Lance Armstrong stripped of Tour de France titles

[Blaze01]

You have to have more than just ex-teamates saying they saw or they did dope with him....That wouldn't float in any court of law....

 

[mobes23]

You have to have more than just ex-teamates saying they saw or they did dope with him....That wouldn't float in any court of law....

It'd float. 10+ eye witnesses testifying that they saw him juice is strong. Only way it fails is if all of the 10+ witnesses aren't credible in the eyes of the court/jury/arbitrator. It's hearsay that wouldn't float and maybe that's what you're thinking of, but that doesn't apply here.

 

[DUB]

This is a very interesting (and long) article from a few years ago.

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

"So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."

Dr. Michael Ashenden began his career as an exercise physiologist with the Australian Institute of Sport. After assisting in the development of an EPO test for the Sydney Olympic Games, he left the AIS to focus on battling blood doping. In 2005, Dr. Ashenden was among of group of scientists who questioned the validity of a physiological study on Lance Armstrong, a dispute that led him to serve as an expert witness in an arbitration case involving Armstrong and a bonus payment for winning the Tour. Dr. Ashenden kindly agreed to speak with us and shed some new light on that controversy. He also helped us analyze the 6 positives from Armstrong's '99 Tour samples with a level of detail never before made public.

Cycling has always been dirty.

History of Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports

"The modern applications [of drug use in sports] began in the late nineteenth century, with preparations made from the coca leaf -- the source of cocaine and related alkaloids. Vin Mariani, a widely used mixture of coca leaf extract and wine, was even called 'the wine for athletes.' It was used by French cyclists and... by a champion lacrosse team. Coca and cocaine were popular because they staved off the sense of fatigue and hunger brought on by prolonged exertion."

 

[PapaG]

It'd float. 10+ eye witnesses testifying that they saw him juice is strong. Only way it fails is if all of the 10+ witnesses aren't credible in the eyes of the court/jury/arbitrator. It's hearsay that wouldn't float and maybe that's what you're thinking of, but that doesn't apply here.

Roger Clemens had the guy injecting him with steroids testify against him in court, and Clemens was acquitted. The Department of Justice dropped its case against Armstrong after two years because they had insufficient evidence to charge, yet something called the USADA has better resources and better evidence than the Department of Justice? Without being able to depose the "10 witnesses", or even cross-examine them, it makes for a kangaroo court, and not a true judicial process. The DoJ had access to the same witnesses, and decided that their testimony alone wasn't sufficient to charge Armstrong.


Please...

 

[mobes23]

Roger Clemens had the guy injecting him with steroids testify against him in court, and Clemens was acquitted. The Department of Justice dropped its case against Armstrong after two years because they had insufficient evidence to charge, yet something called the USADA has better resources and better evidence than the Department of Justice? Without being able to depose the "10 witnesses", or even cross-examine them, it makes for a kangaroo court, and not a true judicial process. The DoJ had access to the same witnesses, and decided that their testimony alone wasn't sufficient to charge Armstrong.


Please...

With Clemens it was one eye witness and he lacked credibility, so that's a bad example.

Can't say I've followed it closely, but do we know much about the DOJ decision? Shooting from the hip, I can imagine all sorts of reasons the DOJ didn't proceed...statute of limitations, doping occurred out of jurisdiction, etc. that would limit DOJ, but that would not apply to USADA. None of these would relate to the evidentiary weight of the witnesses testimony. Again, if the case is as strong as you seem to think, then why didn't Armstrong go foward with the process? But of course, it's much more fun to make it seem black and white and I'm sure you'll stick to that perspective. As grueling as the tour is, I have a hard time believing that Armstrong just tired out and gave up. You'd think it'd be part of his nature to just keep fighting, no matter how painful the process.

 

[Masbee]

With Clemens it was one eye witness and he lacked credibility, so that's a bad example.

Can't say I've followed it closely, but do we know much about the DOJ decision? Shooting from the hip, I can imagine all sorts of reasons the DOJ didn't proceed...statute of limitations, doping occurred out of jurisdiction, etc. that would limit DOJ, but that would not apply to USADA. None of these would relate to the evidentiary weight of the witnesses testimony. Again, if the case is as strong as you seem to think, then why didn't Armstrong go foward with the process? But of course, it's much more fun to make it seem black and white and I'm sure you'll stick to that perspective. As grueling as the tour is, I have a hard time believing that Armstrong just tired out and gave up. You'd think it'd be part of his nature to just keep fighting, no matter how painful the process.

Did you miss the part about the Arbritration process being rigged?

In criminal court, even the accused that are guilty have a fighting chance of beating the charges.

In the USADA abritration there are several stories out about innocent athletes who were found "guilty", and something like 68 out of 70 cases were won by the USADA. It is nearly immpossible to win in that forum.

And yet, despite those facts, you continue to presume that Lance Armstrong is somehow suspect in his decision to not fight on through a rigged process.

Both Lance and his attorney said it was OVER once they lost their court battle to squash the USADA arbritration process. The recent decision to not fight on was anticlimatic.

 

[mobes23]

Did you miss the part about the Arbritration process being rigged?

In criminal court, even the accused that are guilty have a fighting chance of beating the charges.

In the USADA abritration there are several stories out about innocent athletes who were found "guilty", and something like 68 out of 70 cases were won by the USADA. It is nearly immpossible to win in that forum.

And yet, despite those facts, you continue to presume that Lance Armstrong is somehow suspect in his decision to not fight on through a rigged process.

Both Lance and his attorney said it was OVER once they lost their court battle to squash the USADA arbritration process. The recent decision to not fight on was anticlimatic.

I have no idea if it's rigged, but Armstrong would have good reason for people to believe that it is.

Your understanding about criminal courts isn't necessarily accurate...I have friends that have worked in various prosecutor positions and they generally don't prosecute unless they think they'll win. Their "won/loss" record is crazy high because of that...and it's not an indication that the process is rigged...they have a ton of cases and they focus on the ones in which they have strong evidence. I would think USADA would take a similar approach, so those numbers aren't necessarily a bad/unfair as they may seem.

As far as innocent athletes being found guilty, that is a bad fact of any judicial system. Genetic evidence has freed a lot of innocent people that were convicted and jailed. Horrible stuff, but there is no full proof way of getting it right 100% of the time.

Personally, if I were innocent and I had the means to fight it, I think I would fight any process no matter how low my chances of success. If I'm being unjustly accused, I'm ready to fight it. The only factor possibly against it is if I thought my wife and kids would be negatively impacted, but otherwise it'd be game on. Really, it comes down to one of two possibilities:

#1. Armstrong is innocent, but he thinks the process is rigged, a positive outcome is unlikely, so why bother fighting it?
#2. Armstrong is not innocent and he knows that 10+ guys that he rode with and doped with will be testifying publicly against him. Maybe some of those guys (Floyd, possibly Tyler) he could discredit, but then there'd be guys like Hincapie that would be difficult to discredit (I have no idea who the 10+ are...just throwing out guesses.) He very likely would lose and a lot of bad, very specific facts are made public in the process. So better not to get dragged through the mud in a public way, opt out of the process and claim it was rigged to begin with.

I have a hard time believing an innocent guy who fought through 7 tour wins and fought through cancer would fold like that...I don't think I would. So, personally, I think #1 is unlikely. #2 seems more likely. That said, none of us knows the truth, none of us were there to see him dope/not dope. I said it early on, I really, really, really wish that he didn't dope. Taking in all the facts, my gut feeling is that he did.

 

[PapaG]

Your understanding about criminal courts isn't necessarily accurate...I have friends that have worked in various prosecutor positions and they generally don't prosecute unless they think they'll win.

Which is why the DoJ ended a 2-year investigation of Armstrong. Because they didn't think they could win.

The USADA isn't worried about that, because there is no jury, and they control the entire process, and render their own decision. It's Soviet-style in some ways. A controlling agency makes accusations, controls all aspects of the trial, and then gets to decide the verdict. If you can't see the obvious bias and the potential for corruption involved in that process, then there isn't much more to discuss here.

Exactly who is the USADA accountable to in terms of keeping itself honest? Seems like they kind of just do as they please, and really don't answer to anyone.

 

[mobes23]

DOJ is subject to statute of limitations, USADA not. DOJ needs jurisdiction, USADA has it. DOJ is criminal court (high bar for prosecution/beyond reasonable doubt), USADA has lower bar (no idea what it is, but it's not that high.)

Get off that DOJ pony, it's tired.

 

[PapaG]

DOJ is subject to statute of limitations, USADA not. DOJ needs jurisdiction, USADA has it. DOJ is criminal court (high bar for prosecution/beyond reasonable doubt), USADA has lower bar (no idea what it is, but it's not that high.)

Get off that DOJ pony, it's tired.

Yeah, due process and the ability to defend oneself is a tired idea.

 

[mobes23]

Yeah, due process and the ability to defend oneself is a tired idea.

He didn't even get there -- he opted out of the process before he could even be wronged. He chose not to defend.

As an aside, the way sports organizations/leagues regulate their players is pretty draconian. Was Goodell's process fair/right in dealing with the Saints players? Fines and penalties in the NBA and NCAA (see Penn State) can also be pretty random/lacking in fair process. I actually agree that there is a lot not to like about USADA.

So back on point, I don't believe a fighter like Armstrong would run from a fight, even a bully like USADA, if he is innocent. He would tackle it like he tackled the tours and tackled cancer.

 

[Masbee]

I have no idea if it's rigged, but Armstrong would have good reason for people to believe that it is.

well, the Federal Judge who heard Armstrong's case, more or less agreed that, yes, it is rigged and said that if the USADA wanted to "save" sports by destroying sports, there wasn't anything he could do about it.

Your understanding about criminal courts isn't necessarily accurate...I have friends that have worked in various prosecutor positions and they generally don't prosecute unless they think they'll win. Their "won/loss" record is crazy high because of that...and it's not an indication that the process is rigged...they have a ton of cases and they focus on the ones in which they have strong evidence. I would think USADA would take a similar approach, so those numbers aren't necessarily a bad/unfair as they may seem.

You are forgetting one factor, the "win" rate of local prosecutors against well funded, well supported defendants is MUCH lower than those headline election friendly rates which are jammed packed with defendants who have no means or ability to put on a quality defense.

The USADA has its crazy high percentage of win rate against defendants that are not from the lower tiers of society.

And if you think it IS NOT rigged, please, by all means, offer up the proof of how this process is run fairly as per the highest standards of jurisprudence practice (best practices). How is independence maintained among the various experts and officials and lawyers involved? What is the appeals process? Who does the USADA answer to for errors or failings?

As far as innocent athletes being found guilty, that is a bad fact of any judicial system. Genetic evidence has freed a lot of innocent people that were convicted and jailed. Horrible stuff, but there is no full proof way of getting it right 100% of the time.

Yes, but if you don't bother to construct a system where truth is the highest priority, you are unlikely to get it right by design.

Personally, if I were innocent and I had the means to fight it, I think I would fight any process no matter how low my chances of success. If I'm being unjustly accused, I'm ready to fight it. The only factor possibly against it is if I thought my wife and kids would be negatively impacted, but otherwise it'd be game on.

I am sorry, but this is just ridiculous.

Anybody can talk tough when they don't have a gun pointed to their head.

If you KNEW that a fight was doomed, and there no way at all you could win the fight, you would spend months of your life wasted on that fight and untold money, for what?

You don't sound very level headed. It is certainly an emotional response.

Really, it comes down to one of two possibilities:

#1. Armstrong is innocent, but he thinks the process is rigged, a positive outcome is unlikely, so why bother fighting it?
#2. Armstrong is not innocent and he knows that 10+ guys that he rode with and doped with will be testifying publicly against him. Maybe some of those guys (Floyd, possibly Tyler) he could discredit, but then there'd be guys like Hincapie that would be difficult to discredit (I have no idea who the 10+ are...just throwing out guesses.) He very likely would lose and a lot of bad, very specific facts are made public in the process. So better not to get dragged through the mud in a public way, opt out of the process and claim it was rigged to begin with.

I have a hard time believing an innocent guy who fought through 7 tour wins and fought through cancer would fold like that...I don't think I would. So, personally, I think #1 is unlikely. #2 seems more likely. That said, none of us knows the truth, none of us were there to see him dope/not dope. I said it early on, I really, really, really wish that he didn't dope. Taking in all the facts, my gut feeling is that he did.

Or, #3:

Lance is guilty, and he knows the process is rigged. No point in continuing the fight when he has no chance of beating the rap.

I think Lance has used PEDs.

I think the process being used to attack him is corrupt.

Both can exist at the same time.

Because I don't fully agree with the aims of the USADA and don't agree at all with their process I would prefer a guilty man to beat the charges than to be railroaded in a corrupt system and process.

 

[PapaG]

He didn't even get there -- he opted out of the process before he could even be wronged. He chose not to defend.

As an aside, the way sports organizations/leagues regulate their players is pretty draconian. Was Goodell's process fair/right in dealing with the Saints players? Fines and penalties in the NBA and NCAA (see Penn State) can also be pretty random/lacking in fair process. I actually agree that there is a lot not to like about USADA.

So back on point, I don't believe a fighter like Armstrong would run from a fight, even a bully like USADA, if he is innocent. He would tackle it like he tackled the tours and tackled cancer.

WRONG

Due process doesn't apply to the USADA. It does to an actual (relatively speaking) legitimate proceeding, such as being charged by the federal government with committing a crime. Why would one to continue to spend time, energy, and life fighting against a decision that has already been made, short of some sort of secretive show trial? The smart thing to do is to say fuck it, the feds have nothing on me, I never tested positive during a race, and I won the races.

I'd do that even if I had used PEDs. I actually respect Armstrong even more now for telling the USADA to pound sand until they come up with a more transparent and honest process for determining guilt. I also laugh at the USADA for claiming to "strip" Armstrong of his seven Tour wins. They have literally zero authority to do so, and the UCI hasn't recognized them doing so. The fact that they thought they could do so should tell everyone just how out of touch that organization really is, if chasing ghosts from 13 years ago wasn't reason enough already.

 

[mobes23]

Interesting post Masbee...I won't respond to all because we're both two danged wordy lol

- Leagues/organizing bodies like this have crazy power, their process can be haphazard and there is a lot not to like (just mentioned this in another post.) I'm not defending USADA itself of what it's done in the past. Just saying that there are plenty of other examples where leagues/sports organizations have exerted power in ways that are unlikeable, but the courts and society have let them regulate themselves. Again, I'm not saying it's the way it should be, just the way it is.

- If he's innocent and fights the process, there's at least a chance he can sway (a) courts that he has been wrongly harmed and/or (b) the court of public opinion, either of which could potentially change that bad process. I'm all for good process that protects the innocent and maybe that would've resulted if he'd fought. I'll be surprised if USADA changes much at this point.

- I'm level headed and not being over emotional. If I have the means to clear my name and my life's work, I'd take it on. I wouldn't leave me and my family bankrupt to do it, but otherwise, I would. It's not a gun that was pointed at Armstrong and he had time to think it all through. Unless he's guilty, he didn't KNOW that he'd lose. If he's innoncent, he'd be predisposed to think he could beat the odds. I'd be thinking that nothing would change if I opted out and that I had a responsibility to myself, my family, donators to my foundation, and my sport to try and make that change happen.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Lance was doping like practically all bikers were during that time period.

Not sure what charges DOJ can bring for someone doping. Don't think they can bring charges for someone using steroids. What the DOJ needs to prove a crime and what the USADA needs to prove to strip titles are two completely different things.

Let's hope whatever system is being used that "eye witnesses" is still evidence that can be used . . . imagine if eye witness testimony wasn't allowed in rape cases.

 

[PapaG]

What the DOJ needs to prove a crime and what the USADA needs to prove to strip titles are two completely different things.

Yeah. One requires actual proof, and the other relies on the words of disgraced (and jealous?) competitors.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Yeah. One requires actual proof, and the other relies on the words of disgraced (and jealous?) competitors.

Well that is one twist on the situation

 

[mobes23]

Yeah. One requires actual proof, and the other relies on the words of disgraced (and jealous?) competitors.

Were your panties similarly twisted when Goodell played God with the Saints players?

 

[3RA1N1AC]

eye witness testimony is kinda important

if 10 people say that they saw me shoot you in the face, id probably go to jail without any other evidence

 

[Masbee]

Interesting post Masbee...I won't respond to all because we're both two danged wordy lol

- Leagues/organizing bodies like this have crazy power, their process can be haphazard and there is a lot not to like (just mentioned this in another post.) I'm not defending USADA itself of what it's done in the past. Just saying that there are plenty of other examples where leagues/sports organizations have exerted power in ways that are unlikeable, but the courts and society have let them regulate themselves. Again, I'm not saying it's the way it should be, just the way it is.

- If he's innocent and fights the process, there's at least a chance he can sway (a) courts that he has been wrongly harmed and/or (b) the court of public opinion, either of which could potentially change that bad process. I'm all for good process that protects the innocent and maybe that would've resulted if he'd fought. I'll be surprised if USADA changes much at this point.

- I'm level headed and not being over emotional. If I have the means to clear my name and my life's work, I'd take it on. I wouldn't leave me and my family bankrupt to do it, but otherwise, I would. It's not a gun that was pointed at Armstrong and he had time to think it all through. Unless he's guilty, he didn't KNOW that he'd lose. If he's innoncent, he'd be predisposed to think he could beat the odds. I'd be thinking that nothing would change if I opted out and that I had a responsibility to myself, my family, donators to my foundation, and my sport to try and make that change happen.

You keep repeating the same thing:

If I was innocent I would fight to the bitter end to "prove" my innocence.

But, you keep ignoring, if there was no chance you could succeed in proving your innocence you are just twisting at windmills and are a fool.

And you mentioned Lance proving his innocence in "court". USADA does not have court. And there is no appeal to a higher court. And the USADA before the hearing started declared that Lance was Guilty. The verdict is preordained. Get it?

 

[mobes23]

You keep repeating the same thing:

If I was innocent I would fight to the bitter end to "prove" my innocence.

But, you keep ignoring, if there was no chance you could succeed in proving your innocence you are just twisting at windmills and are a fool.

And you mentioned Lance proving his innocence in "court". USADA does not have court. And there is no appeal to a higher court. And the USADA before the hearing started declared that Lance was Guilty. The verdict is preordained. Get it?

If I'm innocent, danged straight I'm going to think there is a chance and if I think there is a chance I will see it through to the end. I think our disagreement is that you think there was zero chance and I thought there was some chance that USADA process would give it a fair shot.

Preordained? Are you absolutely sure about that or you just think that? I'm not an expert on their process, but I thought both sides presented arguments and testimony. Preordained means absolute certainty and I don't think it's accurate.

So, yes, I guess I'm straight out of Dumb and Dumber lol.

Lloyd: What do you think the chances are of a guy like you and a girl like me... ending up together?
Mary: Well, Lloyd, that's difficult to say. I mean, we don't really...
Lloyd: Hit me with it! Just give it to me straight! I came a long way just to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.
[pause]
Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance... *YEAH!*

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I don't buy that. I think that is what people who have had unfavorable rulings or people who don't challenge the system want others to believe.

Just for the sake of his life motto, one would not expect him to give up, no matter what the odds. And if he really was innocent, I think those odds are a lot higher than the people from the Armstrong camp are making it out to be.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency on Wednesday released its evidence against Lance Armstrong – a massive dossier of more than 1,000 pages with sworn testimony from 26 people, including 15 cyclists with knowledge of Armstrong's doping activities on the U.S. Postal Service Cycling team.

The evidence includes testimony from cyclist George Hincapie, a longtime close associate of Armstrong's who on Wednesday admitted his role in the doping conspiracy and said he told investigators what he knew about others.

"I would have been much more comfortable talking only about myself, but understood that I was obligated to tell the truth about everything I knew. So that is what I did," Hincapie's statement said.

In a statement, USADA chief executive Travis Tygart said, "The evidence shows beyond any doubt that the US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team ran the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...a-reasoned-decision-teammates-doping/1624551/


I see why he choose not to fight the findings . . .

 

[MARIS61]

All testimony was bought with immunity (6 month suspension from the sport) for those who said what USADA wanted them to say. All who testified were already admitted liars and carry the same credibility as any jailhouse snitch.

The USADA went after Armstrong only after the Federal government dropped it's extensive investigation of him due to finding no credible evidence at all.

Whether he did or did not dope, only a coward would have anything to do with the USADA.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

All testimony was bought with immunity (6 month suspension from the sport) for those who said what USADA wanted them to say. All who testified were already admitted liars and carry the same credibility as any jailhouse snitch.

The USADA went after Armstrong only after the Federal government dropped it's extensive investigation of him due to finding no credible evidence at all.

Whether he did or did not dope, only a coward would have anything to do with the USADA.

I'm sure that is it. They got 15 teammates to all lie about Armstrong. They created bogus emails, bogus receipts and made 11 other people lied. Armstrong decided not to fight this huge conspiracy and try to save his name but instead allowed all this bogus testimony and evidence be unchallenged because it a fight he couldn't win. Even the best lawyers in America are unable to debunk a case that involves a conspiracy with 26 lying people and bogus documents.

That must be the case . . . or, maybe this is a possibility:

Hincapie's statement acknowledged that he had cheated.

"Early in my professional career, it became clear to me that, given the widespread use of performance enhancing drugs by cyclists at the top of the profession, it was not possible to compete at the highest level without them. I deeply regret that choice and sincerely apologize to my family, teammates and fans," Hincapie wrote.

What I find appalling is Lance is so self involved he will continue to call his ex-teamamtes and friends liars and paint then just as you have because he can't admit to what he did.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

everyone is a parody of themselves when you peel off the first layer of skin, and let the demons out

 

[SlyPokerDog]

everyone is a parody of themselves when you peel off the first layer of skin, and let the demons out

Bullshit! I keep my demons out in the open for everyone to see.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Bullshit! I keep my demons out in the open for everyone to see.

well, some people have thin skin

 

[SlyPokerDog]

well, some people have thin skin

I hate when you can see veins on a woman's boobs.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

I hate when you can see veins on a woman's boobs.

those are the demons trying to come out