|
Armstrong stops fighting doping charges - USADA wants him banned and stripped for titles
|
| felix_29 |
Posted on 24-08-2012 17:45
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3054
Joined: 08-08-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Aquarius wrote:
CLURPR wrote:
Says on the BBC website that he actually been stripped of his titles now though?
I very much doubt so. It seems unavoidable now, but there's paperwork to do, and UCI have already issued a statement saying they're waiting for informations from USADA before they do anything. Then, knowing how reluctant they must be to do anything against anyone (and Lance Armstrong in particular), I think this should take a few days at best, and that a few months are likely.
Cyclingnews also reports that the "USADA bans Armstrong for life, disqualifies all results since 1998"
|
| |
|
|
| Movistar |
Posted on 24-08-2012 17:49
|
Domestique
Posts: 424
Joined: 05-06-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
As an American who thinks Lance doped along with every other top rider of the era. This whole sham by the USADA was still a witch hunt. Giving deals to any already proven doper who would finger Lance and leaking unproven facts and innuendo into the media. |
| |
|
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 24-08-2012 17:51
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7681
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Movistar wrote:
As an American who thinks Lance doped along with every other top rider of the era. This whole sham by the USADA was still a witch hunt. Giving deals to any already proven doper who would finger Lance and leaking unproven facts and innuendo into the media.
It is a witch hunt. But Lance is a witch. |
| |
|
|
| jokovic |
Posted on 24-08-2012 17:54
|
Stagiare
Posts: 150
Joined: 08-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
i hope they have fun chosing the new winner almost everyone in that era has tested positive or rumours about doping. |
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 24-08-2012 18:03
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Movistar wrote:
As an American who thinks Lance doped along with every other top rider of the era. This whole sham by the USADA was still a witch hunt. Giving deals to any already proven doper who would finger Lance and leaking unproven facts and innuendo into the media. It was only up to Lance Armstrong to appeal their decision, get a trial, where all evidences would be made public.
As he said, there's only accusations, not evidences, so probably he didn't want to embarrass USADA and chose to give up his TDF instead ?  |
| |
|
|
| dienblad |
Posted on 24-08-2012 18:11
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3772
Joined: 10-09-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
dienblad wrote:
Don't know if it is said before, but can USADA take away the Tour-wins, or is only the UCI or ASo allowed to do so?
Aquarius wrote: Only UCI, actually. No idea what ASO can do there.
Would be fun if UCI decides NOT to take the TdF-wins away from him. Then we'll have a new trial between UCI and USADA 
Edited by dienblad on 24-08-2012 18:12
|
| |
|
|
| ricotero_uy |
Posted on 24-08-2012 18:26
|
Domestique
Posts: 610
Joined: 21-03-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
That he was doped, I'm pretty sure.
That the substance that he used was prohibited, or even known... I don't think so.
It happened that a substance was prohibited by the IOC but at the same time the same substance was not prohibited by the UCI, ie. |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 25-11-2024 15:20
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| felix_29 |
Posted on 24-08-2012 18:29
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3054
Joined: 08-08-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
ricotero_uy wrote:
That he was doped, I'm pretty sure.
That the substance that he used was prohibited, or even known... I don't think so.
It happened that a substance was prohibited by the IOC but at the same time the same substance was not prohibited by the UCI, ie.
Ever heard of EPO?
|
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 24-08-2012 18:31
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
ricotero_uy wrote:
That he was doped, I'm pretty sure.
That the substance that he used was prohibited, or even known... I don't think so.
It happened that a substance was prohibited by the IOC but at the same time the same substance was not prohibited by the UCI, ie.
The last one applies to Delgado.
He was using EPO like most of his opponents, in 1999 (as proven by 2005 tests), it was already forbidden but there were no tests for it until August or September 2000.
Then he's said to have also used cortisone (1999), steroids (his house keeper in Girona), blood transfusions and testosterone (former teammates testifying).
Nothing that hasn't been around for a decade or two. |
| |
|
|
| Movistar |
Posted on 24-08-2012 18:32
|
Domestique
Posts: 424
Joined: 05-06-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Aquarius wrote:
Movistar wrote:
As an American who thinks Lance doped along with every other top rider of the era. This whole sham by the USADA was still a witch hunt. Giving deals to any already proven doper who would finger Lance and leaking unproven facts and innuendo into the media. It was only up to Lance Armstrong to appeal their decision, get a trial, where all evidences would be made public.
As he said, there's only accusations, not evidences, so probably he didn't want to embarrass USADA and chose to give up his TDF instead ?
just like the actual court case that was to go against Lance but didnt because they found they did not have sufficient evidence. |
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 24-08-2012 18:37
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Nope. That case wasn't about doping. That case about using taxpayers money for buying and conducting illegal substances traffic. They couldn't prove he used that money for that purpose, so the case was dropped.
|
| |
|
|
| BenBarnes |
Posted on 24-08-2012 18:45
|
Neo-Pro
Posts: 277
Joined: 28-04-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
It's weird.
I've known he's doped for some time.
I've known he's a terrible person for some time.
And yet...a part of me is sad today. Probably because it means the death of a childhood hero, even if he hasn't been a hero for some time. Weirdest feeling ever, can't really explain it. |
| |
|
|
| Movistar |
Posted on 24-08-2012 18:51
|
Domestique
Posts: 424
Joined: 05-06-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Aquarius wrote:
Nope. That case wasn't about doping. That case about using taxpayers money for buying and conducting illegal substances traffic. They couldn't prove he used that money for that purpose, so the case was dropped.
The couldnt prove his government sponsored team bought and used illegal substances.
And so the USADA is just going to run up convicted dopers who have been given lighter sentences or immunity because the USADA doesnt give a shit about them, they just want to look important by getting Lance. It shows a complete lack of integrity and bias by a supposed government agency. |
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 24-08-2012 18:57
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
9 or 10 USP/DSC riders were offered reduced sanctions if they explained the kind of doping going on in that team. One refused, and now takes the maximal punishment. What's wrong with that ?
Remember that though he's the main figure there, it's not a Lance Armstrong trial. The sportive prosecution is still going on with cases against former staff members. |
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 24-08-2012 19:17
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Anyone know of a reason that would prevent USADA releasing the case they've built up against Armstrong?
|
| |
|
|
| RedDisciple |
Posted on 24-08-2012 20:14
|
Stagiare
Posts: 179
Joined: 21-08-2012
PCM$: 300.00
|
I don't know about you guys but I started watching cycling in the 2009 edition of Le Tour de France.Yes, I started because Lance returned.Before this, I considered cycling a boring sport and I never watched it before.All I knew back then was that Lance won Le Tour seven times, and I wanted to watch the "hero" that everybody was talking about.I didn't knew about doping or stuff like this, I just enjoyed watching Lance riding his bike.Of course, after this I started to learn about cycling and about the doping scandal, but I didn't started to hate Lance or something like that.Yes, I think he was doped and I also think he influenced a lot of riders to do the same but I repeat, I don't hate him, and I will never hate him.I can't hate the man that made me watch this beautiful sport.He must pay if he is guilty, but that's not our problem.
|
| |
|
|
| jph27 |
Posted on 24-08-2012 20:18
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7339
Joined: 20-03-2010
PCM$: 900.00
|
I was bored so I looked to see who the first "clean" riders, if there was such a thing, in the 7 tours were. This is what I got:
1999: Daniele Nardello (7th)
2000: Daniele Nardello (10th)
2001: Andrei Kivilev (4th)
2002: Carlos Sastre (10th)
2003: Haimar Zubeldia (5th)
2004: Carlos Sastre (8th)
2005: Cadel Evans (8th)
Some of those may be debatable - I don't know enough to say really - but that's how I have it. |
| |
|
|
| jsh312mufc |
Posted on 24-08-2012 20:19
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 794
Joined: 05-02-2012
PCM$: 300.00
|
the UCI have released a statement saying that the USADA have no right to strip armstrong of his titles and have asked them to show what grounds they have to do so. This ain't over yet. |
| |
|
|
| dienblad |
Posted on 24-08-2012 20:32
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3772
Joined: 10-09-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
jph27 wrote:
I was bored so I looked to see who the first "clean" riders, if there was such a thing, in the 7 tours were. This is what I got:
1999: Daniele Nardello (7th)
2000: Daniele Nardello (10th)
2001: Andrei Kivilev (4th)
2002: Carlos Sastre (10th)
2003: Haimar Zubeldia (5th)
2004: Carlos Sastre (8th)
2005: Cadel Evans (8th)
Some of those may be debatable - I don't know enough to say really - but that's how I have it.
Sastre for 3 Tour-wins!!! And Kivilev? Nah, too much doubt, to my humble opinion....
|
| |
|
|
| Pellizotti2 |
Posted on 24-08-2012 20:34
|
World Champion
Posts: 10121
Joined: 01-05-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
jsh312mufc wrote:
the UCI have released a statement saying that the USADA have no right to strip armstrong of his titles and have asked them to show what grounds they have to do so. This ain't over yet.
No surprise there. They've always protected him.
|
| |
|
