Armstrong charged and banned

[yello]

Ouch. This is going to sting. From CNN

What Lance Armstrong is allegedly doing -- what all athletes in his shoes seem to do — is beyond damaging. Across the world, millions of people believe in Armstrong's narrative. They love his wins, yes, but what drives them and inspires them is the way he faced cancer and battled back from a near-death experience. Young children in pediatric care have been relayed his story, have been told that one day, if you stay strong and fight and believe, you, too, can be just like Lance Armstrong.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/15/opinion/pearlman-lance-armstrong/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

 

[yello]

Here's a neat summary of the case as it stands...

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...art-series-events-strip-tour-de-france-titles

Yes, that is very good.

Edit: re SCA, the insurance company mentioned in the last paragraph of the above link, it looks like they're monitoring this case, ready to sue for return of monies...

“There’s not much we can do right now, but we will watch this with interest. We will review this situation and if it looks actionable, we’ll certainly take action.”

 

[Red Light]

LA is a fascinating case, not for LA but for people's reactions to him. I don't know whether he doped or not. To date there has been no evidence through testing and no evidence from "witnesses" has had sufficient credibility to prove anything so all the investigations to date have petered out. That's not to say this latest situation won't change that but we'll have to wait and see.

But, and here's the interesting bit, many many people including many on here are absolutely convinced he is guilty and are rooting for anything that might prove that and bring him down. It's not innocent until proven guilty but guilty even if proven innocent. The question is why is that? Is it because he was so successful? Or is it because he is American? Or his personality?

I suspect if he did dope and get away with it then you can pretty much bet almost all the TdeF results in history should be annulled because if that is what it took to be at the top, all the top riders would have been doping.

Meanwhile I will wait and see. We have had much salivating and frothing at the mouth at the expectation that he was going to get his come uppance many times before but no one has been able to come up with anything that would stick and he has beaten some quite comprehensively in Court. But we shall see if the lynch mob get their day. But whatever the outcome his guilt will continue to be unquestionable for many.

 

[Erratic]

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 enjoy these threads, lots of passion, knowledge and most of it carried out in a good natured way. What brings me to this thread is not so much the 'drugs in cycling' question, but more the 'is Lance Armstrong being treated fairly' question. Many of the more knowledgeable on hear quote stories about things LA has done to other riders on tour, to his accusers, as if they themeselves were there to witness it. To me, a lot of it appears to be hearsay and gossip. If he is guilty of something, let the law take its course, if he is not, or there is insufficient evidence to prove his guilt, then move on because constantly raking over old ground cannot be doing cycling any good.

One other thing, I also find it odd that the UCI rather than WADA carries out drugs tests (Is this accurate or have I misread somewhere?)

 

[stoatsngroats]

... but it is only what I think. I've got no greater or lesser right to judge than anyone else. Perhaps there is a context more important than the one I use.... as much as it galls me to say!

Yello, it's perhaps a shame that many others are less open minded to others opinions than you!

But whatever the outcome his guilt will continue to be unquestionable for many.

Red Light, I don't doubt that - Micheal Jackson is another example of this, in my opinion... but that's a whole other can of worms! )



Without doubt I think anyone could agree with this...... up to a particular point, all LA did was bring the world of pro cycling into sharp focus around the world. Long before there were allegations of him doping, he DID, undoubtedly, and perhaps in the eyes of many, (uneducated in the world of pro cycling) 'make' the TdF watchable, exciting, and even take up cycling again. I count myself in that group - I bought a racer, rode many miles, did the L2B, got fitter, began reading here at CC, enjoyed a new past-time in my life (which continues still) watched the TdF's, World class races on TV, enjoyed the Wiggins/Millar/Cav. All due to him, or maybe the TV hype of him.
I wonder how many others he has inspired, not just cycling, but in their lives through the cancer recovery.

It's interesting in any case - whatever anyone's opinion......

 

[yello]

An aspect of the story that's interesting me is the way some columnists are spinning it. A kind of fighting fire with fire; using the livestrong-esque metaphors of hope and dreams but in reverse; a betrayal. The CNN comment I linked to illustrates it.

Personally, I think it is this fall of Armstrong in the eyes of his believers that will be his greatest punishment.

Here's one from Fox...

http://msn.foxsports.com/olympics/c...is-he-a-hero-or-worst-sports-cheat-yet-061412

I like these quotes from the above....

The whole world was jumping on board to love him. Yet his defense is that everyone is against him, to make money on a book, to get immunity, to make a name for themselves, or whatever.’

Vendetta? How many people have to say he did it before it’s OK for others to listen?

I think the latter one, for me, addresses the 'credible' witness criticism that is often raised by supporters of Armstrong. The tide is not only turning, the wave that's coming at him is getting bigger.

 

[rich p]

I can understand posters on here not having the full facts and so not having a fully formed opinion one way or another. What I confess to finding irritating is the accusations that those of us who have followed the story closely over more than a decade, read all the research, the stories behind the stories and come to the conclusion we have - that we are somehow US haterz, LA haterz, biased, prejudiced and back stabbers.
The truth is that we, the long-term cycling nerds are the ones who have been most let down by LA. I used to take a day or two's leave to watch LA thump Ulrich in the Queen stages. What a mug I was to invest so much admiration in the guy.

 

[yello]

What I confess to finding irritating is the accusations that those of us who have followed the story closely over more than a decade, read all the research, the stories behind the stories and come to the conclusion we have - that we are somehow US haterz, LA haterz, biased, prejudiced and back stabbers.

The 'innocent until proven guilty' mantra gets me. As if you're not allowed to form your own opinion based upon all that you've read.

What a mug I was to invest so much admiration in the guy.

As I said before, I reckon that is the most painful of punishments Armstrong ought have - the feeling of betrayal his followers will feel. Not just (not even) the cycling fans but the cancer sufferers. I say "ought' because if we're to believe that Armstrong is a sociopath (as some claim) then he won't actually give a shoot what people think or how he's destroyed their faith.

 

[Andrew_P]

Rich, I understand that but the long term nerds as you refer to yourself and others have been cheated from day one by most, if not all winners over the years. Possibly even right up to the current day.

So why the strong feeling about LA?

Is is because he so strongly denies it? Is is because he has never tested positive? Is it because of the 7 TdF wins? Is it because of his continued high profile post retirement?

The oft offered arguement is that the other were also on the the enhancement chemicals, after all that is all they were enhancements I am sure they were but I also accept it doesn't make it right.

I couldn't start taking these and suddenly be able to win 7 TdF's I would need an amazing intial base fitness, skill and mental strength to acheive that.

I really do not understand in whose best interests this case is for, if they ban him and strip the titles how low can they go on to find a winner who derserves it more than LA? I think it will further tarnish the sport.

I am not a racing Nerd, I came back to cycling 3 years ago, and then really became interested in the LA story which I am happy to admit has been manipulated but the return to cycling a natural progression was to start to be interested in the sport. So to answer Noodley I had a close interest in the LA Story and loose interest in today's racing only due to my return to cycling.

 

[lukesdad]

USADA typically must abide by an eight-year statute of limitations, which precludes the agency of attempting to invalidate all but Armstrong’s last two Tour de France titles (2004 and 2005). The allegations, however, center around more recent samples, although the labs employed could not precisely determine if Armstrong had actually used endurance-boosting EPO or blood transfusions

So what can they determine ?

 

[yello]

The statute of limitations has been addressed by USADA and evidence outside of the 8 year period can be used... I'll research the exact wording and post it here since I don't want to get it wrong. There's also precedent for it.

However, in short, by coming out of retirement within the SOL period Armstrong enabled the use of the evidence outside of the period. If Armstrong had stayed retired then this might not have happened. I think FM already mentioned this upstream.

Edit: as reported by various sources from the USADA letter

"Evidence of banned acts outside of the eight-year limit can be used to corroborate evidence within the limit, and the statute of limitations can be waived when the alleged violations were fraudulently concealed."

ld, as to what they can determine, do you mean the labs or USADA?

USADA refer to irregular patterns that conform to manipulation. In itself, not proof of anything but indicative. Dodgy area it's true (and shades of Contador and the presence of clenb) so this is where the other evidence comes into play. Where the eye witness testimony, for example, is needed as corroborative.

I suspect the labs can't determine anything that would be called proof. No smoking gun as it were. Otherwise a positive test would have been triggered in the past. I guess this is were expert analysis is relied upon in interpreting the results that were found.

The evidence has to be looked at in it's entirety to build the case and that's what the USADA assembled panel will do.

 

[smutchin]

So why the strong feeling about LA?

Is is because he so strongly denies it? .

This, mainly. I feel much the same about Floyd Landis and Dwain Chambers. And Contador with his contaminated beef bullshit.

I used to feel the same about Vinokourov but he has redeemed himself to some extent by (apparently) keeping his nose clean since his return - he's still an insanely aggressive rider, which is great to watch, but he looks human now.

The denial thing is the big difference between riders like Landis and riders like Millar. I don't condone what Millar did but he's now anti-doping with the zeal of a born again Christian and is working hard to clean up the sport. Also Millar is one of those people who was more a victim of the doping culture than an instigator like Bruyneel, which mitigates his offence a little.

d.

 

[lukesdad]

So the USADA case hinges on the more recent samples ?

Which I was really trying to get at.

 

[Andrew_P]

So the USADA case hinges on the more recent samples ?

Which I was really trying to get at.

How recent do you think, as recent as since he turned pro again?

 

[lukesdad]

2009-10