- Oct 6, 2003
Can't be good for him now either way. It will probably throw a turd into any future ventures he may have had in mind.
If you can't name names, you don't have a specific event or a specific test to say that he took 'something' - how do you reach the conclusion that he did infact "cheat"?The ongoing [COLOR= rgb(0, 102, 204)]Lance Armstrong doping case[/COLOR] experienced further delays on Friday when U.S District Court Judge Sam Sparks gave both parties; Armstrong and USADA, a further seven days to deliver additional information. Among the possible outcomes expected from Sparks in a weekâ€™s time include dismissing the [COLOR= rgb(0, 102, 204)]Armstrongâ€™s lawsuit against USADA[/COLOR] or an injunction against USADA that will cease the case against the seven-time Tour winner.
Sparksâ€™ concerns and subsequently delayed ruling on [COLOR= rgb(0, 102, 204)]jurisdiction[/COLOR] were primarily based around the specifics provided by USADA, or rather apparent lack of which did not provide Armstrong with enough information to mount an edequate defence.
"I couldn't find anything but conclusions (in the charges)," Sparks said. "Not one name, not one event, not one date,â€ said Sparks.
You're alleging that the charges against Armstrong brought by USADA are without foundation?Originally Posted by nonns .
You make it up as you go along, e.g.:
We want to find him guilty.
We have a bunch of people who may or may not have seen him doing dope. They are all a bunch of known dopers but who cares the act of saying they saw him is good enough to place doubt in peoples heads.
We have the power of government on our side.
We will ignore anything he says or does as we have the power and because we can
Thus we win.
They are miscalculating however.
The haters will hate. The lovers will love. Some indeterminates will be swayed either way. They will claim great victory about who the sport is cleaner and they have had a huge influence. Personally I think organisations who abuse their power as USADA are doing are as bad as the cheats (in many ways worse as they are institutionalised).
ultimately dopers will still dope and another nail will go in the coffin of the image of the sport and I'm not convinced that USADA's approach will result in any greater cleanliness in the sport.
Small points:limerickman said:You're alleging that the charges against Armstrong brought by USADA are without foundation? The judge in the court case disagrees with your allegation. The judge considered Armstrong's argument that the USADA action be dismissed and the court rejected Armstrong's action for dismissal. It appears that Armstrong had a case to answer. The fact that heÂ choseÂ not to answer the case makes him guilty.
The war has still some way to run, I would suggest.Originally Posted by nonns .
Nope I have never said that he has no case to answer. I have just said I am not sure that they have any firm evidence and as they seem reluctant to release what they have other than to claim they have the testimony of some known dopers I am disinclined to give them any real credibility.
If they provide the evidence openly and honestly and fairly and prove beyond reasonable doubt that LA has doped then I would accept in an instant that he has doped. USAAD have chosen not to do that but simply to make allegations. Its nonsense.
I'm all for catching cheats but not if one has to behave as badly as they do to do it.
yes cheaters should be honest but if they were they wouldn't be cheaters.
Cheaters will always cheat and in the same way that in war defenders and attackers find ways to get round each other so that sometimes the defenders have the upper hand and sometimes the attackers have the upper hand the power will swing between the dopers and the testers. Anyone who believes that the sport is becoming clean is a fool.
If USADA feels they've struck a major blow for the righteous I disagree with them. I don't think they've thought through the ramifications of what they've done.
I think the cycling authorities UCI/USADA and all the rest need their heads banging together. They have an inconsistent and poor quality approach which breeds confusion and results in the farce that we're seeing.
Ultimately (I think you said it in another thread) even with drugs you couldn't have won the TdF. Lance could. He did it in an age where many of his major rivals were doping. That suggests that if he was doping he had simply levelled the playing field. Who is the rightful winner of those TdF's? Jan Ullrich.
What a total farce. Nothing has been proved, nothing has been achieved, damage has been done to the sport. POTENTIALLY they've hung the wrong guy. Even if they've hung the right guy, we'll never be truly sure as they didn't go about it the right way. They've cheapened or possibly even nullified the results of what they've done because of the way in which they've done it.
A classic we've won the battle but lost the war.
A court of law is the last place a lot of cyclists and WADA, USADA, xADA, UCI, or other such organizations would want to attend. Some cyclists (and team managers, doctors, and etc) violate or have violated the rules in place, and the anti-doping organizations, as well as other regulatory sporting organizations, have violated their own rules and procedures. While it seems a lot of folks are hip to give the organizations a pass so long as they root out dopers, I think the organizations deserve no pass any more than those they accuse. There's a shortage of credibility on all sides.limerickman said:True. A court of law is probably the last place a cyclist would wish to have to attend.
That's naive. This isn't a single sided problem. It's a problem that has roots in the peloton, at the UCI, in WADA and its relatives, and in the cycling public.limerickman said:The war has still some way to run, I would suggest. According to USADA, Armstrong will be stripped of his titles and his sporting record will be null and void. The bigger picture is why did the UCI choose to accept Armstrong's defence when that defence has been shown to be a sham? The UCI is ultimately the problem that needs to be resolved in this war.
So the UCI, WADA and the cycling public's at fault that Armstrong doped?Originally Posted by alienator .
That's naive. This isn't a single sided problem. It's a problem that has roots in the peloton, at the UCI, in WADA and its relatives, and in the cycling public.
Nope. I didn't say that, and you know I didn't say that. That's a purposeful misinterpretation of my statement. I was speaking of the doping issue as a whole, not one particular case.limerickman said:So the UCI, WADA and the cycling public's at fault that Armstrong doped? That is an interesting take on this story.