89 replies to this topic

[gingerjon]

What's the point of stripping Armstrong of his titles when at least one would go to runner-up Jan Ulrich, who has been convicted of doping?

Let the past go and concentrate on the present.

No.

The fact that there might not be another suitable winner is no reason why this cheat should keep his titles.

[guess who]

No.

The fact that there might not be another suitable winner is no reason why this cheat should keep his titles.

If he is a cheat. Why has he never failed a drug test?

[Severus]

Froome will make up some time in the time trial but I don't think he has what it takes to win a grand tour yet. Hope I'm made to eat my words.

Oops wrong thread.

Edited by Severus, 26 August 2012 - 09:03 PM.

[gingerjon]

If he is a cheat. Why has he never failed a drug test?

Because he was a very good cheat.

He failed at least two though, apparently.

If he is honest and clean why is he not using his substantial wealth and already-appointed legal team to clear his name in open court?

[guess who]

He failed at least two though, apparently.

So where is the proof to back this claim up?

[PC]

Because he was a very good cheat.

He failed at least two though, apparently.

If he is honest and clean why is he not using his substantial wealth and already-appointed legal team to clear his name in open court?

Because USADA are self appointed judge, jury and executioner. The whole thing has been a stitch up from the start. A number of the witness they claim to have, have denied being suspended, as USADA states. The fact that USADA have allowed people who have, apparently, admitted to doping to continue cycling, stinks. And USADA have no jurisdiction to take anybody's titles of them. That is up to the governing body, but it hasn't stopped them trying. If I was Lance I'd be tempted not to fight it too. There's no point fighting a battle you know you can't win.

[JohnM]

apparently.

If he is honest and clean why is he not using his substantial wealth and already-appointed legal team to clear his name in open court?

A bit like the " if you are innocent, you have nothing to fear" argument used to justify things like the police storing your DNA, or compulsory ID cards etc.

Edited by JohnM, 27 August 2012 - 06:37 AM.

[gingerjon]

So where is the proof to back this claim up?

It was to be presented in open court along with multiple witness statements, other evidence etc etc.

The Lanceaylytes seem not to notice that the only way Armstrong had of avoiding this was to withdraw from the court process.

[gingerjon]

A bit like the " if you are innocent, you have nothing to fear" argument used to justify things like the police storing your DNA, or compulsory ID cards etc.

A bit like ... in the sense that Lance Armstrong is a very wealthy and influential man, backed by Nike and with a substantial army of legal and medical representation to draw on. He made $17m per year when cycling (Bloomberg) so he's not exactly 'the little man'.

[GeordieSaint]

If he is honest and clean why is he not using his substantial wealth and already-appointed legal team to clear his name in open court?

I'd be tempted to not bother if this had been going for 10yrs with little sign of an end state.

Edited by GeordieSaint, 27 August 2012 - 09:04 AM.

[Ullman]

What's the point of stripping Armstrong of his titles when at least one would go to runner-up Jan Ulrich, who has been convicted of doping?

I don't know the UCI rulebook but I would imagine they could just declare the relevant races null and void.

[gingerjon]

I'd be tempted to not bother if this had been going for 10yrs with little sign of an end state.

The end state was coming up in court.

[Mister C]

The end state was coming up in court.

And may still. Has bruyneel dropped his opposition yet?

And they will still release their evidence

[Wolford6]

I don't know the UCI rulebook but I would imagine they could just declare the relevant races null and void.

The UCI doesn't have jurisdiction over the Tour de France. The Tour is organised and controlled by a private company ... Amaury Sport Organisation. It also organises the Paris-Nice Tour, La Vuelta and the Dakaar Car Rally. The ASO can retain Armstrong's status and not give a monkeys about whether the UCI and USADA like it.

[Ullman]

The UCI doesn't have jurisdiction over the Tour de France. The Tour is organised and controlled by a private company ... Amaury Sport Organisation. It also organises the Paris-Nice Tour, La Vuelta and the Dakaar Car Rally. The ASO can retain Armstrong's status and not give a monkeys about whether the UCI and USADA like it.

I knew ASO organised the Tour. I didn't realise it wasn't run under the jurisdiction of the UCI. In any case, if the UCI acquiesce to USADA's request to annul all of Armstrong's results from August '98, nobody will give a monkey's what ASO say.

[Ullman]

And may still. Has bruyneel dropped his opposition yet?

And they will still release their evidence

As far as I'm aware, Armstrong's former team boss Bruyneel is still engaged in the legal process. As you say, this affair may still come to court. I would have thought If Bruyneel is successful it would seriously damage USADA's case against Armstrong.

[Mister C]

As far as I'm aware, Armstrong's former team boss Bruyneel is still engaged in the legal process. As you say, this affair may still come to court. I would have thought If Bruyneel is successful it would seriously damage USADA's case against Armstrong.

And I will be very surprised if it does go to court.

[Mister C]

http://www.sportssci...ts-and.html?m=1

[guess who]

It was to be presented in open court along with multiple witness statements, other evidence etc etc.

The Lanceaylytes seem not to notice that the only way Armstrong had of avoiding this was to withdraw from the court process.

If he had failed two drug tests. Why wasnt it made public at the time?

[Severus]

David Millar's thoughts on the Armstrong case will be interesting, according to his tweet today he will post something soon. Millar is an ex-doper and friend of Armstrong.