USADA Banned Armstrong new Doping Allegations

Questions about bike hire abroad and everything light bike related. No off-topic chat please

Moderators: robbosmans, Moderator Team

Locked
User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3708
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

Mr.Gib wrote:Huh, where did you hear this? No reasons were given for stopping the investigation.

This quote from various news sources in February:
"U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte Jr. announced in a press release that his office "is closing an investigation into allegations of federal criminal conduct by members and associates of a professional bicycle racing team owned in part by Lance Armstrong." He didn't disclose the reason for the decision, though Birotte has used discretion in pursing high-profile criminal cases before. "

Could have been anything from politics, financial efficacy, uncertainty of conviction, etc. But "no case", not so.


No case as in no case worth bringing charges against or bringing to trial. For whatever reason. I doubt political pressure would matter in a case like this as Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens were also athletes and were brought to trial. D.C. doesn't care about athletes. Financial efficacy? LOL Have you seen the federal budget? lol Uncertainty of conviction is the most likely as they had a weak case with weak evidence that was mostly circumstantial. No case.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

Hendley
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:52 pm

by Hendley

bikewithnoname wrote:My view, Lance didn’t fail any test as such he is not a “cheat”. I do however believe he was doping, but at levels that kept him under the thresholds put in place by UCI etc, but that does not make him a “cheat”.


So you believe a cyclist doped, but because he wasn't caught, he didn't break the rules ("cheat").

...Really?

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3708
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

Hendley wrote:
bikewithnoname wrote:My view, Lance didn’t fail any test as such he is not a “cheat”. I do however believe he was doping, but at levels that kept him under the thresholds put in place by UCI etc, but that does not make him a “cheat”.


So you believe a cyclist doped, but because he wasn't caught, he didn't break the rules ("cheat").

...Really?



Yup. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

User avatar
HammerTime2
Posts: 5813
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:43 pm
Location: Wherever there's a mountain beckoning to be climbed

by HammerTime2

motorthings wrote:the highlight of all of this news is that I learned a new slang term for EPO: Edgar Allen Poe
now I will have an easier time buying it on the street (at least near the liberal arts colleges)!
Regarding hematocrit levels over 50%, Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

Or put another way
Regarding hematocrit levels over 50%, the raven wrote:Nevermore

User avatar
Mr.Gib
Posts: 5548
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: eh?

by Mr.Gib

mdeth1313 wrote:Unless this causes sudden weight loss for someone's bike, please lock the stupid thread.


Are you on Lance's payroll? This smells of cover-up to me. Leave the thread alone.
wheelsONfire wrote: When we ride disc brakes the whole deal of braking is just like a leaving a fart. It happens and then it's over. Nothing planned and nothing to get nervous for.

User avatar
Mr.Gib
Posts: 5548
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: eh?

by Mr.Gib

53x12 wrote:
Mr.Gib wrote:Huh, where did you hear this? No reasons were given for stopping the investigation.

This quote from various news sources in February:
"U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte Jr. announced in a press release that his office "is closing an investigation into allegations of federal criminal conduct by members and associates of a professional bicycle racing team owned in part by Lance Armstrong." He didn't disclose the reason for the decision, though Birotte has used discretion in pursing high-profile criminal cases before. "

Could have been anything from politics, financial efficacy, uncertainty of conviction, etc. But "no case", not so.


No case as in no case worth bringing charges against or bringing to trial. For whatever reason. I doubt political pressure would matter in a case like this as Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens were also athletes and were brought to trial. D.C. doesn't care about athletes. Financial efficacy? LOL Have you seen the federal budget?


FYI financial efficacy is more of a return on investment type concept. Not whether something is affordable.
wheelsONfire wrote: When we ride disc brakes the whole deal of braking is just like a leaving a fart. It happens and then it's over. Nothing planned and nothing to get nervous for.

artray
Posts: 1347
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:08 pm

by artray

The trouble I have with this is the fact that all his main contenders have been caught cheating. If you take away his 7 tour victorys who will be named as the winners ? will Chippo now get to be a tour winner :lol:
If you remember early in the year George Hincapie was very tactful in his answers to the powers that be. I think Lance could be in a bit of bother this time as there will be a lot of mounting evidence and that could lead to a guilty verdict. In my mind he was a worthy tour winner because he never done anything that the other contenders were doing , It's not right but that was the way it was . This could really be a big hurt for cycling. If Lance is found guilty I can see sponsors pulling out left right and centre.

Hendley
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:52 pm

by Hendley

53x12 wrote:
Hendley wrote:
bikewithnoname wrote:My view, Lance didn’t fail any test as such he is not a “cheat”. I do however believe he was doping, but at levels that kept him under the thresholds put in place by UCI etc, but that does not make him a “cheat”.


So you believe a cyclist doped, but because he wasn't caught, he didn't break the rules ("cheat").

...Really?



Yup. Seems pretty straight forward to me.


Yes indeed. I don't understand the argument at all. I think bikewithnoname is misunderstanding the purpose and role of testing protocols.

heathhandsome
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:11 pm

by heathhandsome

I think there are 2 important victories to be had with Lance being finally "caught".

1. Perhaps by far the biggest and most important piece of this whole saga - that Lance somehow got the UCI or a lab to cover up positive results. If this proves true this would ultimately be the single most devastating indictment of the governing of cycling, the ultimate proof of its corruption. And it would show that Lance cheated in a way above and beyond his competitors. They all doped and getting caught was a constant risk, but if that risk did not exist for Lance then...

and 2. just the damn fact that he's the last champion of that generation to refuse to admit to doping. Virtually everyone at this point has come forward and admitted. Most have swallowed it and taken a suspension. It's almost such a routine part of a top rider's career. You get caught, serve your time, come back and apologize (or at least say something... at least make up some awesome excuse). But Lance is so 'effing stubborn. It's not like it was even just rider by rider case, it was totally normal, and I think you have to assume, that doping was systemic from team to team. Top down, organized and regimented. Controlled by doctors, managers, other staff...

If he would just stop making a joke of himself and come clean - its the only possible way for him to regain any credibility. Almost every single person around him came down in some way... holy hell just end it.

I don't even think any changes should be made to the results of the era, i still think that for the most part if you took away the drugs it would be mostly the same.

dynaserve
Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:25 pm
Location: UK

by dynaserve

^^Agree it will hurt cycling lots and that’s the real shame here.

What converted me a few years ago is that Armstrong’s main defense is that he never failed a test - I guess <1% of tests at the time returned a positive, so as we know this is not really indicative of the wider peloton.

I think the hate towards Armstrong is driven by the fact that most cyclists & journalists that have followed the story from day one think/know he cheated, but the Armstrong machine is relentless and will stop at absolutely nothing to defend his name. So the absolute denial, dragging innocents through the mud (yes as well as cheats) and the fact this should have been put to bed years ago winding us all up.
The focus should now be on Cadel, Wiggins, etc, but the fact main media is reporting this story is very upsetting to real cyclists.

User avatar
btompkins0112
Posts: 2635
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:04 am
Location: Mississippi

by btompkins0112

heathhandsome wrote:I

I don't even think any changes should be made to the results of the era, i still think that for the most part if you took away the drugs it would be mostly the same.


Key point.

heathhandsome
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:11 pm

by heathhandsome

a much better writer elaborates on part of what i said in my point #2 above...
http://inrng.com/2012/06/usada-charges-armstrong/#more-9189

this goes above and beyond lance. this is a chance to take down the system cycling had become. the uci is so effed its hard to know where to start, and im not going to try. but this has a chance to really put a crack in it.

years ago i recall the UCI putting in place some rules about soigneurs, in some colossally tame effort to change the mechanized doping factories that the teams had become. they also said "no infusions" recently to demonstrate signs of testicular descension. this is a chance to go in and put perhaps a slightly larger dent in team operation as well.
Last edited by heathhandsome on Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

KWalker
Posts: 5722
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:30 pm
Location: Bay Area

by KWalker

53x12 wrote:
Hendley wrote:
bikewithnoname wrote:My view, Lance didn’t fail any test as such he is not a “cheat”. I do however believe he was doping, but at levels that kept him under the thresholds put in place by UCI etc, but that does not make him a “cheat”.


So you believe a cyclist doped, but because he wasn't caught, he didn't break the rules ("cheat").

...Really?



Yup. Seems pretty straight forward to me.


So do you think OJ Simpson was innocent?
Don't take me too seriously. The only person that doesn't hate Froome.
Gramz
Failed Custom Bike

User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3708
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

mdeth1313 wrote:Unless this causes sudden weight loss for someone's bike, please lock the stupid thread.


If you don't want to participate in the thread then don't open it. Every thread does NOT have to meet mdeth1313's criteria for being an acceptable thread.


KWalker wrote:So do you think OJ Simpson was innocent?


Doesn't matter. He was found not-guilty. The burden is on the court to prove someone committed a crime. You know the whole, innocent until proven guilty right? Or did you just throw that out.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



KWalker
Posts: 5722
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:30 pm
Location: Bay Area

by KWalker

Actually it does matter. He admitted to the crime in civil court and was convicted of the murder and thus had to pay damages. He later wrote a book extensively detailing how he would have done it and there was no question that the evidence pointed to him. His high dollar defense team turned the case from all the evidence, to the character of the police detectives just like Lance's team is doing now trying to portray everyone as out to get Lance in a huge conspiracy.

I understand the principle, but the thousands of misstrials in the US court system suggest that there are often many mistakes made that result in false sentences and acquittals. In this case I just want to see what is put out there and then after that a verdict can finally be issued with whatever evidence there is and it can be put to rest, however, its never truly been resolved. I don't count the Justice Department verdict as resolution especially since almost everyone involved except for Birotte agreed that the probe should not have ended and that the evidence was damning. One person (Birotte) made the decision under sketchy circumstances. I do not consider that closure. Again, that trial was about criminal charges such as money laundering and conspiracy whereas this case is all about the doping itself- two VERY different things. I think, therefore, that it fully deserves to be open and wasn't closed again in a similar manner to the OJ case.
Don't take me too seriously. The only person that doesn't hate Froome.
Gramz
Failed Custom Bike

Locked