Keyboard QCsOxford wrote:yes it will, maybe not unanimously, but the web forum lawyers will make their verdict.RonK wrote:...
Whatever, it will not be decided by web forum lawyers.
Armstrong formally charged by USADA
- hazmat5765
- Posts: 195
- Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 11:29 pm
- Location: Coffs Harbour NSW
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby hazmat5765 » Thu Jun 14, 2012 4:35 pm
- jules21
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:14 pm
- Location: deep in the pain cave
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby jules21 » Thu Jun 14, 2012 4:42 pm
as your web forum lawyer, i must advise you that the CAS would only hear the case if it was appealed. USADA would hear it in the first instance.RonK wrote:Ultimately that outcome will be decided by the Court of Abitration in Sport.
Whatever, it will not be decided by web forum lawyers.
- RonK
- Posts: 11508
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
- Location: If you need to know, ask me
- Contact:
Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby RonK » Thu Jun 14, 2012 4:48 pm
So, you don't think whatever decision the USADA hands down will be appealed?jules21 wrote:as your web forum lawyer, i must advise you that the CAS would only hear the case if it was appealed. USADA would hear it in the first instance.RonK wrote:Ultimately that outcome will be decided by the Court of Abitration in Sport.
Whatever, it will not be decided by web forum lawyers.
No decent web forum lawyer ever accepts a decision without first testing every possible avenue of appeal.
- biker jk
- Posts: 7001
- Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby biker jk » Thu Jun 14, 2012 4:49 pm
- jules21
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:14 pm
- Location: deep in the pain cave
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby jules21 » Thu Jun 14, 2012 4:52 pm
actually, as your web forum lawyer, i will outline a series of justifications, each more unlikely and convoluted than the next, arguing why i am right and you should just accept what i say or be subjected to ad hominem attacksRonK wrote:So, you don't think whatever decision the USADA hands down will be appealed?
No decent web forum lawyer ever accepts a decision without first testing every possible avenue of appeal.
- RICHARDH
- Posts: 1306
- Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:46 pm
- Location: adelaide
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby RICHARDH » Thu Jun 14, 2012 4:56 pm
- jules21
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:14 pm
- Location: deep in the pain cave
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby jules21 » Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:02 pm
i think so, but i'd stress it's just my opinionRICHARDH wrote:Just checking we are on a forum aren't we? Opinion is kind of the whole point of this yes?
- toolonglegs
- Posts: 15463
- Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
- Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby toolonglegs » Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:38 pm
- jonbays
- Posts: 417
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:14 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby jonbays » Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:58 pm
- greyhoundtom
- Posts: 3023
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:28 am
- Location: Wherever the sun is shining
- Contact:
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby greyhoundtom » Thu Jun 14, 2012 7:40 pm
My thoughts exactly, and that is why regardless of the outcome of any investigation, no one will ever diminish my belief that this guy due to his dedication and supreme effort is a true champion.toolonglegs wrote:... anyway lifes too short and it was a level playing field.
- ldrcycles
- Posts: 9594
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:19 pm
- Location: Kin Kin, Queensland
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby ldrcycles » Thu Jun 14, 2012 7:50 pm
LOL.jules21 wrote:i think so, but i'd stress it's just my opinionRICHARDH wrote:Just checking we are on a forum aren't we? Opinion is kind of the whole point of this yes?
Now this hasn't popped up in this thread yet, but i'm sure i read somewhere that he DID once return a positive test, but there was some kind of mixup, process not being followed absolutely to the letter and so it was not permissible?
As many others have said, he was surrounded by a peloton full of dopers, his team mates were doping, people behind the scenes were involved with doping...
- twizzle
- Posts: 6402
- Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
- Location: Highlands of Wales.
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby twizzle » Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:32 pm
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...
- Tornado
- Posts: 479
- Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:25 am
- Location: Mandurah WA
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby Tornado » Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:36 pm
2015 Specialized Tarmac
2012 Avanti Giro3
- biker jk
- Posts: 7001
- Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby biker jk » Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:10 pm
Not quite a level playing field. Who other than LA tested positive at a major race (Tour de Suisse 2001) but benefitted from a cover up and donated a large sum of money to the UCI? Who had exclusive use of the best blood doping doctor Michele Ferrari?greyhoundtom wrote:My thoughts exactly, and that is why regardless of the outcome of any investigation, no one will ever diminish my belief that this guy due to his dedication and supreme effort is a true champion.toolonglegs wrote:... anyway lifes too short and it was a level playing field.
- DavidL
- Posts: 255
- Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 9:12 am
- Location: Ballarat, Vic
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby DavidL » Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:47 pm
You may now return to your LA bashing....
- David.
- AUbicycles
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15583
- Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
- Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
- Contact:
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby AUbicycles » Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:51 pm
Will still sit on the sidelines though... it's a bit like soccer at the moment though, anticipation but still no goals at 80 minutes and frankly, I won't be suprised if it is a 0 : 0 draw.
-
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 10:48 pm
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby wulfy117 » Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:01 am
-
- Posts: 444
- Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:43 pm
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby Arlberg » Fri Jun 15, 2012 10:22 am
Maybe he got away with doping when he won the 7 straight, but what about during his comeback in 2010? He was being tested randomly up to three times a day with much more advanced drug detection methods, able to detect smaller traces and a wider range of drugs including of course, EPO. Surely he was not able to dope (and mask) given the number of times and frequency he was being tested. He went on to finish 3rd and very nearly second, despite a few years away from the sport.
-
- Posts: 820
- Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 12:36 pm
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby Chris249 » Fri Jun 15, 2012 10:31 am
In contrast, in his earlier Tours maybe everyone was doped up (a lot of them were, as we know) and therefore he may have had to dope to stay in the lead.
Anyone here read "Racing through the dark" by David Millar? It gives a great insight into the use of "preparation". Millar also says that there WERE clean riders, and not all of them were cheats.
Como Vivente road 2009
Principia track track 2014
Cervelo P2K TT 2003
Merida CX4 2010
Concaeio road
- jules21
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:14 pm
- Location: deep in the pain cave
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby jules21 » Fri Jun 15, 2012 10:37 am
some of the evidence apparently points specifically to him doping in that Tour.Arlberg wrote: What about his 3rd place in the 2010 Tour de France?
we need to put this in the FAQ section or something - the tests can easily be beaten.Arlberg wrote: Surely he was not able to dope (and mask) given the number of times and frequency he was being tested.
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby Xplora » Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:02 am
and if they cannot find the smoking gun, then the bang could have been a tyre, a backfire, fireworks, I don't know how seriously we can take testimony from these people. If you can't be honorable at the start, you can't be trusted at the end either.jules21 wrote: we need to put this in the FAQ section or something - the tests can easily be beaten.
-
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:44 pm
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby heay » Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:44 am
So far I have found in this document no actuall evidence that supports what they have said other than we have witness, who are these people that they are taliking too? If they are using FL and TH I for one would not use 2 people based on the fact that they have lied not only to a court but to the public on more than one occasion.
On page 10-11 of the document it states:
" With respect to Lance Armstrong, numerous riders, team personnel and others will testify based on personal knowledge acquired either through observing Armstrong dope or through Armstrong's admissions of doping to them that Lance Armstrong used EOP, blood transfusions, testostrone and cortisone during the perios before 1998 through 2005, and that he has perviously used EPO, testostrone and hGH through 1996".
The last part can not be used as he was being treated for cancer and the drugs were a part of his recovery so I find this very hard to understand why they would bring this up?
- jules21
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:14 pm
- Location: deep in the pain cave
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby jules21 » Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:52 am
the evidence was collected by a grand jury. lying carries the potential to be sent to jail and their testimony could have been tested in court (before the investigation was dropped), where they would have been subjected to very close scrutiny. you can't write those claims off as wild accusations.Xplora wrote:I don't know how seriously we can take testimony from these people. If you can't be honorable at the start, you can't be trusted at the end either.
- clackers
- Posts: 2065
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 10:48 am
- Location: Melbourne
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby clackers » Fri Jun 15, 2012 12:45 pm
That's the job of juries, panels, tribunals and judges, Heay - to listen to witnesses from both sides, cross-examine them in a way we can't on the interweb, and make a decision.heay wrote:
So far I have found in this document no actuall evidence that supports what they have said other than we have witness, who are these people that they are taliking too?
Works for our criminal court system, where the majority of convictions are based on witness evidence, not chemical tests!
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
Re: Armstrong formally charged by USADA
Postby Xplora » Fri Jun 15, 2012 1:24 pm
Not saying they are definitely wild accusations, but in an arena such as the USADA where there are different rules relating to requirements of evidence and the presumption of innocence, I am willing to give LA the benefit of the doubt. The lad put the runs of the board, and this move against him at this stage of his career looks more like an attempt to stain his legacy and jealousy from those who stand against him. When someone slings mud, some will stick. The people who accuse him now had the chance to pipe up a LONG time ago. This isn't serving justice, but the last attempt at stroking some sick nohoper's ego.jules21 wrote:wild accusations.
Carl Lewis took drugs. He was the freakin' posterboy for the US Athletics team for a decade. Even if he was clean for most of that time, he is a complete cheat in the history books. They are trying to do the same to Armstrong, and to achieve what? It would have been justified during his TdF victories, or even just after... but it isn't. The train left, it ain't coming back.
Return to “General Cycling Discussion”
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Cycling Brands
- Cannondale
- Garmin
- Giant
- Shimano
- Trek
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
- All times are UTC+11:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.