

    how do different athletes react differently to increased erythrocyte levels? as far as i understand the mechanism - the difference is insignificant, compared to overall gain...

    but i'd love to learn more accurate explanation...

    Seems I missed a bit in this thread while I was out... Anyways.

    EPO is a drug, and it is also a hormone that occurs naturally in the body. It stimulates and controls production of erythrocytes (red blood cells) in the kidneys and bone marrow -- the EPO that is taken as a PED is slightly different from naturally-occurring EPO, which is why drug controls are able to detect it. However, both forms still have the same effect -- which is increased number of red blood cells.

    As a drug, EPO affects the endocrine system. Simply by the nature of the endocrine system, every person's system responds differently to each drug, though everyone will experience the same basic effects -- in the case of EPO, it's more red blood cells. Some patients are naturally more inclined to produce more blood cells, and some may not, as is the case with anemic patients. (EPO is commonly used to treat anemia, fun fact.) Additionally, some patients respond more quickly and readily to hormonal changes than other patients. The human body is the same basic system, but minute changes in every person's set of genes results in vastly different bodies

    Anyhow, that's the very long, very complicated story very short, and as well as I understand it.
  • 12-25-2012
    Vespasianus
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by osokolo View Post
    everyone responds to EPO very similarly - it is a simple math. the more oxygen carriers - the more oxygen can be fed into the burner...

    the catch is to dope as much as possible short of exploding the burner. that is where Lance was the king, plus masking it successfully (by changing his blood) after every session - so that he is not caught - that was the ultimate perfection...

    without it? pack filler, as someone suggested it...

    Well, I would not agree to that. People don't respond to asprin the same way, let alone EPO. Also, if you are performing at a certain level with a lower hemoglobin level, EPO will give you a boost. If you are performing at the same level but with a higher hemoglobin level, the benefits will be less.
  • 12-25-2012
    osokolo
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Vespasianus View Post
    Well, I would not agree to that. People don't respond to asprin the same way, let alone EPO. Also, if you are performing at a certain level with a lower hemoglobin level, EPO will give you a boost. If you are performing at the same level but with a higher hemoglobin level, the benefits will be less.

    sure - i would not challenge this statement.

    i am pretty sure Lance responded pretty well - because if he didn't - why in the hell would he risk so much, for such an insignificant gain.

    not just him, but everyone else.

    so i think it is fair to say that all of them benefited from EPO, significantly - otherwise they would not have used it...

    yes?