Mumsnet Talk

What on earth is going on?

If he hasn´t failed a drug test, how can he be found guilty just because he can´t be bothered to fight any more?

Is it an admission of guilt?

If the USADA has evidence-where is it-why haven´t they produced it or is it all just rumour/hearsay?

guardian article

I think I agree with some of this but I am still taking it in as such a lot to get my head round.

I don't think it's an admission of guilt on the face of it. The USADA says it has 10 former team mates willing to testify against him so I suppose that is evidence.

Some say the said team mates have been coerced.

"The USADA says it has 10 former team mates willing to testify against him so I suppose that is evidence"

But isn´t it just hearsay?

If there is no proof that he failed a drugs test?

The BBC article has a whole different feel to the Guardian one.

Here

I so hope Bradley Wiggins is clean.

I fear that this will do damage to all the people who have become newly interested in cycling since the Tour and the Olympics.

The timing is terrible.

But to me, the fact that he won´t fight anymore means nothing-unless they prove that he was using drugs.

I suppose what I don´t get are-what are the charges that they are bring?

If they can´t prove that he was "doped" at the time of his wins-how can they take the titles away?

Also-can they give the titles to someone else without proof that they weren´t "doped"?

I'm not the best informed person but I agree that without proof they can't say for sure that he's guilty.

Also I'm not sure they have the authority to strip him of his titles.

When dh wakes up I'll ask him as he's far more knowledgeable about it all.

I´ve just read a comment by a reader in the DM which says that some blood from 1999 was retested in 2006 & was found positive for EPO.

If so, then why wasn´t he stripped of the title for that year?

It does seam to have been a long witch hunt. Bad for sport, very bad for him and his family, bad for the justice system. It does seam that money and justice are increasingly interlinked.

I think it is as good as an admission of guilt.

I was very at all the talk of how people were up against him; how they were prepared to speak out against him; it just seemed like a bit of a witchhunt to me at the time.

But it just doesn't add up to me that you would be prepared to forfit your whole reputation, everything that you'd worked for and believed in purely because you just couldn't fight any more - given there was apparently no evidence.

My guess is that something new was about to come to light that he didn't want known. At least if he gives up before that he will retain some supporters, whereas if his guilt is proven he will lose that too.

But I think that if there is evidence-then it should be shown & there shouldn´t be room for doubt.

I think it gives a crap message that if he gives it all up they won´t prove his guilt.

And why would they give him that get out if they so badly want to show his guilt?

Lance Armstrong's official statement here

should they though?

If a criminal doesn't contest the charges against them it isn't then up to the courts to prove they were guilty - someone is innocent until proven guilty yes but if they don't contest that then the courts don't present the evidence to prove the guilt - they just act accordingly.

It is one thing to say "I am innocent, you need to prove that I am guilty, present the evidence you have and I will fight it," it is quite another to say "I am innocent, but ok, I will accept that you are going to strip me of my titles, ban me from cycling for life and destroy my entire reputation." That just doesn't add up.

listening to the BBC news this morning, it sounded like more of a juridicial decision to give up the fight. to me it has the feel of a witch-hunt. not that i am saying he isn't guilty. no smoke without fire, i guess. but there seems such a desperation to strip him of titles etc, and it's not even clear that they have the authority to do that.

But it´s not a legal thing in that he has been charged & brought to court, is it?

What I mean is if they think he was doped then why don´t they have to prove it before stripping his titles?

Why should he have to defend himself before they have shown evidence?

it's a long running saga. he never failed a drugs test but there are ways around them (or were). His medical condition had allowed for certain drugs to be used anyway but he was also involved with a character called Michele Ferrari a coach/Doctor whose speciality is improving performance. Various ex-team-mates have talked about some of this stuff but they weren't v.reliable. The best thing to do is to let the affair go. He was of his time and the other people he competed against were equally guilty and a lot of them have not been brought to task

But do the US people have the authority to strip his titles? I read an article about the Sky Team and the guy who runs it saying he didn't want to get into road cycling until it was clean. So don't think LA was the only one (if he was at all) not playing by the rules.

Ok by not fighting it is in effect an admission of guilt. There is the argument that as they were all doing it at the time it was still a level playing field so his titles are still deserved.

The USADA has no authority to strip him of his titles and there is no guarantee that if this happens the riders they are awarded to will have been clean.

By doing it this way and not contesting the charges it prevents a string of high profile riders giving evidence that they saw Armstrong doping. This would be incredibly damaging to the sport. By avoiding this Armstrong may still have some reputation left and it will all die down in a couple of days.

If you want to know more it's useful to read David Millar's autobiography, EPO is very hard to find directly. Millar argues that the best thing would have been/be to have regular blood tests to look for changes in thing like Red Blood Cell count.
It is also clear that at that time it was standard for cyclists to be injected with vitamins (not illegal) after races.
However the other thing in his Autobiography is that the training was lacking, cyclists would often be required to do too many races, not given time to recover from injury and even not given crucial equipment such as body suits and time trailing bikes.
But in Lance's case it sounds as of the US authorities are saying thy will do things they don't have authority for.

He can in theory lose the titles as the US authorities who licensed him to race are tied in with the Euro ones. He was in an era when most if not all his rivals were taking something and he was the best out of them. Cycling has a long history of drugs (as have certain other sports) and the 80s - mid 2000s saw a rapid development of new drugs and usage techniques and detection. There were no rules but two - don't ask/don't tell

OK-this is going to sound stupid-but what is he fighting iyswim?

Surely there either is, or is not, proof?

There are rumers that Lance's influence is so strong that he has managed to persuade people to suppress the evidence in the past.