Armstrong charged and banned
- Thread starter yello
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
festival
Über Member
Stupid Question IMO.
There may be some hate, but by now I would suggest opinions are well thought out, not irrational.
No, Millar is not hated, although opinions are divided about him, you cannot compare Millar to the Armstrong case.
I refer you to his comments since winning a stage the other day. I think most sensible people would appreciate his words and see the difference.
Nationality has nothing to do with it,
Chuffy
Veteran
- Location
- On the banks of the Exe
No, entirely rational. I don't like arrogant, cheating bullies. Weird I know...
What does Millar have to do with this? I started following cycling in 2003, so Millar's bust kind of went over my head at the time. Besides, my dislike of Armstrong stems from his character, the doping stuff is just the icing on that particular cake.
I get that LA is your hero, but that's tough. If you pick someone with feet of clay as a hero, you can't complain when they eventually come crashing down.
Chuffy
Veteran
- Location
- On the banks of the Exe
How many others got a $5m bonus payment? Not many I'd guess. The precedent here is the 2006 lawsuit.
I'm only guessing at the other sponsors taking action and purely because I can't think of any other pro with such strong brand associations, although I'm sure Trek, Oakley, Bontrager, Nike (none of which I'll touch with a bargepole btw) have had the benefit from LA over the years and probably won't take much of a reputational hit.
Boris Bajic
Guest
It bothers me not at all whether he is guilty or not. I started to follow the TdF when doping of one kind or another was almost assumed.
It blew my socks off despite the stories and the scandal and the tawdry tales. It still does.
I'm human, so I have my favourites and my pantomime baddies. There is no logic to which rider falls into which camp.
What I find slightly troubling on this thread and others is that one or two TdF followers appear to have bestowed upon LA a sort of Messianic Halo and the perceived power (through survival and winning) to spread good and inspirational energy throughout the civilised world.
Some people seem somehow to have so much of their emotional self and esteem invested in the Myth of Lance that it might all get a little uncomfortable if he's proved to be a cheat, a liar, a bully and a fraud - a jolly tough, brave and strong one, but a fraud.
Nothing to date has been proved or disproved. Most of us look on in bemused disinterest.
Those for whom the Legend of Lance is a marrow-deep reality and a Spur to a Greater Tomorrow might like to think up another star to hitch their wagon to in the event of a possible proof that the myth is just that... a myth.
Guilty or not, I think I'll always love the TdFfor its beauty, brutality and crushing ability to sweep even the greatest aside with apparent contempt. Whether Lance is a cheat or a God, nothing will change for me.
It blew my socks off despite the stories and the scandal and the tawdry tales. It still does.
I'm human, so I have my favourites and my pantomime baddies. There is no logic to which rider falls into which camp.
What I find slightly troubling on this thread and others is that one or two TdF followers appear to have bestowed upon LA a sort of Messianic Halo and the perceived power (through survival and winning) to spread good and inspirational energy throughout the civilised world.
Some people seem somehow to have so much of their emotional self and esteem invested in the Myth of Lance that it might all get a little uncomfortable if he's proved to be a cheat, a liar, a bully and a fraud - a jolly tough, brave and strong one, but a fraud.
Nothing to date has been proved or disproved. Most of us look on in bemused disinterest.
Those for whom the Legend of Lance is a marrow-deep reality and a Spur to a Greater Tomorrow might like to think up another star to hitch their wagon to in the event of a possible proof that the myth is just that... a myth.
Guilty or not, I think I'll always love the TdFfor its beauty, brutality and crushing ability to sweep even the greatest aside with apparent contempt. Whether Lance is a cheat or a God, nothing will change for me.
To me the position goes beyond the norm and becomes unpleasant when the rules start changing in order to get the result you want.
There is something unpleasant when an organisation such as the WADA starts acting outside its jurisdiction.
The 8 year "window" has been observe until now, but is now being extended for this on case. Evidence that was unacceptable in court and by the UCI is being accepted here.
The fact that allegedly Armstrong has no right to cross examine, or even know who witnesses are. The WADA can accept a written statement, present it and there is no way to challenge the document. If as has been suggested some riders have been offered effective bribes such as anonymity, reduced penalties and in some cases immunity then there could be a reasonable suspicion of the testimony in any other court
Whether he is guilty or not there is something unpleasant about the actions of the WADA.
Interestingly there s a point of view that Armstrong should simply ignore them as an irrelevance
There is something unpleasant when an organisation such as the WADA starts acting outside its jurisdiction.
The 8 year "window" has been observe until now, but is now being extended for this on case. Evidence that was unacceptable in court and by the UCI is being accepted here.
The fact that allegedly Armstrong has no right to cross examine, or even know who witnesses are. The WADA can accept a written statement, present it and there is no way to challenge the document. If as has been suggested some riders have been offered effective bribes such as anonymity, reduced penalties and in some cases immunity then there could be a reasonable suspicion of the testimony in any other court
Whether he is guilty or not there is something unpleasant about the actions of the WADA.
Interestingly there s a point of view that Armstrong should simply ignore them as an irrelevance
This is the only interesting thing you've said on this thread. It doesn't necessarily apply to the whole lot, but a very large chunk of it.
Chuffy
Veteran
- Location
- On the banks of the Exe
The action is being brought by USADA, not WADA.
The 8 year rule can be set aside if the subject (LA) can be shown to have dishonestly evaded justice. What does "evidence that was unnacceptable in court and by the UCI" mean? What evidence are you referring to, why is is unnacceptable, why are you bringing UCI into this (it's very definitely not their case) and just to hammer home the point, yet again, THIS. IS. NOT. A. COURT. OF. LAW.
Armstrong gets to cross-examine and finds out who the witnesses are when this thing comes to the hearing (assuming it gets that far). He hasn't been given the witness list up to now (and I'd bet he knows damn well who they are anyway) because of the risk of the witnesses being threatened (see: the Cache Cache incident and the recent leaking of the ex-Postal riders mid-Tour). The stuff about 'bribes' has already been rebutted and stems from the lies and disinformation that Lance's legal team has been spreading in order to undermine witness testimony. Looks like it's working.
It's USADA. If you don't even know who is taking the action (and the rest of your post suggests that you haven't read this thread) why should anything you say be taken seriously? As for the point that LA should 'ignore them as an irrelevance' - the only person who could possibly argue that with a straight face is Armstrong himself. It's one step removed from 'only God can judge me'.
Your post is inaccurate fanboy horse piffle from start to finish.
Just for Cunobelin's benefit AAA Case No. 77 190 168 11 JENF. That's not new it's been said before and hinted at in this thread as well (you'd think someone with a PhD and more importantly a supposedly moderately intelligent person would actually be able to read mine and other people's posts and read between the lines but hey). An intelligent person might argue about the differences in cases rather than rambling on about other issues.
Chuffy
Veteran
- Location
- On the banks of the Exe
Off topic! Ban him! soppy old buggerp.s. Is it appropriate to say how nice it is to have you on here Chuffy? No rubber pant pics though!
The following is an even handed assessment of the current situation and some key issues....
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/story/2012-07-18/lance-armstrong-usada/56322272/1
*Michael McCann, director of the Sports Law Institute at Vermont
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/story/2012-07-18/lance-armstrong-usada/56322272/1
*Michael McCann, director of the Sports Law Institute at Vermont
Personally I find the actions of Armstrong questionable and somewhat distasteful, but those of Tygart et al are no better.
if you are happy that the dirty tricks by Tygart et al are acceptable then you are entitled to that opinion, and can dismiss the facts if you wish.
Personally I would have preferred the case to have been heard and established once and for all with a far more reputable and established system than the one being cobbled together at present.
The big problem with this is exactly the fact that by altering rules to suit themselves Tygart et al are going to always give Armstrng the "vendeta" defence even if found guilty, and I suspect this will be exacerbated as Tygart brings the case back again and again if they do fail to get the guilty decision they so desperately crave.
Being found guilty in a court of law would have been a far better result.
Chuffy
Veteran
- Location
- On the banks of the Exe
Someone else reply, because I can't be arsed.
- Status
