Charges against Lance Armstrong?

Fader said:
Of course there is more to in than he never failed a drug test but the fact is this is based on the words and pleas of others not on medical evidence.
Click to expand...

So it just happens that Armstrong has worked with renowned convicted doping team doctors and trainers, and there is a series of team mates, other cyclists, trainers, doctors, officials and other witnesses who all make allegations suggesting a systematic pattern of doping, as well as a number of out of court settlements (sealed records, nice), and they are all lying or mistaken or part of a huge elaborate conspiracy going back a decade or more?

Common sense suggests that is very unlikely indeed.

Armstrong could have challenged the evidence if it was so weak, but he knew what the verdict would be and how difficult it would be to play Spartacus afterwards, so he pulled out. Probably a smart move on his part, because he still gets to hold on to the true believers and skeptics, unlike the complete destruction of his reputation which would have followed the hearing.
 
DappaDonDave said:
Innocent until proven guilty...prove he was doped up
Click to expand...

How can you if he won't defend against the charges?

By not doing anything, as I said, guilt is implied - regardless of whether it can be proven or not......

If I accuse you of blowing someone's head off with a shotgun and I say I'll see you in Court because I have evidence, if you don't show up to answer the charges then you're implying guilt.

If you have nothing to hide - stand up and answer the charges.

Then the facts will be known.
until then there's doubt.......
 
Imurg said:
How can you if he won't defend against the charges?

By not doing anything, as I said, guilt is implied - regardless of whether it can be proven or not......

If I accuse you of blowing someone's head off with a shotgun and I say I'll see you in Court because I have evidence, if you don't show up to answer the charges then you're implying guilt.

If you have nothing to hide - stand up and answer the charges.

Then the facts will be known.
until then there's doubt.......
Click to expand...

I can't recall that being a law. Guilt is proven, not implied. Otherwise it would be guilty until proven innocent.

He is saying, I'm not fighting these charges, not, these charges prove im guilty. It should be up to the accuser to prove it.

Based on your example, prove I blew someone's head off with a shotgun. You can't, ergo, I'm not guilty. No matter how much you say it's true, it's not, unil you are able to prove sufficient evidence.
 
DappaDonDave said:
I can't recall that being a law. Guilt is proven, not implied. Otherwise it would be guilty until proven innocent.

He is saying, I'm not fighting these charges, not, these charges prove im guilty. It should be up to the accuser to prove it.

Based on your example, prove I blew someone's head off with a shotgun. You can't, ergo, I'm not guilty. No matter how much you say it's true, it's not, unil you are able to prove sufficient evidence.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying your guilty - but I may have proof so come to court to hear what proof I have.......

And yes in Law you're innocent until proven guilty but if you're not guilty wouldn't you want to go to a court and have it proven?

But by not defending charges the implication is that there must be something to hide.

That alone is enough to damage a reputation.
 
North Mimms said:
Lance Armstrong has denied ever using drugs..
However he has admitted pedalling...
Click to expand...

Boom, boom!

I think it's a sad day. In a statement the USADA claimed it had clear evidence that Armstrong had taken performance-enhancing drugs.
If this is true, then what the heck is going on? Is it OK to come out years later and accuse someone?
Whether he did or didn't, that was then, this is now.
I intend to ignore all this and not let the rumour mill ruin his reputation.
 
Its a sad day for sport, as far as Im concerned all the evidence is hear say, he hasnt ever failed a drugs test and to me , that is what counts. The whole thing smacks of a witch hunt.

This is a man who beat cancer to come back and win again. the medicines he had to take to combat his illness could contain all sorts of funny compounds, which could stay in the body for ages, but he never failed a drugs test.

Should we delay the Olympic medal ceremonies for 8 years, so we can be sure that they are not cheats
How about Usain Bolt wins the 100 meters at London 2012, but the medal ceremony gives the Gold to Justin Gatlin for his 2004 victory in Athens.

LA has had this "Cheat" thing hanging over his head for years, he has faught it and I think that he is just so hacked off with the whole thing, that he is saying " Enough is enough, think what you think" I want my life back

To fight this in the courts would cost millions and take years

I think its the actions of a man who knows that whatever happens, he cant win because some people will always throw rocks

Fragger
 
PhilTheFragger said:
Its a sad day for sport, as far as Im concerned all the evidence is hear say, he hasnt ever failed a drugs test and to me , that is what counts. The whole thing smacks of a witch hunt.
Click to expand...

There are sportsmen and women who have never failed a drugs test but later admitted to doing so.

At this moment in time Lance Armstrong hasn't failed a drugs test or admitted to using performance enhancing drugs or illegal methods, but there is circumstantial evidence and the testimony of team member that say he did. He has the opportunity to contest the allegations made against him but chooses not to do so. He could seek arbitration from the World Anti-Doping Agency which he has also refused to do.

The conclusion which is being drawn is that he can't contest the allegations as they are true and by making himself the 'victim' means that those who support him will always regard him as a 'Living Legend' who won by fair means against all odds.
 
PhilTheFragger said:
This is a man who beat cancer to come back and win again. the medicines he had to take to combat his illness could contain all sorts of funny compounds, which could stay in the body for ages, but he never failed a drugs test.
Click to expand...

His chemo regime is reported on the internet, and it is said he opted for a certain regime which was less likely to have lung side effects, which may have impaired his exercise tolerance. He almost certainly received steroids and Epo during that time. I am not sure what is meant by funny compounds but none of these medicines stay in the body for ages.
 
I read with interest on the never failed a drugs test well this quote from the Telegraph seems to indicate otherwise.

'There is nothing new in the allegations around Armstrong. Although one of his most-repeated lines of defence is that he has never tested positive, this is not true. He tested positive for corticosteroids during the 1999 Tour, but produced a backdated doctor’s prescription and avoided a sanction.'

Amazing how you don't declare the use of a steroid with a doctors prescription up front.



 
sweatysock41 said:
I read with interest on the never failed a drugs test well this quote from the Telegraph seems to indicate otherwise.

'There is nothing new in the allegations around Armstrong. Although one of his most-repeated lines of defence is that he has never tested positive, this is not true. He tested positive for corticosteroids during the 1999 Tour, but produced a backdated doctor’s prescription and avoided a sanction.'

Amazing how you don't declare the use of a steroid with a doctors prescription up front.
Click to expand...

Because it was a permitted use of a saddle sore cream. Again, no story here, just a journo who needs to justify his salary.
 
Whether or not LA doped is of little importance to me as I believe the whole of cycling was doping at that time. I'm unconvinced that it is now 'clean'! Armstrong was simply the best rider (and hider?) of the time.

I agree with his assertions that he won't get a 'fair' hearing - I don't believe it's actually a trial - as evidence that would be required to be disclosed in a trial is being withheld - for debate-able reason.

His battle against testicular cancer, while laudable, is only the same as that of many others, including several golfers and a well respected snooker player. What is stunning is his subsequent fund-raising for this cause. Whether that gets affected by this publicity is to be seen, but the need for it has not gone away. I do wonder, however, what would happen if 'cure' was found. Would the Foundation wind down or would it, as a huge money-spinner with lots of vested interests (including LA himself?), morph into related (hugely beneficial) goals.

It will be interesting, to meat least, to see how the 'jurisdiction' issue plays out. The relationships between USADA, which brought the charges etc, WADA and UCI don't seem to mean, to me at least, that the USADA can strip LA of his medals. That may be a recommendation, but I believe is up to UCI to apply 'appropriate' sanctions.
 
Piece said:
Because it was a permitted use of a saddle sore cream. Again, no story here, just a journo who needs to justify his salary.
Click to expand...

I have no issue with legitimate use of steroids for medical conditions. They are commonly used for a range of conditions from asthma to various auto-immune conditions, and to supplement cancer treatments. But they are relatively short acting, so after treatment, the rider can be "clean" again pretty quickly.
 
So, does anyone have a change in opinion now that the report is published? 1000 pages of evidence supporting the charges!!

From this evening's Telegraph.........

Most damning of all, perhaps, is the fact that the report claims that Armstrong not only doped, but that he promoted the use of illegal products throughout his team and even supplied them to his team-mates.
"The evidence is overwhelming that Lance Armstrong did not just use performance enhancing drugs, he supplied them to his team-mates," the report says.
It will be interesting to see what the US Postal Service have to say about this. I can't really see the US government being too happy to hear that one of their citizens have been using the state purse to buy drugs.
"His goal [of winning the Tour de France multiple times] led him to depend on EPO, testosterone and blood transfusions but also, more ruthlessly, to expect and to require that his team-mates would likewise use drugs to support his goals if not their own."
It added: "It was not enough that his team-mates give maximum effort on the bike, he also required that they adhere to the doping programme outlined for them or be replaced.
"He was not just a part of the doping culture on his team, he enforced and re-enforced it.
"Armstrong's use of drugs was extensive, and the doping programme on his team, designed in large part to benefit Armstrong, was massive and pervasive."
 
Yes, a cheat. It seems the excuse amongst his team was the only way they could beat the drugs cheats was to join them.:mad:

I always feel sorry for people that get beaten by drug cheats. Sharon Davies is always remembered for her silver medal in the Olympics, even though the East German that beat her has admitted taking drug (no surprise there as all East German athletes were)
 
Such a shame. It was a great story after what he had come through. Now his legacy is destroyed. Wonder if it was worth it now he's going to have all his titles wiped out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top