Lance Armstrong - innocent or guilty?

Bluebirds

Well-Known Member
Up there with the most infamous sporting deceptions in history, a reputation in tatters but his charity as raised £500 mil dollars towards cancer research, after he survived testicular cancer.

What a story:lbf:!

and he used to shag sheryl crow.

who should play him in the bio-pic?
 
Up there with the most infamous sporting deceptions in history, a reputation in tatters but his charity as raised £500 mil dollars towards cancer research, after he survived testicular cancer.

What a story:lbf:!

and he used to shag sheryl crow.

who should play him in the bio-pic?

I believe that there is no physical evidence that he is guilty, as he stated today. If there is he would be foolish to say that.
 
Up there with the most infamous sporting deceptions in history, a reputation in tatters but his charity as raised £500 mil dollars towards cancer research, after he survived testicular cancer.

What a story:lbf:!

and he used to shag sheryl crow.

who should play him in the bio-pic?

I've always had conflicting feelings about him..i mean..he cheated on his 1st wife...why wouldn't he cheat on anything else??
 
The whole thing absolutely stinks. He may well have used drugs, it's rampant in cycling but the time when it could actually be proved has gone. Long gone.

If the authorities can prove it, then prove it. But they can't so they should shut the f*** up.
 
I saw a thing on the news here that of the 20 or so runner-up athletes who could be considered the replacement Tour de France winners, only ONE of them was not embroiled in a doping scandal. :rolleyes: They're all f***ing roided out, the whole sport's become a joke.
 
Lance Armstrong's statement. To me it rings true. I think it's criminally unfair what they are doing to him but he will continue to be a legend.

“There comes a point in every man’s life when he has to say, “Enough is enough.” For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a two-year federal criminal investigation followed by Travis Tygart’s unconstitutional witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today - finished with this nonsense.

I had hoped that a federal court would stop USADA’s charade. Although the court was sympathetic to my concerns and recognized the many improprieties and deficiencies in USADA’s motives, its conduct, and its process, the court ultimately decided that it could not intervene.

If I thought for one moment that by participating in USADA’s process, I could confront these allegations in a fair setting and - once and for all - put these charges to rest, I would jump at the chance. But I refuse to participate in a process that is so one-sided and unfair. Regardless of what Travis Tygart says, there is zero physical evidence to support his outlandish and heinous claims. The only physical evidence here is the hundreds of controls I have passed with flying colors. I made myself available around the clock and around the world. In-competition. Out of competition. Blood. Urine. Whatever they asked for I provided. What is the point of all this testing if, in the end, USADA will not stand by it?

From the beginning, however, this investigation has not been about learning the truth or cleaning up cycling, but about punishing me at all costs. I am a retired cyclist, yet USADA has lodged charges over 17 years old despite its own 8-year limitation. As respected organizations such as UCI and USA Cycling have made clear, USADA lacks jurisdiction even to bring these charges. The international bodies governing cycling have ordered USADA to stop, have given notice that no one should participate in USADA’s improper proceedings, and have made it clear the pronouncements by USADA that it has banned people for life or stripped them of their accomplishments are made without authority. And as many others, including USADA’s own arbitrators, have found, there is nothing even remotely fair about its process. USADA has broken the law, turned its back on its own rules, and stiff-armed those who have tried to persuade USADA to honor its obligations. At every turn, USADA has played the role of a bully, threatening everyone in its way and challenging the good faith of anyone who questions its motives or its methods, all at U.S. taxpayers’ expense. For the last two months, USADA has endlessly repeated the mantra that there should be a single set of rules, applicable to all, but they have arrogantly refused to practice what they preach. On top of all that, USADA has allegedly made deals with other riders that circumvent their own rules as long as they said I cheated. Many of those riders continue to race today.
The bottom line is I played by the rules that were put in place by the UCI, WADA and USADA when I raced. The idea that athletes can be convicted today without positive A and B samples, under the same rules and procedures that apply to athletes with positive tests, perverts the system and creates a process where any begrudged ex-teammate can open a USADA case out of spite or for personal gain or a cheating cyclist can cut a sweetheart deal for themselves. It’s an unfair approach, applied selectively, in opposition to all the rules. It’s just not right.

USADA cannot assert control of a professional international sport and attempt to strip my seven Tour de France titles. I know who won those seven Tours, my teammates know who won those seven Tours, and everyone I competed against knows who won those seven Tours. We all raced together. For three weeks over the same roads, the same mountains, and against all the weather and elements that we had to confront. There were no shortcuts, there was no special treatment. The same courses, the same rules. The toughest event in the world where the strongest man wins. Nobody can ever change that. Especially not Travis Tygart.

Today I turn the page. I will no longer address this issue, regardless of the circumstances. I will commit myself to the work I began before ever winning a single Tour de France title: serving people and families affected by cancer, especially those in underserved communities. This October, my Foundation will celebrate 15 years of service to cancer survivors and the milestone of raising nearly $500 million. We have a lot of work to do and I’m looking forward to an end to this pointless distraction. I have a responsibility to all those who have stepped forward to devote their time and energy to the cancer cause. I will not stop fighting for that mission. Going forward, I am going to devote myself to raising my five beautiful (and energetic) kids, fighting cancer, and attempting to be the fittest 40-year old on the planet.”
 
According to his statement he isn't fighting it because he'll have to fight it for the rest of his life. He could be right that it's a witch hunt.
Why is it so important they nail him for this and spend so much tax dollars on it?
That and apparently they could tamper with previously collected samples.
 
I'm in theboat that if he was guilty evience would be present. Why pull this out 6 or 7years after his last title.
? If he was guilty what recent amazing discoveries were made?
 
He can't prove his innocence.
They can't prove his guilt

A total clusterfcuk. There's no plausible solution.
It will just be a wound.....forever.

regards
 
He quit the process because his closest confidante was about to testify against him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/s...but-reliable-witness.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

That man will probably never talk to the press, however--he will only expose his friend if legally compelled--so Armstrong will now be able to maintain his persecuted-hero act.

There is plenty of evidence against Armstrong. He not only seems to have used drugs himself, but as team leader, was responsible for others doing so. People saying otherwise are not familiar with the details.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/usada.html
 
sadly, guilty :(
but, I really loved sitting down in front of the TV with my then wife :love:
and watching Lance win those "Tour de France" races :guitar:
so yeah, for her sake I went along with those that defended him :straightface:
but in my heart, I thought he did something :eek:
however, given the going through cancer, I did not really blame him too much :o
 
I'm baffled as to why he doesn't fight it.

Having just read his autobiography 'It's Not About The Bike', he said then that he was sick of having to defend himself regarding the claims of drug taking, even though there was no evidence. The French press even claimed that the chemotherapy he had endured had somehow made him stronger! I'm not a cycling fan but the book is an amazing read.
 
sadly, guilty :(
but, I really loved sitting down in front of the TV with my then wife :love:
and watching Lance win those "Tour de France" races :guitar:
so yeah, for her sake I went along with those that defended him :straightface:
but in my heart, I thought he did something :eek:
however, given the going through cancer, I did not really blame him too much :o


I bet he is relieved that he didn't offend your sense of ethics and morality. As least he has that.


To the person that claimed there is "plenty of evidence" you are basing that on a speculative news story and a letter that says evidence will be presented. That was like an opening statement in a trial. They say what they will prove, but saying you are going to prove it and actually presenting evidence are two different things. What if Lance Armstrong was sparing his longtime friend from testifying because he is still active in the sport? You can read it different ways. That's why they have trials. You would convict someone after hearing an opening statement.

Maybe all that was going to come out and he avoided it. Maybe.

But the USADA has overstepped their authority. The time is up even if he did it. It was an ugly vendetta against him and it didn't help cycling.
 
He quit the process because his closest confidante was about to testify against him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/s...but-reliable-witness.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

That man will probably never talk to the press, however--he will only expose his friend if legally compelled--so Armstrong will now be able to maintain his persecuted-hero act.

There is plenty of evidence against Armstrong. He not only seems to have used drugs himself, but as team leader, was responsible for others doing so. People saying otherwise are not familiar with the details.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/usada.html

This, pretty much.

You have to remember that Marion Jones never tested positive once in her career. Did Barry Bonds ever test positive either? As Victor Conte has said time and time again the tests are meaningless.

One thing you have to consider is it is now pretty much accepted that everyone on the Tour was juicing, so we are supposed to believe that Armstrong was able to beat all these juiced up elite athletes for 7 consecutive years???!! Meh.

What there has been is a ton of testimony from people who have witnessed Armstrong doing dodgy dodgy things. I don't get it. If there is a murder and people come forward and say they witnessed xyz firing a gun then that person will be convicted of murder, if there is enough witnesses and the testimony is proved credible enough. Why isn't witness testimony credible in this case??

With Armstrong there have been plenty of credible witnesses come forward (and I'm not talking about Floyd Landis) who have said they know first hand that Armstrong doped. Are they ALL lying?

And in many cases these are witnesses that never went to the press looking for attention but only testified when hauled in front of the authorities and faced jail if they committed perjury. The above poster is right Armstrong is shutting this down now because he does NOT want this thing to go any further and further more damning testimony to become a matter of public record.

This way he still gets to protest his innocence.
 
This, pretty much.

You have to remember that Marion Jones never tested positive once in her career. Did Barry Bonds ever test positive either? As Victor Conte has said time and time again the tests are meaningless.

One thing you have to consider is it is now pretty much accepted that everyone on the Tour was juicing, so we are supposed to believe that Armstrong was able to beat all these juiced up elite athletes for 7 consecutive years???!! Meh.

What there has been is a ton of testimony from people who have witnessed Armstrong doing dodgy dodgy things. I don't get it. If there is a murder and people come forward and say they witnessed xyz firing a gun then that person will be convicted of murder, if there is enough witnesses and the testimony is proved credible enough. Why isn't witness testimony credible in this case??

With Armstrong there have been plenty of credible witnesses come forward (and I'm not talking about Floyd Landis) who have said they know first hand that Armstrong doped. Are they ALL lying?

And in many cases these are witnesses that never went to the press looking for attention but only testified when hauled in front of the authorities and faced jail if they committed perjury. The above poster is right Armstrong is shutting this down now because he does NOT want this thing to go any further and further more damning testimony to become a matter of public record.

This way he still gets to protest his innocence.

Nice thought, unfortunately most of the witnesses are pulling sweetheart deals. Also Armstrong can not cross examine the witnesses under the USADA trial procedure. And all in all so what, I am sure Armstrong has witnesses that say to the contrary. Null case!
 
Nice thought, unfortunately most of the witnesses are pulling sweetheart deals. Also Armstrong can not cross examine the witnesses under the USADA trial procedure. And all in all so what, I am sure Armstrong has witnesses that say to the contrary. Null case!

I would LOVE to see Armstrong in some kind of civil case trying to defend this, but you can bet you left nut he will do everything he can to avoid that.

But anyway legalities aside, the title of this thread says "Armstrong Guilty or Innocent?" so that's what I am answering.

The basic premise that any Armstrong defenders struggle to explain is this one:

It is pretty well established that every single one of Armstrong's main competitors, and we are talking about some great cyclists here, were juicing. Now apparently if you believe Lance he was able to beat them for seven consecutive years clean. Doing even just brief research on the matters of blood doping and EPO you will quickly learn that these practices gives the riders who do it absolutely massive advantages over those who don't.

To buy intro the notion that Armstrong was able to beat the Ullrichs, Contadors, Pantini's etc of the world as a clean rider is not only absurd, I would go so far as to say it is impossible.
 
Back
Top Bottom