Armstrong stripped of 7 TdF titles

[Deckerd]

Lance Armstrong has stopped fighting the doping accusations.

"I'm not contesting it any more but I didn't do it". Yeah that'll work.

The number of people who held him up as the perfect role model is huge.

[clint g]

Well that's embarrassing....

[MacLeod]

Of course they have blood test, urine tests results etc... to back up their claims. Don't they or some other such scientifc evidence.

[Claudia]

Hm, does the USADA even have the authority to strip him of those titles? Isn't that the UCI's business? And who'll be awarded those titles now - the proven-as-doper Ullrich?!?

[Deckerd]

I expect the titles won't go to anyone.

[MacLeod]

Claudia wrote:

---

Hm, does the USADA even have the authority to strip him of those titles? Isn't that the UCI's business? And who'll be awarded those titles now - the proven-as-doper Ullrich?!?

Well I would expect it would either be the TdF governing body or UCI that actually has the right to strip him. As for if USADA could, perhaps by a back door method of withdrawing his credentials (back dated of course) so he wasn't actually offically elidgable.

Of ourse nothing has yet been proven in a court of law.

[Claudia]

MacLeod wrote:

---

Of ourse nothing has yet been proven in a court of law.

But apparently, that's not even necessary to already shout out and execute the verdict.

I think such proceedings damage sports just as much, if not more, as doping itself does. I don't condone doping, it's dangerous and I would never let my kid become a pro in such an envirounment, but I don't think doping itself is going to become extinct because of procedures like that. The expectations of the public have to change for that to happen.

[Shaytan]

I think I will take a second dessert.

I love the title in Ouest France : "The fall of Lance Armstrong, Bernard Hinault doesn't give a shit"

[Roger Wilco]

Claudia wrote:

---

Hm, does the USADA even have the authority to strip him of those titles?

Yes.

Isn't that the UCI's business?

That's what Armstrong and his corrupt enablers and protectors in the UCI would want to make you believe, but their embarassing attempts at concealing the truth don't change reality.

And who'll be awarded those titles now - the proven-as-dopr Ullrich?!?

Nobody I suppose. Just leave #1 spot blank.

[Roger Wilco]

Claudia wrote:

---

But apparently, that's not even necessary to already shout out and execute the verdict.

What do you think happens if you're charged with a crime and stand up in court to say: "Only God can judge me, you have no jurisdiction!"?

You get fucking convicted, that's what happens.

The suggestion you could evade punishment by refusing to participate your own trial is ridiculous on the face and Armstrong's actions are those of a guilty man.

I think such proceedings damage sports just as much, if not more, as doping itself does. I don't condone doping, it's dangerous and I would never let my kid become a pro in such an envirounment, but I don't think doping itself is going to become extinct because of procedures like that. The expectations of the public have to change for that to happen.

What bullshit. Finally, finally, anti-doping agencies seem to have somewhat gained the upper hand in cycling. Doping isn't gone, but the Wild West days of anything goes and the UCI actively protecting athletes that pay them off are over. Thank the gods!

What damages the sport is decades of reckless, limitless doping and the conspiracies to cover it all up. Armstrong is the greates fraud in the history of professional sports, a donkey that got injected into a race horse. An arrogant bully who openly punished other riders who disagreed with the dope, but was confident his lackeys in the UCI would always "lose" his positives. He makes me sick. And I hope all the evidence gets public somehow, despite Armstrong's attempt to hide it. Maybe in Bruyneel's arbitration hearing everything gets out.

[MacLeod]

Odd I though that you had to be proven to be guilty, not to prove that you are innocent.

[Roger Wilco]

He had the choice: Face the evidence, take resposibility and defend yourself, or face immediate punishment. He knowingly chose the second. What's so difficult to understand about that?

[backstept]

it's depressing when winning somehow equates to cheating

[Hound of UIster]

MacLeod wrote:

---

Odd I though that you had to be proven to be guilty, not to prove that you are innocent.

They have the testimony of his TdF team plus his own emails. There is not much he can do.

[Roger Wilco]

backstept wrote:

---

it's depressing when winning somehow equates to cheating

Cheating equates to cheating.