Lance Armstrong Won't Fight Usada Charges
- Thread starter steve
- Start date
to nonns--again, i'm not "het" up. i still think you to be foolish, given your insistence that you think the financial reports inconsequential. to be direct, you think that in order to be convincing evidence, the monetary amounts should be higher to indicate doping. one must wonder if you could specify what exact amount armstrong would have had to spend in order to convince you that he employed ferrari as his consultant on doping. there is, of course, the possibility you actually believe it costs well over a million dollars to have someone tell you to raise your saddle 2 mm. by all means you are welcome to that conclusion.
as for the bit in part ii: long on generalities and short on specifics. which people do you believe armstrong to have bullied, whom do you figure he cajoled, whom do figure he bribed? frankly, you mix armstrong the manipulator with armstrong the bully with armstrong the one who has all-access passes to the highest halls of cycling power. this is a point i'm sure you will make, but you need to unpack the position and give specifics. to say it again, please quote the relevant portions of the report which you feel to be lacking and those which you feel support the conclusion that he doped. in working with your untethered conclusions, one can only find that you haven't bothered to read the report and only work from some journo's reading/reporting of the decision.
as for the "fat-finger" apology--are you now saying that it is within your personal realm of possibility that armstrong could bully 26 or a thousand people to dope because you've personally witnessed a large group forced to agree to a position due to the co-ercion of one in charge? quite a change of opinion on the point. your anecdotal evidence aside, the report presents a forthright representation of those who came to dope of their own accord and those who were kept in the doping fold through sterner measures.
bit of an eye-popper with your contention that "all of these people" "were not credible previously." please explain to me how hincapie, leipheimer, vande velde and the others who have not served doping suspensions are not credible (mind you, it would not have looked good to the u s sports fan if postal/discovery/et al hired previously busted dopers. so i can say that armstrong & bruyneel used that "cleanliness" to their own advantage, but now you say that they are not credible.). do you refer to anyone in particular? syntactically, your use of "all of these people" means you discredit the testimony of all 26 who have sworn to affidavits. again, to be blunt, are we discussing the report, or are we discussing your personal experiences and biases?
that bit about the peer review is amusing if a touch unhinged. you do realise that you question the ability of usada to produce a credible "reasoned decision." if they are such a slip-shod organisation, one would have to conclude that their report would not pass muster. yet you can only say that the report is questionable because usada have not caught each and every doper ever to have competed in the usa or to have competed for the glory of the country even though the tdf is not raced in this country and armstrong spent most of his racing career in spain or some such thing. perhaps you object to the notion that the reasoned decision will undergo peer review by the uci? which is corrupt? or some such thing? suffice to say, the other -ada's are reviewing the documents and, so far, they seem to be passing muster. are we now to believe that each and every one of these -ada's is corrupt and hypocritical?
really amusing stuff in that section where you require usada to take armstrong to court. only after a conviction in open court will you accept usada's reasoned decision. have you honestly been following the events of this affair? did you not catch that bit sent down from a federal bench concerning the role the u s judicial system has in this fight? did you miss that bit about the u s prosecutor shutting down the criminal case (fraud was the crime, if it refreshes your memory) a while ago? what is truly amusing is that you have either not read or skimmed over that portion in the affidavits where the one giving the testimony has to state that he realises he may have to give this testimony again in open court or other arenas at a later date. problem with your position is that usada is not an agency which enforces criminal law. so should they take armstrong to court as a civil matter--plaintiff v. defendant for monetary damages? not usada's job since one cannot say armstrong took usada to the financial cleaners or damaged them as an organisation through his statements or actions against them. however, as alienator points out, armstrong could very well face civil cases because of his litigious past (sca and the sunday times come to mind, but in no way limited to just those two). mind you, should someone sue armstrong for return of any awards judged to have been due him in the past because of the evidence recently turned up, those people who swore to their statements will most likely be called upon to swear to them in the various courts under penalties of perjury. also, amusing to learn you find the people working at doping control agencies to be hypocrites, but give armstrong the benefit of the doubt.
am i in the habit of calling someone a fool in a debate? no, but in you it seems to have spurred rather than stemmed debate. i usually reserve the use of that term for those who only seem to offer opinions grounded in gross and unsupported generalisation. those who have positions different than mine, but can offer specific evidence to support their opinions are not fools, but opponents with whom i disagree. to those people i offer my respect.
as for the bit in part ii: long on generalities and short on specifics. which people do you believe armstrong to have bullied, whom do you figure he cajoled, whom do figure he bribed? frankly, you mix armstrong the manipulator with armstrong the bully with armstrong the one who has all-access passes to the highest halls of cycling power. this is a point i'm sure you will make, but you need to unpack the position and give specifics. to say it again, please quote the relevant portions of the report which you feel to be lacking and those which you feel support the conclusion that he doped. in working with your untethered conclusions, one can only find that you haven't bothered to read the report and only work from some journo's reading/reporting of the decision.
as for the "fat-finger" apology--are you now saying that it is within your personal realm of possibility that armstrong could bully 26 or a thousand people to dope because you've personally witnessed a large group forced to agree to a position due to the co-ercion of one in charge? quite a change of opinion on the point. your anecdotal evidence aside, the report presents a forthright representation of those who came to dope of their own accord and those who were kept in the doping fold through sterner measures.
bit of an eye-popper with your contention that "all of these people" "were not credible previously." please explain to me how hincapie, leipheimer, vande velde and the others who have not served doping suspensions are not credible (mind you, it would not have looked good to the u s sports fan if postal/discovery/et al hired previously busted dopers. so i can say that armstrong & bruyneel used that "cleanliness" to their own advantage, but now you say that they are not credible.). do you refer to anyone in particular? syntactically, your use of "all of these people" means you discredit the testimony of all 26 who have sworn to affidavits. again, to be blunt, are we discussing the report, or are we discussing your personal experiences and biases?
that bit about the peer review is amusing if a touch unhinged. you do realise that you question the ability of usada to produce a credible "reasoned decision." if they are such a slip-shod organisation, one would have to conclude that their report would not pass muster. yet you can only say that the report is questionable because usada have not caught each and every doper ever to have competed in the usa or to have competed for the glory of the country even though the tdf is not raced in this country and armstrong spent most of his racing career in spain or some such thing. perhaps you object to the notion that the reasoned decision will undergo peer review by the uci? which is corrupt? or some such thing? suffice to say, the other -ada's are reviewing the documents and, so far, they seem to be passing muster. are we now to believe that each and every one of these -ada's is corrupt and hypocritical?
really amusing stuff in that section where you require usada to take armstrong to court. only after a conviction in open court will you accept usada's reasoned decision. have you honestly been following the events of this affair? did you not catch that bit sent down from a federal bench concerning the role the u s judicial system has in this fight? did you miss that bit about the u s prosecutor shutting down the criminal case (fraud was the crime, if it refreshes your memory) a while ago? what is truly amusing is that you have either not read or skimmed over that portion in the affidavits where the one giving the testimony has to state that he realises he may have to give this testimony again in open court or other arenas at a later date. problem with your position is that usada is not an agency which enforces criminal law. so should they take armstrong to court as a civil matter--plaintiff v. defendant for monetary damages? not usada's job since one cannot say armstrong took usada to the financial cleaners or damaged them as an organisation through his statements or actions against them. however, as alienator points out, armstrong could very well face civil cases because of his litigious past (sca and the sunday times come to mind, but in no way limited to just those two). mind you, should someone sue armstrong for return of any awards judged to have been due him in the past because of the evidence recently turned up, those people who swore to their statements will most likely be called upon to swear to them in the various courts under penalties of perjury. also, amusing to learn you find the people working at doping control agencies to be hypocrites, but give armstrong the benefit of the doubt.
am i in the habit of calling someone a fool in a debate? no, but in you it seems to have spurred rather than stemmed debate. i usually reserve the use of that term for those who only seem to offer opinions grounded in gross and unsupported generalisation. those who have positions different than mine, but can offer specific evidence to support their opinions are not fools, but opponents with whom i disagree. to those people i offer my respect.
on sca, yes. i can see that case being filed. sca seem to be keeping their powder dry, though, waiting for the affair to go through the vetting.
given that trek has unceremoniously dropped armstrong, i wonder if lemond will be seeking remedy in court for the manner in which his brand was tossed aside. the trek spokesman seems to labour the point about why trek buried the lemond brand.
"That is not accurate. Greg LeMond did have a licensing agreement with Trek. But the decision to terminate that was not related to Lance Armstrong," he said. "That was a business decision. LeMond sued Trek first, as a matter of fact twice, while they were partners and had a licensing agreement. Trek notified LeMond that they were not going to renew the agreement when it expired, which it was allowed to do under the terms of the agreement. Trek fulfilled its obligations. Trek had no problem with LeMond talking openly about doping in the sport of cycling. But the company did ask him not to disparage any individual athlete, including Armstrong. Trek was able to reach aconfidential settlement with LeMond following the lawsuits."--http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/trek-breaks-ties-with-lance-armstrong
[COLOR= rgb(24, 24, 24)]given your insistence that you think the financial reports inconsequential. to be direct, you think that in order to be convincing evidence, the monetary amounts should be higher to indicate doping. one must wonder if you could specify what exact amount armstrong would have had to spend in order to convince you that he employed ferrari as his consultant on doping. there is, of course, the possibility you actually believe it costs well over a million dollars to have someone tell you to raise your saddle 2 mm. by all means you are welcome to that conclusion.[/COLOR]
What I was saying about $1m not being a lot is as follows: To adjust a saddle position clearly does't cost $1 million unless of course the research that went into the perfect position cost a lot of time and effort and the target market will pay! To aid and abet in law breaking/putting a sport in disrepute when you are talking people in respectable and well paid roles would certainly require large quantities of cash. $1 million is certainly not decent retirement money for a well paid medical professional. Its certainly not worth risking ones career for. You would think that Intelligent people would want sufficient cash that they could retire from work and go somewhere where they couldn't be pursued (actually i couldn't be bought but thats beside the point) whilst enjoying the fruits of their corruption otherwise they're being a bit daft. At this point I have to ask how daft people have managed to basically pull the wool over the eyes of the worlds doping agencies and cycling authorities unless of course these organisations have been somewhat thicker.
Ref comments on bullying...What do you call it when someone is said to have created a culture where you either join the doping program or you leave see below
From the report
The evidence is overwhelming that Lance Armstrong did not just use performance
enhancing drugs, he supplied them to his teammates. He did not merely go alone to Dr. Michele
Ferrari for doping advice, he expected that others would follow. It was not enough that his
teammates give maximum effort on the bike, he also required that they adhere to the doping
program outlined for them or be replaced.
thats bullying and manipulation that is. Who did he do it to? His teammates (crumbs I used the reports words).
Ref is there a possibility that he could have manipulated 26 people. Of course there's a possibility. I find it surprising. he must have assembled 26 very weak characters and to have kept manipulating them for the period he is alleged to have is truly remarkable. I am sceptical that anyone could have done so for that length of time. I do not and never have denied the possibility that he might have though i find it hard to believe. My point about the group of people who all managed to produce depositions which agreed with each other if they weren't true is simply this - that it is perfectly possible for 26 people to produce essentially similar stories having got their stories straight over a period of time.
I would point out also that I have not said that these people have lied. I am sceptical about the characters concerned. It doesn't mean that they're wrong but just because various people say stuff doesn't mean that its right or true either. I am sitting on the fence and simply because a weighty document has been produced doesn't mean that all is hunky dory or correct.
ref Hincapie et al. My point is that they have now said they were part of a doping culture. They have been happy to reap the rewards of it over the years. Now they can no longer be that badly hurt by being found out they're happy to start pointing fingers. That in my view suggests that their characters are not all that they could be. Do I believe stuff spouted by people of dubious character - well mebbe and mebbe not.
ref Peer reviews and suchlike. A US Judge (Sparks) made some pretty damning comments in relation to USADA so clearly the law has issues with USADA's conduct in this whole affair. Whilst he chucked out LA's request to quash the investigation (good). It doesn't say much for their conduct in this affair - does it? If a federal case against LA is not possible then the civil cases will do but justice should be served.
I have never called the people who serve in the doping agencies hypocrites whilst suggesting LA is not. If LA is a drug taker and distributor and has been covering up then clearly he is no more or less a hypocrite than anyone else who does such things and pretends that they do otherwise. For USADA to get information from from poisonous people like Tyler Hamilton, Floyd Landis Et al. and make allegations against people whilst refusing to acknowledge that they have perhaps not behaved as they should (Sparks) have suggests a degree of hypocrisy somewhere. Like I said I have no idea whether LA has doped or not. I am still reading the report. Nothing I've read so far impresses me that much but then I probably haven't got to the juicy bits.
Anyway hang em high Slovak guy enjoy the sight of someone being publicly flogged. You appear to get off on the sight of it. Personally I find the whole thing tragic. Its tragic for cycling. Its tragic for justice. Its tragic for LA (if he is guilty of the things he's being accused of I wonder at what state of his life he went off the rails thinking wise/If he isn't guilty then its a travesty of justice). Its tragic for everyone involved and its tragic for the fans. Its put me right off watching the sport anymore especially whilst known dopers are going to carry on competing at the highest levels.
Lastly - I don't know if LA is guilty or not. The report doesn't appear to be talking about soft and fluffy stuff. It may be correct in the picture it paints. My problem with the whole thing is that I'm not sure that we will ever actually know for sure 100%. That would require LA to tell the truth 100%. If he is guilty then he has no incentive to as he removes the final vestiges of doubt and clearly if he is guilty then he is an individual of somewhat dubious morality and if he isn't guilty then he wont be believed.
The reality therefore is that USADA has won and LA is guilty. I hope to god that he really did it because if he didn't then they've hung the wrong man!
What I was saying about $1m not being a lot is as follows: To adjust a saddle position clearly does't cost $1 million unless of course the research that went into the perfect position cost a lot of time and effort and the target market will pay! To aid and abet in law breaking/putting a sport in disrepute when you are talking people in respectable and well paid roles would certainly require large quantities of cash. $1 million is certainly not decent retirement money for a well paid medical professional. Its certainly not worth risking ones career for. You would think that Intelligent people would want sufficient cash that they could retire from work and go somewhere where they couldn't be pursued (actually i couldn't be bought but thats beside the point) whilst enjoying the fruits of their corruption otherwise they're being a bit daft. At this point I have to ask how daft people have managed to basically pull the wool over the eyes of the worlds doping agencies and cycling authorities unless of course these organisations have been somewhat thicker.
Ref comments on bullying...What do you call it when someone is said to have created a culture where you either join the doping program or you leave see below
From the report
The evidence is overwhelming that Lance Armstrong did not just use performance
enhancing drugs, he supplied them to his teammates. He did not merely go alone to Dr. Michele
Ferrari for doping advice, he expected that others would follow. It was not enough that his
teammates give maximum effort on the bike, he also required that they adhere to the doping
program outlined for them or be replaced.
thats bullying and manipulation that is. Who did he do it to? His teammates (crumbs I used the reports words).
Ref is there a possibility that he could have manipulated 26 people. Of course there's a possibility. I find it surprising. he must have assembled 26 very weak characters and to have kept manipulating them for the period he is alleged to have is truly remarkable. I am sceptical that anyone could have done so for that length of time. I do not and never have denied the possibility that he might have though i find it hard to believe. My point about the group of people who all managed to produce depositions which agreed with each other if they weren't true is simply this - that it is perfectly possible for 26 people to produce essentially similar stories having got their stories straight over a period of time.
I would point out also that I have not said that these people have lied. I am sceptical about the characters concerned. It doesn't mean that they're wrong but just because various people say stuff doesn't mean that its right or true either. I am sitting on the fence and simply because a weighty document has been produced doesn't mean that all is hunky dory or correct.
ref Hincapie et al. My point is that they have now said they were part of a doping culture. They have been happy to reap the rewards of it over the years. Now they can no longer be that badly hurt by being found out they're happy to start pointing fingers. That in my view suggests that their characters are not all that they could be. Do I believe stuff spouted by people of dubious character - well mebbe and mebbe not.
ref Peer reviews and suchlike. A US Judge (Sparks) made some pretty damning comments in relation to USADA so clearly the law has issues with USADA's conduct in this whole affair. Whilst he chucked out LA's request to quash the investigation (good). It doesn't say much for their conduct in this affair - does it? If a federal case against LA is not possible then the civil cases will do but justice should be served.
I have never called the people who serve in the doping agencies hypocrites whilst suggesting LA is not. If LA is a drug taker and distributor and has been covering up then clearly he is no more or less a hypocrite than anyone else who does such things and pretends that they do otherwise. For USADA to get information from from poisonous people like Tyler Hamilton, Floyd Landis Et al. and make allegations against people whilst refusing to acknowledge that they have perhaps not behaved as they should (Sparks) have suggests a degree of hypocrisy somewhere. Like I said I have no idea whether LA has doped or not. I am still reading the report. Nothing I've read so far impresses me that much but then I probably haven't got to the juicy bits.
Anyway hang em high Slovak guy enjoy the sight of someone being publicly flogged. You appear to get off on the sight of it. Personally I find the whole thing tragic. Its tragic for cycling. Its tragic for justice. Its tragic for LA (if he is guilty of the things he's being accused of I wonder at what state of his life he went off the rails thinking wise/If he isn't guilty then its a travesty of justice). Its tragic for everyone involved and its tragic for the fans. Its put me right off watching the sport anymore especially whilst known dopers are going to carry on competing at the highest levels.
Lastly - I don't know if LA is guilty or not. The report doesn't appear to be talking about soft and fluffy stuff. It may be correct in the picture it paints. My problem with the whole thing is that I'm not sure that we will ever actually know for sure 100%. That would require LA to tell the truth 100%. If he is guilty then he has no incentive to as he removes the final vestiges of doubt and clearly if he is guilty then he is an individual of somewhat dubious morality and if he isn't guilty then he wont be believed.
The reality therefore is that USADA has won and LA is guilty. I hope to god that he really did it because if he didn't then they've hung the wrong man!
So Trek and Anheuser-Busch have dropped Armstrong too.
I'm surprised that any corporate sponsor would choose to remain with Armstrong given the weight of evidence about his cheating and doping.
Bad enough that he cheated - the fact that he denied and denied that he cheated is coming home to roost now.
I think Armstrong's troubles are only starting.
There is talk that several libel cases taken by Armstrong could now be appealed.
The Sunday Times newspaper for one is giving serious consideration to appealing their case on foot of the USADA disclosures.
I wouldn't be surprised if SCA take legal action against Armstrong too.
The USADA disclosures provide ample evidence of what is sporting fraud.
Armstrong only has himself to blame.
I'm surprised that any corporate sponsor would choose to remain with Armstrong given the weight of evidence about his cheating and doping.
Bad enough that he cheated - the fact that he denied and denied that he cheated is coming home to roost now.
I think Armstrong's troubles are only starting.
There is talk that several libel cases taken by Armstrong could now be appealed.
The Sunday Times newspaper for one is giving serious consideration to appealing their case on foot of the USADA disclosures.
I wouldn't be surprised if SCA take legal action against Armstrong too.
The USADA disclosures provide ample evidence of what is sporting fraud.
Armstrong only has himself to blame.
It's not a tragedy for justice.
It's not tragic for cycling.
Exposing cheating is a good thing.
Folks should support cheating being exposed instead of wondering whether a cheater cheated.
No you misunderstood what I was saying. The whole doping thing coupled with the whole way in which the investigation has been conducted and counter behaviour by the LA camp and the ongoing approach of Bruyneel and Vebruggen and others is a tragedy. The whole thing is an ungodly mess.
Exposing cheating is of course good. Exposing crimes is good. I support cheating being exposed. I question whether this report does that (not as far as I've got in the document so far IMHO). I've seen a lot of he said she said type stuff but not a lot else thus far. Perhaps I'll see it later on in the doc or in the appendices. If the document does not provide hard evidence then it proves nothing and that will be a tragedy for justice and for cycling.
Exposing cheating is of course good. Exposing crimes is good. I support cheating being exposed. I question whether this report does that (not as far as I've got in the document so far IMHO). I've seen a lot of he said she said type stuff but not a lot else thus far. Perhaps I'll see it later on in the doc or in the appendices. If the document does not provide hard evidence then it proves nothing and that will be a tragedy for justice and for cycling.
The evidence has been assembled.
His own team mates confirmed the evidence.
The verdict's been delivered.
The onus is now on the guilty party, Armstrong, to prove that he didn't dope.
Very concise, Limerickman. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Unfortunately, you can't reason with unreasonable people.
I know in a court of law, the testimony of one witness should have no more weight than the testimony of another. But this is the real world.
When it was just Tyler and Floyd, I totally didn't believe it. Those two dudes both have...issues.
But by all accounts, nobody in cycling was held in higher regard in the peloton than Big George. Yes, he doped, but has anyone ever heard anything else bad about him? I sure haven't.
If George says you doped, that's a completely different ball of wax. If George came out and said Alienator doped, it would not surprise me if Cycling Forums banned him. That testimony, more than the biological passport findings, which I still think are being overstated, is to me the smoking gun.
George had absolutely nothing to gain. It likely killed him to give that testimony. And you notice that Lance never came out and attacked him like he has done everyone else who violated omerta; even Lance has limits. I strongly suspect that the knowledge that George would be across the bench from him was the single biggest reason he chose not to fight the charges, even though I have nothing to back that up.
While I do agree with you that a lot of shady things happened during the investigation, and I'm not convinced it's done a damn thing to make cycling cleaner today or tomorrow, it's hard to argue with the information in the report.
If George does make contact implicating Alienator about doping I'm sure Steve will take the ban hammer to Alienator /img/vbsmilies/smilies/biggrin.gif
(only joking Alienator).
with that i will agree. in the main, though, you seem to whirl about, both seeing the usada point and defending armstrong with only the scantest argument--mostly your gut feeling and an uninformed opinion of what sparks stated in his dismissal of armstrong's case to cast aspersions on usada's motive and investigation. on that point (and given that i've read judge sparks decision), if the usada had not performed as they stated they would do to judge sparks (their commitment to do so elicited judge sparks' admonition that were they to do otherwise, usada would not enjoy seeing him again.), then why has armstrong and his legal team not dragged this affair back into his courtroom? most likely because they would be laughed out of the building.
and a cycling news report indicates that your continued hopes that the relationship with ferrari was just innocent saddle adjustment advice and what sort of liniment to apply to tired aching muscles have to founder on the rocks. please understand i bear you no personal animosity. i really don't mind what beliefs you hold in this case. i will not stand for you to make absurd claims unchallenged, though.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/gazzetta-reveals-scale-of-doping-and-money-laundering-under-dr-ferrari
this report is quite frightening given the teams alleged to be involved. it is readily obvious that the riders and directors have little fear of the uci or punishments if they still kept up their relationships with the ferraris ten years on from his ban.
Thanks Slovak.
That CN report is dynamite http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/gazzetta-reveals-scale-of-doping-and-money-laundering-under-dr-ferrari
It will be interesting to see if the Italian legal system moves in this case. I have a bad feeling about cycling and the volume of money involved if this report is factual.
God rest him but Marco Pantani was alleged to have literally millions of Euro in his bank accounts when he died. Far in excess of his career earnings and winnings.
I wonder how that money was accounted for?
That CN report is dynamite http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/gazzetta-reveals-scale-of-doping-and-money-laundering-under-dr-ferrari
It will be interesting to see if the Italian legal system moves in this case. I have a bad feeling about cycling and the volume of money involved if this report is factual.
God rest him but Marco Pantani was alleged to have literally millions of Euro in his bank accounts when he died. Far in excess of his career earnings and winnings.
I wonder how that money was accounted for?
forgot to address this earlier.
i care to see no one flogged literally or figuratively. if armstrong is getting a slagging, one would be not very from the mark in suggesting that he's earned it. during his career he stepped over the line several times, even for an egocentric individual. during this whole affair, armstrong has been less than a paragon of quiet forbearance. one need only do a quick search for his whiny behaviour at being kept out of bicycling events or triathlons only to thumb his nose at authorities while attending those events. you are welcome to pity and cry for the man. i, however, will not waste my sympathy on a man who has shown so little of it on a regular basis. and please don't remind me of his cancer awareness activities as some sort of rebuttal.
Heh!limerickman said:If George does make contact implicating Alienator about doping I'm sure Steve will take the ban hammer to AlienatorÂ(only joking Alienator).
Hello all,
Long time since my last post here.
Here is my opinion on LA doping charges. I think he has not other way now than to confess and it would not surprise me if he does in the next couple of days. If he waits for UCI until after Oct. 31, then he will find himself in even a worst situation. LA is probably preparing a "good apology speech" now. However for most people is not about admiting he doped (most of the people already know he doped). If he does not apologize to not only fans but to all the people he has attacked (the lemonds, andreu, teamates, etc) and above all helps clean the sport by speaking about the corruct UCI and other issues, then he will lose the little credibility he may still have. I think they could very well make a deal with him, like: speak out and say everything you know, the whole truth, and then maybe you will avoid going to jail.
Coming back in 2009 was LA biggest mistake. Had he stayed retired and kept a low profile most likely all this would have never surfaced. His ego and ambition made him come back for yet more TdF victories and that was his doom.
Greg Lemond must feel vindicated now and I am happy for him. He was a super great champion who really loved the sport.
Long time since my last post here.
Here is my opinion on LA doping charges. I think he has not other way now than to confess and it would not surprise me if he does in the next couple of days. If he waits for UCI until after Oct. 31, then he will find himself in even a worst situation. LA is probably preparing a "good apology speech" now. However for most people is not about admiting he doped (most of the people already know he doped). If he does not apologize to not only fans but to all the people he has attacked (the lemonds, andreu, teamates, etc) and above all helps clean the sport by speaking about the corruct UCI and other issues, then he will lose the little credibility he may still have. I think they could very well make a deal with him, like: speak out and say everything you know, the whole truth, and then maybe you will avoid going to jail.
Coming back in 2009 was LA biggest mistake. Had he stayed retired and kept a low profile most likely all this would have never surfaced. His ego and ambition made him come back for yet more TdF victories and that was his doom.
Greg Lemond must feel vindicated now and I am happy for him. He was a super great champion who really loved the sport.
OK...so we got sopas in the confession pool for...the 19th thru the 21st.
Any other speculators?
Hmmm? A confession and reunion tour of the...what are we up to now? about 30 to 40 admitted or shunned doperz?...next season for all the 6-months rescinded bans riders and coaches. So far we've got Yohan managing, some coaches from down under, director of sports galore, riders retired and current, a mechanic, a motoman, a few docs and all we need are a few hot leg rubbing lassies for the team muzak video. Oh. and someone to run shuttle to the fridge/thermos/panniers.
I hear orange & blue are open for team colors next year.
Any other speculators?
Hmmm? A confession and reunion tour of the...what are we up to now? about 30 to 40 admitted or shunned doperz?...next season for all the 6-months rescinded bans riders and coaches. So far we've got Yohan managing, some coaches from down under, director of sports galore, riders retired and current, a mechanic, a motoman, a few docs and all we need are a few hot leg rubbing lassies for the team muzak video. Oh. and someone to run shuttle to the fridge/thermos/panniers.
I hear orange & blue are open for team colors next year.
Similar threads
