[jogiba]

First of all, Lance Armstrong is a good man. There’s nothing that I can learn about him short of murder that would alter my opinion on that. Second, I don’t know if he’s telling the truth when he insists he didn’t use performance-enhancing drugs in the Tour de France — never have known. I do know that he beat cancer fair and square, that he’s not the mastermind criminal the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency makes him out to be, and that the process of stripping him of his titles reeks.

A federal judge wrote last week, “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.” You don’t say. Then when is a judge, or better yet Congress, going to do something about it?

Lance Armstrong doping campaign exposes USADA’s hypocrisy - The Washington Post

For as long as the Tour has existed, since 1903, its participants have been doping themselves. No dope, no hope. The Tour, in fact, is only possible because - not despite the fact - there is doping. For 60 years this was allowed. For the past 30 years it has been officially prohibited. Yet the fact remains; great cyclists have been doping themselves, then as now.

Doping at the Tour de France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[OrangeKx]

According to Lance's web site donations to his organization are up 25x today. His statement is worth reading. Over 500 tests and never failed one. That says it all.

[Blue]

I don't see how this non-profit group can even be allowed to run their mouths without a single failed test. Everything else is nothing but hearsay. They need burned to the ground under defamation, libel and slander.

[Rondec]

Well, I have no doubt in my mind that he was just the best doper on the tour, but I also don't believe that any rider who finished in the top twenty-five during his Tour wins was clean. To take away his wins and give them to another individual who was doing the same things is just silly. Just write it off as a sad chapter in cycling's annals, something like the home run explosion in baseball a few years ago.

Truthfully, if there is anyone to blame, it is the doping agencies for allowing performance enhancing drugs and techniques to get so rampant in cycling.

I do think it is silly to say that just because he tested clean means he didn't dope. If there are ten people ready to testify against him that he doped, then I'd say that's evidence enough, even without a positive test. The same thing as if he had been caught with a bunch of transfusion equipment or something similar, even if he still tested negative.

---

Last edited by Rondec; 08-25-2012 at 03:35 AM.

[Lowell Goudge]

. Over 500 tests and never failed one. That says it all.

Never been caught is not the same as never has done it.

[kswier]

Well, I have no doubt in my mind that he was just the best doper on the tour, but I also don't believe that any rider who finished in the top twenty-five during his Tour wins was clean. To take away his wins and give them to another individual who was doing the same things is just silly. Just write it off as a sad chapter in cycling's annals, something like the home run explosion in baseball a few years ago.

These are my thoughts as well.

[boriscleto]

Never been caught is not the same as never has done it.

If a cop didn't see it, it didn't happen. That's the American way.

Haven?t We All Done Steroids, In A Way? | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[Blue]

. . .
I do think it is silly to say that just because he tested clean means he didn't dope. If there are ten people ready to testify against him that he doped, then I'd say that's evidence enough, even without a positive test. The same thing as if he had been caught with a bunch of transfusion equipment or something similar, even if he still tested negative.

You still have to prove it. As far as your witness theory, some of those allegations go back 13 years. What exactly did they see? Witness credibility is also an issue. Congress made asses out of themselves with the Roger Clemens case.

[Rondec]

You still have to prove it. As far as your witness theory, some of those allegations go back 13 years. What exactly did they see? Witness credibility is also an issue. Congress made asses out of themselves with the Roger Clemens case.

None of us know the credibility of the witnesses. Certainly Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis are somewhat suspect, but supposedly, there are a lot more former teammates who would have testified -- most with little to gain.

[Pentaxor]

I believe it's really a hypocrisy. they are blaming a cyclist for their own incompetence. I do think that what USADA is doing is kinda suspicious with regards to motives. besides, what does Lance Armstrong has to gain? maybe the USADA wants something. maybe the other cyclists wants a part of the glory as well. this is not about righteousness, it does seem to point to Greed and nothing else.

what people could easily forget is that this man beat cancer on his own and has become a public figure due to his public service that no other Tour de France Winner had done. whether the Lance Armstrong foundation was done inorder to mask or remove any wrongdoing done by Armstrong, I would take it any day compared to those selfish buffoons out there that only want fame and attention. would the world be a better place if Lance is stripped of his titles or call him a fraud? I don't think so. He has done more good to society rather than harming anybody. harm the sport? that's what the cycling body is there for. it's their job, so they should be the one that should be crucified.

[Blue]

None of us know the credibility of the witnesses. Certainly Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis are somewhat suspect, but supposedly, there are a lot more former teammates who would have testified -- most with little to gain.

My point is they should be required to prove it. Plus, he said/she said from 12 or 13 years ago wouldn't hold up in court on statute of limitations on the earlier races. The had witness against Roger Clemens that "had nothing to gain" and they turned out to be liars.

[Pentaxor]

My point is they should be required to prove it. Plus, he said/she said from 12 or 13 years ago wouldn't hold up in court on statute of limitations on the earlier races. The had witness against Roger Clemens that "had nothing to gain" and they turned out to be liars.

what is funny is that what is USADA claims that they have strong evidence that would tie Armstrong to doping are mostly so-called witnesses that don't have concrete proof to support the allegation. I don't think that numbers of supposed witnesses alone would be considered as "sufficient evidence" to validate a claim. there are a lot of sharks out there for the sake of getting attention. I suppose these "witnesses" have questionable integrity as well.

the man has been hounded with dope allegations for almost 2 decades. the guy has a life and has several important thing to take care. he already wasted a lot of time dealing with these attention-whores. I'd say they are not worth his time anymore and got pissed by the fact that they kept on digging endlessly. it wouldn't end until they could get what they want. in the end, it's the USADA and it's supposed witnesses received some bad publicity rather than Armstrong.

[Rondec]

My point is they should be required to prove it. Plus, he said/she said from 12 or 13 years ago wouldn't hold up in court on statute of limitations on the earlier races. The had witness against Roger Clemens that "had nothing to gain" and they turned out to be liars.

They basically had one guy, Brian Mcnamee, who didn't have a great track record. Andy Petitte didn't want to testify and fell all over himself to say that just maybe he was working out so hard that he didn't hear Clemens right when discussing human growth hormone. A pretty weak case at the end of the story and one told in a court where the man on trial is presumed innocent till proven guilty. Pretty different from the USADA...

[seacapt]

If the USADA doesn't find high profile "bad people " the agency will loose funding.

[slowpath]

I have to hand it to the USADA- they have managed to become more unlikeable than Lance, at least to me. We have all known about Lance for a long time, but I didn't know much about the USADA until now and I don't like what I am finding out.