Lance Armstrong gave up.

[_CY_]

USADA finally released their document on Lance. have not had a chance to read in detail. but here's the heart of the matter. from page 15 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/460432-10lede-usada-armstrong.html

in other words ... NO hard evidence is needed to convict. sorry but testimony from proven liars and tainted witnesses don't count.

think of the incredible pressure brought to bear on Lance's former teammates. most were given very favorable terms to allow them to retire. if there were any sanctions I've not seen any on current riders.

unlike Lance, most riders don't have the financial means to defend themselves against someone with unlimited resources. Win or lose, threat of getting same treatment as Lance from USADA or District Attorney would automatically destroy their careers and/or end of careers.

ANY testimony resulting from such threats are tainted!!!
----------------

IV.
DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING USADA’S CHARGES
A.
Introduction
1. Standard of Proof
Article 3.1 of the Code provides that: ““[t]he standard of proof shall be whether the Anti-
Doping Organization has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction
of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made.”” As noted
in the comment to Article 3.1, this standard of proof is comparable to the standard which is
applied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct. Thus, for example, in
proceedings in the United States to take away the license to practice of a doctor or lawyer, the
applicable standard of proof is typically ““clear and convincing evidence.”” In this case, the
evidence against Mr. Armstrong is overwhelming. In USADA’’s view, it establishes his doping
beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Means of Proof: Non-Analytical Evidence and Laboratory Evidence
The World Anti-Doping Code specifies that doping can be proved by ““any reliable
means.””28 This case was initiated by USADA based on evidence other than a positive drug test.
It is not necessary for there to have been a positive drug test in order for a rule violation to have

28 Code, Art. 3.2.


Page | 16

been established and many cases reflect this principle.29 It could not be otherwise because at any
given time there are many drugs and methods of doping on the prohibited list that are not
detectable through laboratory testing.

 

[donner]

Go grab a copy of Tyler Hamilton's book. It's a quick read and very interesting. One of the interesting things is how most riders didn't think they were cheating since every rider who was actually in competition to win was doing it, to some degree or another. It also outlines the loopholes that existed for years thanks to the UCI's desire to make money. The parts on blood bag transfusions using a rider's own blood is also very interesting since it's almost impossible to prove.

The fact that George Hincapie admitted to it is impressive to me. He is retiring and sanctions don't have much old over him anymore.

I also find it hard to believe that every other rider, for what four tours (?), have been caught doping. Given some of lance's impressive performances i find it tough to believe that he was able to dominate so totally while surrounded by a bunch of dopers if he wasn't doping himself.

Either way, i'm not very concerned about all this at this point.

 

[MaddSkillz]

USADA finally released their document on Lance. have not had a chance to read in detail. but here's the heart of the matter. from page 15 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/460432-10lede-usada-armstrong.html

in other words ... NO hard evidence is needed to convict. sorry but testimony from proven liars and tainted witnesses don't count.

think of the incredible pressure brought to bear on Lance's former teammates. most were given very favorable terms to allow them to retire. if there were any sanctions I've not seen any on current riders.

unlike Lance, most riders don't have the financial means to defend themselves against someone with unlimited resources. Win or lose, threat of getting same treatment as Lance from USADA or District Attorney would automatically destroy their careers and/or end of careers.

ANY testimony resulting from such threats are tainted!!!
.

There existed no test for EPO usage for most of Lance Armstrong's career. Thus there is no way he could have "tested positive."

There were 6 samples from 1999 that were retested that belonged to Armstrong after the test was developed in 2005 that turned up positive for EPO.

Lance's hematocrit levels from his recent return to the TdF are indicative of blood doping. There exists no test to prove a person injected their own blood... Only indicators of it. Lance's number are very suspicious and the lab geeks who know more about this stuff than you or I believe he blood doped during his recent comeback.

Individually, you may be able to explain each instance away but together they paint a picture of cheating.

And if you believe people want to risk everything they have by falsely testifying before a grand jury and risking perjury because they have something against Armstrong, I'm sorry, but I think that's a huge cop-out. Do you know the penalty for perjury? It can be prison time... These racers have families and children. You think they'd really have interest in colluding and making all this up with such a great risk because they simply don't like the guy? Sorry, I don't buy that.

 

[HMFIC]

I don't claim to know anything about this subject at all, but for me I wonder what on earth the motivation would be behind all of the sanctioning bodies, individual riders, team members, NIKE, etc... to all get together, conspire and lie about one single person?

For those that are defending Armstrong, is there a reason why all of these people are actively testifying and taking a stance against Armstrong that makes sense? Don't bring jealousy or any nonsense reasons like that to the table... there has to be a motivation for them to actively want to go back in time and deal with an issue behind them concerning a man who was effectively no longer a contender.

 

[MLRyan]

What? Someone that battled cancer had to use steroids(like EVERY OTHER CANCER PATIENT EVER) and he had to have blood transfusions(like EVERY OTHER CANCER PATIENT EVER). Fry him!

 

[JD8]

And if you believe people want to risk everything they have by falsely testifying before a grand jury and risking perjury because they have something against Armstrong, I'm sorry, but I think that's a huge cop-out. Do you know the penalty for perjury? It can be prison time... These racers have families and children. You think they'd really have interest in colluding and making all this up with such a great risk because they simply don't like the guy? Sorry, I don't buy that.

Perjury from whom? Lance wasn't tried in a court of law, which is the problem. Seems the USADA is judge, jury and executioner.

 

[Vamoose]

I guess it was a nice fantasy. It's going to cost the guy a lot of money.

 

[MaddSkillz]

Perjury from whom? Lance wasn't tried in a court of law, which is the problem. Seems the USADA is judge, jury and executioner.

They testified before a federal grand jury.

Lance wasn't tried in a court of law because he refused to fight it. Some think he would have been crucified and the effects of that would be far worse (debatable) than the document released by the USADA.

Regarding the USADA, the UCI and WADA both could have dissented and not agreed to USADA's findings. But they didn't. Actually, the UCI tried to block USADA but that stopped after they saw the report.

 

[donner]

What? Someone that battled cancer had to use steroids(like EVERY OTHER CANCER PATIENT EVER) and he had to have blood transfusions(like EVERY OTHER CANCER PATIENT EVER). Fry him!

Perhaps that was true while he was fighting cancer, but it wasn't the case near the end of his career nor are we talking about 'treatments'. Taking a transfusion of your own blood at the time in a race where it will give you the most benefit wasn't to treat his cancer.

Doping in cycling wasn't meant to make you bigger or even faster. The biggest benefit were to riders in the long stage races. Reintroducing blood back into a rider's system at the end of a stage race, say around the start of the third week, was designed to make them able to push harder and recover quicker. The transfusion wouldn't do anyone good at the end of the race or between races. They needed the benefit during the tours, which is why lots of the evidence talks about secret hotel rooms on off days and why some riders have died from mishandled blood bags.

 

[JB Books]

I don't claim to know anything about this subject at all, but for me I wonder what on earth the motivation would be behind all of the sanctioning bodies, individual riders, team members, NIKE, etc... to all get together, conspire and lie about one single person?

For those that are defending Armstrong, is there a reason why all of these people are actively testifying and taking a stance against Armstrong that makes sense? Don't bring jealousy or any nonsense reasons like that to the table... there has to be a motivation for them to actively want to go back in time and deal with an issue behind them concerning a man who was effectively no longer a contender.

Professional jealousy is a a tremendous motivator. I once received a bar greivance from another lawyer for a telephone book ad. The guy was a total moron, basically whining about how guys like me get all the business in "the recent future" (whatever the Hell that was). Thankfully, it was dismissed without merit.

You just cannot imagine how people take shots at you when they think you are on top. Their energy would be better spent trying to improve themselves.