Armstrong charged and banned

[Red Light]

LA dare not face his accusers.

Last I heard he lived in the US, not the UK. Or are you saying his accusers are only in the UK? And if you read the report the publishers are also concerned about people other than Armstrong starting libel cases. But I realise that doesn't fit with your world view so best ignore the evidence eh?

 

[007fair]

I've been away. This is a long thread. Can someone summarise 112 pages please in 1 short paragraph. Thanks.

 

[raindog]

I've been away. This is a long thread. Can someone summarise 112 pages please in 1 short paragraph. Thanks.

I can do it in two short words.

He doped.

 

[Boris Bajic]

I've been away. This is a long thread. Can someone summarise 112 pages please in 1 short paragraph. Thanks.

Armstrong is a bullying, lying, doping, drug-procuring, threatening, control-freak former professional cyclist who was once considered very successful but might now not be. He may also be a Messiah who was very brave about being very poorly and inspired a lot of people to do a lot of things. Anti-Doping systems were once risible and the authorities who ran them may have been corrupt. This is now either not so or less so. None of us knows a thing about this, but we all have great theories about secure stable doors. The horse has been loose for the past ten years. There is an uncorked bottle in the stable and no sign if a Genie. The number of chickens does not equal the total for the egg count some days previously. No sign of a fat lady yet.

I think that's it.

 

[thom]

I've been away. This is a long thread. Can someone summarise 112 pages please in 1 short paragraph. Thanks.

Well it doesn't look good for LA... I think we've established that at some point, pretty much everyone wanted to think LA was clean but most people have conceded that their minds have been changed and they feel conned. Some aren't quite there yet and the way I see it is they are trying to justify their position through a slowly changing stubborn and aggressive argument. Which is an appropriate apeing of LA's defence so, you know, good on em but they might be being ignored now. For many, the refusal of LA to argue the USADA case is as good as conclusive proof that the as yet unpublished USADA case will contain damning evidence. I think there are still people arguing about process but really, given that argument ought to be put forth by LA's legal representatives and they aren't doing so, I don't set any stall by it. The process of stripping LA's titles is ongoing - USADA need to send the UCI evidence, who then review it and could decide to contest USADA (who are supported by WADA) at CAS.

 

[tigger]

Tigger, you read on the other posts as a a Conti fan, after your slating of Armstrong for being a cheat it reads a bit hypocritical.

Yeah there's no disputing that, human nature for you... totally irrational! I like the way Contador rides, always to win, he animates races and just looks damn talented on a bike in my opinion. Equally I know he's questionable given the Clenbuterol postive and the links to Operation Puerto etc etc. Like I said before, its a dirty/guilty admiration. I think I've been quite balanced about that by recognising this???

On the flip side, I can't see how I've slated Armstrong either? I'm neither a fan nor a hater. I didn't follow racing during the Armstong years so in that sense I have no real motivation towards him. (I did watch the 2009 Tour and really enjoyed his contribution and the aura around him actually).

I've merely pointed out two things. Firstly, there must be very compelling evidence (which we still don't know the full details of yet) of him cheating on a grand scale over a very long period of time. Think about it, if you are truly innocent, and you have the might and finances at your disposal as Armstrong does, you'd fight this tooth and nail (as he has done for most of his career). Secondly, his "supporters?" on this thread refuse to recognise this and instead continually focus on the process and jurisdiction of the investigation, with added sprinkles of repetitive, futile logocentricity and personal slight. Much to the detriment of this thread and forum in my opinion...

 

[007fair]

Thanks! It appears that most feel LA is guilty leaving aside horses, doors, bottles Genies and fatladies (useful as they were) ..

The salient facts are;

• Armstrong maintains innocence.
• Armstrong never failed any of over 500 (?) tests.
• Case against him is based on actual witnesses to his pivotal role in organising and covering up endemic professional cycling illegal drug use.
• Armstrong too tired to carry on with upcoming trial and in effect admits that the evidence against him is too strong.
• USADA position defaults to LA being guilty and they ban and strip him of titles.
• UCI still stand by him. (Why? Because they are implicit in the whole scheme. If not, why risk being painted with the same brush? Because everyone was doing the same drugs at the time and so its not fair to single out LA?)

To me the facts seem to suggest guilt. But I find it interesting that he is so adamant of his innocence. I know he has alot to lose if he admits but usually the pressure and guilt eventually surface and admission follows. It appears to me that he is convinced in his mind that he is absolutely innocent. Either because he feels that he did not do anything that others weren't, or that he has no case to answer at all (ie he was always clean).
I'm a bit confused with UCI's stance also. Are they implicit in the whole coverup scheme? If not, why risk being painted with the same brush?


I don't want to p*ss anyone off by going over old ground. The above is just for my own clarity!

 

[Happiness Stan]

To all of you who decide to throw away their Livestrong band, please cut it in two so it doesn't strangle swans, ducks etc.

 

[thom]

The salient facts are; without wanting to have a go at you (because I completely sympathise that the thread is so big it is beyond making much sense of from scratch now) I just wanted to show these points are questioned

• Armstrong maintains innocence. -> his line is now "never took unfair advantage over competitors"
• Armstrong never failed any of over 500 (?) tests. -> perhaps the number is around 240 and the evidence appears to be he failed a corticosteroid test and at least one epo test done years after the event, and has a blood profile on his return to the TdF that was consistent with blood doping
• Case against him is based on actual witnesses to his pivotal role in organising and covering up endemic professional cycling illegal drug use. -> witnesses appear to be a large part of this but I suspect there will be more concrete evidence, at least regarding testing so we don't fully know the basis of the case
• Armstrong too tired to carry on with upcoming trial and in effect admits that the evidence against him is too strong. -> yes, most likely
• USADA position defaults to LA being guilty and they ban and strip him of titles. -> this is what LA's legal/quasi-legal position amounts to too
• UCI still stand by him. (Why? Because they are implicit in the whole scheme. If not, why risk being painted with the same brush? Because everyone was doing the same drugs at the time and so its not fair to single out LA?) -> this is not entirely clear

My comments in red (&blue link) ;-)

 

[Boris Bajic]

I don't get the thing one sometimes hears about the Tour-viewing public having been 'conned' or 'cheated'.

Who really thought they were watching largely clean racing in the 1980s?

Likewise the 1990s or the 2000s?

I was too young to follow these things in the 70s, but everything I read suggests things were much the same.

The drugs (in the top echelons and seeping elsewhere) were a given. Where does the conning come in?

I recall attempts made to smear Clinton with a sex scandal during his second-term election. The wide response from Joe Public was that it was the wrong smear to try. The World already knew he had difficulty keeping it in his trousers and had voted for him once already. The attempt (or course) failed.

Similarly, for someone to get interested in a sport which has been strongly (and correctly) associated with PED use for decades and then say they feel cheated or conned by winners who appeared superhumanly superior to other riders who were known to have enhanced their performance with drugs seems.... naive.

If not naive, then what? I've loved the TdF for decades, but never thought it clean. I don't recall reading many artcles back in the day suggesting it was.

When I go to a Magic Show, I do absolutely expect the pretty girl to be sawn in half and then made whole again by the dark arts. If it turns out to be done with mirrors and clever lighting, I will feel conned and cheated. But clean pro-cycling in the Armstrong era? Really?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

He doped.

Allegedly. And other people actively colluded whist others looked the other way. Allegedly.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I think the best way of answering that one, is to ask, do you think they are racing 'clean' now?

Nope.

 

[Boris Bajic]

I think the best way of answering that one, is to ask, do you think they are racing 'clean' now?

I have no way of knowing. Some are widely thought not to be.

But if it turns out that winners of GT jerseys, stage winners and podium-placed riders were riding dirty in the past few years, I won't feel cheated.

I am fond of a sport that I became fond of as a dirty sport. I separate love and approval. I love the sport even if I do not always approve. If it gets clean (or is becoming clean) that's a lovely thing.

I still marvel at what Pantani did in '98, even though it turns out that very little of the blood in his veins was what we might call blood.

It's the sense of being cheated or conned that I don't understand. I'm not about to make a comment about whether racing is clean today.

Certainly a lot of noise is being made about cleaning it up. That is a good thing or a part of a good thing.

 

[thom]

I don't get the thing one sometimes hears about the Tour-viewing public having been 'conned' or 'cheated'.

I said that people feel conned so I suppose you are making a point about the naivety of someone like me.

When you look back in the thread, often you see that people who now condemn LA freely admit to believing he was clean. Many LA fans actually think he is/was clean. Until recently this was still a controversial position regarding LA... because the whole LA story goes beyond the bike, indeed it wasn't about the bike for many people, but about the inspirational cancer story told to many people who didn't really know much about Pro-cycling.
I'm sure you're aware of this really.

When I started watching TdF in the late 80's, I was a young teenager watching without much knowledge of the history of the sport. I didn't think about it because I really didn't know of the existence of doping.

I don't think every sport in the world has had pervasive drug abuse. Perhaps naive, there you have me, but I suspect I'm standing with a lot of people and I find it odd you don't perceive that.

Edit : I'd go beyond this and point out that many of the stories of young riders entering the pro-ranks in the doping years were stories of disillusionment as they faced the reality of how much doping permeated the sport. It was news to people such as David Millar.

 

[Buddfox]

... and instead continually focus on the process and jurisdiction of the investigation, with added sprinkles of repetitive, futile logocentricity and personal slight. Much to the detriment of this thread and forum in my opinion...

This may (or may not) seem surprising, but the process that is being undertaken and the positions / approaches of the various authorities involved (USADA, UCI, WADA, Sparks, the protagonists etc.) also offers up a great deal which might be described as driving intellectual curiosity. It's perfectly possible to thing LA is guilty and still derive satisfaction from analysing and questioning the process which is being undertaken. Getting the right result out of the UCI has quite some value to the future of professional cycling. It's really not all about being a deluded fan. Sorry if that is unacceptable to some of the more vocal on this thread, or if it causes "much detriment".