USADA to strip Lance Armstrong of 7 Tour titles

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/lance-a...5351--spt.html

Greg Lemond, greatest American cyclist in history.

"The Observer" a écrit profondement:

| http://sports.yahoo.com/news/lance-a...5351--spt.html

About freakin' time too

--
Davey Crockett
Flying the Flag of the English
The Flag of Hengest and Horsa
http://azurservers.com/images/whiteDragon.jpg

On 24/08/2012 06:21, Davey Crockett wrote:
"The Observer" a écrit profondement:

| http://sports.yahoo.com/news/lance-a...5351--spt.html

About freakin' time too


Phatty must be feeling the heat about now, I wonder if the fallout will engulf
him too. Here's hoping.
--

On Aug 23, 10:57*pm, "The Observer" wrote:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/lance-a...decision-16551...

As I said...........

Coz

"The Observer" wrote in message
...

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/lance-a...5351--spt.html

"after he dropped his fight against drug charges"

What does this actually mean ??
Is he actually owning up to doping, or he is going "yeah whatever, yada
yada" just to end
the circus ??

I assume the UCI etc will want to see some serious proof before removing his
TdF
wins from the list.


"He has consistently pointed to the hundreds of drug tests he passed as
proof of his innocence while piling up Tour titles from 1999 to 2005."

Never a really convincing argument.
I suspect Laurent Jalabert had reams more tests over his career (including a
1999-2002 overlap - and of course during the 1999 Giro that caught Pantani)
..

Ho hum.

In article ,
"Hidden Observer" wrote:

"The Observer" wrote in message
...

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/lance-a...5351--spt.html

"after he dropped his fight against drug charges"

What does this actually mean ??
Is he actually owning up to doping, or he is going "yeah whatever, yada
yada" just to end
the circus ??

I assume the UCI etc will want to see some serious proof before removing his
TdF
wins from the list.


"He has consistently pointed to the hundreds of drug tests he passed as
proof of his innocence while piling up Tour titles from 1999 to 2005."

Never a really convincing argument.

It is compelling, convincing, and dispositive.

--
Old Fritz

On 24/08/2012 8:54 PM, Frederick the Great wrote:
In article ,
"Hidden Observer" wrote:

"The Observer" wrote in message
...

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/lance-a...5351--spt.html

"after he dropped his fight against drug charges"

What does this actually mean ??
Is he actually owning up to doping, or he is going "yeah whatever, yada
yada" just to end
the circus ??

I assume the UCI etc will want to see some serious proof before removing his
TdF
wins from the list.


"He has consistently pointed to the hundreds of drug tests he passed as
proof of his innocence while piling up Tour titles from 1999 to 2005."

Never a really convincing argument.

It is compelling, convincing, and dispositive.


I agree. Though the dispositive element (disponere/disposit) is not an
argument or defence it's a legal position, surely?

--
Chris

'Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it
every six months.'

(Oscar Wilde.)

Hidden Observer wrote:
"The Observer" wrote in message
...

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/lance-a...5351--spt.html

"after he dropped his fight against drug charges"

What does this actually mean ??
Is he actually owning up to doping, or he is going "yeah whatever,
yada yada" just to end
the circus ??

The latter.

I assume the UCI etc will want to see some serious proof before
removing his TdF wins from the list.

According to a piece on one of the hundreds of ESPN channels we get, the
UCI is on Lance's side and is going to try to _not_ have him stripped of
his titles.

Further, the piece said that the evidentiary standards at whatever sort
of hearing Lance would have gotten are lower than the criminal "beyond a
reasonable doubt" - basically if the adjudicator think he did it, even
if they do have doubts, they'd still find him guilty.

The whole freakin' thing is such old news it's frankly tough to care.

From:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/fren...se-tour-titles

"It's simply too late", Gilbert Duclos-Lassalle, former pro rider from
1977 to 1995, told Europe 1 radio. "I'm not saying that he doped, or
that he didn't, I'm just pointing out that his relegation comes too
late. These doping affairs take too much time. It's a shame for cycling
and for the Tour de France."

Active bike riders also reacted to the news, such as Samuel Dumoulin
(Cofidis), who tweeted, "Armstrong will lose his seven Tour de France
titles. Does it change anything? It's just damaging cycling, once again.
Our palmarès, nothing: It's too late!"

'zactly. GMAFB - how many ways can one sport's governing bodies find to
shoot themselves in the foot? Apparently, the possibilities are nearly
endless.

-S-

Steve Freides wrote:

Hidden Observer wrote:
"The Observer" wrote in message
...

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/lance-a...5351--spt.html

"after he dropped his fight against drug charges"

What does this actually mean ??
Is he actually owning up to doping, or he is going "yeah whatever,
yada yada" just to end
the circus ??

The latter.

I assume the UCI etc will want to see some serious proof before
removing his TdF wins from the list.

According to a piece on one of the hundreds of ESPN channels we get, the
UCI is on Lance's side and is going to try to _not_ have him stripped of
his titles.

Further, the piece said that the evidentiary standards at whatever sort
of hearing Lance would have gotten are lower than the criminal "beyond a
reasonable doubt" - basically if the adjudicator think he did it, even
if they do have doubts, they'd still find him guilty.


If the UCI refuses to sanction Lance, USADA will file an appeal to CAS and CAS will
undoubtedly side with USADA. The UCI knows this which is why they won't do that...they
know they're in check-mate after their little scam they tried to pull in federal court by
claiming "USADA had no jurisdiction" ....they know they are on thin ice with cycling
getting pulled from the Olympics should they decide to contest this case on fraudulent
grounds (which is what they did in federal court by conspiring with lance's legal team to
get USADA out of the picture). USA Cycling and Steve Johnson were also in on that
conspiracy to save their boy toy.

The UCI doesn't want to compel CAS to repeat what everyone already knows, including Pat
McQuaid — which is that Lance doped for over a decade and the UCI helped cover it up.

Second, the evidentiary standard for EVERY trial is simply: "do you think the guy did
it?" People are simply not intelligent enough to make finer distinctions. Besides,
everyone has a different standard of proof for the same adjectives and adverbs (i.e.
beyond a reasonable doubt and 'clear and convincing' mean completely different things to
different people).

Just look at what 50% of the posters after every online article on Lance....at least half
claim that having 12 guys say they saw Lance take drugs is "hearsay" and "doesn't mean
anything" even though people get sentenced to death in the U.S. every week based on 1
eyewitness and NO forensic evidence. Lance has more evidence against him than 99% of
people on death row, yet look at how all the brainwashed fanboys act....they act like
Travis Tygart is somehow pulling a scam on Lance.

Let me know if you need any more help in figuring these things out.

Magilla