another nail in the coffin

[MacB]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[raindog]

Not to mention Greg LeMond

 

[yello]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.