Lance Armstrong Possible PED Confession - (Oprah interview Jan 17)

[PzR Slim]

Big words from the USADA when they have no powers to strip Armstrong of his titles. Only the UCI can do that, so we have to wait and see what they do.

The UCI are a signatory of the WADA code. WADA agree with USADA having jurisdiction over the case. As long as USADA can provide WADA, UCI and Armstrong with a 'reasoned decision' as to why they want to strip him of his titles then the UCI have to abide by that or they will be in breach of the WADA code which could ultimately see cycling kicked out of the olympics. Once they have that reasoned decision they can appeal to CAS. If CAS side with USADA the UCI have to strip him of all his titles. So the USADA very much do have power to strip Armstrong of his titles.

 

[PzR Slim]

With all the reports going around I really don't know what to believe. But this crap has been going on for so long I'm kinda not surprised he just gave up. It seemed like the USADA was going to "find" him guilty from the beginning.

For the time being I still think he's innocent and I feel really bad that his amazing accomplishments are (probably) going to be stripped.

He gave up because he knew the evidence that USADA had against would have seen him found guilty by the arbitration panel. The question you need to ask yourself is why Armstrong didn't want that evidence to be heard in public? That was his decision.

 

[Müle]

So it basically went like this:

>you cheated
>no i didn't
>you cheated
>no i didn't. show proof
>you cheated
>no i didn't, show proof

>13 years later

>you cheated
>no i didn't show proof.
>you cheated
>no i didn't. i'm done with this.
>you cheated. hey guys, this man is a cheater. we have no proof, but we're stripping his titles because he's a cheater.

Pretty sad on the part of the USADA.

 

[F1GTR]

It appears that he has now been stripped of his titles and banned:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19369375

 

[ExigeEvan]

It's 🤬 disgusting, the whole thing. It's archaic.

He gave up because he knew the evidence that USADA had against would have seen him found guilty by the arbitration panel. The question you need to ask yourself is why Armstrong didn't want that evidence to be heard in public? That was his decision.

Armstrong would be going against a massive organisation with deep pockets and a case based on the word of 10 people. Why bankrupt himself against an organisation that you can't beat. Even with pathetic evidence from 10 people that, whether they implicate themselves or not, have been offered favourable terms for doing so.

It's really not difficult. He's never tested positive.

He'd have to be the world's greatest cheat, phlebotomist, chemist and bio-chemist for 13 years to beat the system. How believable is that?

 

[Bram Turismo]

It appears that he has now been stripped of his titles and banned:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19369375

I simply have no words for this. I could write a 500-line rant but I won't. I just have lost all of my faith in this sport except the riders themselves.

 

[boiltheocean]

The UCI are confusing me in this case, usually they jump at the chance to screw up their sport but they actually seem to be doing the right thing for once.

 

[Touring Mars]

He's never tested positive.

That is highly debatable.

In addition to the eyewitness testimony from former team mates and team members who say he was doping, the USADA also have personal testimony from people who claim that Armstrong himself had privately admitted doping to them, as well as the fact that he tested positive in 2001, although this was subsequently covered up and has been vehemently denied ever since.

Greg LeMond, former friend of Armstrong and TdF winner himself, recorded a telephone conversation with a mutual friend of theirs, Stephanie McIlvain, who worked with Armstrong through his Oakley sponsorship. In their conversation, McIlvain appears to contradict her own testimony where she denied any knowledge of Armstrong's supposed admissions to doping. While the recording would not stand in any court, it's pretty damning in and of itself.

Armstrong is a sporting hero and even a legend to so many people, so it's understandable that there is great opposition to the idea that he should even be being pursued. But, frankly, no-one really knows what he's really like unless they've lived and worked with him - precisely the people that the USADA are getting their information from. Granted, hearsay and personal testimony is not enough to declare someone guilty, but on the other hand, refusing to defend oneself against a pretty long list of charges is inexplicable for someone who is supposedly as clean as a whistle.

 

[PzR Slim]

So it basically went like this:

>you cheated
>no i didn't
>you cheated
>no i didn't. show proof
>you cheated
>no i didn't, show proof

>13 years later

>you cheated
>no i didn't show proof.
>you cheated
>no i didn't. i'm done with this.
>you cheated. hey guys, this man is a cheater. we have no proof, but we're stripping his titles because he's a cheater.

Pretty sad on the part of the USADA.

Nope. USADA got involved at the time of the federal investigation. They found enough evidence to bring a case against Armstrong. They charged him and gave him two choices. Accept the charges and their sanctions or go to arbitration where the evidence they had against him would be heard before a three person arbitration panel. One person chosen by USADA, one by Armstrong and one by the other two arbiters. And even if found guilty he would be able to go to CAS to contest the charge. He and he alone chose not to have the evidence against him heard in public.

It's 🤬 disgusting, the whole thing. It's archaic.


Armstrong would be going against a massive organisation with deep pockets and a case based on the word of 10 people. Why bankrupt himself against an organisation that you can't beat. Even with pathetic evidence from 10 people that, whether they implicate themselves or not, have been offered favourable terms for doing so.

It's really not difficult. He's never tested positive.

He'd have to be the world's greatest cheat, phlebotomist, chemist and bio-chemist for 13 years to beat the system. How believable is that?

Can you point out where David Millar tested positive, or Voughters? And if the evidence was that pathetic why not let it be publicly heard. If it was pathetic the arbitration panel would have no choice but to rule against the USADA.

I simply have no words for this. I could write a 500-line rant but I won't. I just have lost all of my faith in this sport except the riders themselves.

Yep all those riders who have tested positive, or admitted to doping or been convicted of doping. Yep they are the ones to put faith in alright. Nobody in cycling at that time deserves any faith. They were all at it, the riders, the UCI, the sponsors, the journalists, they are all complicit and responsibly for the mess cycling became.

 

[ExigeEvan]

That is highly debatable.

In addition to the eyewitness testimony from former team mates and team members who say he was doping, the USADA also have personal testimony from people who claim that Armstrong himself had privately admitted doping to them, as well as the fact that he tested positive in 2001, although this was subsequently covered up and has been vehemently denied ever since.

So he supposedly tested positive once for EPO in 13 years, and never again? Despite winning the TdF 7 times? C'mon, that doesn't add up. If you could string together several instances then fine, it'd have some strength, but one instance does not make a conspiracy to conceal.

Greg LeMond, former friend of Armstrong and TdF winner himself, recorded a telephone conversation with a mutual friend of theirs, Stephanie McIlvain, who worked with Armstrong through his Oakley sponsorship. In their conversation, McIlvain appears to contradict her own testimony where she denied any knowledge of Armstrong's supposed admissions to doping. While the recording would not stand in any court, it's pretty damning in and of itself.

Just another name, another accusation that contradicts the science and her previous testimony. Why does it have any more weight that anyone else?

Armstrong is a sporting hero and even a legend to so many people, so it's understandable that there is great opposition to the idea that he should even be being pursued. But, frankly, no-one really knows what he's really like unless they've lived and worked with him - precisely the people that the USADA are getting their information from. Granted, hearsay and personal testimony is not enough to declare someone guilty, but on the other hand, refusing to defend oneself against a pretty long list of charges is inexplicable for someone who is supposedly as clean as a whistle.

He's defended himself for 13 years. This isn't refusal, it's just the end of his tether. He can't beat the USADA, the very fact they're going against their own science to launch a case on hearsay from people that don't like Armstrong means he faces personal and financial ruin continuing to do so.

Can you point out where David Millar tested positive, or Voughters? And if the evidence was that pathetic why not let it be publicly heard. If it was pathetic the arbitration panel would have no choice but to rule against the USADA.

So David Millar lasted 3 years before getting caught with used materials and eventually confessing. Still 10 years less and a whole lot more evidence than there is against Lance Armstrong.

Vaughters was never caught true, but he was also never under the same pressure of testing as Armstrong and hasn't compete more recently. Still not near equivalence to Armstrong.

 

[Touring Mars]

Just another name, another accusation that contradicts the science and her previous testimony. Why does it have any more weight that anyone else?

Greg LeMond is hardly just another name... while his version of events doesn't carry any more weight than anyone elses, it is atleast consistent with what a whole host of Armstrong's other (mostly former) friends are now saying publicly.

Ironically, Armstrong's legal team have made a point of saying how unreliable EPO tests are - hence, the 'science', by their own reckoning, cannot be trusted. That makes the personal testimony of those involved all the more important, since apparently the science is not reliable... but, perhaps the word of fellow professionals, with livelihoods and families of their own to consider, is a more reliable yardstick in this particular case.

The question is, why would so many professional cyclists, many of whom are hardly people 'who don't like Armstrong' willing to testify that they know Armstrong is a drug cheat, while implicating themselves in the process?

He's defended himself for 13 years. This isn't refusal, it's just the end of his tether. He can't beat the USADA, the very fact they're going against their own science to launch a case on hearsay from people that don't like Armstrong means he faces personal and financial ruin continuing to do so.

I don't buy it. Again, somewhat ironically, the current investigation was Armstrong's only hope of being able to clear his name once and for all. By attempting to block that investigation and subsequently refusing to defend himself against the charges levelled at him, he's left the USADA with no choice but to presume guilt. It will also mean that the testimony of crucial individuals such as his trusted friend and team-mate during the TdF winning years, George Hincapie, will probably now never come to light - although perhaps that was the point.

 

[Bram Turismo]

Yep all those riders who have tested positive, or admitted to doping or been convicted of doping. Yep they are the ones to put faith in alright. Nobody in cycling at that time deserves any faith. They were all at it, the riders, the UCI, the sponsors, the journalists, they are all complicit and responsibly for the mess cycling became.

Sure, let's view upon all the riders who have been caught as demons, and send them to the underworld.

So you therefore think Vinokourov didn't deserve the gold metal? Ivan Basso doesn't deserve to get into good form again? Same for Valverde? What about Millar, his victory in the Tour was undeserved as well given his past?

Do you even know what kind of immense pressure, stress and pain professional riders have to endure every day throughout their career? Professional cycling is arguably amongst the most craving sports out there, and some of the stages sometimes seem to be completely inhumane. So every rider who made one misstep should just be banned life-long from the sport and be viewed upon as an unworthy person within cycling?

The question is, why would so many professional cyclists, many of whom are hardly people 'who don't like Armstrong' willing to testify that they know Armstrong is a drug cheat, while implicating themselves in the process?

They don't. Hincapie and Leipheimer have put a point behind their career and have nothing to lose. Funny how they suddenly want to see Armstrong burn, is it not?

 

[PzR Slim]

Sure, let's view upon all the riders who have been caught as demons, and send them to the underworld.

So you therefore think Vinokourov didn't deserve the gold metal? Ivan Basso doesn't deserve to get into good form again? Same for Valverde? What about Millar, his victory in the Tour was undeserved as well given his past?

Do you even know what kind of immense pressure, stress and pain professional riders have to endure every day throughout their career? Professional cycling is arguably amongst the most craving sports out there, and some of the stages sometimes seem to be completely inhumane. So every rider who made one misstep should just be banned life-long from the sport and be viewed upon as an unworthy person within cycling?



They don't. Hincapie and Leipheimer have put a point behind their career and have nothing to lose. Funny how they suddenly want to see Armstrong burn, is it not?

I think watching Vino win gold or Gatland win silver was very sad. Those two have showed zero remorse. Millar is different, he came clean and is now doing every thing he can to ensure future generations don't have to make the choice he did. Same with Voughters.

And I didn't single out cyclists, I said everyone was complicit in the mess cycling became. It was you that singled them out as the only group to have any faith in.

 

[Touring Mars]

They don't. Hincapie and Leipheimer have put a point behind their career and have nothing to lose.

I wouldn't say they have nothing to lose. On the contrary, they'd have everything to lose... I seriously doubt that George Hincapie, with a lucrative future ahead of him even after retirement from racing, would risk going to jail by lying to a federal court over something as relatively minor as a single doping incident that involved himself and his closest team-mate Lance Armstrong. If the testimony of others is indeed true, and Lance Armstrong was a regular doper, how is Hincapie supposed to know that he'd get away with perjury? Short answer is, he probably wouldn't risk his own future, his family etc. for the sake of lying under oath. If Armstrong really is innocent, on the other hand, then Hincapie would have nothing to gain from lying and saying that he did see his buddy Lance take drugs.

 

[Bram Turismo]

And I didn't single out cyclists, I said everyone was complicit in the mess cycling became. It was you that singled them out as the only group to have any faith in.

The journalists? They are the root of all evil within cycling. It is them wanting to see a country's cycling hero perform at the top level. It is them constantly harassing the cyclists with the same damned questions every single interview. "Will we see you on the podium?" They've asked Jurgen V.d. Broeck this question every single interview this year in the Tour. And then when they don't reach that sacred spot on the podium, or the cyclist in question made a misstep, they're the first to publish their poisoned articles in the newspaper, telling everyone what another sad day it is for cycling and giving the viewers and/or readers a feeling that this cyclist should not be worthy of cheering for in the future. And everyone wonders why Cadel Evans never wants to speak to the media. Because he doesn't want those incompetent idiots to get everyone's hopes up and then bash him afterwards if he doesn't manage, that's why.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Ironically, Armstrong's legal team have made a point of saying how unreliable EPO tests are - hence, the 'science', by their own reckoning, cannot be trusted. That makes the personal testimony of those involved all the more important, since apparently the science is not reliable... but, perhaps the word of fellow professionals, with livelihoods and families of their own to consider, is a more reliable yardstick in this particular case.

And yet people have been caught for EPO, be it through positive tests or associated materials. Neither apply to Armstrong. Who even recently has been competitive at triathlon and, I'd assume, tested (as they were professional level).

The question is, why would so many professional cyclists, many of whom are hardly people 'who don't like Armstrong' willing to testify that they know Armstrong is a drug cheat, while implicating themselves in the process?

So many have been offered deals to prevent their own prosecutions. Many have nothing left to lose. Many just can't believe a man dominated a sport for so long and didn't dope.

I don't buy it. Again, somewhat ironically, the current investigation was Armstrong's only hope of being able to clear his name once and for all. By attempting to block that investigation and subsequently refusing to defend himself against the charges levelled at him, he's left the USADA with no choice but to presume guilt. It will also mean that the testimony of crucial individuals such as his trusted friend and team-mate during the TdF winning years, George Hincapie, will probably now never come to light - although perhaps that was the point.

Except it never was. His main defence is "I've never tested positive". How do you defend yourself against hearsay and a complete lack of evidence?

And again, he doesn't have the energy to do it any more. And what's to say this would clear him more than the thousands of drugs tests and previous enquiries?

 

[PzR Slim]

USADA statement.

“Numerous witnesses provided evidence to USADA based on personal knowledge acquired, either through direct observation of doping activity by Armstrong, or through Armstrong’s admissions of doping to them that Armstrong used EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone and cortisone during the period from before 1998 through 2005, and that he had previously used EPO, testosterone and hGH through 1996. Witnesses also provided evidence that Lance Armstrong gave to them, encouraged them to use and administered doping products or methods, including EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone and cortisone during the period from 1999 through 2005. Additionally, scientific data showed Mr. Armstrong’s use of blood manipulation including EPO or blood transfusions during Mr. Armstrong’s comeback to cycling in the 2009 Tour de France.”

 

[ExigeEvan]

Why has it taken 3 years for scientific data to be used and why isn't it the basis of the investigation?

Doesn't sound conclusive at all.

 

[PzR Slim]

Tygart interview. http://www.danpatrick.com/2012/08/2...-to-strip-armstrong-of-tour-de-france-titles/

 

[Baron Blitz Red]

he's left the USADA with no choice but to presume guilt.

This sentence is exactly what bothers me the most about this situation. Without definitive proof, one way or the other, they have gone ahead and stripped his wins. I'm glad these people are not in charge of any true legal system...

Have a good one

 

[Müle]

The question is, why would so many professional cyclists, many of whom are hardly people 'who don't like Armstrong' willing to testify that they know Armstrong is a drug cheat, while implicating themselves in the process?

Money.

 

[Touring Mars]

Interesting how easy it is for people to throw around baseless accusations against anyone they see fit merely because they might have something to say about Armstrong that they don't want to hear.

 

[Pyle_PMG]

I'll give my two cents on this whole thing. Forgive me for this. Lance Armstrong has won 7 Tour De France titles regardless of what the USADA says, we're not suddenly going to forget that he did. The man will still be a legend. His decision to not fight the USADA on this was the best choice, because it is a fight he wouldn't win. He has put up with accusations of cheating for quite a long time, even though he has never failed a drug test. Whether that's due to poor testing for substances or another reason, you can't say he cheated. Isn't he supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around?The USADA say they have proof that he did cheat, if they really do, then where is it? Reveal it! To me this seems like the USADA is merely using Lance Armstrong as a desperate attempt to make it look like they have actually accomplished something. Framing someone who has never cheated, boy that is an accomplishment . The man has had to live through the difficult battle othat is cancer, why would he battle an agency hell bent on humiliating him when he is innocent? Anyway that's my whole view on the current thing,.

 

[PzR Slim]

I'll give my two cents on this whole thing. Forgive me for this. Lance Armstrong has won 7 Tour De France titles regardless of what the USADA says, we're not suddenly going to forget that he did. The man will still be a legend. His decision to not fight the USADA on this was the best choice, because it is a fight he wouldn't win. He has put up with accusations of cheating for quite a long time, even though he has never failed a drug test. Whether that's due to poor testing for substances or another reason, you can't say he cheated. Isn't he supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around?The USADA say they have proof that he did cheat, if they really do, then where is it? Reveal it! To me this seems like the USADA is merely using Lance Armstrong as a desperate attempt to make it look like they have actually accomplished something. Framing someone who has never cheated, boy that is an accomplishment . The man has had to live through the difficult battle othat is cancer, why would he battle an agency hell bent on humiliating him when he is innocent? Anyway that's my whole view on the current thing,.

Man this really is like banging your head against a brick wall. It was Armstrongs choice not to have the evidence USADA have against him heard in public. His choice and his choice alone. Why don't people understand that?

 

[Dennisch]

Man this really is like banging your head against a brick wall. It was Armstrongs choice not to have the evidence USADA have against him heard in public. His choice and his choice alone. Why don't people understand that?

Read Armstrong's defense on the case. Enough is enough. Is it that hard?

 

[PzR Slim]

Read Armstrong's defense on the case. Enough is enough. Is it that hard?

Understand what I'm saying. People keep saying, 'why don't USADA show us the evidence if they have it.' all the while failing to realise that it is Armstrongs choice to not have that evidence heard.

Funny how it's suddenly 'enough is enough' at the point the evidence against him is laid bare.

 

[hellnback]

Read something where the author basically concluded.

"An innocent man would fight this to his grave."

Disclaimer: I love watching TdF, absolutely LOVE the drama of the Alpes & Pyrennes stages at the time and don't feel cheated when I learn that one person has juiced. At the time it created a marvel to be watched.

All I remember is 2006 you went wow with Landis's stage win (juiced or not, it was still pretty jaw-dropping at the time). 2008 was robbed of what could of been a good last showdown with Rasmussen getting booted. Schleck & Contador going at it toe-to-toe on Tourmalet... all great 'theatre'.

However if you are later found to be, or proved to be guilty, you should be punished.

As to never "failing a test". I'm still amazed people always harp on about it. It's well known that the 'cheating' techniques being used can be anywhere from 12---18 months ahead of the testing for it. Only after the authorities learn what's being done can they start developing tests to test for that 'cheating' technique. The authorities are better now, but they are still behind at least 6 months in some cases.

But put your head in the sand if you want.

Personally, I've had the opinion that Armstrong used 'enhancements', yes he may've been clean at race time, in the sense it was no longer in his system for the race for those techniques that could be caught, or to, quite possibly for those techniques where it was unknown or didn't even have a test developed, he still partaked in doing so. Regardless, at the very least it was used in training and benefited by it come race day.

Armstrong has been very aggressive in defending his position, personal confrontations, to even legal threats. Meanwhile the authorities have been slowly building a pile of evidence. Slowly but surely the authorities, like a glacier, have been moving to the terminal face where, it all ends. Armstrong himself went to court to prevent the authorities being able to press charges or make the allegations public. The judge dismissed this case pretty quickly and with a warning for him I believe.

So now Mr Armstrong gives up? One of the most intensely single-minded driven person we've ever witnesses on the sportsfield, gives up, with disclaimer "I'm innocent and that's it"

Please. Believe in him what you will. By not defending a very public hearing he knows that a heck of a lot less of the proof will surface without the need of him trying to defend himself on each allegation.

I suppose even he realised when your defence is simply saying "they're lying" or "the test was corrupted" over & over, the town eventually won't believe your calls and come to the dyke.

Congratulations Jacques Anquetil, Eddy Merckx, Bernard Hinault, Miguel Indurain, all 5 times winners of TdF, you rightful position has been restored.

 

[TheEnd35000vr]

I personally believe he didn't take performance enhancing drugs, although as a friend of mine described it:

I've finally accomplished my dream of wining the same amount of Tour de France as Lance Armstrong.

Zero.

Sad really, but not much can be done now, I guess.

 

[Emptyone]

It appears that he has now been stripped of his titles and banned:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19369375

The USADA have no right to strip him of his titles as far as I understand, only the UCI can.

 

[hellnback]

The question is who is next in line??? Try this article

http://msn.foxsports.com/cycling/story/lance-armstrong-loses-tour-titles-who-gets-them-082512

ONE person out of 21 without an asterix...

Pretty much shows the state of affairs of cycling I'm afraid... or how much ahead the cyclist were ahead of the testing programs... and what has been able to be retrospectively shown.

But "at the time" most people don't care, they watch the spectacle.