Armstrong charged and banned

[albion]

"USADA had said anonymity was used due to previous coercion and intimidation"

Got to love the tactics. Is not anonymity the far more dodgy form of coercion?

 

[yello]

I think USADA are referring to Armstrong's previous with Tyler Hamilton there albion.

 

[smutchin]

I wouldn't laugh, if USADA don't play this by the book, it could provide Armstrong with valuable ammunition for his defence.

Regardless of what you think of the man, if the identity of his accusers is being withheld it hardly seems fair.

Entirely in agreement on both points. I'm just highlighting the delicious irony in him of all people demanding transparency from others.

If USADA do have strong evidence against him, I would hope they aren't stupid enough to let him get off on a procedural technicality.

d.

 

[Crackle]

I've got a theory that the Schlecks knew this bombshell was about to break and have tried to distance themselves from JB and that's the root of the recent 'performance problems'. The Schlecks and Cancellara must be looking back at their time with Riis as 'the good old days'

It's more likely that with the team bankrupt, they haven't been paid and can't afford their normal 'vitamins'.

 

[albion]

I think USADA are referring to Armstrong's previous with Tyler Hamilton there albion.

When Lance Armstrong supposedly confronted him in a restaurant ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-drugs-accuser-Tyler-Hamilton-restaurant.html

Nothing quite adds up there if you read it all.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Got to love the tactics. Is not anonymity the far more dodgy form of coercion?

Ethically, no. It is standard practice to anonymize those giving evidence if there is a reasonable belief that the person being accused will take action against them. Armstrong has extensive form on this (as noted above re: Hamilton, Bassons, Simeoni, and several others)

You do seem to be ignoring a lot of the obvious here.

 

[albion]

This 'extensive form' is part of the main evidence here.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

This 'extensive form' is part of the main evidence here.

So, what's your point?

 

[albion]

Sarcasm.

 

[Noodley]

This is a genuine question so please do not take it as anything other than that...

There are a few posters in this thread who I have never or seldom seen discussing pro cycling, yet who seem to have opinions on Armstrong. Is this because LA was such a big name that he attracted your attention, or have you been inspired by him and feel he is being slighted, or were you put off pro cycling by his behaviour, or do you not feel as if the pro race discussions on CC are welcoming, or "an other"?
I am genuinely interested, so please to not take offence. The more people in pro race the better imo.

 

[lukesdad]

Sarcasm.

Another Spanish Doctor ? Not heard of him.

 

[Crankarm]

As FM rightly pointed out at the start of this thread, this isn't a legal case and isn't subject to the same standards. As I understand it, the Feds closed the legal case precisely because they couldn't make the charges stick (or didn't want to try) but that doesn't stop UCI/ASO/WADA/USADA acting according to their own rules and procedures.

d.

Which are what exactly? Guilty until proven innocent which you seem to believe. I don't really care if LA is guilty or innocent. It will however be a damn shame if he is but life will go on. What I care more about is due process, that some is innocent of all allegations until such time as the allegations are proven in a court, a tribunal, etc. To do away with this the authorities might as well just arbitarily arrest and detain people on evidence that has not been properly examined or put to proof or which it totally fabricated, deny them any trial or opportunity to make a defence. I think they used to do this in places like the former East Germany, the former Soviet Republic, Chilie and Argentina or Iran, then execute them. Chilling.

 

[Noodley]

To do away with this the authorities might as well just arbitarily arrest and detain people on evidence that has not been properly examined or put to proof or which it totally fabricated, deny them any trial or opportunity to make a defence. I think they used to do this in places like the former East Germany, the former Soviet Republic, Chilie and Argentina or Iran, then execute them. Chilling.

Crankers, are you not missing the point? This is not arrest and detain situation. Or indeed death. We all have our opinions. It's nothing more than that at present. Whether he is found guilty or not I shall still view him as the biggest drug cheat in all cycling history.

 

[Boris Bajic]

This is a genuine question so please do not take it as anything other than that...

There are a few posters in this thread who I have never or seldom seen discussing pro cycling, yet who seem to have opinions on Armstrong. Is this because LA was such a big name that he attracted your attention, or have you been inspired by him and feel he is being slighted, or were you put off pro cycling by his behaviour, or do you not feel as if the pro race discussions on CC are welcoming, or "an other"?
I am genuinely interested, so please to not take offence. The more people in pro race the better imo.

I may be one such. I only follow the TdF with any real interest - and have done for many years.

LA was an integral part of TdF lore for pretty much a decade and his shadow remains across some elements of it.

I am no LA fan, apologist or hater. He was a remarkable rider among many others.

He is also (in some ways) a personification of the doping (EPO) story and of the popular notion that one man can be bigger than the event.

While he was riding I was usually in France during the Tour - and in those days I found myself feeling quite defensive of him as I flicked through that day's l'Equipe. Among non-cycling types I find myself being far more negative about him than I really feel. To this day, he is the rider most people in the UK can name. I suspect that even after Brad and Cav have won a jersey each, he still will be.

I think there are many who want this drug-boy saga neatly wrapped like a Hollywood film or an HH Munro short story. It isn't neatly wrapped and every time it re-emerges we feel the need to scratch the itch.

I dare say the whole 'survivor' thing pulls in a few adoring fans (and it is no mean thing to survive a killer - my family seem to be crap at it).

There are probably also those (I've never felt the need myself) who see LA as somehow messianic; a true hero who allowed them to find the athlete within. There is no athlete within me, so that's a short search.

Ultimately, he is a story that trannscends pro-cycling, just as Imola 1994 moved beyond Formula 1 and 1966 was about more than just a game of footie.

A rambling jumble of an answer, but does that offer something like what you wanted?

 

[stoatsngroats]

This is a genuine question so please do not take it as anything other than that...

There are a few posters in this thread who I have never or seldom seen discussing pro cycling, yet who seem to have opinions on Armstrong. Is this because LA was such a big name that he attracted your attention, or have you been inspired by him and feel he is being slighted, or were you put off pro cycling by his behaviour, or do you not feel as if the pro race discussions on CC are welcoming, or "an other"?
I am genuinely interested, so please to not take offence. The more people in pro race the better imo.

I enjoyed a good number of years watching TdF, and have a liking for Lance. I read his book a few years ago - "It's all about the bike" I think, and watched in awe of his, and US postal (was there another - I can't remember!) team strategy.

I haven;t watched since Contador won his first Tdf.

I have not followed much pro cycling since, although I have watched the Olympic cycling, and some of the world Champs.
I have not previously had the urge to comment in the pro cycling section of CC, until this latest LA storm.

It amazes me that so many people, including myself, feel the need to comment on what LA is doing - he's a big celeb, and very controversial.
Is it possible, that anyone here at CC has
(1) strong feelings against the man but believes he is innocent;
or
(2) Admiration for him but believes he is a cheat.


Or do we fall into a 'belief' camp based on our feelings for him?




Nonetheless, it's an interesting subject !