Armstrong charged and banned
- Thread starter yello
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Welcome to web forums.
It needn't. A couple of later posts have turned that way but it can be turned back - with the will of the participants.
86TDF, this isn't The Clinic and people aren't quite so trigger happy in here. Could you please exercise some restraint?
By injecting venom, you risk derailing an otherwise relatively amicable thread - and risk it being locked. Nobody wants that as we want this to play out.... well, maybe not to the end, since the Armstrong saga will drag on for years!, but at least until the conclusion of the USADA (and inevitable CAS) process.
dream on..........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?
.
without wanting to spoil anybody's fun - isn't this all ancient history now? Even Armstrong. Here we are, a nation of couch potatoes, producing cyclists like the world has never seen before, riders like Dani King, Lizzie Armitstead, Cav, Jason Kenny, Laura Trott, Hoy, that geezer with the 'burns, and all of them seem so refreshingly unblinded by ambition, yet so dedicated - which leads me to think that if one more of my neurons even has to hear the word Armstrong that would be one neuron too many.
I read that as Don King!
The thought of him on a bike gave me a broad smile! Looks like he sees the funny side too!
Anyways, decision time for Armstrong by tomorrow.
You know, I reckon he could actually be very well served by going into arbitration. The arbitration panel is independent, not part of USADA. Three on the panel; one selected by USADA, one by Armstrong and the 3rd selected by the other 2. The arbitration process allows for pre-arbitration questions, it's in that window where Armstrong could legitimately raise relevant questions, such as scope or statute of limitations even.
No telling how the arbitrators would respond of course but they can at least address some of the questions that Sparks couldn't (because the court lacked jurisdiction). It could be Armstrong's best chance. Ironic huh? The process he has vilified as 'unconstitutional' etc offers him a way out!
You know, I reckon he could actually be very well served by going into arbitration. The arbitration panel is independent, not part of USADA. Three on the panel; one selected by USADA, one by Armstrong and the 3rd selected by the other 2. The arbitration process allows for pre-arbitration questions, it's in that window where Armstrong could legitimately raise relevant questions, such as scope or statute of limitations even.
No telling how the arbitrators would respond of course but they can at least address some of the questions that Sparks couldn't (because the court lacked jurisdiction). It could be Armstrong's best chance. Ironic huh? The process he has vilified as 'unconstitutional' etc offers him a way out!
DogTired
Über Member
- Location
- Floating on a sea of vimto.
Thanks - I'll check that book out. Personally my opinion floats from let sleeping dogs lie, nail any cheating, is it worth undoing any inspirational work by charities, don't let any cheats any further into politics, are USADA right, are they vexatious, this will drag on until the end of time...
After reading David Miller's book I'm even more interested in the motivations around doping.
Also agree with dz that things have moved on with the latest crop of cyclists. In the main, anyway. Nice piece in the DMail about VPendleton: "Sexist Team GB athletes tried to make me cut off my hair"...
just jim
Guest
I did - and I got this:
WILL CYCLISTS TURN PROPERTY PRICES GAY?
Sorry about going O.T. Back to the subject in hand eh? I try to follow this unfortunate business on The Clinic, though it gets a bit extreme. That's why I continue to check in with this relatively together thread. Let's keep it that way huh?
86TDFWinner
Regular
You've touched no "nerve" at all...usually, thats a Lance fanboys fall back response, "well Lemond doped too". Then, when I ask(and I have about 30 times now & counting) for said person(s) to post said "proof" of Lemond "doping", they slither away with their heads between their legs and say things like "Oh I mustve touched a nerve or something...hahahaha", meanwhile producing no such "proof" as to what they've said. As I said, YOU make YOURSELF look silly just saying it, as we ALL know if he did, it wouldve come out by now certainly right? Guys last TDF win was 22 years ago, and he's been retired for 18 yrs, it would've come out by now had he infact "doped" as you claim(oh ermm...I mean: Lance claimed
)Of course. I get a laugh out of the "Lemond doped too" crowd.......They want so badly for someone else to catch the shoot Pharmstrong is.....Get back to me when you have 1(just one) CREDIBLE source that says he(Lemond) did, otherwise, stop talking out of your buttox about it, as you're obviously just trying to troll for the sake of trolling.
86TDFWinner
Regular
It needn't. A couple of later posts have turned that way but it can be turned back - with the will of the participants.
86TDF, this isn't The Clinic and people aren't quite so trigger happy in here. Could you please exercise some restraint?
My apologies...Im just BEYOND sick of the "Lemond doped too" false arguement folks like to spew, then when I call them out on it, and ask them to produce said "proof", they start backtracking, changing the subject...blah blah blah(Just like Red Light did above with his response), it went from "Well Lemond doped too, hee hee" to "all of a sudden" : "well thats what Lance said...not me...blah blah blah". Lance's credibility was shot a long time ago, why anyone would believe anything out of his mouth is beyond me.
I wasnt "injecting venom" I was simply asking said accuser to provide said proof of Lemonds supposed "doping", where/when it took place, who he "doped" with, etc,. If he cant produce it, then he shouldnt bring it up IMO. Thats how you shut the "Lemond doped too" crowd up...ask them to produce anything about it...they go away. Other than that, I have no issues with anyone.
Flying_Monkey
Recyclist
- Location
- Odawa
Red Light can perfectly legitimately defend Armstrong but defaming Lemond in order to do so, is a step too far. There have never been any credible allegations against Lemond and it is generally accepted that one of the main reasons for his eventual retirement in 1994, along with what he felt at the time was illness, was the incredible change in form of many previously ordinary riders, in other words EPO.
It needn't. A couple of later posts have turned that way but it can be turned back - with the will of the participants.
86TDF, this isn't The Clinic and people aren't quite so trigger happy in here. Could you please exercise some restraint?
Don't tell PaulB and RichP that - personal insults are their forte if you dare to cross his "guilty as hell and damn the proof " stance.
- Status
