What exactly was said? I'm curious. Now considering what they're saying he said currently, why couldn't he be prosecuted? Seems pretty cut and dry eh?
What exactly was said? I'm curious. Now considering what they're saying he said currently, why couldn't he be prosecuted? Seems pretty cut and dry eh?
Maybe he didn't win 7 tours then. I got that info from the media. I didn't personally attend. Did you?
Well, lets see, we have a book that was written by someone who testified outlining his testimony and there was obviously enough evidence that 1) the USADA leveled sanctions, 2) the UCI leveled sanctions 3) lance lost in his legal attempts to block the USADA and 4) all of his sponsors considered the evidence overwhelming enough to drop him.
I believe the 2000 + pages of documents have been made public, if you'd like to ready them. Otherwise, you'll likely just have to trust published accounts (yes, from the media)
Nice try, but there's an amount of hypocrisy here. First, countless people can visually verify beyond a reasonable doubt that he did in fact win those tours. Many were there, millions watched on TV. So I can verify that pretty easily even though I wasn't there.
Now, to whether he was doping. We have by most accounts evidence from the media or soley relayed through the media. Seems the evidence is pretty damning (if true) and it would be a cut and dry case eh?
Now the funny thing is, if this was the "truth behind 9/11" or something of the like, you and many other would be screaming about how unreliable and bias the media is. However, NOW it seems you believe everything they say. If the feds went after him and found something then I'd be a little bit more willing to accept the full story but as it stands...... not so much.
You might want to read up on the latest.......
The USADA and UCI are now fighting with each other. UCI now calling into question the bias of USADA, specifically the evidence, methods, and validity of statements gathered, in which I think it's obvious they've had a witch hunt type attitude here.
Doesn't mean anything that the sponsor dropped him, they aren't in it for truth. They're just wanting distance themselves to keep an image.
Hmm, i've read most of the articles relating to this issue, so please send me some links as to what you're referring because i would like to read them.
Here is a good article where the UCI affirms the USADA's ban and says "Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling"
Also, if the UCI is doing anything it is trying to deflect blame since it's being accused of giving advanced notice to lance and his teammates about drug testing and accepting donations from lance.
You're the one that used them as an arguing point.
I did, to point out that it wasn't just the USADA that agrees that there was overwhelming evidence of doping. That even the UCI has decided the evidence is too much.
If you want to read exactly what was said under oath then i believe the USADA outlines it here. Again, it wasn't just one person's word against Lance's. It was 26 people, including 11 former teammates.
I'll pass on USADA links, their bias is quite a bit overwhelming to me. Again, I'd like to see what the feds found out, what exactly was said in testimony (not what the media says they said) and why they didn't prosecute.
you shouldn't rush to judgment. check out the appendices and supported documents section. it has all of the affidavits from the teammates who testified.
just because a politically appointed federal prosecutor dropped the case (which came as a surprise to even the lead investigator) doesn't mean lance didn't dope. It could be a simple as there wasn't a criminal act since most of the instances happened abroad or involved blood bag transfusions. THe USAAG and the USADA have different missions.
also, how can you know they are biased if you haven't checked out the evidence they've presented?
Similar threads
