Armstrong's punishment has changed nothing for cycling

Personally, I think that Lance Armstrong probably was a cheat. Why? Because when an organisation - of his own country - will spend so long investigating such a serious matter then we do need to take their ruling as being as what we have to go on mainly. Also, why would LA not defend himself from the claims if he was not actually cheating to win those titles. Surely then, he would have contested them if he knew they were false. And, before anyone mentions it, then court costs would not be a 'reason.' Why? Because he is already being claimed more than $12 million - plus losing many contracts that would earn him significantly more money. This is why I believe he is guilty - surely he would contest if he was not.

rubbish and more drivel. ask and vashek have shown complete ignorance on every technical issue, it's laughable. Their endeavor though is to be applauded.

Any of you read the USADA document? I was shocked at how light it was, when you get into the affidavit material. It doesnt corroborate when you break down events by time by witness. Would love to cross reference this by the analytical tests, considering thier precision and opportunity to beat them. I think it paints Hamilton, Vaughters and Hincapie worse than Armstrong....looks like Landis peddled the stuff from 2004 on when he left USPS. While armstrong was on his death bed, and then had 18 months out of the game, they were cranking up the EPO big time. He wasnt even in Europe. Why hasnt Hincapie lost his clothing contract with BMC? How come Hamilton is making a serious wad of cash telling his story. Vuaghters has his own team now, yet he coerced and supplied young riders with EPO, and Armstrong wasnt even in the same coninent at the time!!! I wonder when Andreu is going tonadmit he was Armstrong mentor and got him into the PED's, and hisnwifebhatesnhim for it!! Armstrong dobed. He was wrong, and should do the time. So should the others. Like all druggies, theyballbrat on each other, lie cheat,mhide behind half truths. Armstrong made some bad decisions in anger after being given a new lease of life (beating the big dopers Cofidis was a big line item after being dumped during chemo...motivation to win at all costs, anyone else understand the psychology of remission?). This is a political witch hunt designed to focus on one guy as a symbolic win on drugs in sport, but in the process has allowed a select few off scott free. White, Jullich etal , they didnt get an offer to talk, but have lost thier jobs, but they are the tip of the iceberg. These guys are a scapegoat. Personally I won't participate in slipping the knife into Armstrong. I gladly watched him all those years, and always knew he doped to beat pant anne and Ullrich! Think there are a lot of hypocrites who gladly joined the gravy train, and now want to symbolically slip the knife. City of Adelaide, UCI. Would like this to be prosecuted in front of a real judge.... and fair time for the crime achieved for all, not this vindictive polititicised hogwash! Cycling won't get my support until this happens.

Even if Armstrong was singled out amongst other racer I don't even think that is a bad thing IF the goal is to stop or discourage doping Well what's the point of doping. To give you an advantage in winning a race. If you target the winner and stripped their titles well you are essentially saying that if you doped and you get caught, all the titles and victories will be erased. You are essentially removing the biggest incentive to dope. winners of any sport should be targeted and they champions who do doped should be singled out because they are the ones who benefit most from doping Does it mean other people get off the hook, of course not (really it's not like Armstrong is the first cyclist to be stripped of his title or be caught doping or even the first athlete to be done in by USADA). What's the alternative, only target people who lose race (funny enough if you look at incompetition drug testing in the australian open/wimbledon/us open 2009, the only time a winner of a match gets drug tested is at the final, all the other in-competition testing was only done to the player who lost the match which is insane). i'm sorry but the winner deserves to be the most scrutinised because they got the most to gain from doping. It's not really that important if the 75 th best cyclist doped.

The debate of whether Armstrong has been judged harshly is interesting. Was he a corrupting influence or was he just doing what all the other serious contenders were doing ? I suspect the latter, although he may have been more efficient than the others. Most of the Australian reaction is critical of Armstrong, even when the news is not that surprising. We do not like having our romantic illusions exposed. WHat I find especially interesting is the HUGE double standard in Australia. Andrew Johns , a self confessed drug user is sent to Coventry for a few years and then inducted into the Hall of Fame. !!! The leaguies than talk about there players being "role models for our kids. My head is reeling from these inconsistencies.

a few key words pop out, sittingbison. "serious constitutional concern" and "violation of due process" is not criticism of USADA's procedural actions? Now that's funny.

lol ASL, look at what he is criticizing. A lack of detail in the charge letter, and not showing sufficient evidence. A single paragraph in what, 18 pages? He does not make any criticism of any of the procedural actions of USADA which is what Armstrong went to him for (they themselves made no mention of the charge letter being deficient lol). The 200 page Reasoned Decision and 1000 pages of Evidence does in fact completely satisfy all of Sparks concerns, to whit Armstrong did not go straight back to him for a ruling. ASL this has all been gone over at some length.

Just have to take you up on scrutiny by the US Federal court. The US District judge Sam Sparks Sparks stated "the deficiency of USADA's charging document is of serious constitutional concern." He then gave his reasons for why the US Federal court is not interfering in the matter. "Indeed, but for two facts, the court might be inclined to find USADA's charging letter was a violation of due process and to enjoin USADA from proceeding thereunder. First, it would likely be of no practical effect: USADA could easily issue a more detailed charging letter, at which point Armstrong would presumably once again file suit, and the parties would be back in this exact position some time later, only poorer for their legal fees. Second, and more important, USADA's counsel represented to the court that Armstrong will, in fact, receive detailed disclosures regarding USADA's claims against him at a time reasonably before arbitration." So I have to respectfully point out that the US Federal Court has not passed this off as "completely legit", sittingbison.

Suggest you do some further reading of the Code. Heres a hint: Conspiracy.

sorry you two, I respectfully disagree. All the evidence is corroborated against itself. USADA has done nothing wrong, you are making that up. Their processes have been scrutinised by the US Federal Court AND by the UCI. Everything is completely legit. The UCI observations regarding SOL are a last desperate attempt to deflect attention from their own shortcomings, if it was a real concern they would and should have appealed. As to the veracity of the evidence, Armstrong has a long and documented history of using legal might to vanquish any and all aspersion. It is ludicrous to suggest a competent lawyer would likely pick it apart. The truth of the matter is Armstrong AND his legal team chose to not contest the evidence because there was no point in doing so, and he would face the very real likelihood of being charged with contempt and perjury. Anyway, this is my last post on the subject of Armstrong. Everything that needs to be said has been. He has guilt been found guilty of orchestrating the most sophisticated systematic team based doping program in history, conspiracy, of administering and using PEDS, and drug dealing. Time for you to take the blinkers off.

a lot a spew towards lance here. nothing has changed for cycling because all his associates got off scot-free by comparison. hincapie, hamilton, julich, white, yates.... all just said: "i doped with lance." and nothing more was said. are they psychopathic frauds and liars? of course some of them were not as bad as lance ALLEGEDLY was. hitler wouldn't have carried out the atrocities he did without his army.

Agree with Vashek. Furthermore, difficult to know exactly when the event happen, because very few events are documented by actual dates and time (not surprising because most of them happen over 10 years ago). The only one that actually sawLA actually self injecting drug from what i can recall is Landis, who has problems with LA flying in his own plane (this is all from USADA report) - bit of jealousy maybe? Most of the other testimonies are along the lines of Lance was in a dark room, curtains were drawn or Lance said he took drugs ior Lance referred to "Gold oil" or Lance boasted he overturned a drug result. None of these events were recorded, none substantiated. USADA's report is based on testimonies - overwhelming if the strength of evidence is the number of people who made the allegations but the quality of the evidence is questionable when you consider all the factors of witness reliability, conflict of interests, how long ago these events happen (try remembering specific events that happen 10 years ago). If these evidence were brought forward when LA was racing, it would have been much stronger. It might be overwhelming to the public, but a competent lawyer would likely pick each witness apart.

"There is overwhelming evidence..." -- overwhelming if you're too impressed with it. Reasoned Decision is not corroborated, because it was not cross-examined. You may blame for that Armstrong again since he walked away from arbitration, but the point is that it remains to be uncorroborated. Secondly, it is not corroborated because in the strict sense, witness testimony is mostly disparate events and localities, they talk about different timelines. There's very few, if any, facts that are zeroed in by more than one witness. The whole report reads like a good fiction story but it is lacking in legal value and due process. Also, on that score what USADA did is atrocious. They broke their own statute of limitations of 8 years, which does not allow for any exceptions. Their interpretation of it referred to existing US laws, which is another violation under the autonomous WADA Code, "It is UCI’s view that USADA’s reference to national law is not appropriate."

@Steve: "They’ve also proved Armstrong a liar and a cheat" -- or, have they? Even as that statement sounds very categorical, it is not what happened. In order to achieve their goal of stripping him of those titles authorities broke their own WADA code, "First article 24.3 of the Code states that the Code shall be interpreted as an independent and autonomous text and not by reference to the existing law or statutes of the Code signatories or governments." That refers to the issue of the statute of limitations where it is stated that "No action may be commenced against an Athlete or other Person for an anti-doping rule violation contained in the Code unless such action is commenced within eight (8) years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred. The Code does not provide for any possibility for an anti-doping organization to take away from the athlete or other person the benefit of this clause", (Decision of the UCI). In the view of that it looks like authorities did their own cheating to catch a cheater. Way to go? I don't think so. Next, if we want to get to some better understanding of what happened we should examine what is being done in the name of "clean sports" to achieve that goal. The paradox is: justice can not be achieved with corrupt justice.

Amazonfan, Yes I do think it is highly inappropriate of you to compare Lance Armstrong;s actions to a terrible and inhumane act committed on an innocent person. In case you didn't notice the irony, the venom and hatred directed towards LA on the media and online is actually comparable to that received by the monster you have chosen to keep going on about. How is it juvenile questioning you further on "prosecution" when you were the one that actually wanted to highlight your incredible knowledge of the English language in the first place? So the use of prosecution can be used in the specific or general sense? no it can't - prosecution is specifically used in a legal setting. Now that the penny has dropped (oh sorry didn't mean to say that you know the penny has dropped), you can't defend your statements. Yes, that's right, as you said, you want to make a big deal out of the word "persecution", because your opinion is that LA is not deserving of being "persecuted", and his "crimes" essentially excludes him from being persecuted. To be honest, I don't know what the fuss is all about. But if you want to make a big deal of the usage of persecution, I'm going to make a big deal out of the usage or prosecution.

"Surely you cannot compare Lance Armstrong to such things, Amazonfan. That's "OTT"." If you're referring to Meagher's killer, I was referring to abuse on FB. Surely that was obvious. "In terms of debating whether he doped, I have stated in many previous posts that I think it is highly likely he doped, but at the same time I have also stated that the evidence gathered by USADA are based primarily on testimonies of witnesses, many with conflicts of interest or an axe to grind and that Armstrong has a chance in a court of law where higher standards to convict are required."  I don't how to respond to this, except to say there is no 'highly likely'. Armstrong doped, however I guess we're all free to believe what we want to believe. "I think it's misleading to say he has given up his rights  - he hasn't given up anything and he has not been convicted." How is it misleading? He had an oppirtunity to defend himself, which he choose not to take. For all intents and purposes, he has given up his rights. "Well, I think people can indeed choose how they want to respond. As you said, you were offended by the idea that Armstrong is persecuted. You then gave a highly inappropriate example of a monster that has performed acts hardly befitting whatever wrongdoing LA has committed, which basically justified whatever abuse LA received from "lynch-mob mentality of certain parts of society". " Two comments: 1)Let me get this straight. It's "highly inappropriate" for me to talk about Meagher's killer, when discussing FB, and yet you bring up mobs and persecute? Right. 2)I never justified anything. Did you even read what I wrote? Incredible. "By the way, you really do sound like a politician when you say "I don't operate on dis/agreement by omission". " I may sound like a politician (which one?) however I do not like being told by someone that I dis/ agree with them simply because I choose not to respond. BTW, attempting to insult me is just plain juvenile. "It's really simple, you said he was prosecuted. I pointed out he wasn't. You wanted to make a big deal out of prosecution versus persecution. So whilst we can agree to disagree on the use of persecution, I think the use of prosecution is black and white, and you know it." Do NOT tell me what I know. The term prosecution can be used specifically or in a general sense. So, no, I don't think that the use of prosecution is black and white. But you are entitled to your opinions, just as I am to mine. Anyway, you're wrong about one thing. I 'wanted to make a big deal' out of the term persecution. Prosecution is a side-issue for me. "Or are you still saying he was prosecuted?" Honestly, I couldn't care less. Whether he was prosecuted or not has no bearing on whether he was persecuted, and that is the key issue for me.

Sittingbison, I actually agree with you there has been NO prosecution. It's amazonfan who stated Armstrong has been prosecuted.

Surely you cannot compare Lance Armstrong to such things, Amazonfan. That's "OTT". In terms of debating whether he doped, I have stated in many previous posts that I think it is highly likely he doped, but at the same time I have also stated that the evidence gathered by USADA are based primarily on testimonies of witnesses, many with conflicts of interest or an axe to grind and that Armstrong has a chance in a court of law where higher standards to convict are required. I think it's misleading to say he has given up his rights - he hasn't given up anything and he has not been convicted. We will have to agree to disagree on whether there is a mob. Well, I think people can indeed choose how they want to respond. As you said, you were offended by the idea that Armstrong is persecuted. You then gave a highly inappropriate example of a monster that has performed acts hardly befitting whatever wrongdoing LA has committed, which basically justified whatever abuse LA received from "lynch-mob mentality of certain parts of society". By the way, you really do sound like a politician when you say "I don't operate on dis/agreement by omission". It's really simple, you said he was prosecuted. I pointed out he wasn't. You wanted to make a big deal out of prosecution versus persecution. So whilst we can agree to disagree on the use of persecution, I think the use of prosecution is black and white, and you know it. Or are you still saying he was prosecuted?

ASL, you have completely missed the point. Armstrong has been found guilty of all instances of the charge letter, through a 200 page Reasoned Decision with corroborating 1000 pages of Evidence. This has been accepted by UCI and WADA. At all times USADA has followed to the letter their guidelines as agreed to by Armstrong (and co-authored by his own manager). Armstrong attending arbitration is his own choice, not doing so is to accept the specifics of the charge letter. Which he knew full well. Its either that, or face perjury charges for continuing to lie under oath. There IS no prosecution, there never was - its an arbitration. Thats it. Full stop.