Armstrong charged and banned

[albion]

That was you Yello if you ignore the philosophising over it all.

Obviously they do not have to be embittered for Armstrong to be innocent.

 

[yello]

Perhaps you didn't read my use of the word 'embittered' as ironic? Because it was intended to be and, to make myself clear, I don't think they are at all embittered. However, they may be dismissed as such by the defence team.

To he frank, I'm still not really seeing your point albion but ask yourself this; given the witnesses have been named as part of the evidence in support of the charges against Armstrong, do you think they are there to testify to his innocence?

 

[albion]

All interesting stuff. Strange how Floyd Landis sort of predicted all this.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...ADA-actions-calls-for-case-to-be-dropped.aspx

 

[yello]

So is this, from your link, related to your point albion?

That excerpt claims that Tygart told Landis he would get a suspension of less than a year if he gave information on ‘bigger names’ in cycling. Landis interprets this as meaning USADA wanted information on Armstrong, and asserted then that he never saw anything to indicate that Armstrong had doped.

If I know what it is you're saying then I will try to respond to it.

 

[albion]

As strange as the assertion that Armstrong retired a 7 times legend and came back to be 'caught with his hands in the till'.

Landis's stories of course are never quite credible.

 

[yello]

Landis's stories of course are never quite credible.

I'd agree he is an unreliable witness and any defence team would have no problems in raising questions as to his credibility. That said, we don't know if he is one of the 10+ testimonies that USADA have offered as evidence, so his lack of credibility may not be a problem.

Btw (and to guess at what might be your point) we don't even know how many of those testimonies are from cyclists (as opposed to from a support or medial team members), let alone from cyclists that admitted to doping, BUT for what it's worth, I have no problem with anyone being given a lesser sentence for assisting the investigation. Is that what you object to?

 

[Chuffy]

How are all these anonymous individuals embittered if they have been simply offered deals after themselves testing positive?

There are supposedly ten former teammates and associates. Assuming that two of them are Landis and Hamilton, that leaves another 8 who haven't tested positive. I don't recall Zabriskie, Vaughters or Hincapie ever being busted and I'd bet a months wages that they're on the list.

 

[smutchin]

Zabriskie and Vaughters would have to be regarded as credible witnesses. Heck, Zabriskie doesn't even eat meat (you hear that, Bertie?).

I'm far from believing the sport is now 100% clean (or will ever be) but it's great that the culture has changed enough for people like Zabriskie to feel they can now speak out (assuming he is indeed one of the witnesses) about what they must have always known about without risk of getting the Bassons/Simeoni treatment.

d.

 

[Alun]

There are supposedly ten former teammates and associates. Assuming that two of them are Landis and Hamilton, that leaves another 8 who haven't tested positive. I don't recall Zabriskie, Vaughters or Hincapie ever being busted and I'd bet a months wages that they're on the list.

That (highlighted in bold) doesn't seem to count for anything on this thread!

 

[Alun]

I'd agree he is an unreliable witness and any defence team would have no problems in raising questions as to his credibility. That said, we don't know if he is one of the 10+ testimonies that USADA have offered as evidence, so his lack of credibility may not be a problem./cut

If USADA have 10+ witnesses (including Landis), they would be badly advised to use him, better to go forward with 9+ witnesses.

 

[Andrew_P]

Anouther 8 ho

There are supposedly ten former teammates and associates. Assuming that two of them are Landis and Hamilton, that leaves another 8 who haven't tested positive. I don't recall Zabriskie, Vaughters or Hincapie ever being busted and I'd bet a months wages that they're on the list.

You surely mean 9? Currently LA has never tested positive and I do not think anyone should forget that :-)

If they cannot catch what most on this thread think is a supersize doper, testing in a Tdf as late as 2010 then what chance do they have with today's micro dopers? I have sneaky suspicion that some of the evidence of doping may well be from this year.

 

[Alun]

Anouther 8 ho

You surely mean 9? Currently LA has never tested positive and I do not think anyone should forget that :-)

If they cannot catch what most on this thread think is a supersize doper, testing in a Tdf as late as 2010 then what chance do they have with today's micro dopers? I have sneaky suspicion that some of the evidence of doping may well be from this year.

He has been formally charged, and there is nothing from 2012, I would be surprised if USADA could slide anything in without breaching their procedures.

 

[Andrew_P]

I was wondering if it is a comparision of blood between 2010 & 2012

 

[yello]

Currently LA has never tested positive and I do not think anyone should forget that :-)

Well actually he has, for which he produced a backdated doctor's note, and I do not think anyone should forget that

Besides, Armstrong is not one of the USADA testimonies (though he was invited to speak to them and declined) so does not feature in the 10+.

Loco, your argument is confused, but if you read the charges you will realise there is talk of conspiracy. It's alleged that Armstrong was significantly ahead of others in his doping program. If you read further, you'll see some even implicate UCI hid results. That Armstrong was never formally charged may not be proof that he never tested positive, nor that he never doped.

 

[raindog]

Only $19.50
http://www.pedalpushersclub.com/collections/t-shirts/products/defend-lance