Jump to content


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Tour de France cyclists


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#41 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,166 posts

Posted 26 August 2012 - 05:24 PM

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.
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#42 guess who

guess who
  • Coach
  • 4,002 posts

Posted 26 August 2012 - 08:37 PM

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?

#43 Severus

Severus
  • Coach
  • 12,923 posts

Posted 26 August 2012 - 09:02 PM

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.

Fides invicta triumphat

#44 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,166 posts

Posted 26 August 2012 - 09:08 PM

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?
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#45 guess who

guess who
  • Coach
  • 4,002 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 12:29 AM

He failed at least two though, apparently.


So where is the proof to back this claim up?

#46 PC

PC
  • Coach
  • 4,216 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 06:29 AM

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.

#47 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,145 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 06:37 AM

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.


#48 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,166 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 07:05 AM

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.
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#49 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,166 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 07:07 AM

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'.
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#50 GeordieSaint

GeordieSaint
  • Coach
  • 4,825 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 09:02 AM

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.

Kings Lynn Black Knights Rugby League Club - http://www.pitchero....nnblackknights/


#51 Ullman

Ullman
  • Coach
  • 7,488 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 09:29 AM

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.

"I own up. I am a serial risk taker. I live in a flood zone, cycle without a helmet, drink alcohol and on Sunday I had bacon for breakfast."


#52 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,166 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 09:51 AM

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.
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#53 Mister C

Mister C
  • Coach
  • 626 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 10:21 AM

The end state was coming up in court.


And may still. Has bruyneel dropped his opposition yet?

And they will still release their evidence

#54 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 10,209 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 10:58 AM

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.

Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#55 Ullman

Ullman
  • Coach
  • 7,488 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 03:58 PM

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.

"I own up. I am a serial risk taker. I live in a flood zone, cycle without a helmet, drink alcohol and on Sunday I had bacon for breakfast."


#56 Ullman

Ullman
  • Coach
  • 7,488 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 04:14 PM

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.

"I own up. I am a serial risk taker. I live in a flood zone, cycle without a helmet, drink alcohol and on Sunday I had bacon for breakfast."


#57 Mister C

Mister C
  • Coach
  • 626 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 06:01 PM

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.

#58 Mister C

Mister C
  • Coach
  • 626 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 07:19 PM

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

#59 guess who

guess who
  • Coach
  • 4,002 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 09:45 PM

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?

#60 Severus

Severus
  • Coach
  • 12,923 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 10:25 PM

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.
Fides invicta triumphat




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users