The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*

[DogTired]

I've read the "Reasoned Decision". Every word of every page. Not all the appendices + supporting information but most of the important ones.

I'd always been a fan of LA - I've taken days off work to sit and watch the mountain stages, I've got myself out to France to see a bit of the action. I'm gutted. I finally believe that there's a 99.9% chance he doped. But I don't think the USADA proved it. The report was a lot of hearsay from the likes of Landis & Hamilton, other riders with something to gain. A lot of guilt by association, a lot of non-evidence ("Hamilton gets the peloton to wait after LA crashes" - what's that got to do with drugs?"). They use the word "overwhelming" 18 times. Say it enough and people will believe it. To me it did smack of a witch-hunt, with Tygart determined to make his name as the man who took Armstrong down.

So yeah, he did it, but the USADA didn't prove it with any truly concrete evidence to my mind. I don't think you'd have hung a murderer on that evidence.

Is it hearsay or witness testimony as there's a subtle difference between the 2? Just out of interest what evidence would you need in order to say that LA's doping had been proved?

I'm not sure it was a witch-hunt - that tends to be a paranoid undirected search amongst a population. A vendetta maybe. But one man's vendetta is another man's crusade to ensure that justice was served to a ruthless cheat.

 

[Oldspice]

48 freaking pages, my LA tolerance has reached George Carlin levels...
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlTr2GSVUGg&feature=player_embedded

do not watch if easily offended.

Jeez that clip is from 2010.

 

[yello]

Say it enough and people will believe it

That made me smile. '500 tests and never failed' ring a bell

I don't think you'd have hung a murderer on that evidence.

I agree.... but then it's not a murder trial. That said, weight of witness testimony, in the absence of forensic evidence, can (and has?) been used to get conviction in a criminal trial

 

[rich p]

That made me smile. '500 tests and never failed' ring a bell


I agree.... but then it's not a murder trial. That said, weight of witness testimony, in the absence of forensic evidence, can (and has?) been used to get conviction in a criminal trial

There was a fair bit of forensic eveidence too. Apart from the positive tests deemed unusable in an actual ban but present nevertheless, they showed emails of transactions between LA and Ferrari when he had denied a connection and Dr F was banned. They also showed LA paying over $1m to Dr F - how much evidence do people want!
His best mate George Hincapie apart drom the others gave witness (not hearsay) evidence FFS!

 

[rich p]

has Pepe Marti ever been credited with being a trainer, providing coaching plans? I can find nothing but evidence of supplying banned drugs to many of the named cyclists.
I only mention this in passing as he was listed as being Alberto Contador's 'trainer' up until 2011. Take from that what you will.

 

[PaulB]

I'm still missing the specifics of what you think it's done. All I'm seeing at the moment is some non-specific mud slinging.

It's given you a reason to man the barricades.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

His friends in high places haven't been much help to him recently. USADA had the balls to hunt him down, why not the DoJ?

So it wasn't his friends in high places that called off the Federal Investigation Bureau and thus ensured that any potential charges were not pressed then? Do you not think the chaps at Nike, amongst others, might have the odd senator or congressman lobbying for them?

USADA are relatively free from political influence, if you think the US DoJ is, well.....

 

[GrumpyGregry]

They do seem to have a stronger "no one is above the law" attitude than we do.

They spout that rhetoric certainly. But in practice, not so much,

 

[GrumpyGregry]

In the eyes of many Americans he is a 'god', a 'hero', a cancer survivor and as such an inspiration. He is 'bigger than the sport' which in America ain't hard, cycling isn't exactly mainstream over there. He is the public face of a charity foundation which is understood to do lots of great work for and on behalf of those with, and who have survived cancer. (What the foundation does or doesn't do is a bit of a red herring - charities often, ime nearly always polarise opinion in the areas of governance, effectiveness and mission, I know I work for one, and you only have to read threads in here relating to charities to understand that one person's outstanding organisation is another's thieving scum. This is largely because the average Jane or Joe doesn't understand charity law but somehow knows what a given charity should or shouldn't do)

So my take is he will remain on his podium, he may get sued and the cases will take years and will, in the majority, be settled quietly out-of-court, he will remain an idol in the US of A for the majority of the public there for his post TdeF activities, business will continue pretty much as usual, and the odd cycling fan in Europe who thinks he's scum will be regarded as the crank. and the news agenda will move on.....

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I am disappointed.

It's a British disease, disappointment.

 

[DogTired]

In case you haven't heard enough to be convinced or otherwise, this is on Radio 5 live tonight (Monday Oct 15th) at 7pm.

1. 19:00 – 21:00
   
   5 live Sport Peddlers - Cycling's Dirty Truth
   
   Mark Chapman presents a special programme focusing on drugs in cycling.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01ngqxd

 

[DogTired]

It's a British disease, disappointment.

You've mis-spelt 'Welsh'.

 

[Red Light]

In case you haven't heard enough to be convinced or otherwise, this is on Radio 5 live tonight (Monday Oct 15th) at 7pm.

1. 19:00 – 21:00
   
   5 live Sport Peddlers - Cycling's Dirty Truth
   
   Mark Chapman presents a special programme focusing on drugs in cycling.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01ngqxd

Ah Five Live, bless 'em. Wonder whether they will follow it with one of their trademark phone in lycra, don't pay road tax, red lights etc rants.

 

[mickle]

It's really interesting to read some of the articles which are featured/linked to on his own website. It looks like whoever is managing it is just pasting up any recent article which has a 'positive' bent. But what's queer is that the articles are saying stuff like - 'Who cares if he cheated? The whole peleton was on PEDs anyway, he was just levelling the playing field', or 'Who cares if he cheated, he's a cancer fighting hero'. He seems to be using these articles to bolster his defence - in spite of the fact that they don't support his official stance.

Also. As a cancer survivor I've decided to approach the Livestrong Foundation and ask what they can do to support me.

 

[DogTired]

Ah Five Live, bless 'em. Wonder whether they will follow it with one of their trademark phone in lycra, don't pay road tax, red lights etc rants.

No - if you check the link regarding the programme they won't.