Lance Armstrong.(257 Posts)
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?
I am amazed at how pro-Armstrong this thread is! There has been plenty of evidence around for years at what a bully he is and how he suppressed all evidence against him using intimidation, the wider world just chose not to see it as we all wanted him to be what he said he was IMHO.
David Walsh has written about this for years and is well worth reading.
Interesting that Armstrong is said to be the bully.
When I read this news item USADA come across as the bullies.
Wonder what's the truth?
Thinking about it you could be right that Armstrong was the bully. The worst kind of bullies can turn it around and make themselves look like the victim - quite convincingly...and use their 'victimhood' like a weapon.
We still haven't heard the USADA evidence, is it all just hearsay & innuendo? I want a full presentation.
I'm currently reading about the Tour de France and Team Sky and it is amazing at how drugs riddled cycling was in the time that LA was riding. Pretty much everyone was taking drugs to some degree. There was a French rider who was the same size, weight, ability as LA who said there was no way LA could be clean and win. He was hounded out of the sport. LA was a well known bully with influence at senior levels. From what I've read he knew if the matter went to arbitration his guilt would be confirmed. Interestingly the burden of proof is reversed at the arbitration compared to court - LA presumed guilty and then having to prove his innocence.
I don't think this has come at a bad time for cycling at all. For years the sport has been plagued with allegations of drug taking and it is good to have it out in the open now. The USADA must be confident of their sources as there is nothing to stop LA taking libel action if what they publish is malicious and untrue.
Saw him on oprah years ago terribly arrogant just couldn't take to him at all
Read the David Walsh article from The Sunday Times - eye-opening.
I also think that USADA came across as the bullies.
It seemed as if they were saying-you´ve stopped fighting, therefore you are guilty, therefore we take your titles away & ban you.
Like lljkk, I´d be interested in the evidence.
How strange that he should have to prove his innocence at arbitration.
If the USADA want to take titles away, you´d think that they would have to prove his guilt.
How do you prove that you didn´t do something?
By not getting positive drugs tests...?
The UCI are the only ones who can strip him of his titles and they have said they won't do anything unless USADA present them with irrefutable evidence.
diddl the USADA are just stating the law. As I posted earlier, under the arbitration proceedings the burden of proof is reversed so LA is presumed guilty unless he can show he is innocent. He can prove he is innocent by discrediting the many witnesses and evidence the USADA apparently have.
The USADA are intending to publish their evidence. I assume LA thought they would not do so if he decided not to fight. Of course the laws of libel are open to him if he feels that what they do publish is factually incorrect and/or malicious. As you will have read he has been very quick in the past to commence legal action against those who have questioned his integrity.
Afaik the allegations are that he did in fact test positive for drugs but senior people arranged for those tests to show a non-positive reading or somehow hide the readings (the USADA will need to provide evidence of how this was done). As others have posted here, LA could not have done this without help at senior levels. It was a very high level and sophisticated fraud and I doubt the USADA would be so keen to publish if they were not absolutely convinced of their case. They stand to be totally discredited if their evidence doesn't measure up.
Forgot to add that the UCI have said they will consider stripping LA of his titles once they have reasoned award the USADA intend to publish.
Surely the problem is if you strip him of his titles then who becomes the tdf champion for those years? You'd have to go back to the bloke who came 25th or something to find someone who wasn't doping surely?
So it all just seems a little pointless now. Seems that all the cyclists were doing stuff then that was dubious.
Lance's statement was very clever - he didn't categorically say he didn't dope but that he played by the rules and never failed a test.
He had over 550 tests according to the french Dr who ran all the doping tests during those years and passed every one.
I suspect he did do something that was on the lines of legality but then it seems so did everyone else - so do they just write 10 years of cycling off as no-one was really clean?
I don't think they can award the titles to anyone else as it would be farcical and difficult to find someone else who was drug free.
He took over 500 tests and 'passed' every one, would be a better way of putting it. He 'passed' according to the published results but, as I understand it, the USADA have evidence that these test results were amended.
Christophe Bassons was clean and was hounded out of the sport when he spoke out.
I think Lance Armstrong has played a bit of a blinder here. He has said he will no longer fight because he is sick of it but is still claiming to be innocent. USADA have no chance to produce their evidence/witnesses that may well have discredited Armstrong completely. 10 witnesses is a lot.
Armstrong loses the titles but not all his credibility as this was he/wasn't he doping will run on and on and there remains that element of doubt in many peoples minds. Personally I think that is the best Armstrong could salvage.
Not all cyclists were doping. Many were but not all. What about those cyclists who refused to dope and therefore could never compete on what was an uneven playing field. Their careers were curtailed or never materialised. Saying everyone was at it therefore Armstrong is somehow excused is just downwright wrong. It is important for them at least that Armstrong and others dopeurs are exposed.
There were also allegations that Armstrong was doping before he got cancer. Just because someone gets cancer and recovers does not make them a decent, honest, honourable person.
"As I posted earlier, under the arbitration proceedings the burden of proof is reversed so LA is presumed guilty unless he can show he is innocent. "
Yes, you did, sorry.
Why is that, & what happens before it gets to arbitration?
Seems odd that with all his negative tests that LA can´t prove his innocence.
I suppose the emphasis is on him because of his titles-but why ignore others-because they´ll speak against him if they aren´t exposed?
But I do think that all involved should be exposed.
They don't have to award the TdF titles to anyone. It might be a useful reminder if history shows no winner, to a wonderful sport sadly tainted by doping.
Not sure as to why the bop is reversed. Apparently it is the same as the Court of Arbitration for Sport - which is widely used for a variety of different sports.
I imagine the USADA are keen to expose LA as the biggest fish and the one who has been most vocal in saying he has always tested clean. Lots of others have already been caught but not him. I also think it is because of how senior the corruption goes. Lots of other riders doped and got caught. LA allegedly doped and didn't get caught because of inside help. That makes it a whole different level of corruption.
By "not fighting anymore" he can continue his defence of "I never tested positive" (which is a lie) as "I've never been found guilty in a court".
Tosspot of the highest order.
What did he test positive on?
The USADA still appear to be jumping the gun to say his titles are to be stripped, as if they have this automatic authority.
He says he's been hounded for 3 years by them and that it feels like a witch hunt, and he and his family have had enough. Maybe there's some truth in that?
I don't know - I'm keeping an open mind.
Didn't he test positive and have the results amended?
On one occasion he apparently tested positive for steriods and then got a doctor to pre-date some steriod cream for non-existent saddle sores.
Allegedly. It's all tittle tattle. I think. I'd like some kind of non-hearsay non-circumstantial evidence.
Armstrong threatened in ?2006 to come out of retirement and win another TdF if they kept hassling him. I found that pretty amusing. Then he actually came out of retirement & "only" came 3rd, anyway.
Chris Boardman was clean. Phil Liggett has said things like he'd bet his life on that. There are a few others like that from the worst doping era, including Hammond (hopefully).
Has anyone else read Paul Kimmage's book Rough Ride? Kimmage is just relentless in the anti-doping campaigns. Even Kimmage is willing to believe that some of the top 10 riders each year were riding clean. He would name names but for libel laws.
I'm sorry this is long but it's worth reading IMO.
Emma OReilly Responds to Lance Armstrong Story
The former Armstrong assistant addresses doping allegations in Bicycling magazines Lance Armstrong feature.
Dear Mr. Strickland,
After reading your article Endgame, (Bicycling, May 2011), which included a sidebar detailing 10 allegations against Lance Armstrong and your opinion of how each might be viewed by a jury, I felt compelled to reply. Allegation 6, labeled The Saddle Sore, involves a dispute over a prescription Armstrong produced in 1999 to excuse a positive result for corticosteroid use in Stage 1 of that years Tour de France. You note that I, a soigneur for Armstrongs team at the time, told journalist David Walsh that the prescription was illegitimate because it had been created and backdated after the test result was revealed. Then, in the section of that allegation called Our Take, you say: At this point its Armstrongs word against OReillys. Unless other witnesses corroborate her story, Armstrong wins this one.
Years ago I gave an interview to David Walsh, in which I told him the truth of what I had seen and experienced in my years in cycling. Incidentally, I got paid a small sum of money for all the time I put into helping David. Unfortunately, I was somewhat naïve and thought that Davids book was about helping to cure cycling of its scourge of drugs. Since I gave the interview, I feel that nothing positive has come from it. All it has led to is pitching people against each other and basically forcing them to choose whose side they are on. The whole subject is much deeper than some spat in the playground. I spoke to David because I felt that by not talking I was a part of a problem that is actually bigger than Lance. The big problem is drugs in cycling.
However, for those in cycling, that idea is way too simple and too many people are making their living out of cycling and feel the need to protect that. When I spoke to David, Marco Pantani and Jose Maria Jimenez had just died. This is what the problem is: People are dying because of drugs in the sport. Because I was prepared to lift my head out of the trenches and say it as it was, I became fair game. This is disgraceful.
But having read your article, I have decided enough is enough. For you to say in relation to that allegation that Lance wins without you verifying my side of story is it because you feel Lances word is worth more than mine? Is it because the only people you spoke to are still involved with Lance and cycling? I am sure Lance has people to back up his side, but I never got the opportunity to put my side across.
Since I spoke to David Walsh, I have received so many subpoenas that the policewoman who brought them got friendly enough with my boyfriend that she would call before coming and hed put the kettle on for her. If my word is so worthless, why did I go to France and testify to the French Drug Squad? I worked the 98 Tour de France, and I know how scary these guys can be, yet I was prepared to go to France, to their territory. I went because I was telling the truth, and also because a certain Mr. Armstrong sued me for a million euros because of my interview with David. If my word is so worthless, Mr. Strickland, why did Lance feel the need to terrorize me for more than two years? Why did Lance feel the need to try and break me? Why did I have his solicitor in my house trying to get me to retract parts of my interview?
Why, if my word is so worthless, did SCA drag me into their case against Lance over their refusal to pay him a Tour-winning bonus because of drug allegations? I did not want to get involved in the SCA case, as that is about a business deal that went wrong. I spoke to David because I wanted to help clean up cycling. I now know how naïve (code for stupid) I was. If my word is so worthless, why did SCA go through a lot of hassle and expense to get me subpoenaed for their case? If my word is so worthless, why did Lances legal team feel the need to go to the High Court the morning of my testimony for the above case so they could sit in on it? They would have known that I was without my lawyer, another bullying tactic that I had become accustomed too. Unfortunately, its hard to effectively bully someone who is telling the truth.
I have been called all things under the sun since I spoke the truthstrange that, isnt it? But now I am sick to death of journalists and people in the media using my facts to help whatever point they want to get across. They chase me like dogs in heat when they are trying to get their story, then drop me if theyve got their facts or I wont elaborate or embellish their story. I have had their legal people call me at all hours demanding information and to backup what Ive said. So I generally get harassment on both sides all because I was stupid enough to speak the truth.
For the record, I might not have achieved anything like Lance haswho has? But I live a nice, quiet life running a small business, with my two dogs and my boyfriend. So Mr. Strickland I would like you and your ilk to know that I am sick to death of you making judgments of me and my word. You dont know me, I have never met nor talked to you, you have never made an attempt to talk to me. Who are you to make out that my word is worthless? Perhaps you should talk to Lance. He didnt seem to think it was so worthless when he got his legal team to go after me for a couple of years. I also find it interesting to see that you decide the allegation will be in favor of someone who used his privilege of oath to call me disgusting names he wouldnt say without protection.
To finish up, I would like you to know that what Lance has done for cancer sufferers has been phenomenal, and I agree with you that whether he is judged guilty or not he will still be an inspiration and rightly so. I had a couple of my most enjoyable years working alongside him, and really enjoyed his company, no matter what has happened since.
Very long, but very interesting Amazing how he got away with it for so long
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.