When I first saw Lance Armstrong gave up his fight on drugs charges, there was only one sentence I could think: gee, this is dodgy on both sides.
I still to this day do not believe that Armstrong is a drug cheat and that his seven Tour De France titles were the result of a hard work ethic and not the result of illicit substances.
However, you have to wonder what Armstrong was thinking in giving up his fight with the USADA?
Surely if he is that clean and that sure of his innocence, he would fight this tooth or nail to keep his reputation untainted.
Even Floyd Landis, the drug cheat who has been the most vocal in accusing Armstrong of doping, fought harder to preserve his soiled reputation.
While Armstrong’s decision to stop the fight will not automatically destroy his legacy, it leaves huge questions over it.
But the USADA’s handling of this has been abysmal and leaves room for questions over its motives in targeting Armstrong.
Of the witnesses who have come forward claiming to have “seen” Armstrong doping, most of them are convicted drug cheats who for years tried to fight the charges against themselves.
How can these types of people be trusted to provide credible and valid evidence when they have proven to unreliable witnesses in the past?
No reasonable court in the western world would convict Armstrong based on the “hearsay” of proven liars.
Even the US District Court, while supporting the USADA’s ability to conduct an investigation, raised concerns about the motives.
Judge Sam Sparks in his judgment wrote: “USADA’s conduct raises serious questions about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping, or if it is acting according to less noble motives.”
For supposedly trying to clear the air, this has been a trial that has had no openness or transparency.
And who at the USADA thinks they have the power to strip Armstrong of his cycling titles?
I cannot remember the last time doping police had the ability to do strip people of titles.
While Travis Tygart may think he can police any sport he feels like, this egomaniac administrator does not have that authority.
Only the UCI can strip the titles of Armstrong and they are in no rush to investigate because the USADA will not cooperate with cycling’s governing body.
God only knows where Tygart was when the BALCO scandal was around?
Knowing the way he works, Melinda Gainsford-Taylor would have been subjected to a humiliating investigation while Marion Jones managed to avoid sanction.
This McCarthy-like witch-hunt will go on and opinions between people will remain ferociously divided.
But I would like to remind you of why Armstrong should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Between the USADA’s Gestapo investigation, the UCI, French authorities (a country which was desperate to catch Armstrong), the US Government and WADA, not one positive sample has been recovered.
Even with the advancements of drug detection combined with the eight-year rule, there are still no positive tests to be found.
That should be the ultimate yardstick when investigating any form of doping.
Daryl
Guest
Please correct me if I am wrong....But .My understanding of the Tour de France is....That it is a Teams race..not a race of 250 individual cyclists racing to win but a race of 30 or so sponsored TEAMS with 9 specialist riders hand picked to deliver there Team leaders across the line first. If in the case of Armstrong 12 or so of his team riders who supported him during his 7 Tour wins admitted to or were found guilty of taking drugs during those 7 victories...Why were those Victories not Automaticlly cancelled by the Cycling Bodies in controll anyway....Regardless of Armstrong testing positive or not...Does that Mean you can have 8 of your team doped up to deliver the undoped Team Leader First overall and its OK......If a 4 man Pursuit Team win a Gold Medal at the Olympics and 3 of them test positive do they still keep the Gold Medal...I don't think so....Of all the Articles and comments written on this subject not once have I seen this mentioned.....Armstrong says not once did he test Positve but you would have to be Naïve to suggest that he and the Team management did not no if other members of the team were taking drugs .And supposing they were Stupid and didn't know the does not entitle him to keep the Victories.......
DerailleurED
Roar Rookie
This is a sensational depository of nearly all the information. Thank you!
DerailleurED
Roar Rookie
Liestrong raised $500 million "to fight cancer". $20mill of that went to Cancer Research. That's 4% of all raised money. Imagine if people donated that to an actual charity, like the Cancer Council, instead of buying stupid yellow bands for the momentary feeling of smugness that they're doing their bit.
Kev
Guest
I have no idea who to believe. USADA haven't scored a slam dunk on this case but Armstrong hasn't done himself any favours by refusing to fight these allegations on the basis that he has done it for years and never been proven guilty and that USADA don't have jurisdiction. If he hasn't been doping then why have doping allegations followed him for the best part of 20 years? The first question is probably the easier one to answer given that dopers are always in a war to stay ahead of the testers but the second one is harder. What sort of vendetta could motivate this relentless pursuit to nail him? The only conclusion I can fathom is that there has always been enough evidence to arouse suspicion but never enough to nail him. Other than that I'm as confused as anyone else.
vitalyg
Roar Guru
You do realise that Livestrong hasn't donated a single penny to research in years, right? They'll confirm this. That's not what they are all about. Their model is to help those with cancer live their lives, make those lives more comfortable and happier. No money goes to research.
SkinnyKid
Guest
Francis, its more that people dont see the legal tricks he pulls to keeps things out of court. Look I can't really give much info but I was very close to the Mark French case at the Del Monte in Adelaide. All I can say is that there are many claims that Mark French made that, in my mind are true. Administrators are politicians. When stuff hits the fan the easier route away from the problem and a scape goat are always used. Lance has hidden behind others like that for years.
SkinnyKid
Guest
Francis, its more that people dont see the legal tricks he pulls to keeps things out of court. Look I can't really give much info but I was very close to the Mark French case at the Del Monte in Adelaide. All I can say is that there are many claims that Mark French made that, in my mind are true. Administrators are politicians. When stuff hits the fan the easier route away from the problem and a scape goat are always used.
FrancisC
Guest
SkinnyKid... more like ONE EYED Armstrong fan rather than head in the sand... head in the sand at least I think they would try to think it through... you know some form of meditation... lol... while one eyed... just plain closed mind and does not want to even think the "what if?" scenario I am not a fan of him not do I dislike him... I don't really know the bloke... I just want all this all to be settled soon one way or the other but he (Armstrong) doesn't seem to want it to end by not cooperating - "I GIVE UP!" oh wait! is that some form of admission of guilt? hhhmmm
sittingbison
Guest
Arkie, Floyd went through USADA arbitration, was found guilty, then went through CAS, also found guilty. He lost all his money plus $500k of fraudulently obtained donations (which he has just been ordered to pay back. Armstrong has never once faced prosecution until now. Prior to saying he felt tired and did not want to arbitrate, he spent a month in Federal court arguing on several grounds for an injunction and that UCI should hear the case? Never mind, all will be revealed in the fullness of time
sittingbison
Guest
probably not a great idea to mention the dead Rudi, as in 1992 alone there were more than 20 deaths due to EPO of Dutch competitive cyclists.
sittingbison
Guest
Rudi, who would these "proven positive criminals" be? There has been ZERO evidence made available to either Armstrong or the general public. Including the identity of more than 13 witnesses.
sittingbison
Guest
Rudi, you are completely correct. UCI could and should have prosecuted and sanctioned him, starting in 1999 corticosteroid, then 2001 EPO, then 2002 Actovegin, then 2004 dodging OOC test, then 2005 EPO. Which begs the question you SHOULD be asking: Why didn't they? And WHO are "they"? Who do you think were in charge of testing before 2005? Who would benefit and why if Lance Armstrong was not prosecuted and sanctioned? Has UCI covered up any other positives? What happened in 2010 that allowed USADA to start an investigation? Why does USADA have sour grapes for Armstrong?
SkinnyKid
Guest
head in sand.
SkinnyKid
Guest
struggling to understand your point.
SkinnyKid
Guest
also dont forget Sir Lance of Austin, savour of all the world, creator of all things good and the cleanest sports person in history sold the original URL (www.livestrong.com) to a private company and kept the cash himself and moved the foundation to .org .....wonderful bloke.
SkinnyKid
Guest
NZXT - I am nearly wetting my pants laughing. please tell me you are joking.
SkinnyKid
Guest
NZXT - I am going to print out your post a frame it as the best/worst drivel I have ever read. Now its a big pharma conspiracy to stop the gallant knight on a bike, Sir Lance from curing cancer on his own. My god father.
SkinnyKid
Guest
sjposton, very very well said. It episodes like this, and the blind faith/naivety shown by his fans, that makes you understand how religion became so popular.
Rudi Coetzee
Guest
Nobody seems to bring up the matter of funding such a case over so many years? Sorry, furthermore nobody sounds convincing with all these facts and hearsay. They could have taken action (suspensions, etc.) when he retired the first time if these facts were so clear and convincing. Nobody can protect a single sportsman to this extend. Not even the Pope and he did pretty well with his priests! It all comes down to sour grapes and I would like to hear more about what pissed them off?
sittingbison
Guest
Arkie, that Washington Post article was written by Sally Jenkins, who is Lances biographer (twice). This article has been widely castigated, and both Washington Post and New York Times have subsequently published articles to the contrary. Contadors case is informative, one of the first real public demonstrations of corruption in UCI, who tried desperately to cover it up, and finally exposed by WADA. Then the Spanish Federation covered it up lol. Hein Verbruggen is Lances friend, in 1999 he hitched UCI and cycling wagon to the USPS horse seeing America as a vast untapped market. You might notice exactly the same has just been done with Sky/Britain. As a marketing strategy it has paid off in spades, but the downside is now clear to all. The French have never covered up anything to do with Lance, the widely reported 2001 Tour de Swiss incident was the UCI lab in Laussane. One of the real issues that has been revealed by this entire fiasco is the role of UCI, essentially the fox is in charge of the chicken coop. UCI has repeatedly failed to co-operate with WADA. WADA is an independent organisation, it belongs to IOC, nothing to do with UCI. UCI became signatory to WADA in 2004, forced into doing so in order to compete at Olympics. Since then they have studiously refused to play the game. They have witheld test results, not handed over samples, destroyed all Lances samples, not revealed or shared the bio passport information. The official body CANNOT investigate and prosecute itself or its own marketable stars, it MUST be done completely independently. BTW Lance was still competing in cycling in 2011 and in triathlon in 2012 until sanctioned. Says a lot really about articles saying "but to hound someone for something they did 13 years ago is ridiculous!".