Lance Armstrong

Not so sure on this, Winky. No evil, but, Lance has upset more people than Genghis Khan and Attilla the Hun.

Dave

That is a very good point. On reflection, I suppose there is an element of feeling let down by the whole on-going scenario. And yes, his achievement in beating cancer and helping others cope with the illness deserves immense credit.

Strangely, in a way I'd prefer it if he came out and said: "Yes, I did use illicit substances because everyone was doing it." rather than just let it all drop.

But, alternatively, it's his life and I can see the argument that why should he spend his time fighting an allegation that has not been proven.

I think that you have hit the proverbial nail on the head, Jon.

Yes people do have a right to silence - something which Lance seems willing to use selectively.  But in a court of law defendants do not have the luxury of saying I do not want to be part of the process, which is what in my opinion at last Lance Armstrong is trying to do.  

He has intentionally stopped the fight to clear his name, at least through official channels.  Why?  I suggest it is to prevent the USADA from having the platform to prove his guilt.  To keep the evidence in the dark so to speak so that there will always be doubt  

I'm suggesting he has done this in order to disrupt the process that may/will prove whether he is guilty or not.  If my reading of his strategy is correct, and I am certainly not alone in this theory, I would further ask why would he want to disrupt the process that could potentially prove his innocence?

This sentence appears, to me at least, to be a more accurate hit of the nail.

If I belived the organisation that was going to investigate me for an alleged misdeed was untrustworthy/corrupt/biased I would withdraw from the process. I guess Armstrong is doing that. It is up to others to decide if that accusation about USADA is valid.

In the end, views about him are generally entrenched. I'm sure nothing will ever 'prove' anything to the satisfaction of either camp.

Bruce

Well, I might too. But Is their evidence that this is the case? Or is it just that Lance believes it to be so?

I would agree that Lance has upset a lot of people. But why would USADA in particular be upset with him unless they knew he was a drug cheat? Why would they try to harass him, to frame him and to buy  witnesses as has been alleged by Lance and his supporters? Why? Why go to all this trouble unless they knew that he had a case to answer, and that they could prove it in arbitration? If they don't have sufficient evidence, they would simply be shooting themselves in the foot. Even if they are upset, are USADA so blinded by rage they can't think straight?

Or do you think it is a conspiracy by a large number of witnesses who are so bitter that they would lie en-mass to destroy him?

What about the most plausible explanation? He is a drug cheat in denial, and USADA are just doing their jobs.

You make a good point Jon. If he did cheat, maybe he'll come out with a book about it one day and admit to it.

Dave

Conclusion (I think) is we can maybe accept you cheated (in light of the culture of the day) but we hate you lying about it.

Bruce

Why is it the most plausible ? You are just pumping your personal opinion. What if there really IS a conspiracy ?.... etc. etc.

Why is everybody here saying he is a cheat.

PLEASE FOR 'GORDS' SAKE, SHOW ME THE PROOF !!!!!!

And again I say, not proof from 'punished ex- drug-cheats'.

If nobody can, let's leave this as a case 'not proven' - as I believe exists in Scottish law.

I neither accuse or defend Lance here. I just want facts.

Or should I paraphrase "I am not here to praise Lance, nor to bury him"

I think that's about right.

We all make our mistakes. None of us are perfect.

Unfortunately, Lance Armstrong's bowing out of the fight for his name will inevitably leave a taint over his achievements. But then why should he fight? He has a life to live away from courts.

Personally, if he did say he cheated I'd have more respect for the guy.

But, if he didn't why should he have to keep defending himself?

So we'll never know. And I'm tying myself in knots with this argument.

Best get my coat!

Because there is overwhelming evidence that this is the case. Any other explanation or theory requires really stretching the boundaries of credibility.

You wouldn't say Betsy Andreu was an ex drug cheat. She claims to have witnessed Armstrong admitting to the doctor treating him for cancer that he took EPO, growth hormone, cortisone, steroids and testosterone.

Scottish Law is irrelevant in this case. In fact all law is irrelevant. USADA presumably work within a framework of procedures, just like, for example the FA. Every couple of weeks the FA charge a player with some form of misconduct, news of the charge is always followed with the statement, the player has x number of days to contest the charge. If the player doesn't contest the charge he is deemed to have accepted the charge. Similar thing happen in all walks of life.

Consider the John Terry case. A court of law has found him not guilty of an offense, yet the FA have subsequently charged him.

Winky,

Please lead me to where this overwhelming evidence can be seen/read. Have you seen/read this evidence ?

Come on now, let's look at the details here :

"A New York Times article published in 2006 stated Armstrong had testified that Betsy Andreu lied because "she hates me" and that Frankie Andreu had lied because "he’s trying to back up his old lady."

In that same New York Times article, Frankie Andreu admitted to taking EPO in preparation for the 1999 Tour de France. His wife Betsy stated she blamed Armstrong for Frankie taking EPO, saying he "didn’t use EPO for himself, because as a domestique, he was never going to win that race. It was for Lance."

1. '99 Corticosteroids (illegimate backdated prescription & TUE)

http://m.si.com/news/to/to/detail/3775061

2. '99 EPO 6 of 15 Samples (Suppressed by UCI)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2005....tourdefrance1

3. '01 EPO 1-3 Samples (Paid off UCI)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ashe...-investigation

So... 8 to 10 Positives?

So everybody should believe he is guilty then, because he has been found 'guilty' by an authority outside the law ?

If you say yes, then in your eyes Lance is guilty.

To others, who don't give a monkey's what authorities outside the law say, the case is 'not proven'. (the fact that Scottish law is irrelevant here is not the point, I never insinuated it was !!!).

If Lance said she lied, she must have lied.

It's totally implausible that somebody would lie about something that was witnessed by so many people.

A bunch of 'he said', 'she said', 'they allege' comments, especially hilarious when then they mention those fine outstanding citizens Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis !!!!

Add to this some mysterious 5 year late tests done by a scientific lab run by Lances 'great fans' (sic) in Paris. It is hardly overwhelming evidence.

I read nothing in these reports that proves Lance is guilty. Suspicious yes, but proven guilty certainly not.

If she said he doped, Lance obviously doped .

Don't you see the hipocrisy of your comments ?

Understand what I infer - there is clearly an agenda there for dear old Betty to 'potentially' lie. Just as there is for Lance to lie. Case 'not proven'.

In USADA's eyes he has admitted guilt by not contesting the charges, they have no other option but to find him guilty. He hasn't gone through a trial process. It is what it is.

Of course you are free to interpret Lances decision not to contest as you wish.

Yes, case not proven. Of coarse Lance could have proved she lied by taking her to court. I wonder why that didn't happen.

The only person who can prove he cheated, is Lance.

Pigs might fly.

The rest of us are weighing the arguments. However if we only accept testimony from those who have never been themselves shown to be cheats then we are rather cutting down the options!

My personal feeling is that he was doing it, on weight of hearsay and the simple conclusion that I don't think he could have competed at that level without doing so. More than that though I've found his agressive, combative and bullying persona pretty unpleasant, and his withdrawal from the process now just seems more of the same. I don't actually know much about the Livestrong campaign, but it has to be respected, and individuals I have cared for have been inspired by him.

I also think at times what he did on a bike was pretty astonishing, and he moved his sport forward, largely competing against teams and individuals who were systematically cheating.

Bruce