Armstrong stripped of 7 TdF titles

[Roger Wilco]

Perhaps you shouldn't just take him by his fucking word and instead apply a minimal amount of critical thinking.

[Roger Wilco]

RoJoHen wrote:

---

If he did somehow manage to outsmart the test and pass while still taking illegal drugs, then there's something wrong with the test. I don't condone cheating, but let's actually prove he did cheat before we crucify the guy.

The thing is, for most of Armstrong's "reign", there was no way of testing for the things endurance athletes most commonly used at the time (EPO at first, then after EPO tests were finally developed more than a decade after it became common (!) autologous blood transfusions enhanced with micro-dosing EPO and testosterone).

So why shouldn't normal police investigative methods be used to reveal doping cheaters as well? Certainly it's nice in a murder trial to have the suspect's finger prints on the knife, but it's not necessary if he committed the stabbing in front of dozens of people.

[Shaytan]

His case was suspicious since the beginning in 1999. Surviving cancer and coming back stronger ? He was a good cyclist, not an great one, before that, there is no way he won naturally.

He has certainly more than 7 Tours to lose if he fights the doping accusations, his decision is tactical.

[Roger Wilco]

And besides, one of the critical point in the USADA's assertions is, that Armstrong did test positive for EPO in 2001, and that the test was covered up by the UCI in exchange for a donation of several hundred thousands of dollars by Armstrong.

Hmmm, why wouldn't the UCI want that stuff to get proven in a hearing?...

[Claudia]

Roger Wilco wrote:

---

Perhaps you shouldn't just take him by his fucking word and instead apply a minimal amount of critical thinking.

Perhaps you should get off your "let's crucify Armstrong" horse and take a critical look at the image these proceedings leave.

Why doesn't the USADA present their evidence to the public? Why threaten with the loss of all titles (does that include the olympic bronze in 2000, the victory in the Tour de Suisse or the 2 in the Dauphiné or just the 7 TdF-victories)? What about those closed investigations in 2006?

It's not about the fact that he might be guilty (wouldn't surprise me in this sport, actually I'd rather be surprised if anyone on the top level weren't doped up to his gills) - it's the manner of these USADA investigations that bothers me. And that's where my critical thinking comes in.

[MacLeod]

Hypotheticaly speaking, lets say someone say Armstrong inject something into himself. How would they know what it was?

Yes you've proven he injected something into himself.

Next from a legal point of view you have to prove it was a banned substance, which is harder to do.

Remember they say it is better for ten guilty persons to go free than one innocent person to go to jail.

[Shaytan]

I was reading a good article in Le Monde about the victory in 1999. It happened at a moment (Festina affair, the Spanish teams that left the Tour) when cyclism needed a good story, Armstrong was that.

[Robert Maxwell]

MacLeod wrote:

---

Hypotheticaly speaking, lets say someone say Armstrong inject something into himself. How would they know what it was?

Yes you've proven he injected something into himself.

Next from a legal point of view you have to prove it was a banned substance, which is harder to do.

Remember they say it is better for ten guilty persons to go free than one innocent person to go to jail.

The USADA can't send him to jail.

[Claudia]

Roger Wilco wrote:

---

The thing is, for most of Armstrong's "reign", there was no way of testing for the things endurance athletes most commonly used at the time (EPO at first, then after EPO tests were finally developed more than a decade after it became common (!) autologous blood transfusions enhanced with micro-dosing EPO and testosterone).

No one contests that the doping industry is way ahead of the fighting-doping-industry.

But I don't think it's right to put specific samples into storage for them to be tested at a much later date when a test for up until then untestable substances becomes available. There has to be some sort of statute of limitations - and 13 years after the fact is way beyond that IMO. (Or why could Riis keep his Tour victory and even be the coach of teams participating in the tour?)

Everyone should be treated the same, and it's my impression that that's not the case here. Why treat proven dopers such as Hamilton and Landis like crown witnesses? Is what Armstrong allegedly did so much worse? He was lucky and didn't get caught - and that makes it worse?

[MacLeod]

Robert Maxwell wrote:

---

The USADA can't send him to jail.

Your taking me to literally. Sometimes the guilty are found innocnet, which is the price we pay to try and ensure the innocent aren't found guilty

[Shaytan]

Claudia wrote:

---

Is what Armstrong allegedly did so much worse? He was lucky and didn't get caught - and that makes it worse?

Armstrong is not liked because of his attitude. It's playing against him.

[Roger Wilco]

Claudia wrote:

---

Why doesn't the USADA present their evidence to the public?

Because they don't have the right to do that. This is exactly the reason why Armstrong is being a whiny baby now and refuses to cooperate. Because he doesn't want the evidence to get public.

Why threaten with the loss of all titles (does that include the olympic bronze in 2000, the victory in the Tour de Suisse or the 2 in the Dauphiné or just the 7 TdF-victories)? What about those closed investigations in 2006?

Because the USADA alleges a doping conspiracy, not individual instances of doping. A conspiracy that went on from 1998 way up to 2009.

Claudia wrote:

---

Everyone should be treated the same, and it's my impression that that's not the case here. Why treat proven dopers such as Hamilton and Landis like crown witnesses? Is what Armstrong allegedly did so much worse? He was lucky and didn't get caught - and that makes it worse?

Hamilton and Landis lost everything.

And yes, Armstrong was worse, because he was the ringleader, the instigator, and the guardian of the omerta.

[Robert Maxwell]

MacLeod wrote:

---

Your taking me to literally. Sometimes the guilty are found innocnet, which is the price we pay to try and ensure the innocent aren't found guilty

And you are exaggerating. He won't contest the accusations of cheating, so he loses his titles. That is not tantamount to a prison sentence, no matter how unpleasant it may be for him.

[Roger Wilco]

MacLeod wrote:

---

Hypotheticaly speaking, lets say someone say Armstrong inject something into himself. How would they know what it was?

Yes you've proven he injected something into himself.

Next from a legal point of view you have to prove it was a banned substance, which is harder to do.

Remember they say it is better for ten guilty persons to go free than one innocent person to go to jail.

Supposedly USPS handed around white lunchboxes with doping products. If you're a USPS rider, you'll have a pretty good idea what's in Armstrong's package. Also if you see Armstrong transfusing half a litre of blood on the team bus, there's not much room for speculation.

Plus: You don't know what USADA knows. They might well have his suppliers as well.

[Gary7]

Shaytan wrote:

---

His case was suspicious since the beginning in 1999. Surviving cancer and coming back stronger ? He was a good cyclist, not an great one, before that, there is no way he won naturally.

He has certainly more than 7 Tours to lose if he fights the doping accusations, his decision is tactical.

Surviving cancer and coming back stronger is not suspicious. What it did was set in motion "extreme motivation." The guy had to fight for his life. And in doing so, it provided greater motivation and drive to come back, in fact enough to come back stronger. The body is capable of healing itself, and he was young enough to not only rebuild his muscles and toning but to improve upon it. Whether or not it was "super human", meaning helped with drugs, or just a case of raw unbridled determination is what is difficult to know for sure at this point.

Now, did he use drugs to help him do that? It's possible. Was he and his support team clever enough to figure out how to foil the screening tests and not get caught? Possibly. Did that mean at the very least it would be exposed to his teammates, creating a vulnerability that might come back to bite him later? Perhaps. I don't think you can dope completely in private. When you do it, noticeable changes take place not only in visible musculature but also in ability. If someone suddenly leap frogs ahead of his peers, it will look suspicious.


What really looks suspicious to me is why he is giving up the fight NOW. What is different? He claims he is tired of the unfair and perpetual slams against his character, that they haven't found any conclusive evidence and yet the case against him continues. Is there no statute of limitations in these things? There probably ought to be.

"The antidoping agency also said it had blood test results of Armstrong’s from 2009 and 2010 that were consistent with doping." Really. Why weren't they brought up in 2009 and 2010? Test results don't take that long to become conclusive. "Consistent with doping", not "evidence of doping." What they're trying to say is that his blood readings didn't show direct evidence of drugs but rather the characteristics that would be present AFTER doping. Would this be conclusive, that the readings would not appear as detected under normal circumstances? If that is possible to prove, then there could very well be a solid case against him. But again, I wonder why it took so long. In any event, I wonder if this is what is scaring Armstrong this time enough to quit fighting.

Also, given the decay of trust across agencies that we've previously long considered trustworthy, it does bring to question whether or not Travis Tygart is conducting a "witch hunt" and may have tampered with samples just to prove his case. Do they have really tight controls to prevent that from happening? I wonder...