Armstrong charged and banned

Status
Not open for further replies.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

86TDFWinner

Regular
If he had retired quietly, I don't think USADA would care. And personally, as a triathlete, I am very pleased USADA has taken this action before triathlon gets mired in a similar mess that characterized cycle racing in the EPO era.

.

This. Not to mention Armstrong has an arrogance about him that just oozes guilt. BTW, anyone who's still clinging to the "he never tested positive" excuse.....is just blatantly delusional IMO. He has SO "tested positive", more than once......Tour De Suisse just to name one time.
 
Wit respect, ORM, it is not about the past or just about cycling. Armstrong is trying to make a second professional racing career in triathlon. If he had retired quietly, I don't think USADA would care.
I'm sure USADA have been grinding their teeth about Armstrong for years, but have never had proof. Had he not gone for Comeback 2 I daresay Landis would have stayed under his rock...

Ah, hubris. :rolleyes:
 

86TDFWinner

Regular
I'm sure USADA have been grinding their teeth about Armstrong for years, but have never had proof. Had he not gone for Comeback 2 I daresay Landis would have stayed under his rock...

Ah, hubris. :rolleyes:

Great point. I really think the eyewitnesses are what'll do him in, he knows it too.
 
OP
OP
Y

yello

Guest
USADA would love to get their teeth into them, but they simply don't care because they make enough money in the USA not to worry about how the rest of the world thinks of them.

It's worth thinking about this very point more broadly. There's a lot of ifs here but...

If USADAs investigation should reveal corruption in the UCI, and this in turn leads to cycling being booted out of the Olympics then what happens to British cycling?

Pro-cycling could continue, with UCI in charge, just as the American NFL, NBA, NHL (and who ever else) do as a non-Olympic sport. Think though, the UCI also governs track cycling, bmx and also the paralympics cycling events. Without Olympic recognition and exposure, how will those events fare? Would Sky be interested in supporting British cycling? And what of national lottery funding?

Many ifs, but it illustrates the connections and what could be at stake. I don't see anything like the above happening btw, that's a real doom and gloom scenario. More realistic, imho, is an IOC approved cleansing of UCI (so still an old boys network :dry:)
 

Scoosh

Velocouchiste
Moderator
Location
Edinburgh
More realistic, imho, is an IOC approved cleansing of UCI (so still an old boys network :dry:)
... or perhaps a new, clean, non-corrupt (allegedly ;)) body is raised up to run pro cycling ? :thumbsup: (with or without a big, shiny HQ in Swizzerland ^_^)

The 'Break-Away' organisation which I believe was mentioned some time ago ?
 

GBC

Veteran
Location
Glasgow
Just as a matter of interest, is there any precedent of someone being found guilty of doping on the word only of witnesses, not backed up by any scientific evidence?
I've no prejudice either way on the question, though I will certainly be disappointed if the drug allegations are shown to be true, particularly because of the damage that it will do to the sport. As to Armstrong himself, if he's exonerated, he'll retain his standing as one of the greats of cycling, but nothing will really make him other than a quite unlikeable character.
 
OP
OP
Y

yello

Guest
I guess if JV is to be believed, there'd be interest within pro-teams to replace the UCI as the governing body. I can't myself see a breakaway league (I feel the suggestion illustrates the mood rather than indicates action) and I think the pro-teams would accept (at least in the short term) a reconfigured UCI.

But equally, I don't suspect the Olympics matter much to the pro-teams and they would happily operate outside of them. I'm sure ASO would be interested too, and offer to transition any change over - if not run pro-cycling themselves ;) Would we want that?
 
OP
OP
Y

yello

Guest
Just as a matter of interest, is there any precedent of someone being found guilty of doping on the word only of witnesses, not backed up by any scientific evidence?

The short answer is yes but it's a bit of a moot point since, in this case, there is more than witness testimony.

It's important to remember that in this process there is not the same burden of proof required as in a court of law. I don't remember the exact wording but the case doesn't need to be proven 'beyond reasonable doubt' but to something like 'comfortable satisfaction'. Now before that kicks off a storm of protest, I would say that this point has been well covered earlier in the thread. It is as it is and there are internationally agreed and accepted reasons for it.

Testimony is evidence just as scientific evidence is and the arbitration panel will decide if it is sufficient (based on the 'comfortable satisfaction' criteria) to sanction.
 

GBC

Veteran
Location
Glasgow
The short answer is yes but it's a bit of a moot point since, in this case, there is more than witness testimony.

It's important to remember that in this process there is not the same burden of proof required as in a court of law. I don't remember the exact wording but the case doesn't need to be proven 'beyond reasonable doubt' but to something like 'comfortable satisfaction'. Now before that kicks off a storm of protest, I would say that this point has been well covered earlier in the thread. It is as it is and there are internationally agreed and accepted reasons for it.

Testimony is evidence just as scientific evidence is and the arbitration panel will decide if it is sufficient (based on the 'comfortable satisfaction' criteria) to sanction.

Certainly in this part of the world, I think the phrase you were looking for is 'the balance of probability'.
I do appreciate what constitutes evidence and what doesn't, but it does concern me that not only is there no scientific evidence against him, (as far as I know), but that that evidence was proactively searched for through regular testing and wasn't found. However, nothing is going to be resolved here:smile:
 
Having just read David Millars book, I'm confused as to why its just Lance being singled out for "Victimisation" (yes yes apart from being 7 times winner etc etc)....
It's the team management (which included LA) and the medical support staff who are being pursued here. It also has potential ramifications for the way the UCI has conducted itself. This is only a one-man witch hunt if you believe the PR guff that Lance's team are spouting.

The implication is that pre-Festina, and arguably even pre Operacion Puerto, the entire peloton were doping?
No, they were not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom