Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

he's rich


he could care less if someone thinks he cheated, he was never found guilty

 dogma wrote:
Interestingly if this were a criminal case the accusations being levied against Armstrong would be well past the statute of limitations for similar crimes.

Which would possibly make it reasonable to claim 'this is all too meaningless and too far in the past to bother with now', but wouldn't actually mean he didn't cheat.

But either way, that is pretty much how it works. A person is not a criminal until he's convicted in a court of law. Though in this case a better analogy would be entering a plea of no contest, rather than a guilty plea. Of course as this would be arbitration rather than a criminal proceeding the analogy is still not perfect.

Point is, it still makes a nonsense of the 'he didn't cheat because never got convicted' argument. Well, he was asked to come for arbitration, and declined. It's a nonsense to say a process never found him guilty when he refuses to submit to any such process.

Honestly this whole thing makes me think of the Assange case. If a person is worried about the process being unjust then submit to it and bring the world's media attention to how unjust that process is. That's how you do something meaningful, something principled. Instead they just cry that the system isn't fair, fail entirely to give any real reason in which the system is unfair, and instead claim their innocence and hide from the courts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Well, I don't know if you paid any attention, but he didn't do this.

Also, using your analogy, he's gone through something like septuple jeopardy.

No, because this he has been under one grand jury investigation... in which he simply gave testimony and wasn't required to give any kind of defence. This case of arbitration would have been the first time he actually defended himself in any process, if he had contested it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Frankly, I feel that the ruling here is much like the ruling against Samsung earlier, it's motivated more by nationalism than by actual fact or law.

What? The US Anti-Doping Agency is anti-American?

I would not use that exact term, but yes.

 Melissia wrote:
I would not use that exact term, but yes.

How does that even work? An American regulatory body decides to pick on people because they're American?

Because the sport itself was strongly dominated by non-Americans who have put pressure on the organization to press charges despite having no real evidence.

Not everything is dominated by Americans. And it's not like Americans don't get accused of the same things (and in some cases, the accusations are absolutely true).

Has anyone or any of these articles mentioned him having cancer, and the drug treatments used being reflected in doping tests? From the posts in this discussion I haven't read any mention of this. If there was then never mind.

 VermGho5t wrote:
Has anyone or any of these articles mentioned him having cancer, and the drug treatments used being reflected in doping tests? From the posts in this discussion I haven't read any mention of this. If there was then never mind.

This started after he'd been clear of cancer.

No one is ever truly clear of cancer.

 purplefood wrote:
Is this turning into a 'The winner is obviously using drugs because he's so much better than everyone else?' kind of thing?
Because you get that with video games when butt hurt 12 year olds shout hacker because you killed them when they think they should have killed you...

Yeah, Ok, it's not just that he's so much better than everyone else, though. It's that not only do they happen to have the best sprinter and the two best stage racers, it's also that Wiggins was never that good on the road before, and seems to have suddenly become far better. Sure, he was good on the track before, but that's a completely different type of racing to road racing: It's like being good at the 400m sprint then becoming a 100m sprinter. Possible, sure, but become that good in one year? Dubious.

 Frazzled wrote:
No one is ever truly clear of cancer.

Well the cancer which had riddled pretty much his whole body had gone into remission and hasn't come back since.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p_gray99 wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
Is this turning into a 'The winner is obviously using drugs because he's so much better than everyone else?' kind of thing?
Because you get that with video games when butt hurt 12 year olds shout hacker because you killed them when they think they should have killed you...

Yeah, Ok, it's not just that he's so much better than everyone else, though. It's that not only do they happen to have the best sprinter and the two best stage racers, it's also that Wiggins was never that good on the road before, and seems to have suddenly become far better. Sure, he was good on the track before, but that's a completely different type of racing to road racing: It's like being good at the 400m sprint then becoming a 100m sprinter. Possible, sure, but become that good in one year? Dubious.

Wiggins had been less good on the road because he had focused on the track. His focus switched from track to road in 2008, after the Beijing Olympics, so he's had 4 years of practice to reach this point.

He came 4th in the Tour de France in 2009, so it's not as if he came from nowhere to win it this year.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No one is ever truly clear of cancer.

Well the cancer which had riddled pretty much his whole body had gone into remission and hasn't come back since.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p_gray99 wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
Is this turning into a 'The winner is obviously using drugs because he's so much better than everyone else?' kind of thing?
Because you get that with video games when butt hurt 12 year olds shout hacker because you killed them when they think they should have killed you...

Yeah, Ok, it's not just that he's so much better than everyone else, though. It's that not only do they happen to have the best sprinter and the two best stage racers, it's also that Wiggins was never that good on the road before, and seems to have suddenly become far better. Sure, he was good on the track before, but that's a completely different type of racing to road racing: It's like being good at the 400m sprint then becoming a 100m sprinter. Possible, sure, but become that good in one year? Dubious.

Wiggins had been less good on the road because he had focused on the track. His focus switched from track to road in 2008, after the Beijing Olympics, so he's had 4 years of practice to reach this point.

He came 4th in the Tour de France in 2009, so it's not as if he came from nowhere to win it this year.

It will.

 VermGho5t wrote:
Has anyone or any of these articles mentioned him having cancer, and the drug treatments used being reflected in doping tests? From the posts in this discussion I haven't read any mention of this. If there was then never mind.

Nope, none of the "current" round of articles that I've read have mentioned it... Come to think of it, I don't think the question has been raised by any previous article. I wonder what, if any affect the Cancer Treatment drugs he used would have, even long after they were done?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 p_gray99 wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
Is this turning into a 'The winner is obviously using drugs because he's so much better than everyone else?' kind of thing?
Because you get that with video games when butt hurt 12 year olds shout hacker because you killed them when they think they should have killed you...

Yeah, Ok, it's not just that he's so much better than everyone else, though. It's that not only do they happen to have the best sprinter and the two best stage racers, it's also that Wiggins was never that good on the road before, and seems to have suddenly become far better. Sure, he was good on the track before, but that's a completely different type of racing to road racing: It's like being good at the 400m sprint then becoming a 100m sprinter. Possible, sure, but become that good in one year? Dubious.

Wiggins had been less good on the road because he had focused on the track. His focus switched from track to road in 2008, after the Beijing Olympics, so he's had 4 years of practice to reach this point.

He came 4th in the Tour de France in 2009, so it's not as if he came from nowhere to win it this year.

4th is a long way from first, especially as he was 6 minutes down (which is quite a big gap) and Andy Schleck has beaten him considerably not only in that tour but in the ones after it as well. Sure, 4 years to improve, and good track sprinters have become good road sprinters quite easily, but time trials are pretty different to any other race you're likely to find on the track, which is the only way Wiggins managed to win the tour.

Would the last person who still believes Lance Armstrong is not a cheat please stand up?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19903716

 Glorioski wrote:
Would the last person who still believes Lance Armstrong is not a cheat please stand up?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19903716

Nearly every single one of the people coming forward in this latest round of "Get Armstrong" have previously tested positive. Whether he did or did not cheat is nothing compared to the impact that he has had with LiveSTRONG and other charities.


I'm sorry, but if, after 16 years of ZERO positive tests, you STILL think he did indeed dope, then by all means go on then. I personally see it the same way that Armstrong himself does, a witch hunt.

Actually only six of the 15 riders were known dopers. A large number of them have come out as cheats and accepted punishments by giving evidence. The report is indefensibly damning.

What evidence?? Verbal testimony? that's hardly admissible by itself.

Even Roger Clemens' accusers had a "syringe that was used to inject steroids in the 90s"

If USADA cannot provide hard physical evidence that has been tested and vetted with proper forensic techniques, I'm sorry, they don't really have much to stand on.

Beside the fact that you can't win the tour de france alone and the majority of Armstrong's team during his wins are now self confessed dopers, there are records of money transfers and e-mails to drug suppliers and failed tests in the 1000 page file they have compiled as evidence. They have a hell of a lot to stand on.

Summary of what it contains here...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9600559/Lance-Armstrong-key-excerpts-from-the-USADA-doping-report.html

My question is, why the hell are they still going after him, after all these years and all the passed tests? I don't see the USADA going after every single suspected doper in every Tour in the past 15 years, so why Lance? If they do this for him, they should go back and strip the titles for everyone. And also, even if is guilty as charged, and they strip his titles, in every single case the next in line is either a known, or suspected doper. So what's the point?

Because someone in the USADA has a compensation disorder.

 rubiksnoob wrote:
My question is, why the hell are they still going after him, after all these years and all the passed tests? I don't see the USADA going after every single suspected doper in every Tour in the past 15 years, so why Lance? If they do this for him, they should go back and strip the titles for everyone. And also, even if is guilty as charged, and they strip his titles, in every single case the next in line is either a known, or suspected doper. So what's the point?

You must be blind. Already 5 cyclists, including several who still compete, have been striped of titles and received bans as a direct result of yesterday's publication. The evidence seems to suggest he was the ringleader and organised much of the doping so it should be no wonder why the US Anti Doping Agency would do their job and base an investigation around him if the suspected him of that.

Sorry but anyone still wanting to call 'witchhunt' really need to look at what has just been released. Games up, Armstrong is a cheat. Cycling can move on.

 rubiksnoob wrote:
My question is, why the hell are they still going after him, after all these years and all the passed tests? I don't see the USADA going after every single suspected doper in every Tour in the past 15 years, so why Lance? If they do this for him, they should go back and strip the titles for everyone. And also, even if is guilty as charged, and they strip his titles, in every single case the next in line is either a known, or suspected doper. So what's the point?

A.. Because he's a and French hate anyone thats a bigger then they are?

B. The French hold grudges forever and can't be arsed to actually win themselves?

C. Competitive cycling is not a real sport but just a giant sponsorship with legs?

D. Frazzled hates all the wannabe Armstrongs in Austin and hopes they all get severe jock itch?

All of the above?

 Frazzled wrote:


D. Frazzled hates all the wannabe Armstrongs in Austin and hopes they all get severe jock itch?

We are united in hatred once more!

I'm not even remotely interested in cycling because I actually cycle a few times a month just to stay fit, and I hate cyclists, with their ridiculously expensive bikes, gak pants, pointy helmets and most importantly pansy peddling ability. I fly past them on my nasty as feth Carrera I got for £200 in Halfords. Since Britain became good at cycling, that Austin mentality has hit all of Britain, I'm fething sick of seeing gangs of hipsters out on their bikes in their gak outfits....

Rant aside, Mels claim of it being motivated by nationalism seem pretty ridiculous, people don't hate Lance because hes American, they hate him because he seems like a total spanker! I didnt even know who he was at first, it was my American missus who told me he was a conceited prick with a God complex.

Anyway, after yesterdays BBC news... The bloke looks about as guilty as Jimmy fething Saville!

 Frazzled wrote:
B. The French hold grudges forever and can't be arsed to actually win themselves?

So USADA stands for the French anti doping agency?

 mattyrm, once again, wrote:

Now would be a great time for me to air my personal opinions on an aspect of the subject matter being discussed and rip it apart by likening it to effeminate left wing pacifists using all of the three expletives I know, numerous times. This is all in an effort to give you a picture of me, mattyrm, as a no nonsense hard man who flosses his teeth with razor wire.

Thanks mattyrm, your contributions in the off topic forum are always worth a read.

 Glorioski wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
B. The French hold grudges forever and can't be arsed to actually win themselves?

So USADA stands for the French anti doping agency?

 mattyrm, once again, wrote:

Now would be a great time for me to air my personal opinions on an aspect of the subject matter being discussed and rip it apart by likening it to effeminate left wing pacifists using all of the three expletives I know, numerous times. This is all in an effort to give you a picture of me, mattyrm, as a no nonsense hard man who flosses his teeth with razor wire.

Thanks mattyrm, your contributions in the off topic forum are always worth a read.

They are, his posts are fething hilarious.

 mattyrm wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


D. Frazzled hates all the wannabe Armstrongs in Austin and hopes they all get severe jock itch?

We are united in hatred once more!

I'm not even remotely interested in cycling because I actually cycle a few times a month just to stay fit, and I hate cyclists, with their ridiculously expensive bikes, gak pants, pointy helmets and most importantly pansy peddling ability. I fly past them on my nasty as feth Carrera I got for £200 in Halfords. Since Britain became good at cycling, that Austin mentality has hit all of Britain, I'm fething sick of seeing gangs of hipsters out on their bikes in their gak outfits....

Yes! Ok except the speeding past them part, I'm slower than cold snot with my burned out knees. But whats the rush. That water bottle's not just water you know...

Frazzled biking uniform consists of baseball cap, and shirt/shorts/shoes I was wearing at the time. The Wife wears one of those styrofoam helmets and I kept pointing and laughing Nelson style until she sicked the kids on me.

 Cheesecat wrote:


They are, his posts are fething hilarious.

See, cheese gets it!

If that can provide evidence he was using illegal substances in any of his races then that individual race can be disqualiied, they can even ban him now for what its worth. But it would be grossly unjust to attempt to strip him of anything without firm evidence on a case by case basis.

I would like to know how they are going to get this after the fact. Let him go.