Its more than "unless they mess up their own procedures, case dismissed". Its your charge sheet is unacceptably vague, your motives are questionable, your original plan to withold the evidence is unacceptable but if you correct those as you have now agreed to do and abide by your own procedures I shall let it go ahead for now. But be warned I will be watching you and if you don't you will not like the consequences. Case adjourned.
Armstrong charged and banned
- Thread starter yello
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Its more than "unless they mess up their own procedures, case dismissed". Its your charge sheet is unacceptably vague, your motives are questionable, your original plan to withold the evidence is unacceptable but if you correct those as you have now agreed to do and abide by your own procedures I shall let it go ahead for now. But be warned I will be watching you and if you don't you will not like the consequences. Case adjourned.
Personally, I thought Sparks did seem to be (or pretend to be) a little uninformed on some issues. I don't expect him to know the history of UCI/WADA, nor even be fully conversant with the arbitration process procedure used by bodies such as USADA, but some of his remarks did seem to reflect a lack of knowledge.I'm reminded of your 'show boating' remark (or was it spotlight) FM - I guess everyone likes to add their own touches sometimes, and I guess court judges are no different.
I think it's to be expected in a way. We probably look to judges to give personalised opinion rather than just hand down a dry verdict... certainly makes matters more entertaining!
That aspect was questioned early on in the process, yes. I believe, though I don't know, that evidence gathered by the feds via GJ cannot be used by USADA.
But cutting to the chase, the important point to note here is that both the feds and WADA/USADA have confirmed that none of the USADA evidence was gathered by the feds. Not much more that can be said in truth.
Yes, I think that's fair to say.
I personally don't think USADA have done anything other than play by the book, and they fully intend to do so in the future. I suspect they're well aware of the need to get this one pitch perfect and didn't need Sparks to point it out. I reckon they did sail close to the wind with the charging letter though!
In dismissing the case 'without prejudice', Sparks has kept the avenue of complaint open for Armstrong in the future - but he hasn't expanded or extended it. That is, there are no additional rights available to Armstrong by virtue of Sparks' remarks. Armstrong has the same options open to him now, the same rights, as if Sparks had said nothing - as if the court case hadn't taken place.
I can't agree with your final analysis though. I can't see that team LA is more pleased than disappointed with the outcome. They're nowhere different now than if the court case hadn't happened. They still have to answer USADA.
I guess if one believes that USADA had intended to do all manner of unscrupulously bad things and now Judge Sparks has straightened them out then fine, that's one's prerogative. It's also delusional.
Flying_Monkey
Recyclist
- Location
- Odawa
But it wasn't adjourned, it was dismissed. If the opinions that Sparks had were more than opinions, i.e. if they had legal weight, then there would have been a different verdict. You can try to spin this how you like, but the verdict and the fact that Armstrong was ordered to pay costs speak for themselves. Sparks likes to tell everyone how their legal cases should be presented etc. - we know that from his previous remarks. He has a reputation. What matters legally and factually is the verdict, which was that the courts do not have jurisdiction over this case. You can't get past this.
Chuffy
Veteran
- Location
- On the banks of the Exe
Yes....and at the same time, no.
Buddfox alluded to this in his post earlier. What the last Sparks ruling has done for Lance's cause is to sow some doubt about USADA's process and motivation. We (at least, those of us with a slightly unhealthy interest in the history of doping in cycling and USP/Lance in particular) probably understand this better than the judge, but that's not the point. Even though Sparks has dismissed the case I think that Lance's team will have an eye on the court of public opinion as a final arbiter of his legacy and Sparks has given them plenty of useful ammunition, even if, as you point out, they haven't gained anything tangible in a legal sense. I would expect some of those quotes from Sparks to be wheeled out in the next few months - it's not going to be hard to turn any adverse verdict from USADA into a vicious witchhunt conducted for political purposes and that will play well with both his hardcore fans and the many, many casual fans whose only understanding is 'Lance. Cancer. Hero'.
Not saying that Team Tex launched their suit just for PR purposes btw, I think they genuinely wanted to try and derail the USADA process. It's just that they can salvage something usable from this.
Yes, good point and agreed. Some may sway Lance-ishly as a result, or at least become more receptive to certain ideas. After all, a federal judge said it. It could be a short-lived effect though and I'm not sure it'll ultimately make much difference when said same folk can read the evidence in their Sunday sports section.
Whether Armstrong can spin it as a witchunt and play to the public, rather depends on how persuasive the evidence is. At least it seems as though we're going to hear it and be in a position to judge without his obfuscation. If he's innocent then he has nothing to fear
DogTired
Über Member
- Location
- Floating on a sea of vimto.
Without trying to stoke up sides 
, is there a fairly objective summary of the overall situation knocking around that someone could recommend? All sorts of bits have come out, such as the UCI involvement (and the characters involved there) and how USADA have gone about things?
Any related background on LA would be interesting reading as well. You can google until the end of time and only find nice things said. Which is odd...
, is there a fairly objective summary of the overall situation knocking around that someone could recommend? All sorts of bits have come out, such as the UCI involvement (and the characters involved there) and how USADA have gone about things?Any related background on LA would be interesting reading as well. You can google until the end of time and only find nice things said. Which is odd...
86TDFWinner
Regular
Problem with your arguement is: NO ONE'S COME FORWARD IN 22 YRS TO SAY LEMOND DID ANYTHING IIRC? Not one former: teammate, coach, rider, etc, etc. I've never seen/heard/read anything that suggested, or led me to believe that he did, do you know something we don't after all these years? if so, by all means, please post said "proof/assumptions/rumours/innuendos/etc" here so that we can ALL see for ourselves that he did infact "dope" as you're alluding to? See, Lemond is MUCH different than Mr.One Ball. No one's EVER accused him(Lemond) of doping, unlike One ball, who seems to have a new report out, every other week. I get it, you dont like Greg, but to insinuate that he's a "doper' and lump him in with all the rest,w/o any credible proof, makes you look silly IMO.
While we're on the subject of past champions "doping", then why not strp: Anquetil and Merckx of their respective yellow jerseys too, afterall both have admitted to doping right? if you want to go there,(and it appears you do) why not strip: Hinault/Indurain, and others as well for their titles? How do we know they weren't doping either? I mean, hell Indurain won 5 straight TDF's, an unheard of feat @ the time, certainly HE did something to accomplish that, right?
It's a nice attempt by you, I applaud your effort.
86TDFWinner
Regular
Are you really Greg Lemond?Quite an entrance you made there in The Clinic!
I wish......thank you
Without trying to stoke up sides
Any related background on LA would be interesting reading as well. You can google until the end of time and only find nice things said. Which is odd...
I was hoping someone else might respond... I'm kind of getting tired of my own voice! Besides, I'm a hater, I probably have an agenda, and am biased etc...
There's no single text that I'm aware of that covers all you mention....yet! I'm sure there'll be a few that give the 'Lance - rags to riches and back again' story in the years to come.
I would however suggest David Walsh's 'From Lance to Landis' as that'll give a background from a certain perspective. I can't recommend it as I've not read it but it does cover a number of bases.
Google has been my friend in this matter. From the official websites of WADA, USADA, UCI etc, through online newpapers articles, op-eds, blogs, etc to forums. CyclingNew's forum (particularly 'The Clinic' sub-forum) is a valuable resource of both links and opinions. Beware though, it is robust and you will have to wade through pages of one-eyed hater spew to find information.
I see I've touched a raw nerve. Well Fignon has said that everyone in the peleton doped at that time. And then there's that superhuman VO2max of 93 which would automatically raise questions these days. Even Lemond questioned Contador's VO2max on that climb as certain proof of doping. But of course he is safe in that there are no stored blood or urine sample from that time although LA has intimated that others from that time know things about Greg.
I'm no Armstrong fan, but continually calling someone one ball, because they were unfortunate enough to have cancer, is poor stuff imo.
- Status
