marafi
Rolling down the hills with the bike.
- Location
- univeristy is my home for now. lol
A shame he was not lucky enough to get through. Ah well real sport people, work hard and get through without the doping.
Armstrong charged and banned
- Thread starter yello
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
To follow on from Marafi's point, doping athletes also deny clean ones from success.
Sorry about that
I do have this habit of sub-editing my posts minutes after posting in an attempt to make them clearer or more precise. I want to try and avoid misinterpretation and I don't always see the potential for that immediately on posting.... that's my excuse anyway, and I'm sticking to it 
mmm you ve caught me out with that too yello
Sorry about that
I do have this habit of sub-editing my posts minutes after posting in an attempt to make them clearer or more precise. I want to try and avoid misinterpretation and I don't always see the potential for that immediately on posting.... that's my excuse anyway, and I'm sticking to it 
I suspect the ones you're referring to are not going to be let off. Why do you think they're 'unavailable' for the Olympics? 
Dave Davenport
Guru
- Location
- Hampshire
I'd have to agree with one of the comments on the blog re. the angle being taken by LA's legal bods being aimed at the general public and will be used as a smokescreen to try to convince people he's been the victim of a stich up if/when he gets found guilty.
OK, they're lawyers and you wouldn't mind if a boat full sank (to paraphrase Robert Cray) but slimey as they may be, I think LA is smart (and rich) enough not to hire daft ones.
OK, they're lawyers and you wouldn't mind if a boat full sank (to paraphrase Robert Cray) but slimey as they may be, I think LA is smart (and rich) enough not to hire daft ones.
You're right Dave. Armstrong's response to USADA was aimed more at the general public than at USADA. His legal team want to fight this in the court of public opinion.
I think LA's lawyers are also trying to confuse people by using a language of criminal court proceedings, suggesting USADA are being unconstitutional and such like. USADA isn't a court of law and performs according to agreed rules. Every US athlete agrees to those rules when they get their licence. One of Anna Zimmerman's blog posts picks up on this, using a college admissions analogy. A tenancy agreement would be another example; you agree to certain rules when you sign the agreement - no pets, whatever. If you break those rules you can be legally evicted even though owning a pet is not illegal. Simply because you broke the terms of the agreement. Think of the USADA action more along those lines than a court trial.
The 2nd of those above links (The case against Lance Armstrong: Exactly where it needs to be) goes more into the difference between USADA and federal court and the differing burdens of proof etc, and is well worth reading.
I think LA's lawyers are also trying to confuse people by using a language of criminal court proceedings, suggesting USADA are being unconstitutional and such like. USADA isn't a court of law and performs according to agreed rules. Every US athlete agrees to those rules when they get their licence. One of Anna Zimmerman's blog posts picks up on this, using a college admissions analogy. A tenancy agreement would be another example; you agree to certain rules when you sign the agreement - no pets, whatever. If you break those rules you can be legally evicted even though owning a pet is not illegal. Simply because you broke the terms of the agreement. Think of the USADA action more along those lines than a court trial.
The 2nd of those above links (The case against Lance Armstrong: Exactly where it needs to be) goes more into the difference between USADA and federal court and the differing burdens of proof etc, and is well worth reading.
Flying_Monkey
Recyclist
- Location
- Odawa
Well, the case is definitely going ahead: USADA have announced that the independent expert panel has recommended charging Armstrong et al. and this will move to the full hearing process.
From the above link (my bold)...
Will Armstrong and his team decide to go public? There could well be potentially damaging testimony for him. Will he want to risk that, whatever the outcome of the hearing? Tbh, I don't even know whether he's contesting. If he doesn't, this could be over very quickly.
A "unanimous" decision too. Doesn't surprise me tbh. I reckon USADA would have sought some kind of sounding or legal advice before evening commencing the process. They would have wanted to be certain they had a case.
Oh gosh.... on the eve of the tour..... they always do that... blah blah blah
Will Armstrong and his team decide to go public? There could well be potentially damaging testimony for him. Will he want to risk that, whatever the outcome of the hearing? Tbh, I don't even know whether he's contesting. If he doesn't, this could be over very quickly.
A "unanimous" decision too. Doesn't surprise me tbh. I reckon USADA would have sought some kind of sounding or legal advice before evening commencing the process. They would have wanted to be certain they had a case.
Oh gosh.... on the eve of the tour..... they always do that... blah blah blah
Smokin Joe
Squire
- Location
- Bare headed cyclist, Smoker
Armstrong has now been charged. This report in The Comic says that ten former team-mates will testify against him.
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/533665/armstrong-charged-with-doping-offences.html
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/533665/armstrong-charged-with-doping-offences.html
Thanks for the link SJ. I didn't know this...
I'm intrigued to know what Armstrong will do. He's said he'll not contest but that was before the ban... and it's just not a course of action one would expect from him. If he doesn't contest, he's effectively accepting the validity of the evidence and resigning himself to any punishment.
That would be perhaps the least attention drawing course of action and could minimise the fall out effect of any evidence. If found 'guilty', he could continue to dismiss USADA as a vindictive kangaroo court and hope his sponsors and supporters stay with him. He'd maybe loose titles and take a life time ban (the latter hurting more than the former because of his interest in triathlon) but it could be the least damaging course of action.
Personally, I think there's very little chance of the charges being dismissed if he doesn't contest. Imo, only a procedural mistake would see that happen. I honestly believe he can only be cleared if he contests - I belief the evidence on it's own will be that convincing and he'd need to address it himself before the panel.
If he contests, then he draws out the process and invites more scrutiny. He could suffer the same official punishment but end up being significantly more damaged in the public eye and consequently perhaps with his sponsors. He could obviously get the charges dismissed but he's exposing himself in the process - and who knows what the effect of that might be.
Rock and a hard place innit?
Of course, he could be completely innocent of all charges and all the evidence is invented and witness testimony is simply from embittered individuals. That is a possibility.
I'm intrigued to know what Armstrong will do. He's said he'll not contest but that was before the ban... and it's just not a course of action one would expect from him. If he doesn't contest, he's effectively accepting the validity of the evidence and resigning himself to any punishment.
That would be perhaps the least attention drawing course of action and could minimise the fall out effect of any evidence. If found 'guilty', he could continue to dismiss USADA as a vindictive kangaroo court and hope his sponsors and supporters stay with him. He'd maybe loose titles and take a life time ban (the latter hurting more than the former because of his interest in triathlon) but it could be the least damaging course of action.
Personally, I think there's very little chance of the charges being dismissed if he doesn't contest. Imo, only a procedural mistake would see that happen. I honestly believe he can only be cleared if he contests - I belief the evidence on it's own will be that convincing and he'd need to address it himself before the panel.
If he contests, then he draws out the process and invites more scrutiny. He could suffer the same official punishment but end up being significantly more damaged in the public eye and consequently perhaps with his sponsors. He could obviously get the charges dismissed but he's exposing himself in the process - and who knows what the effect of that might be.
Rock and a hard place innit?
Of course, he could be completely innocent of all charges and all the evidence is invented and witness testimony is simply from embittered individuals. That is a possibility.
- Status
