# another nail in the coffin



## beastie (20 May 2011)

It's not just one nutjob dope cheating american cyclist who has spilled the beans over Armstrong now. Hamilton has gone public on 60 mins. Story on roadcc. More fuel to fire, it,s only a matter of time now.


----------



## raindog (20 May 2011)

No link?


----------



## raindog (20 May 2011)

OK it's everywhere
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20064406-10391709.html
http://www.cyclingne...mstrong-use-epo


----------



## dellzeqq (20 May 2011)

Lance Armstrong has tweeted the 500 tests line.....

(why Her Nibs had to tell me this at half past five I've no ides.........)


----------



## rich p (20 May 2011)

Bang to rights. 

Most tested athlete bla bla bla...


....Hamilton trying to sell a book bla bla bla

Fess up you cheating twat.


----------



## raindog (20 May 2011)

He seems to confirm what Landis has said too
"Hamilton says Armstrong told him he did fail a test in 2001 given during the Tour de Suisse, an important event right before the Tour de France, thus backing up Landis's allegations.
That allegation is under investigation by federal authorities."
McQuaid must be sweating bricks about this one.


----------



## Crackle (20 May 2011)

I'm most interested in this failed test allegation because it has the potential to uncover, at the least, intransigence and at the most corruption, at the highest level. Armstrong's goose looks cooked now.


----------



## philipbh (20 May 2011)

rich p said:


> Most tested athlete bla bla bla...



I was thinking about this again - maybe he is right - if you count the number of self administered tests he has to perform to stay the right side of the line


----------



## rich p (20 May 2011)

philipbh said:


> I was thinking about this again - maybe he is right - if you count the number of self administered tests he has to perform to stay the right side of the line


----------



## threebikesmcginty (20 May 2011)

rich p said:


> Fess up you cheating twat.



subtle, rich, subtle


----------



## yello (20 May 2011)

It really does only seem to be a matter of time now doesn't it?

Like Crackle, I too am interested in the implications for UCI, McQuaid and Verbruggen with regard to the reported Tour de Suiss positive. In fact, I'm now more interested in it than in LA's situation. I came to the conclusion some time ago that Armstrong would go down for something or other (if not doping, then trafficing or fraud or some such), so my interest moved to a wider sphere. I'm wondering what'll happen to Livestrong too.

I'm guessing Hamilton was one of the people that the FDA/Novitzky spoke to last year, so his allegations are perhaps not new to the investigation.


----------



## PaulB (20 May 2011)

David Millar never failed a drugs test, but he was caught bang to rights so Armstrong's 'defence' is on shaky ground given the number of riders and colleagues spitting in that particular brand of soup.


----------



## raindog (20 May 2011)

Crackle said:


> I'm most interested in this failed test allegation because it has the potential to uncover, at the least, intransigence and at the most corruption, at the highest level.



Surely there's _got _to be a shake-up at the UCI now? Which is what we've all been waiting for. I mean, are they going to take legal action against Tyler on top of Flandis, or what?


----------



## gb155 (20 May 2011)

threebikesmcginty said:


> subtle, rich, subtle



I dont get what Rich is saying


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 May 2011)

PaulB said:


> David Millar never failed a drugs test, but he was caught bang to rights so Armstrong's 'defence' is on shaky ground given the number of riders and colleagues spitting in that particular brand of soup.



But Millar, iirc, did admit to using EPO when confronted with the evidence of several months worth of taped phone calls. 

So who has mellow johnny's calls on tape then? 

(and I'm a big post-comeback David Millar fan on the assumption that he is clean)


----------



## Noodley (20 May 2011)

Oh I wish I could remember to post a link in a reply...


----------



## montage (20 May 2011)

Not sure Hamilton's word counts for much, not that I'm defending Lance or anything, I reckon there is an extremely slim chance he was clean.


----------



## yello (20 May 2011)

User3094 said:


> Has LA actually ever stated hes never taken drugs?



Yes. He's been asked the direct question a number of times and usually replies something along the lines of that he's never taken 'performance enhancing' drugs.

Maybe he considers EPO to be a cold remedy, who knows.


----------



## John the Monkey (20 May 2011)

AT LAST!

We can wear our "I Believe Tyler" badges unironically.

Every cloud, etc.


----------



## Globalti (20 May 2011)

User3094 said:


> Has LA actually ever stated hes never taken drugs?
> 
> His replies always seem to be "never failed a test" - which is a different question entirely.
> 
> Weasel words I know.



Yes, I noticed this as well. 

I'm not a chemist but I work in the chemicals industry and know a little about the analytical methods used. The most common is gas chromatography and my understanding is that if an athlete had a close association with somebody who was good enough he could use molecules whose GC signature was masked by other molecules occurring naturally in the body's chemical makeup. The very clever scientists who isolate and test interesting new molecules are by definition many years ahead of those who try to detect the molecules. This kind of chemistry must be extremely costly but I'd have thought that the investment would be more than repaid by the commercial opportunities afforded by being internationally successful in sport. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Ferrari


----------



## Hont (20 May 2011)

montage said:


> Not sure Hamilton's word counts for much, not that I'm defending Lance or anything, I reckon there is an extremely slim chance he was clean.


I think his words - now - count for more than Lance's. Slim left town some time ago.


----------



## gb155 (20 May 2011)

If and I do mean IF he doped

It takes nothing away, he won't 7 tdf's when it was widely acknowledged that EVERYONE was on something , so if Lance was too then he won 7 tdf's on a level playing field = amazing 

If he wasn't and he won 7 tdf's at a disadvantage , then WOW !!!!!


THEN there is the huge issue of cancer and a 20% COS


----------



## montage (20 May 2011)

gb155 said:


> If and I do mean IF he doped
> 
> It takes nothing away, he won't 7 tdf's when it was widely acknowledged that EVERYONE was on something , so if Lance was too then he won 7 tdf's on a level playing field = amazing
> 
> If he wasn't and he won 7 tdf's at a disadvantage , then WOW !!!!!



7 TdF is still impressive.....doesn't stop him being a cheating arse though does it. He's a bit of a prick as well to be honest, doper or not, the way he has treated people in the past.


----------



## Noodley (20 May 2011)

gb155 said:


> It takes nothing away, he won't 7 tdf's when it was widely acknowledged that EVERYONE was on something , so if Lance was too then he won 7 tdf's on a level playing field = amazing



..and there is the reason cyclists continue to cheat.

...and a perfect example of how people fail to grasp the issue of doping.


----------



## gb155 (20 May 2011)

montage said:


> 7 TdF is still impressive.....doesn't stop him being a cheating arse though does it. He's a bit of a prick as well to be honest, doper or not, the way he has treated people in the past.



That makes the rest of the peloton cheating arses then ? (from the time, not today, apart from Dirty Berty )


----------



## gb155 (20 May 2011)

Noodley said:


> ..and there is the reason cyclists continue to cheat.
> 
> ...and a perfect example of how people fail to grasp the issue of doping.



Im not saying it right

Im saying he levelled the field


----------



## montage (20 May 2011)

gb155 said:


> Im not saying it right
> 
> Im saying he levelled the field



If he hadn't cheated, others would have been less inclined to cheat etc etc. pot, kettle


----------



## gb155 (20 May 2011)

montage said:


> If he hadn't cheated, others would have been less inclined to cheat etc etc. pot, kettle



He was out of it, on Chemo while the others were cheating no ?


----------



## montage (20 May 2011)

gb155 said:


> That makes the rest of the peloton cheating arses then ? (from the time, not today, apart from Dirty Berty )



The ones that doped, yes. The ones who apologised for doping and came back clean get my sympathy. The ones who waste time and money, like Tyler Hamilton and LA, don't.

Also, I'm not 100% convinced dirty berty is all that dirty, but there lies another thread


----------



## gb155 (20 May 2011)

montage said:


> The ones that doped, yes. The ones who apologised for doping and came back clean get my sympathy. The ones who waste time and money, like Tyler Hamilton and LA, don't.
> 
> Also, I'm not 100% convinced dirty berty is all that dirty, but there lies another thread



BUT, He never tested positive


----------



## montage (20 May 2011)

gb155 said:


> He was out of it, on Chemo while the others were cheating no ?



Not really the point.
It was hardly a level playing field for those who didn't dope. What about all the could be super stars who could have won the tdf cleanly if the dopers above them were removed from office?


----------



## gb155 (20 May 2011)

montage said:


> Not really the point.
> It was hardly a level playing field for those who didn't dope. What about all the could be super stars who could have won the tdf cleanly if the dopers above them were removed from office?



the tone of your post was that Lance "Invented it" and the rest played catch up


----------



## montage (20 May 2011)

gb155 said:


> the tone of your post was that Lance "Invented it" and the rest played catch up



The tone of my post was meant to be, if people like Lance didn't cheat, others wouldn't feel the need to cheat to try and keep up with him.

You are saying Lance cheated because others were cheating ..... see the problem? Vicious circle.


----------



## John the Monkey (20 May 2011)

gb155 said:


> It takes nothing away, he won't 7 tdf's when it was widely acknowledged that EVERYONE was on something , so if Lance was too then he won 7 tdf's on a level playing field = amazing



Not really. IIRC. rEPO affects different people in different ways - two riders might take the same dose, one gains hugely, one does not.

You're assuming that innate athletic ability is supplemented by a standard amount, which isn't the case, as I understand it.


----------



## BJH (20 May 2011)

Most tested athlete in history - possibly.
That means he's clean - not really.

Everyone was on it - no they weren't
LA was still the best because if they were all doped he still won - not if one other rider was clean

He never answers the question when it's put to him. Strange that isn't it. He threatens litigation against the people who accuse him, but never goes to court. A number of riders from his team have now come forward and said he led the charge towards drugs because "all the other teams were doing it". Are they all telling porkies? Some have even said that when they got to other teams, they had cleaned up and were not juiced.

I sadly reached the conclusion quite a bit ago that he is a cheat. Sadly, most of the evidence is circumstantial, but my god theres lots of it.

It's great if he did inspire people, or bring hope to them from his cure. It's great that he managed to recover from a life threatening disease and come back to ride again. But, he's also proof that it's very possible to cheat the doping controls and stay "clean". It probably helps when your so important that you can tell the drug testers to wait because your having a shower - long enough to get clean in more ways than one !


----------



## yello (21 May 2011)

Hinchcapie joins in? From the beeb



> George Hincapie, whom Armstrong once described as being "like a brother", would be the latest former team member to testify against him.


 That'd be a real damning indictment if GH confirmed what Landis and Hamilton have said. The latter 2 have questionable character and motive, but big George is clean (well, publicly).






> CBS News said Hincapie had told officials he and Armstrong had supplied each other with EPO before races and discussed using testosterone.



Note GH denies saying any such thing. Personally, I think it possible that someone at CBS has their wires crossed.


----------



## gb155 (21 May 2011)

Was it not widely regarded that GH was on quite a lot of stuff during his USPS AND Discovery days ????

Truth be told, Landis and Hamilton's words mean nothing in this, however if GH says Lance doped then its game over.

I will always be a defender of Lance, regardless, most on here know my reasons.


----------



## alecstilleyedye (21 May 2011)

if it's true, he's hardly the first multi-tour winner to have had pharmaceutical assistance…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling#2011


----------



## fossyant (21 May 2011)

It's all smelling a bit rotten !


----------



## Noodley (21 May 2011)

gb155 said:


> I will always be a defender of Lance, regardless, most on here know my reasons.




No need for you to defend him gb, accept he cheated - it means you are better than him!


----------



## kevin_cambs_uk (21 May 2011)

Well he better not be on drugs, or I will have to take his picture down in my hallway !
I will have to put up Ulrich or someone else ...


----------



## Noodley (21 May 2011)

Put up a picture of gb155 instead, much more inspirational than the cheats.


----------



## Tim Bennet. (21 May 2011)

The '60 Minutes' program is an institution in the USA. 
The word of the presenters (including Mike Wallace, Ed Bradley, Dan Rather, Diane Sawyer) is taken as gospel.
They must be very certain of their facts before they claim that George Hincapie has said these things to the Federal Investigators.

This is not the same as some blog reporting what they may have heard from some bitter ex-pro. It is America's most authoritative, current affairs program reporting that one of America's most revered sporting heros has been stitched up by the person he claimed to be 'like a brother' and his most loyal domestique.


----------



## just jim (21 May 2011)

Noodley said:


> Put up a picture of gb155 instead, much more inspirational than the cheats.



+1


----------



## Noodley (21 May 2011)

Tim Bennet. said:


> It is America's most authoritative, current affairs program...



The US equivalent of The Jeremy Kyle Show...


----------



## gb155 (21 May 2011)

Noodley said:


> Put up a picture of gb155 instead, much more inspirational than the cheats.



I didnt know you cared






but feel free LOL


----------



## Dayvo (21 May 2011)

gb155 said:


> I didnt know you cared
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bloody 'ell! 

No helmet, dodgy shoes, black socks and about to run into a ped with pushchair on a zebra crossing!


----------



## monnet (21 May 2011)

yello said:


> Hinchcapie joins in? From the beeb
> 
> That'd be a real damning indictment if GH confirmed what Landis and Hamilton have said. The latter 2 have questionable character and motive, but big George is clean (well, publicly).
> 
> ...



I don't think GH has actually outright denied it. He's said he didn't speak to 60 minutes. He said he's disappointed people are talking about the past in cycling not the future. He said he can't comment on an ongoing investigation. None of that is a denial. Of course it's not a confirmation either.


----------



## gb155 (21 May 2011)

Dayvo said:


> Bloody 'ell!
> 
> No helmet, dodgy shoes, black socks and about to *run into a ped with pushchair on a zebra crossing*!



Arghhhhh LOL, She was walking along the path , as opposed to over the crossing, the camera man hiding in a bush at an angle makes the picture tell another story tho


----------



## Smokin Joe (22 May 2011)

This is a great piece by Lionel Birnie which echoes my own feeling on Armstrong -

http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-and-comment/lance-armstrong-the-endgame-begins/


----------



## asterix (22 May 2011)

> *we all allowed one man to dominate the sport, to its detriment*. The Tour de France became the Tour de Lance. It was just a moderately amusing pun at first but soon it stood for more. No man is bigger than the sport, you say? Well, Armstrong came closest of all to being just that, certainly in the eyes of people who do not follow the season from Het Nieuwsblad to Lombardy.



..seems we still are


----------



## mummra (22 May 2011)

Smokin Joe said:


> This is a great piece by Lionel Birnie which echoes my own feeling on Armstrong -
> 
> http://www.cyclespor...endgame-begins/



I read this last night. Not sure what to believe now. I want to believe that he did it all without PED's but as others have said, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence coming out now.


----------



## Peter91 (22 May 2011)

If he drugged up so much, then why did *none* of the hundreds of drug tests come back positive?


----------



## rich p (22 May 2011)

Peter91 said:


> If he drugged up so much, then why did *none* of the hundreds of drug tests come back positive?




  Read around about masking, micro-dosing and manipulating blood levels. Then get back to us.


----------



## Peter91 (22 May 2011)

But to have successfully done that and avoided detection 100's of times?


----------



## fossyant (22 May 2011)

Peter91 said:


> But to have successfully done that and avoided detection 100's of times?



Quite - his doc must have been good.


----------



## raindog (22 May 2011)

Peter91 said:


> If he drugged up so much, then why did *none* of the hundreds of drug tests come back positive?


You could say the same of so many people - try Marion Jones....
"......Jones routinely denied—in almost every way possible and in almost any venue where the question arose—ever being involved with performance enhancers in any way, shape, or form. One of Jones's frequent statements in her own defense was that she had never tested positive for performance enhancing substances......."


----------



## gb155 (22 May 2011)

fossyant said:


> Quite - his doc must have been good.



The BEST you mean, something isnt quite right I agree, but c'mon


----------



## Bicycle (22 May 2011)

Carl Lewis, Marion Jones, Flo-Jo, Indurain, Bolt....

At that level of sport I'm not sure it matters.

I love to watch the TdF and to read about it.

My assumption is that riders have almost always been dirty and my guess is that they still generally are.

Sometimes, enthusiasts seem to have 'favoured'riders whom they once met or who is the friend of the wife of a friend... and those guys are CLEAN.

Enthusiasts also seem to have betes noires who are DIRTY and cannot be otherwise.

For me, it's just an awesome spectacle and an incredible race.

It would be so if all of them were proved to be dirty.

I fear a totally clean TdF would be slightly duller if only because we'd lack some of the spectacular, Pantani-style attacks on climbs....

I hear that LA is a dreadful man to be around and I simply don't care. So is my wife's Aunt Doreen. Some people are just ghastly and that's life.

I watch cycling to be entertained and amazed, not because I like to think the riders are lovely chaps.

If one rider or another is an arrogant, drug-pumping elephant's backside... let him be so as long as the racing is good.

I say live and let live.


----------



## resal (22 May 2011)

Peter91 said:


> If he drugged up so much, then why did *none* of the hundreds of drug tests come back positive?


Now that is where I disagree that the Birnie piece is quality. It misses the point. What happened about the US postal money that went to Lance's team and then from there to the UCI? What was it - $500,000 in the official year end accounts filed for Lance's team for a payment which became an alleged 80,000 euros at the UCI? That is where the conspiracy theorists say the corruption is - the positives were kept quiet and Lance paid certain people at the top of the UCI to do so ! Now that is what needs to be verified - is that true or not ?	Then with a root and branch reform at the top, the system can be cleansed.


----------



## al-fresco (22 May 2011)

I was a season ticket holder at my local Ice Hockey team, then one night they blatantly threw a game, turned out that they would rather win in the lower division than lose in the higher... I never went to another game. 

I don't bother with the TdF (or the Olympics) it seems (to me) that PEDs are endemic in both. They've had their chances to clean up their act but there's no will to do it. Therefore they are entirely meaningless as sporting spectacles.

Once the magic is gone, it's gone for good.


----------



## Smokin Joe (22 May 2011)

Peter91 said:


> If he drugged up so much, then why did *none* of the hundreds of drug tests come back positive?


They did.

Retrospective tests on his samples from the '99 Tour showed traces of EPO. They were invalid because by then the B samples had been destroyed.


----------



## 515mm (22 May 2011)

I wish we could draw a line in the sand and say

"We don't care what happened pre-2011, anyone caught doping from 01/01/2011, life ban, no excuses. Forget the past and move on. To bring LA down, (however justified, a cheat is a cheat, I understand that) is a mistake. It would stick in the throat, but to save our sport we must be pragmatic." 

But I don't think that will happen. I don't want to believe it, but I fear LA is dirty. Can you imagine the fallout if Armstrong is busted for drugs cheating? All the sponsorship money would disappear overnight 'cos Lance would say.......

"Everyone at the top was on EPO, I just levelled the playing field" 

and he'd bring everyone down with him. Everyone. End of professional cycling because no-one would be willing to sponsor drug abusers and the clean ones can't prove their innocence to the outside world. You can't prove a negative. 'They' all THINK we're cheats right now, they'd KNOW it when/if LA falls. 

This is horrible and I can't see any outcome that won't be excruciating for all concerned. I think we may see the end of professional cycling. Very soon.


----------



## Smokin Joe (22 May 2011)

515mm said:


> I wish we could draw a line in the sand and say
> 
> "We don't care what happened pre-2011, anyone caught doping from 01/01/2011, life ban, no excuses. Forget the past and move on. To bring LA down, (however justified, a cheat is a cheat, I understand that) is a mistake. It would stick in the throat, but to save our sport we must be pragmatic."
> 
> ...


Pro cycling will carry on as normal whatever the outcome with LA. It will carry on for the same reason it did after Festina, we'll be told the cancer has now been eradicated and the next Tour will be drug free because the testing is better. 

And we'll believe it.

Till the next time anyway.


----------



## BJH (22 May 2011)

Just read the Birnie article, it's very good.

I think he also convinces me, as someone who has said on here don't allow convicted cheats to manage teams, that I was wrong.

His point about allowing people back who genuinely, own up and take responsibility, is a fair one. But if this happens, this must only be allowed with full "confession" including names, dates etc.

The recent case in which a rider was allowed back, only to them brag about how he hadn't spat in the soup, stinks.


----------



## johnr (22 May 2011)

With the Giro d'Italia and the Tour of California both providing stage victors with UK connections, my paper's cycling reporting has been death and drugs: that's why we need Armstrong's head on a pole. Until the cheats are brought low, no one with any sense will take the sport we love seriously.


----------



## 515mm (22 May 2011)

Smokin Joe said:


> And we'll believe it.
> 
> Till the next time anyway.




You think the sponsors will think their target market will swallow it? I remain hopeful, but unconvinced. Time will tell.......


----------



## Smokin Joe (22 May 2011)

515mm said:


> You think the sponsors will think their target market will swallow it? I remain hopeful, but unconvinced. Time will tell.......


Sponsors will put money into cycling as long as there is sufficient public interest to make it worthwhile.


----------



## lukesdad (22 May 2011)

Money has always killed sport cycling is no different its the money thats the 3 headed monster.


----------



## rich p (23 May 2011)

Tyler or his chimera have spoken then...

...http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hamilton-alleges-armstrong-epo-positive-cover-up-on-60-minutes

Most of us who have read the evidence over the years are hardly surprised by this but the incendiary stuff is the allegation that the UCI were complicit in covering up the positive from the Tour de Suisse in 2001. Lance then donating a wodge of wonga to the UCI. McQuaid will have some wriggling to do unless he can pin it on Verbruggen.


----------



## John the Monkey (23 May 2011)

BJH said:


> The recent case in which a rider was allowed back, only to them brag about how he hadn't spat in the soup, stinks.



Di Luca, iirc. Never liked the bloke, personally.


----------



## dellzeqq (23 May 2011)

Smokin Joe said:


> Pro cycling will carry on as normal whatever the outcome with LA. It will carry on for the same reason it did after Festina, we'll be told the cancer has now been eradicated and the next Tour will be drug free because the testing is better.
> 
> And we'll believe it.
> 
> Till the next time anyway.


stop trying to cheer us all up........ 



Smokin Joe said:


> This is a great piece by Lionel Birnie which echoes my own feeling on Armstrong -
> 
> http://www.cyclespor...endgame-begins/


me too. I really want to believe....


----------



## John the Monkey (23 May 2011)

rich p said:


> McQuaid will have some wriggling to do unless he can pin it on Verbruggen.



A PR genius like McQuaid will easily escape this.

Oh, hang on...


----------



## Crackle (23 May 2011)

The Swiss test may be crucial in the investigation, as proving a bribe to foriegn officials, which is illegal in US law, would also convict Armstrong. It'll be interesting to see what Federal prosecutors finally indict him on, what evidence they've actually found which will stick. As someone who was initially doubtful a Federal investigation would actually get anywhere, I'm now hoping that not only will it get Armstrong but blow open the UCI intransigence and corruption which many have suspected but now looks more and more real.

There can't be many left who believe in Armstrong's innoncence, yet it seems people do. Here's a comment from a CBS story which is pretty breathtaking in it's naivety

_"The truth? Just because he said it it the truth am I supoosed to belive Mr. Hamilton? Or Mr. Landis? Or Mr. Hincapie? Why did he pass all 500 drug tests and others did not? I know many cyclists say that no man can win the tour seven times. But, one story that I will tell you may shed light. A Dr. Friend of mine had cancer and weent through all the treatments to cure cancer. One day he said that his taste buds seemed to be so sensative to taste. His nose could smell all kinds of scents and he felt alost like a new born child breathing in fresh air. Where the cancer once occupied hi body and died, new cells grew. In my opinion Ican imagine Mr. Armstrong going through the same experience when he started cycling after his treatments. Did he have new lungs where cancer once grew? Did his lungs have the ability to breath like a young man? For my friend, he could not believe how great he felt. Why can't people believe the drugs test?"

_Even if he's finally convicted, it seems we'll stil be arguing with people about his guilt.

Here's the CBS link, with video

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20064877-10391709.html


----------



## yello (23 May 2011)

> _Did he have new lungs where cancer once grew? Did his lungs have the ability to breath like a young man?_



Oh, I love that 

Of course there are miracles. Didn't LA remind us of that from the podium? What did he say to all those that didn't believe in them?

Seems like the poster believes the 'The Bionic Man' was a documentary.


----------



## MacB (23 May 2011)

Crackle said:


> There can't be many left who believe in Armstrong's innoncence, yet it seems people do. Here's a comment from a CBS story which is pretty breathtaking in it's naivety
> http://www.cbsnews.c...7-10391709.html



Don't know why you'd be surprised, look at how many of them were lining up for the rapture, and throwing money into the cause....believing in a clean cyclist seems small beans next to that


----------



## dellzeqq (23 May 2011)

Crackle said:


> The Swiss test may be crucial in the investigation, as proving a bribe to foriegn officials, which is illegal in US law, would also convict Armstrong. It'll be interesting to see what Federal prosecutors finally indict him on, what evidence they've actually found which will stick. As someone who was initially doubtful a Federal investigation would actually get anywhere, I'm now hoping that not only will it get Armstrong but blow open the UCI intransigence and corruption which many have suspected but now looks more and more real.


this is a very good point. In this country we are pretty cynical about the law, and its dealings with people in privileged positions. In the US the authorities have a 'bigger they come the harder they're going to fall' mentality. I found it quite shocking that they went after Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery, and I can't for the life of me imagine the UK authorities pursuing financial criminals in the way that Madoff and Skilling were pursued in the US.


----------



## yello (23 May 2011)

Whilst a UCI cover-up IS interesting, for all the implications of corruption etc, I don't think it should be considered so important in the case against Armstrong. Think of it more as an added extra felony! 

Should it be true, I suspect there'd be many people involved (from lab techs to UCI people) so many many more leak potentials. No doubt Novitsky and the FDA have considered that one and have been asking questions of people along the chain of involvement.

I suspect the FDA are themselves powerless to do anything about UCI corruption, but they can certainly provide the evidence to set the wheels in motion. I guess it's only really the Swiss authorities than can bring charges against UCI/McQuaid/Verbruggen.... though I genuinely don't know.


----------



## MacB (23 May 2011)

yello said:


> Whilst a UCI cover-up IS interesting, for all the implications of corruption etc, I don't think it should be considered so important in the case against Armstrong. Think of it more as an added extra felony!



You see I'd be the other way round, I think the rot should be cut out and it can't all be blamed on Armstrong


----------



## raindog (23 May 2011)

In light of Hamilton corroborating the Landis story of the UCI cover up of the Armstrong positive, I wonder if the UCI will continue with their legal action against Landis, and if they do, they must now surely do the same against Hamilton?


----------



## yello (23 May 2011)

MacB said:


> You see I'd be the other way round, I think the rot should be cut out and it can't all be blamed on Armstrong



I don't see it in terms of blame. I see it as different issues. Armstrong and UCI rotten separately of each other! I don't blame either for the other.

Believe or not, I can find some sympathy for Armstrong. Not for his current predicament no, that's entirely of his own doing imho, but for how he got himself there, then yes. 

IF all of the doping allegations are true then he made some poor choices in his desires to succeed. I recall reading in one book or other that it was deemed a necessary decision for the team (at that time Motorola) to have a program to succeed - a kind of 'level playing field' argument. I can see the pressures where there. I can be sympathetic to that.

I think (again, should it be true) Armstrong's problem, why so many are now gunning for him personally, are those constant and empathic denials over the years. And building - both literally and metaphorically - a business around it. I can accept there's too much to loose now, the lie has grown too big.

If he'd just shuffled away some time ago like others did, muttering something about everybody doing it, then there might be more understanding. Might. It's as if people can accept cheats better than lying cheats!

Edit: include quote to avoid confusion


----------



## rich p (23 May 2011)

David Walsh, Paul Kimmage, Felipe Simeoni et al must be suffering from an overdose of schadenfreude


----------



## raindog (23 May 2011)

Not to mention Greg LeMond


----------



## yello (23 May 2011)

raindog said:


> I wonder if the UCI will continue with their legal action against Landis, and if they do, they must now surely do the same against Hamilton?



I guess logically you'd say they'd have to do both - continue after Landis and go after Hamilton too.

_"Logically"..._ but perhaps not UCI's strong point. Of course, if the allegations are false (and they could well be) then UCI have every right to defend themselves. We shouldn't forget that!

But they've somewhat painted themselves into a corner. Not the first time either. McQuaid only seems to open his mouth to put another foot in it. How they guy became head of an international organisation is beyond me. Subject drift I know, but one wonders - in the light of the FA action re FIFA - whether there's not something inherently pocket lining about heading these largely unaccountable international sports organisations. The Olympic committees have been dogged by such allegations for years too, as I recall.


----------



## raindog (23 May 2011)

yello said:


> But they've somewhat painted themselves into a corner.


Quite. They're probably now wishing they could drop the case against Landis, but if they do that will only make it look as if there's some truth in the story.


----------



## rich p (23 May 2011)

What I can't fathom is why they assisted in the TdS cover-up and the 1999(?) EPO positives. 

Did they do it for financial gain; because they thought Armstrong was bigger than the sport, or is there another reason I'm missing?


----------



## yello (23 May 2011)

Poster boy plus reputation of the sport is what I've read suggested. Armstrong was seen as good for the sport at the time. 'Harness the energy' as some ad exec may well have come up with.

I know this may surprise people, but UCI does actually try to promote and defend the reputation of cycling. Many of the seemingly weird decisions they take can be seen to make some vague kind of sense when viewed in that context. They know there's a problem with drugs in cycling but they have to give the impression that they know about it, are on top of it and - more to the point - not let that reputation ruin the image of the sport.... fighting a loosing battle some would say  They don't want to high profile a failure to ruin it for them. It'd be like the public finding out that, say, Ryan Giggs was an adulterer wouldn't it.

But, as many of us know from bitter experience, crap choices & poor decisions can end up biting you in the backside.


----------



## Crackle (23 May 2011)

Yep, I'd agree with Yello, the generous view, is it's a misplaced attempt to keep the image of the sport with a longer term view of eradicating endemic drug use by slowly winding up the ante. Perhaps also, the test was messed up in some way, procedures not followed. None of that quite squares up though.


----------



## Dave Davenport (23 May 2011)

I notice neither LA or his legal bod have faced a camera and made a clear statement that he never doped, which would get played back at him when he's eventually forced to own up. Or sued anyone for that matter.


----------



## BJH (23 May 2011)

Dave Davenport said:


> I notice neither LA or his legal bod have faced a camera and made a clear statement that he never doped, which would get played back at him when he's eventually forced to own up. Or sued anyone for that matter.




Made those points on here before, it's the same very carefully phrased lines used all the time.


----------



## Alessandro Petacchi (23 May 2011)

He always says that he has never failed a drugs test.My late Grandfather was in the Army and received the Long Service & Good Conduct Medal,its nickname was the 18 years of undetected crime medal  .I think there could be a parallel here.


----------



## dellzeqq (23 May 2011)

at the time of Watergate Nixon used what became known as the 'non-denial denial' 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-denial_denial


----------



## slowmotion (23 May 2011)

Ah yes, Bill Clinton.....

_"Now, I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: *I did not have sexual relations with that woman*, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you._[sup]_"


_Yeah...right.[/sup]


----------



## yello (24 May 2011)

re the alleged UCI cover-up of the positive, UCI has somewhat curiously said (link from the beeb)



> "The UCI can only confirm that Lance Armstrong has never been notified of a positive test result."



Yet more 'non-denial denial'? "Never been notified"?! And that's their press release? Their official statement? There's so much distance between that and a straight forward denial as to actually fuel suspicion. Classic UCI response!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (24 May 2011)

yello said:


> Yet more 'non-denial denial'? "Never been notified"?! And that's their press release? Their official statement? There's so much distance between that and a straight forward denial as to actually fuel suspicion. Classic UCI response!



That's actually very important. Notification is a formal procedure. What this statement says is that it is perfectly possible that a positive test occured but that for whatever reason, the formal notification process never took place. In other words, they are acknowledging indirectly that what Hamilton and Landis and others have said could indeed have taken place. They've also said that it is impossible that the Head of the UCI at the time, Verbruggen, could have accepted a bribe. Maybe, but it doesn't have to have happened at his level.


----------



## dellzeqq (24 May 2011)

yello said:


> Yet more 'non-denial denial'? "Never been notified"?! And that's their press release? Their official statement? There's so much distance between that and a straight forward denial as to actually fuel suspicion. Classic UCI response!


Crikey! '...can only confirm,,,'. Is this the beginning of the end?


----------



## johnr (24 May 2011)

I've been struck by the rapidity and vehemence of the UCI response: they either knew about it, have thoroughly investigated and are confident there is no case; or someone's got something on them and is calling the shots; or... they just don't have a clue.

It's a bunch of blazers versus a multimillion dollar business machine... they'll get completely swept away if this goes the distance... which would be a shame


----------



## yello (24 May 2011)

Flying_Monkey said:


> What this statement says is that it is perfectly possible that a positive test occured but that for whatever reason, the formal notification process never took place. In other words, they are acknowledging indirectly that what Hamilton and Landis and others have said could indeed have taken place.



Well yes, that's there as you say "in other words". I don't disagree one bit with that. But it's the words they decided to use that made me laugh! You've got to admit that as public statements and press releases go, it is a cracker! It is up there with the best of them!


----------



## rich p (24 May 2011)

From the Hamilton piece in cyclingnews the other day:-

_The incident involving the alleged doping test cover-up has garnered the attention of United States federal prosecutors as well as the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)._

_"60 Minutes" obtained a letter from USADA in which the Swiss lab which tested Armstrong at the 2001 Tour de Suisse considered Armstrong's sample "suspicious" and "consistent with EPO use". The CBS news program learned that the director of the Swiss lab had met with both Lance Armstrong and team director Johan Bruyneel concerning the test from the Tour de Suisse._

_The Swiss lab director has since given a sworn statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). "60 Minutes" has learned that the lab director testified that a representative of the UCI wanted the matter of the suspicious test to go no further. The lab director also testified that the meeting between himself, Bruyneel and Armstrong was arranged by the UCI_.

Someone is lying. Either the lab director or the UCI. Hmmm!

Is "_suspicious and consistent with EPO use_" not deemed to be a positive? Just a reason for LA and JB to meet and have a chat about it?


----------



## yello (24 May 2011)

Yes, I read that on another forum and was stunned. Adding the two bits together (UCI statement and the above), it is pretty hard to avoid the conclusion that there was a test positive that, somehow, got lost. UCI appear to be edging towards spinning it as no fault of Armstrong's. How that squares with the lab's testimony that they all met to discuss it needs to explained though. 

I eagerly await a clarifying UCI statement!


----------



## rich p (24 May 2011)

yello said:


> Yes, I read that on another forum and was stunned. Adding the two bits together (UCI statement and the above), it is pretty hard to avoid the conclusion that there was a test positive that, somehow, got lost. UCI appear to be edging towards spinning it as no fault of Armstrong's. How that squares with the lab's testimony that they all met to discuss it needs to explained though.
> 
> I eagerly await a clarifying UCI statement!



Verbruggen statement saying that Armstrong has never, never, never doped is weird too. How the hell could he possibly know!


----------



## Crackle (24 May 2011)

Well if we are talking about the UCI saying strange things, you might be interested in this thread I found on my travels yesterday

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=13355


----------



## Mac66 (24 May 2011)

rich p said:


> Verbruggen statement saying that Armstrong has never, never, never doped is weird too. How the hell could he possibly know!




My incredulity index went off the scale when i read that. Don't know the duration of his UCI post but am I right in thinking it coincided with the clean racing of the 90s?


----------



## rich p (24 May 2011)

Crackle said:


> Well if we are talking about the UCI saying strange things, you might be interested in this thread I found on my travels yesterday
> 
> http://forum.cycling...ead.php?t=13355




Great read Crax. Took some time but well worth it. What a cope of chumps McQuaid and Verbruggen make.


----------



## yello (25 May 2011)

I reckon Verbruggen must have been one the sauce when he said that, or just panicking and loosing the plot. I'd like a psychiatrist to unpick his statement because I reckon you'll find fear amongst other things... or perhaps it's another carefully coded, PR drafted confession that I'm just not seeing.

But check out this article from Velonews



> Interestingly, in conference call with reporters on Thursday, World Anti-Doping Agency head Dick Pound said he was convinced that the information L’Equipe used to link numbered-but-anonymous laboratory results to riders’ names actually came from Verbruggen himself.



The above referring to the alleged UCI cover-up of alleged Armstrong positive tests that L'Equipe reported.... then check out the date of the article.


----------



## rich p (25 May 2011)

yello said:


> I reckon Verbruggen must have been one the sauce when he said that, or just panicking and loosing the plot. I'd like a psychiatrist to unpick his statement because I reckon you'll find fear amongst other things... or perhaps it's another carefully coded, PR drafted confession that I'm just not seeing.
> 
> But check out this article from Velonews
> 
> ...




The 'evidence' has clearly been around for a long time and has been persuasive enough to convince those of us who have read around. 

Believers can google Michael Ashenden too for some more 'proof'.

A link from that article gives this nice little piece from a former USPS rider, Yello

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011...rider-says-hamiltons-charges-ring-true_174876


----------



## dellzeqq (25 May 2011)

yello said:


> I eagerly await a clarifying UCI statement!


how long have you got?


----------



## yello (25 May 2011)

I really like this quote, from the article Rich linked to...



> I don’t hold any grudges,” Mercier said about his time in professional cycling. “I look at what those guys did, and I don’t imagine they feel good or proud about it. *But they took things away from guys like myself, and Darren Baker. I suppose we weren’t ‘professional’ enough. We weren’t into winning at all costs. And the cost to me was my integrity, I wasn’t going to give that up.*



I particularly like the bit I put in bold. Drug cheats cheat their fellow athletes. No athlete should have to take the decision to dope or not to succeed. Or decide to give up because there's no way to compete without doping. It's not what sport ought be about.


----------



## raindog (25 May 2011)

Now _that's _a logical and articulate bloke
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ashendens-view-on-armstrong-doping-allegations


----------



## dellzeqq (25 May 2011)

raindog said:


> Now _that's _a logical and articulate bloke
> http://www.cyclingne...ing-allegations


indeed. The point about Hamilton not needing to give evidence to a Grand Jury to sell his book is a good one, although, at some point he would have had to back up the assertion by giving sworn evidence


----------



## Crackle (25 May 2011)

No doubt most of you have read this today

http://www.cyclingne...-in-switzerland

What bet for a few governing bodies moving home, though I admit I don't know why they are all in Switzerland anyway, tax?


----------



## philipbh (25 May 2011)

Crackle said:


> What bet for a few governing bodies moving home, though I admit I don't why they are all in Switzerland anyway, tax?



The Swiss reputation for "neutrality" perhaps...?


----------



## philipbh (25 May 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> indeed. The point about Hamilton not needing to give evidence to a Grand Jury to sell his book is a good one, although, at some point he would have had to back up the assertion by giving sworn evidence




Which presumably was in July 2010 -

At one point Mr A's legal team wanted Mr H inside their tent

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/arm...to-have-suggested-joint-defence-with-hamilton


----------



## Mac66 (25 May 2011)

In the final analysis, what can actual be proved, what evidence against Armstrong is there. If its just going to boil down to their word against Lance's then that's not going to cut it and nor is circumstancial eveidence.

Even if they produce the Swiss lab report that says indicative of EPO use, I really don't think that is enough by itself? I fear this is just going to turn into a big swirling mess of inconclusive claim and counterclaim, which will make lawyers very rich but I doubt justice will be served.


----------



## yello (25 May 2011)

Mac66 said:


> If its just going to boil down to their word against Lance's then that's not going to cut it



Several years ago, I might have agreed with you. This time around however, there is quite a lot of people with a word to say against Armstrong. And the USFDA to collate it all and present it. Armstrong's going down I tell ya!


----------



## dellzeqq (25 May 2011)

what's happening with Hincapie?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 May 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> what's happening with Hincapie?




after a flurry of 'who shot john?' stuff with CBS filling in the blanks it has all gone quiet. If he goes public and says mellow johnny is a doper and I saw it with my own eyes then it is surely game over.


----------



## raindog (26 May 2011)

Hincapie doesn't have to go public, he's given evidence under oath to the federal investigation. It's not his fault that information was leaked.

EDIT
wow - just noticed I've gone over a thousand posts here. Do I get a T shirt or anything?


----------



## rich p (26 May 2011)

As raindog says, Hincapie has testified to Novitsky but refuses to say what he said while due process (say it in an American accent please) is going on. The rumour is that he's dished the dirt but we'll have to wait and see. He'll have told the truth, given the severe penalties alluded to above for perjury.
Bear in mind that if he confesses to seeing LA dope, he will also be incriminating himself, so he is effectively ending his career by doing so.


----------



## Dave Davenport (26 May 2011)

rich p said:


> As raindog says, Hincapie has testified to Novitsky but refuses to say what he said while due process (say it in an American accent please) is going on. The rumour is that he's dished the dirt but we'll have to wait and see. He'll have told the truth, given the severe penalties alluded to above for perjury.
> Bear in mind that if he confesses to seeing LA dope, he will also be incriminating himself, so he is effectively ending his career by doing so.




Given the choice between ending my cycling career and risking getting banged up in a small cell with a 350lb red neck who wants you to wear a floral dress and calls you Dolly, I'd dish the dirt by the shovel load!


----------



## raindog (26 May 2011)

Dave Davenport said:


> Given the choice between ending my cycling career and risking getting banged up in a small cell with a 350lb red neck who wants you to wear a floral dress and calls you Dolly, I'd dish the dirt by the shovel load!




I think that's why, whatever lies they've told in the past, we can be sure now that what Landis, Tyler and Big George have said in front of Novitzky is the truth.


----------



## yello (26 May 2011)

rich p said:


> Bear in mind that if he confesses to seeing LA dope, he will also be incriminating himself, so he is effectively ending his career by doing so.



Well this is an interesting, but perhaps subtle or moot even, point because the FDA don't actually care whether he (or Landis or Hamilton or Armstrong etc etc etc) doped or not. In so much as they used federal funds to buy drugs, yes, and/or supplied drugs to others, yes, and/or 'trafficed' drugs abroad, yes, but actually took drugs??? Not their remit. And they have no authority to ban riders. That all said, the evidence they collect could be used by other agencies (WADA, UCI, whoever). As I say, perhaps moot point but a distinction to be made none-the-less!

Edit: also, it is reported/suggested that those that testified before the grand jury would be offered immunity from prosecution (this in itself angered LAs PR machine, they didn't like the 'sweeteners'). Whether this immunity would extend to the content of their testimonies or not, I don't know. So I guess it is possible that Hinchapie (et al)'s testimony couldn't be used by other agencies. Possible but unlikely methinks. Remember, the only detail of testimony we've heard is the likes of Hamilton and Landis where the individuals themselves have decided to make public statements. Hinchapie's was leaked, and he denies it. And there have been others before the grand jury that we know either nothing of, or know no details of what they said.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 May 2011)

raindog said:


> Hincapie doesn't have to go public, he's given evidence under oath to the federal investigation. It's not his fault that information was leaked.
> 
> EDIT
> wow - just noticed I've gone over a thousand posts here. Do I get a T shirt or anything?




You presume his testimony will enter the public domain at some point. That is not necessarily the case with Federal investigations. They don't all result in prosecutions. If not then the evidence may well be sealed.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 May 2011)

yello said:


> Hinchapie's was leaked, and he denies it.



Actually he hasn't explicitly denied anything in the quotes I've read. He's just refused to talk about what he said to the investigation. Best course given he is still competing and, if the leak is right, he's a doper.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (26 May 2011)

GregCollins said:


> Actually he hasn't explicitly denied anything in the quotes I've read. He's just refused to talk about what he said to the investigation. Best course given he is still competing and, if the leak is right, he's a doper.



That's correct. He has only denied speaking to 60 Minutes. He has not denied the contents of his testimony to the inquiry.


----------



## yello (26 May 2011)

I did mean that he denied leaking any of his testimony. I was contrasting that to the situation of Landis and Hamilton, who have themselves explicitly made their allegations public and therefore those being available to other agencies (in the event of the USFDA not allowing the grand jury testimonies to be used by others).

I think what Hinchcapie said was something along the lines of 'he didn't know where 60 minutes got their information from'. Which I take as implying that is wasn't from him. He also said that he couldn't comment on the investigation. Straight by the book stuff and perfectly correct, imho.

He hasn't confirmed or denied the contents of his testimony because nobody outside of the inquiry knows what he said! Or should know, lets put it that way. So, splitting hairs, there is nothing in the public domain TO confirm or deny!


----------



## dellzeqq (26 May 2011)

yello said:


> He hasn't confirmed or denied the contents of his testimony because nobody outside of the inquiry knows what he said! Or should know, lets put it that way. So, splitting hairs, there is nothing in the public domain TO confirm or deny!


if this is correct then it looks bad for Armstrong. It would be the easiest thing in the world for Hincapie to strenuously deny that he had any knowledge of drug taking.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 May 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> if this is correct then it looks bad for Armstrong. It would be the easiest thing in the world for Hincapie to strenuously deny that he had any knowledge of drug taking.




I cannot think of a single good reason for him _not to_ strenuously deny that he had any knowledge of, or involvement in, drug taking if that were the case. To the investigation. To the journalists. To anyone who is willing to listen.

That he has chosen not to do so speak volumes to me. Big George could yet be the smoking gun.

and in other news I hear Clenbutador has had his hearing postponed until after TdeF. Will Prudhomme do the decent thing and uninvite him?


----------



## yello (26 May 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> if this is correct then it looks bad for Armstrong. It would be the easiest thing in the world for Hincapie to strenuously deny that he had any knowledge of drug taking.



That's my spin on it too. The fact that Hincapie has given such a textbook legal response suggests (to me) that he doesn't want to publicly shop Armstrong. He hasn't lied to the grand jury (and his testimony squares with the allegations of Landis and Hamilton) and he cannot - or is unwilling to - say in public what he said behind closed doors so he is more-or-less forced to seek refuge behind 'cannot confirm nor deny'.

Of course, there is another possibility. That all 3 said to the grand jury that they saw nothing, but Landis and Hamilton decided to lie publicly! To sell books or whatever  Doesn't explain why Hincapie took the no comment line when 'I told the truth and Lance is innocent' wouldn't be lying and would significantly ease the burden for his friend!


----------



## yello (26 May 2011)

GregCollins said:


> in other news I hear Clenbutador has had his hearing postponed until after TdeF. Will Prudhomme do the decent thing and uninvite him?



Sorry, I know this is another subject and there is a 'dirtie Bertie thread already but I simply have to respond to this! Contador is, as things currently stand, not guilty of doping. For him to have the invitation withdrawn for a presumption of guilt is against THE basic tenet of justice! It'd also be bad business, and ASO is a business!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 May 2011)

Invitations to join in the fun have been withdrawn in the past, including on Prudhomme's watch, for the unproven 'crime' of doing things, judged by ASO and other competant authorities, to be prejudicial to cycling's image. 

Riding a Tour, and potentially winning it, whilst the authorities (WADA and UCI) are appealing an innocent verdict to CAS, the reversal of which would see you stripped of your title, is conduct prejudical to cycling's image, in my book. Cycling will be a laughing stock if Bert does well and then gets stripped of last years win.

If WADA and UCI are appealing do you think they are doing so in the hope that your innocent man will be found not guilty? 

EDIT: PS LA hasn't been found guilty of anything by anyone (but in my book on the balance of probability he is guilty) but you don't appear to set much store by a presumption of innocence in that case do you?


----------



## Dave Davenport (26 May 2011)

Why does he need these blokes if he's got nothing to hide?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-bolsters-legal-team


----------



## Smokin Joe (26 May 2011)

GregCollins said:


> Invitations to join in the fun have been withdrawn in the past, including on Prudhomme's watch, for the unproven 'crime' of doing things, judged by ASO and other competant authorities, to be prejudicial to cycling's image.
> 
> Riding a Tour, and potentially winning it, whilst the authorities (WADA and UCI) are appealing an innocent verdict to CAS, the reversal of which would see you stripped of your title, is conduct prejudical to cycling's image, *in my book. Cycling will be a laughing stock if Bert does well and then gets stripped of last years win.*
> 
> ...


A bigger laughing stock than it was after Festina, or after Landis, or after countless other high profile cases? The time to worry about the sports image has long passed, now the need is to hammer anyone who is or has doped and frighten the shoot out of present and future riders who might be contemplating it.

One other thing with the federal investigation going on, we only hear about the high profile figures who have testified so far. There will also be mechanics, drivers, gofors of every description involved with the team(s) who will no doubt be called to testify too. These aren't highly rewarded employees who can afford top lawyers but average Joe's with families and mortgages. They are even less likely to risk jail time lying for LA than his team-mates and will know and have seen exactly what was going on.


----------



## yello (26 May 2011)

Three things;

1 - I didn't say ASO wouldn't or couldn't un-invite Contador. Merely offered my opinion that it would be unjust IF a presumption of guilt were the reason. I'd apply the same reasoning for anyone. If Contador is stripped of any titles and cycling is shown to be a laughing stock, that's not the fault of the Giro, the TdF or ASO. They correctly allowed a 'at the time' innocent man to compete. As they should, imo. Cycling's image is not tarnished by them, nor are they the arbiters of it.

2 - I like Contador but I've stated several times I believe him to be guilty. WADA and UCI also believe Contador to be guilty. Currently, the law states he is innocent. Regardless of what anyone believes, the law has the final say. I accept that as equally WADA and UCI presumably do and will accept the decision of the CAS. They may well be 'disappointed' if it doesn't go their preferred way but they have little other option to accept it. Again, that's as it should be, imo.

3 - I make no apologies for my dislike of Armstrong and I do not try to hide it, but I don't assume him to be guilty. I believe him to be and hope he is proven to be but I want it to be proven justly. If for no other reason than to end the debate once and for all. I always try to write even handedly with regard to the established facts and on-going story. If I fail to do that than that is my belief leaking, it's not a presumption of guilt. 

If there's one thing that should stand out from the above it is a very clear difference in my mind between what I believe and what the law says. That awareness under pins each of those 3 points. Whatever I may personally think about the individuals, I will primarily always want fair due process for both Contador (whom I like) and Armstrong (whom I dislike) - even if it doesn't lead to my preferred outcome. Finally, I am not in such a position were the disclosure of what I believe prejudices either case, so I'm at liberty to say what I believe. So I do.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 May 2011)

yello said:


> So I do.




fair comment


----------



## philipbh (27 May 2011)

Dave Davenport said:


> Why does he need these blokes if he's got nothing to hide?
> http://www.cyclingne...ters-legal-team




Safety in numbers ?

It seems to be (to the casual observer) the american way of conducting a legal defence (assuming one can afford it)


----------



## Flying_Monkey (27 May 2011)

And now, the Swiss lab chief has come out and said there were indeed suspicious samples in 2001 and that he met Armstrong and Buyneel. 

Of course, they deny it, but this is getting ridiculous now.


----------



## Noodley (27 May 2011)

No I didn't
No I didn't
No I didn't
No I didn't
No I didn't

Anyway I am off to write a song entitled "I told you so" and make up a wee dance to go with it.
Yes I am.


----------



## Noodley (27 May 2011)

Noodley said:


> Anyway I am off to write a song entitled "I told you so" and make up a wee dance to go with it.
> Yes I am.



What d'ya think of this as a dance move?:


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 May 2011)

Flying_Monkey said:


> And now, the Swiss lab chief has come out and said there were indeed suspicious samples in 2001 and that he met Armstrong and Buyneel.
> 
> Of course, they deny it, but this is getting ridiculous now.




Said lab chief appears to confirm in that piece that there wasn't a positive sample from 2001.

"But the tests were not covered up, and it is also not correct that they could have been interpreted as positive. They were suspect, and you wouldn't stand a chance at all with that sole argument in front of a court."

So the 2001 positive test myth goes out the window no?

Curiouser and curiouser. Especially as we now know the UCI now runs a formal "suspicion index" 

It all reeks to high heaven.

FM - as to their denial in that piece; they appear to be in agreement with said lab chief. No positive test. No positive test from LA. No one spoke to LA about a positive or suspicious sample from him at the time or afterwards. So I'm not sure there is anything denial related.

(But odds on he is a doper imo..)


----------



## Flying_Monkey (27 May 2011)

GregCollins said:


> FM - as to their denial in that piece; they appear to be in agreement with said lab chief. No positive test. No positive test from LA. No one spoke to LA about a positive or suspicious sample from him at the time or afterwards. So I'm not sure there is anything denial related.



Except that they deny meeting him or rather, they use the Ronald Reagan excuse, and I quote from the piece...

"Armstrong's attorney Tim Herman, however, recently said in a statement that "neither Armstrong or Bruyneel have any recollection of meeting [Saugy] for any purpose at any time,""


----------



## Noodley (28 May 2011)

knock knock knock, that's another nail...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-helped-with-novitzky-investigation


----------



## BJH (28 May 2011)

Maybe he could get Shaggy to write him a song, replace It wasn't Me with...

I Never Failed....


----------



## BJH (28 May 2011)

On the Bertie case, I don't think it's correct to say that the "law states he is innocent"

He was found with a banned substance in his body - of that he is undoubtably guilty.

The Spanish Federation has then opted to accept his story of how that happened and not banned him. They have accepted justification for the test, but that does not make him innocent.

The stupidity of the process delays mean that he is allowed to ride at the moment, because there is no ban currently in place.

That is very, very different to being innocent.


----------



## yello (28 May 2011)

BJH said:


> He was found with a banned substance in his body - of that he is undoubtably guilty.



His excuse for the presence of the substance was accepted. You and I may think the excuse stinks but that's a different issue.



> They have accepted justification for the test, but that does not make him innocent.



Of doping, quite simply it does. I'm using the legal definition, not a 'was the drug there or not' definition. He is innocent of attempting to gain advantage by intentionally taking a banned substance, i.e doping as it generally accepted to mean. 

You can't argue with the situation. It's not weasel words or legal speak, it is as it is. Acceptable to me and thee or no. He was not banned, he is still riding, ergo he is innocent in the eyes of the law. And it's that that counts. 

Let's turn it around. If he's guilty then why does he still have his licence?


----------



## Smokin Joe (28 May 2011)

The Contador case shows how ridiculous it is to allow a rider's own federation to investigate doping allegations against them. It is not in the interests of the Spanish or any other national body to have their top rider convicted of a doping offence and there should be an independent authority to handle all cases.


----------



## yello (28 May 2011)

Noodley said:


> knock knock knock, that's another nail...
> http://www.cyclingne...y-investigation



As I began to read it, I wasn't so sure it was another nail. It seemed WADAs role was simply as a facilitator or 'introducer' to enable the FDA to speak to other bodies. But I found this interesting, of the FDA, in that context



> I think that these guys have been working away for more than a year - the outcomes will be as significant or even more significant that BALCO, in that some of the issues we want to make clarified will be clarified



...that made me wander what WADA knew already or had learned from the FDA. 

Where it did become interesting for me was in the comments on the limitations of testing, and the move towards other forms of detection i.e. border controls. Interestingly no mention of the blood passport... but I think there might be a bit of politics there.

Of WADA action, it stated



> “We’re not going to do anything until the enquiry is complete and all the issues have been laid out. It would be premature for us to do anything off the basis of a television programme. What we will do is operate on those final findings and we’ll do whatever is necessary.”



So do I take it from that that WADA will see results of the FDA investigation even if the US prosecution people decide not to bring formal charges against anyone?


----------



## BJH (29 May 2011)

yello said:


> His excuse for the presence of the substance was accepted. You and I may think the excuse stinks but that's a different issue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



and currently being appealed because the original decision was nonsense. Others have been banned for the same offence, mistakingly taking it isnt normall accepted as a defence.


----------



## yello (29 May 2011)

BJH said:


> and currently being appealed because the original decision was nonsense. Others have been banned for the same offence, mistakingly taking it isnt normall accepted as a defence.



You say it's nonsense. Many others agree. The majority of the planet might think so too BUT the people who decided whether he keeps his licence or not disagree... and they are the ones with the authority, rightly or wrongly. 

Whether it's a normally accepted defence is immaterial, the people making that one decision accepted it. It was a judgement call, an interpretation of the rules as they are laid out so they were completely within their rights to do so. 

When CAS looks at this, IF they decide to overturn that decision then that's another matter. Their authority will exceed that of the Spanish cycling federation. It's all due legal process and the way things work in any court system.

Look, for what it's worth, I agree with you. But as I have said time and again, what *we* think does not matter. I differentiate between what I think and what is. I think it's quite an easy differentiation to make in honesty.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (2 Jun 2011)

Now it's being reported that Saugy did report that the samples were Armstrong's, despite his public claims.


----------



## yello (2 Jun 2011)

"*Did* report", note the past tense. This is all very confusing. Saugy has more recently reported as saying the samples were from anonymous riders. From that same article...



> Last week he confirmed to the Neue Zürcher Zeitung that there were four “suspicious” samples, but that they were anonymous



My assumption was that they couldn't be identified, so why he told the FDA that they were Armstrong's is just weird. But then, equally as odd, is why they claim to have spoken to both Bruyneel and Armstrong about the results and/or EPO tests generally - whether the samples were known to be from Armstrong or not. It's just not adding up is it?


----------



## Erratic (2 Jun 2011)

Any hint of when the investigation against LA is going to finish? Seems to be a lot of rumour, gossip and circumstantial stuff going on but no actual evidence as of yet.


----------



## raindog (2 Jun 2011)

Agree - too many leaks. Let's get it over with and have the facts.


----------



## Alun (2 Jun 2011)

I didn't support Bertie at first, but I think I do now! Sending one riders blood to a lab that can detect 1 ppm and another riders blood to a lab that can only detect 400ppm. That's not justice, he'll walk!
Level playing field please, if that's not asking too much!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (8 Jun 2011)

And now Armstrong's defence website, facts4lance, has been taken down...


----------



## rich p (8 Jun 2011)

Flying_Monkey said:


> And now Armstrong's defence website, facts4lance, has been taken down...




I wasn't sure what to read into that; any ideas?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (8 Jun 2011)

rich p said:


> I wasn't sure what to read into that; any ideas?



I'm not sure either. Some sources are saying it's because the 60 Minutes thing has sapped his credibility. Some are saying that he just doesn't need it. The latter seems a bit odd considering it hasn't been set up that long.


----------



## yello (8 Jun 2011)

The 'official' version, from Team Armstrong, is that the the '60 Minutes' allegations have now been successfully debunked by Armstrong's legal team so the site was no longer needed.

Having not read the site, nor even being aware of it's existence, I shouldn't even really begin to speculate... but what the hell! Perhaps to remove any embarrassing or incriminating statements, or untruths, from the public domain? A tactical withdrawal to consider their position? I wonder if the new legal bods on the team considered the site to be unhelpful to their end game strategy... since they must be planning for that now.


----------



## philipbh (9 Jun 2011)

yello said:


> The 'official' version, from Team Armstrong, is that the the '60 Minutes' allegations have now been successfully debunked by Armstrong's legal team so the site was no longer needed.
> 
> Having not read the site, nor even being aware of it's existence, I shouldn't even really begin to speculate... but what the hell! Perhaps to remove any embarrassing or incriminating statements, or untruths, from the public domain? A tactical withdrawal to consider their position? I wonder if the new legal bods on the team considered the site to be unhelpful to their end game strategy... since they must be planning for that now.



http://tiny.cc/7uqc9

Here is a page from site - accessed from the Google Cache


----------



## Dave Davenport (9 Jun 2011)

philipbh said:


> http://tiny.cc/7uqc9
> 
> Here is a page from site - accessed from the Google Cache




Me thinks the lady doth protest too much!

Never saw the rest of the site but I can't see anywhere on that page that says 'I never, ever, ever, cross my heart, swear on my gran's life doped' L. Armstrong.


----------



## rich p (9 Jun 2011)

Dave Davenport said:


> Me thinks the lady doth protest too much!
> 
> Never saw the rest of the site but I can't see anywhere on that page that says 'I never, ever, ever, cross my heart, swear on my gran's life doped' L. Armstrong.




I agree Dave - what a weird site


----------



## Flying_Monkey (9 Jun 2011)

rich p said:


> I agree Dave - what a weird site



I think it was the lawyers' work, and perhaps they've now been told it comes across as odd.


----------



## Erratic (9 Jun 2011)

Seems a lot of people benefit from keeping this story going, wonder if magazines and websites who feature the allegations get a readership spike... Hopefully there is still a place in the world for being innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## BJH (12 Jun 2011)

Dave Davenport said:


> Me thinks the lady doth protest too much!
> 
> Never saw the rest of the site but I can't see anywhere on that page that says 'I never, ever, ever, cross my heart, swear on my gran's life doped' L. Armstrong.



Which seems to suggest to me that he is very, very aware of being caught telling lies. Threat of legal issues at some point??


----------



## Crackle (14 Jun 2011)

Echoes of the Simeoni encounter

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/arm...al-witness-tyler-hamilton-in-aspen-restaurant


----------



## Erratic (14 Jun 2011)

> Echoes of the Simeoni encounter
> 
> http://www.cyclingne...spen-restaurant



Or more gossip with very little substance...I mean come on folks, if the guy is guilty, let him be found guilty beyond doubt in the appropriate court, if not, why do we allow ourselves to be swayed by idle gossip, insinuation and tittle tattle?


----------



## yello (14 Jun 2011)

Erratic said:


> why do we allow ourselves to be swayed by idle gossip, insinuation and tittle tattle?



No swaying here, I'm _convinced_! Just waiting for the courts to agree with me 

I do happen to agree with you about the above handbags story though. Proves nothing. It seems it potentially can be a serious issue as far as the law is concerned though.


----------



## rich p (14 Jun 2011)

Erratic said:


> Or more gossip with very little substance...I mean come on folks, if the guy is guilty, let him be found guilty beyond doubt in the appropriate court, if not, why do we allow ourselves to be swayed by idle gossip, insinuation and tittle tattle?




Crackle was merely linking to a report of the incident. We are entirely at liberty to read all the tittle tattle, innuendo and gossip and ,ake up our own minds as to its authenticity. Cheers


----------



## Erratic (15 Jun 2011)

> Crackle was merely linking to a report of the incident. We are entirely at liberty to read all the tittle tattle, innuendo and gossip and ,ake up our own minds as to its authenticity. Cheers



Very true, my previous comment was aimed more genereally at the popular press and their seemingly constant fuelling of the fire rather than Crackle's posting of another of those said stories.



> No swaying here, I'm _convinced_! Just waiting for the courts to agree with me



You can think whatever you like, it still has to be proven in a court of law and should be allowed to run it's course accordingly - whether he is guilty or innocent, the constant stories etc. do nothing positive for pro cycling and cast a long shadow over ther rest of the cyclists.


----------



## yello (15 Jun 2011)

Erratic said:


> You can think whatever you like



Thank you. I do. 

I am sure that you are no different to any of us here. Take any subject, it needn't be Armstrong or even cycling. You form your own opinion about it based on whatever source and means. 

Btw, there is more than just "idle gossip, insinuation and tittle tattle" underlying the allegations made against Armstrong.


----------



## Crackle (15 Jun 2011)

Erratic said:


> Or more gossip with very little substance...I mean come on folks, if the guy is guilty, let him be found guilty beyond doubt in the appropriate court, if not, why do we allow ourselves to be swayed by idle gossip, insinuation and tittle tattle?




Unsubstantiated maybe, gossip no. Interfering with a Federal witness is a serious offence if it is substantiated and we all saw him ride up to Simeoni in the tour, so he's capable if intimidation or is that gossip too. Even if he just talked to him, it was unwise.

And I'm afraid I disagree with this 'sshhhhhhh, someone will hear' approach to the problems in pro cycling. It's a thread following the prosecution of Armstong and the article was in Cycling News, not on some blog, in there becasue it's significant not just gossip.


----------



## Noodley (15 Jun 2011)

Erratic said:


> Or more gossip with very little substance...I mean come on folks, if the guy is guilty, let him be found guilty beyond doubt in the appropriate court...




....phew, thank goodness you said that, I had been forming my own opinion, but now you mention it I shall no longer do so.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (15 Jun 2011)

http://www.cyclingne...ton-altercation

Well, the FBI are now getting involved. Intimidating a witness is a serious allegation.


----------



## Keith Oates (15 Jun 2011)

and the lawyers will be counting the dollars they will get into their bank accounts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## yello (15 Jun 2011)

From the article FM linked to...



> Larner told the_ Times_ that she doubted that it would help the FBI because the confrontation occurred in the bar area. “I wish I had the incident on tape, so the whole world could see what happened between Tyler and Lance, and shut up about it already,” she said. “*It was a non-event*.”



My bold. My gut feel is it probably was just that, nought more than a pissing contest probably. One that, under the circumstances, could have been expected. Still, it seems 'witness intimidation' is a serious offence so maybe this could go on the charge sheet too. Something to add pressure, be traded-off in exchange for testimony.

Don't forget, the FDA are after more than Armstrong. The net is broader than him, though he could well be the biggest fish in that net.


----------



## philipbh (15 Jun 2011)

yello said:


> From the article FM linked to...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




She would say that woudn't she? 

From the article linked to by Crackle - she is described as a friend of Armstrong


----------



## Noodley (15 Jun 2011)

When (and I use this on purpose as I believe it is a certainty) Armstrong is found guilty, he and his supporters will continue to deny it anyway. Or use the "they were all at it" argument to justify his cheating.


----------



## dellzeqq (15 Jun 2011)

Noodley said:


> When (and I use this on purpose as I believe it is a certainty) Armstrong is found guilty, he and his supporters will continue to deny it anyway. *Or use the "they were all at it" argument to justify his cheating.
> *


the worst thing about it is that they wouldn't be far wrong (except for the justification bit). I've been really taken aback by stuff written about my favourite cyclist of the moment.


----------



## Erratic (15 Jun 2011)

His guilt or innocence should and will be decided by a court of law, not the press, and be dependent on verifyable and impartial evidence - that's the way I understand things.


----------



## Noodley (15 Jun 2011)

Erratic said:


> His guilt or innocence should and will be decided by a court of law, not the press, and be dependent on verifyable and impartial evidence - that's the way I understand things.



That's fine, come back when he is found guilty and leave the rest of us to have a good gossip about the cheating Texan.


----------



## rich p (15 Jun 2011)

Erratic said:


> His guilt or innocence should and will be decided by a court of law, not the press, and be dependent on verifyable and impartial evidence - that's the way I understand things.




I have no idea what you mean. We shouldn't speculate? The press shouldn't report facts? 

Do you really think that FBI agent Novitsky and a grand jury will be swayed by what I think or what a foreign journo writes? I

For what it's worth the usual redress against current riders is not decided by a court of law. The UCI, the national federations and WADA are not courts of law. I appreciate that LA is not a current rider.


----------



## yello (15 Jun 2011)

Erratic said:


> His guilt or innocence should and will be decided by a court of law, not the press, and be dependent on verifyable and impartial evidence - that's the way I understand things.



And that's what will happen! The press don't decide anything, like they just present an argument - albeit one-sided in cases. Common folk like me and thee enjoy the speculation.


----------



## yello (15 Jun 2011)

philipbh said:


> From the article linked to by Crackle - she is described as a friend of Armstrong



I presume you're referring to Hamilton though I'm not sure of the reason you refer to him as "she".

In fairness to Hamilton, I can imagine that his lawyers made the complaint formally. I can see it as a possibility than Hamilton does actually feel some degree of guilt over his testimony. He may well feel, in part, that he has betrayed a colleague if not friend. I doubt he wanted to meet Armstrong again, let alone get into a slanging match with him.


----------



## dellzeqq (15 Jun 2011)

yello said:


> I presume you're referring to Hamilton though I'm not sure of the reason you refer to him as "she".
> 
> In fairness to Hamilton, I can imagine that his lawyers made the complaint formally. I can see it as a possibility than Hamilton does actually feel some degree of guilt over his testimony. He may well feel, in part, that he has betrayed a colleague if not friend. I doubt he wanted to meet Armstrong again, let alone get into a slanging match with him.


I don't get this at all. What were the chances? Really? I've dined out a lot, and I reckon that in thirty five years I've met someone I know in a restaurant (other than the people I was dining with) about.......twice. 

If it is as Hamilton says it is, then Lance is for the high jump. Witness tampering is big stuff.


----------



## MichaelM (15 Jun 2011)

Erratic said:


> ...I mean come on folks, if the guy is guilty.



Although it hasn't been proved in a court of law, I don't disagree with you.


----------



## rich p (15 Jun 2011)

yello said:


> I presume you're referring to Hamilton though I'm not sure of the reason you refer to him as "she".
> 
> In fairness to Hamilton, I can imagine that his lawyers made the complaint formally. I can see it as a possibility than Hamilton does actually feel some degree of guilt over his testimony. He may well feel, in part, that he has betrayed a colleague if not friend. I doubt he wanted to meet Armstrong again, let alone get into a slanging match with him.



I think Philip was referring to the restaurant owner.


----------



## yello (15 Jun 2011)

Ah, yes, sorry. I suspect you're right Rich. My apologies Philip.


----------



## Erratic (16 Jun 2011)

HEHE, nothing like jumping into a pool of Armstrong haters 



> I don't get this at all. What were the chances? Really? I've dined out a lot, and I reckon that in thirty five years I've met someone I know in a restaurant (other than the people I was dining with) about.......twice.



Yep...



> I have no idea what you mean. We shouldn't speculate? The press shouldn't report facts?



What do you believe the press' motivation is to be in keeping this Armstrong story going? If they have evidence, surely it has been passed on to the relevant authority and should leave it at that.

Just to clarify, I was suggesting it is the conitunual...let's call it explotiation...by the press of this story that is the problem, not the average punters speculation and judgments. Clearly it is a very polarizing issue and many people have already made up their minds, so even any eventual official resolution of it is not going to end the arguments.


----------



## raindog (16 Jun 2011)

Erratic said:


> What do you believe the press' motivation is to be in keeping this Armstrong story going?


To keep people reading their magazines/newspapers/websites as with any story - what other motivation could there be? As to most people already making their minds up about whether or not LA is guilty or not, I think most bike enthusiasts did that years ago.


----------



## rich p (16 Jun 2011)

Erratic said:


> HEHE, nothing like jumping into a pool of Armstrong haters




HAHA.
If you'd been around for more than 5 minutes before telling us what we should think and write, you'd realise that most of us here have been following the story of LA for many years and reluctantly, in most cases, come to our unfavourable conclusions.

It's not a knee-jack reaction from lapping up biased, sensational press reportage and as such we are not Armstrong haters. BTW, that phrase always sounds like a blanket dismissal of alternative viewpoints in much the same way that Armstrong himself uses to dismiss his critics as bitter, book-promoting liars.

If you'd been here a bit longer you would also recognise that we disapprove of all doping cheats from LA to Ricco. LA is just a more famous example of them all.


----------



## yello (16 Jun 2011)

Erratic said:


> What do you believe the press' motivation is to be in keeping this Armstrong story going?



Of course it's to sell papers! Nobody is in it for the good of mankind. That doesn't mean the stories are fabricated... well, not always... but then we shouldn't judge all press by the standards set by British journalists 

Moral of the story: if you want to keep your name out of the papers than keep your nose clean. Like speed cameras innit? Don't wan't to get done then don't speed. 

Btw, whilst I'll own up to being a fully paid up member of the 'ur haterz' club I actually do find the the current saga WAY more interesting than any individual. You have to remember this is bigger than cycling. It's about fraud, conspiracy, trafficking.... cripes, being outed as a cyclist that doped is small change. I reckon Armstrong would settle for that willingly and hand back the 7 maillot jaunes this afternoon. (Well, actually HE wouldn't. He'll deny to the death. Others in the same position would though.) As it stands, he's looking at prison time and/or financial ruin.

Cycling authorities simply would not have the remit or scope to conduct this investigation (not least, in part, because it seems they are PART of the problem!). If there's any shame for cycling it's that it's part of the omerta and has a vested interest in keeping its own house untidy. For that, it deserves all the wrong headlines that the Armstrong story might bring.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (16 Jun 2011)

Erratic, I'd wait for more than a couple of days before you start making wholesale judgements on people, if I were you.

You're simply wrong about most people here - there is a lot of knowledge and a wide range of opinions - most of us just aren't unthinking fan boys.


----------



## Erratic (16 Jun 2011)

Interesting responses, thanks. I reiterate, for me, anyone and everyone is innocent until proven guilty, that is a difficult concept for many to accomodate, or even accept, it is a prinicple on which many democracies are based. If he is guilty, then so be it, let him be punished accordingly, I do wonder with so much press coverage if, if it ever comes to it, he could ever be given a fair trial.


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Jun 2011)

Erratic said:


> *Interesting responses, thanks. I reiterate, for me, anyone and everyone is innocent until proven guilty, that is a difficult concept for many to accomodate, or even accept, it is a prinicple on which many democracies are based.* If he is guilty, then so be it, let him be punished accordingly, I do wonder with so much press coverage if, if it ever comes to it, he could ever be given a fair trial.


it has nothing to do with democracy. People are entitled to draw their own conclusions, and, also, to come to conclusions about the processes of sports administration. 

To take as an example. Nobody has found Jack Warner guilty of anything. I remain unconvinced of his innocence.

All administrative and legal processes are, to a degree, open to influence, and a lot of people on these boards think that Armstrong and the money he represents have influence.


----------



## philipbh (17 Jun 2011)

Erratic said:


> I do wonder with so much press coverage if, if it ever comes to it, he could ever be given a fair trial.



An interesting point - though I am also interested to know the courts / judiciary reaction to a potential defendant intimidating a potential witness, thereby prejudicing his own trial.

Contempt of court at least, perhaps?


----------



## BJH (17 Jun 2011)

I think the point has been made very well already - this now goes way beyond being outed as a cheat, this is into the realms of custodial periods and the stakes are now huge.

On the innocent until proven guilty piece, of course this is correct. The issue here is that the overwhelming amount of information agaisnt him is what convinces most of us to hold our beliefs.


----------



## raindog (18 Jun 2011)

http://facts4lance.net/


----------



## rich p (18 Jun 2011)

raindog said:


> http://facts4lance.net/



  

My favoured one is out of stock - damn. Which fanboy bought them all?


----------



## Noodley (20 Jun 2011)

raindog said:


> http://facts4lance.net/




One of the side effects of EPO most definitely appears to have taken hold of Lance:


"sudden and severe inability to speak"


----------



## NickM (20 Jun 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> ...Nobody has found Jack Warner guilty of anything. I remain unconvinced of his innocence.


Jack Warner? _

Nooooooooo..._


----------



## rich p (22 Sep 2011)

Will these investigations ever end? Padua is still bubbling with Armstrong implicated, Menchov going to get nailed at last maybe and Scarponi again. 

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/italian-newspaper-reveals-details-of-ferrari-investigation

Not heard from Novitsky lately but the length of the investigation must be racking up the costs.


----------



## lukesdad (22 Sep 2011)

Havn t you burried him yet ?


----------



## rich p (22 Sep 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Havn t you burried him yet ?




In my mind I have but to be honest all these current never-ending cases plus the drawn-out saga with Contador is making me question the process.


----------



## BJH (22 Sep 2011)

rich p said:


> In my mind I have but to be honest all these current never-ending cases plus the drawn-out saga with Contador is making me question the process.



Beginning to feel the same way. I always thought in the past, weed them out and prosecute no matter what.

Now, I really can't give a flying F.. what happens in the Armstrong case, it's killing the sport.

Whats the point in Riise giving his shirt back years later, or the same for Contador? Whole systems a joke and it needs an end calling to it.

Time to maybe have a bond payable by all teams/riders for a large amount of dosh retained for a set period ( 2 years ??) then released after that. Then, if your caught your out for good.

Sounds stupid and complicated, but let's face it the current one doesn't work, I for one, am fed up reading about these cases.

Angry from Chipping Norton


----------

