On his bike and pedalling away: Lance Armstrong stripped of all 7 of his Tour de France victories an - Polidicks

[QUOTE=NoDachi;38150806]So you believe this is all some bizarre conspiracy theory to strip armstrong, one of the sports greatest publiciser for no real reason? Or the fact that he's just another cheat.[/QUOTE]The original witch hunts weren't a conspiracy at all; it was just a concept of investigation which went horribly wrong. One guy was convinced to "oust" three guys, who were each convinced to "oust" three guys, and repeat until infinity. None of 'em realized that everything put together was going to be huge and terrible until everyone who ever lived apparently had drinks with Lucifer every Tuesday. I'm not saying that he most definitely didn't do it, I'm just saying that there's already a precedent for being able to get tons of eyewitness reports with no actual evidence if a governing body thinks that something is hidden that they need to find and pushes hard enough to uncover it.

[I]"It is a recognized legal principle that testimony against one’s personal self interest is a factor to be weighed in favor of the credibility of a witness’s testimony. Given the recognized resources of Mr. Armstrong and his demonstrated willingness to aggressively attack anyone raising issues regarding his conduct, all of USADA’s witnesses have come forward in the face of significant pressure. Each of the six (6) witnesses who were still active cyclists at the outset of their cooperation with USADA has voluntarily accepted a sanction of six (6) months ineligibility and loss of competitive results as a consequence of his own rule violations. As provided in the rules, up to a three-quarters (3/4) reduction in the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility is appropriate where a sanctioned athlete has provided “substantial assistance” to an anti-doping organization. Accordingly, the sanctions accepted by each of the six (6) active cyclists are appropriate and provided for in the rules. Acceptance of these sanctions, including loss of results and a six month suspension, demonstrate an acceptance of responsibility that should be considered favorably in assessing their testimony."[/I] [url]http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/ReasonedDecision.pdf[/url] Generally page 127 onwards is about the credibility of the testimonies.

Wow if they're all doping then I could totally win that race! It would just take a few months...

Fuck those guys, Lance passed those finish lines first and taking his titles doesn't change that. I still haven't seen any proof that he was doping.

After going through the addendum, I do have to admit that George Hincapie in particular is probably the best you could possibly get so far as witness testimonies go. I still wish that there was some "hard" evidence sprinkled in somewhere, though, in order to to get rid of the bitter taste caused by that whole "giving up defending self after retirement is admission of guilt" deal.

Elite athletes use performance enhancing drugs. If anyone thinks less of Lance for this they're stupid. Pretty much nobody competes at that level without help. [editline]23rd October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=latin_geek;38137192]I'd watch the Tour de France if everyone was allowed to use as many drugs as possible to win now that'd be fun[/QUOTE] It would basically be the same

My view is you compete with the rules given at the time of the competition. Armstrong did this. I think it's idiotic bullshit to test a guy over TEN YEARS later and say he didn't win because of this new test. I absolutely would not count any personal testimony from witnesses now. Where were they back when their testimony would have been relevant?

[QUOTE=NoDachi;38139566]Yes but [I]"As requested by the sport's governing body, the UCI, Usada has now sent them its 'reasoned decision' as to how it found the seven-time Tour de France champion guilty of running a systematic doping ring. It has also sent 1,000 pages of eye-witness testimony, [B]lab results, scientific data, emails and financial records, evidence Tygart describes as overwhelming, conclusive and undeniable[/B]."[/I][/QUOTE] That would make Tygart a moron. [QUOTE][b]The core of USADA’s case against Mr. Armstrong is the witness testimony and documentary evidence described in the preceding sections.[/B] That evidence standing alone is overwhelming proof of Mr. Armstrong’s doping.[/QUOTE] These two sentences, in order, negate the entirety of that report. You cannot say "the core of our case is the most flawed type of 'evidence' known to man and speculation, these are overwhelming proof of fact". Furthermore, there is no scientific evidence cited in that document. Armstrong's supposedly low reticulocyte count is never actually stated. If it's low, it's low by medical standards. They cite an [I]opinion[/I] on the probability his count could have occurred naturally. This is unnecessary. They can put down a number and a table if they've got a point. Opinions don't count for much, [URL="http://cnl.salk.edu/~jorge/xfer/paper/reply_to_gore_etal_2008.pdf"]particularly from guys known for making repeated methodological mistakes when dealing with Armstrong.[/URL] Similarly, in no way is the case that Armstrong's blood plasma volume dropped oddly made convincingly. They word it in such a way that it would imply Armstrong was dehydrated or would suffer similar side effects thanks to this proposed "blood doping", raising the question of why Armstrong would be intentionally sabotaging himself. The report also notes their plasma volume figures are useless in a footnote, making their use in the main text as "evidence" inappropriate. This entire case relies upon two things- the fact that Armstrong was "precluded from arguing that the laboratory results were not reliable", and that the organizations involved accept, as proof of doping, evidence that "would not have met the requirements for establishing the “Presence” of a prohibited substance". A goddamn encyclopedia of suspicion is not proof of a thing. This would not hold up in court. Lastly, lack of a given sample is cited as evidence of guilt, despite that sample not having been given because the UCI wanted to take this from the USADA and make the investigation the responsibility of a third party, one capable of objectivity. Of course, objectivity gets in the way of a good lynching. Similarly, evidence contrary to the opinion of the USADA is dismissing for being "Lance friendly", and a large amount of the paper is dedicated to conspiracy-theory grade well poisoning arguments. Let me just give you a hint about science- when one party says they know "the real facts" and then deny anything not in line with those "facts", they're [I]fucking lying.[/I] This is horse shit and you should be slapped if you take it at face value.

[QUOTE=GunFox;38138584] The fact that they laud their testimony over actual forensic evidence speaks volumes.[/QUOTE] The fact that Lance Armstrong didn't appeal against the findings of the investigation speaks volumes. If you feel that the charges brought against are false, then as an athlete, you would naturally and vehemently oppose the findings. Why didn't he?

First he died and now he lost all of his medals, give that guy a break.

[QUOTE=Stockers678;38153100]The fact that Lance Armstrong didn't appeal against the findings of the investigation speaks volumes. If you feel that the charges brought against are false, then as an athlete, you would naturally and vehemently oppose the findings. Why didn't he?[/QUOTE] Just throwing this out there. I'd fucking call it quits too. It is phenomenally difficult to prove a negative. He has been persecuted for a damned decade. Guilty or not, it's a witch hunt. Why waste your life fighting against something that is just going to be back tomorrow with more shit for you to dispute? You successfully throw them off today, next week they have some other thing for you to get into a pissing contest over, and the cycle (har har) continues. I cannot comment on his actual guilt, but it's certainly reasonable that he would refuse arbitration by a group that he views as being biased. It's a lose lose scenario, and I cannot blame someone for refusing to fight. [editline]23rd October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Daniel Smith;38153120]First he died[/QUOTE] U wot m8?

[QUOTE=koeniginator;38139402]Bicycling and Other Drugs[/QUOTE] where the bicycles roam

[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;38137316]Still haven't seen any actual evidence that he used, just him saying he's tired of fighting the constant ZOMG DRUGS accusations which the organisation treated as a confession of guilt. Until proof is given, this doesn't change how I think about him.[/QUOTE] did you miss where like 14 out of 15 of his teammates testified that they had seen him doping at one point or another during his career? and the group of three teammates that described in detail where the drugs were hidden and how they were referred to?

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;38152818]That would make Tygart a moron. These two sentences, in order, negate the entirety of that report. You cannot say "the core of our case is the most flawed type of 'evidence' known to man and speculation, these are overwhelming proof of fact". Furthermore, there is no scientific evidence cited in that document. Armstrong's supposedly low reticulocyte count is never actually stated. If it's low, it's low by medical standards. They cite an [I]opinion[/I] on the probability his count could have occurred naturally. This is unnecessary. They can put down a number and a table if they've got a point. Opinions don't count for much, [URL="http://cnl.salk.edu/~jorge/xfer/paper/reply_to_gore_etal_2008.pdf"]particularly from guys known for making repeated methodological mistakes when dealing with Armstrong.[/URL] Similarly, in no way is the case that Armstrong's blood plasma volume dropped oddly made convincingly. They word it in such a way that it would imply Armstrong was dehydrated or would suffer similar side effects thanks to this proposed "blood doping", raising the question of why Armstrong would be intentionally sabotaging himself. The report also notes their plasma volume figures are useless in a footnote, making their use in the main text as "evidence" inappropriate. This entire case relies upon two things- the fact that Armstrong was "precluded from arguing that the laboratory results were not reliable", and that the organizations involved accept, as proof of doping, evidence that "would not have met the requirements for establishing the “Presence” of a prohibited substance". A goddamn encyclopedia of suspicion is not proof of a thing. This would not hold up in court. Lastly, lack of a given sample is cited as evidence of guilt, despite that sample not having been given because the UCI wanted to take this from the USADA and make the investigation the responsibility of a third party, one capable of objectivity. Of course, objectivity gets in the way of a good lynching. Similarly, evidence contrary to the opinion of the USADA is dismissing for being "Lance friendly", and a large amount of the paper is dedicated to conspiracy-theory grade well poisoning arguments. Let me just give you a hint about science- when one party says they know "the real facts" and then deny anything not in line with those "facts", they're [I]fucking lying.[/I] This is horse shit and you should be slapped if you take it at face value.[/QUOTE] I dunno man they also had doctors who examined Lances blood over the years and said his patterns were typical of a blood transfusion doper. Doctors who gave this evidence in court. But of course, this is all ~hearsay ~ because we like the guy. Not to mention the suspicious $100,000 that was given to a doctor known for doping athletes by Lance yet, surprisingly he isn't even in ~contact ~ with that man, according to Lance. Not to mention that Lance lied in saying how frequent he's been tested, his lawyer said it has been 400-600 in this ~witch hunt~, yet there are no records for any more than the usual 50-60. Many where not even testing for drugs to begin with. I would like him to be innocent, but lance is shady as fuck.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;38153947]I would like him to be innocent, but lance is shady as fuck. [/QUOTE] Bullshit. "Shady" doesn't mean [I]guilty.[/I] You would like him to be guilty because you've already expressed a boner for hearsay and supposition over hard evidence. I don't give one fat whooping goddamn about Lance Armstrong, I just hate psuedoscientific bullshit, and this entire thing reeks.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;38157307]Bullshit. "Shady" doesn't mean [I]guilty.[/I] You would like him to be guilty because you've already expressed a boner for hearsay and supposition over hard evidence. I don't give one fat whooping goddamn about Lance Armstrong, I just hate psuedoscientific bullshit, and this entire thing reeks.[/QUOTE] I agree. It seems the reason he's 'guilty' is because he is presumed guilty and cannot come up with undeniable evidence that he is innocent (which is nigh impossible). No matter what I feel about someone I feel the evidence should be solid, and I don't think this is. Related: [url]http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/coach-bert/1371758[/url]

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;38153547] U wot m8?[/QUOTE] :edi: about Neil Armstrong

Nope, those wins never happened ever.

[QUOTE=GunFox;38137610]If they can't chemically prove he was doping, they can go fuck themselves. They have spent nearly a decade putting together a shitload of what is ultimately feeble evidence and are pretending that their witch hunt has produced valid results. Either you have the blood results that prove he was doping or you don't.[/QUOTE] But, GunFox, you're forgetting the strongness of their evidence! [QUOTE]Evidence is beyond strong and as strong as any case ever brought by Usada[/QUOTE]

Hey guys, I apologize if this is a dumb question, by doping do you mean steroids? I've just never heard the term doping for steroid use.

[QUOTE=Karnifex350;38158600]Hey guys, I apologize if this is a dumb question, by doping do you mean steroids? I've just never heard the term doping for steroid use.[/QUOTE] More or less yes. It's a bit more complicated than that. Things like artificially increasing your red blood cell count isn't technically steroids, but it is blood doping. The allegations do include a large number of drug claims as well though.

No doubt in my mind he doped. BUT, who didn't dope in that era of cycling? They all did. Let's talk about the innocent non-dopers in the NFL, NBA, and MLB, USADA.

the USADA should just stick to grading beef!

generic cialis [url=http://buycialisusa.com/#rwww.facepunch.com]buy cialis online [/url] Erection physically occurs when the actually is beneath shafting animation as a support it occurs as the blood flows into the penis and retains in the sponge-like cavernous tissues within the penis. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Spambot" - Hexxeh))[/highlight]

-- cialis generic - [url=http://buycialisonlinetoday.com/#ewww.facepunch.com]generic cialis [/url] [url]http://buycialisonlinetoday.com/#63323[/url] - cialis generic [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("spambot" - postal))[/highlight]

Don't get why anyone would be supportive of him, He could've avoided it.

[QUOTE=Solbanid;38974470]-- cialis generic - [url=http://buycialisonlinetoday.com/#ewww.facepunch.com]generic cialis [/url] [url]http://buycialisonlinetoday.com/#63323[/url] - cialis generic[/QUOTE] I think it would've been a lot more obvious if Armstrong had been using Cialis... [highlight](User was banned for this post ("quoting the spam" - postal))[/highlight]

It's a shame, you would never have known and he seemed like a good guy for the longest time

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;38136875]Whether he doped or not his achievements were pretty impressive regardless. The whole level playing field thing never quite wins me over, some have a genetic edge others use performance enhancers, so what? Does the the whole anti-doping controversy thing get amplified by the "drugs are bad" lobby as some kind of symbiotic process with the illogical war on durgz?[/QUOTE] What's the point of even having a competition if there's no set rules and everyone can just improve their performance as they please?

I came into this thread, and saw the OP with the big red sign saying "THIS IS NOT LATE" and got confused. Useless bump.