Lance Armstrong

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/24/lance-armstrong-fight-doping-charges?newsfeed=true

It might not be an admission of guilt but it's pretty hard not to interpret it as one isn't it?

I don't understand how they're going to prove anything. Surely WADA or a similar organisation tested him for drugs use during the races and they must have been negative otherwise he'd have already been suspended/disqualified. And his refusal to appeal doesn't prove anything. It is for the US Anti-doping Agency to prove his guilt, not for Lance to disprove their accusation.

Quoted from codhead91

I don't understand how they're going to prove anything. Surely WADA or a similar organisation tested him for drugs use during the races and they must have been negative otherwise he'd have already been suspended/disqualified. And his refusal to appeal doesn't prove anything. It is for the US Anti-doping Agency to prove his guilt, not for Lance to disprove their accusation.

He hasn't refused to appeal, he's effectively refused to defend himself. He says it's as he's had enough but only last week he was spending vast amounts of money and time trying to get the case dropped. If there is no evidence against him then surely he proceeds with the case and clears his name?

The truth is, that he doesn't want a lot of what would be heard in court to come out - the testimonies of numerous former team-mates who say they witnessed him doping and him trying and succeeding to persuade them to do the same, the constant contact with Michele Ferrari as well as blood analysis samples which display traits you'd expect to see in somebody using EPO.

Some people don't want to believe Armstrong is a cheat because it ruins the fantastic cancer-survivor Superman story but there is a lot of pretty damning evidence about.  

At the height of his success,

I always thought he must be on drugs,

BUT

He never failed a drugs test in his life,

So I am unsure on wether he did take drugs or not.

From what I've read about the evidence, the actual blood samples concern his comeback in 2009. The eye witness testimony that suggests he abused prior to that period shouldn't be sufficient to get him banned as you have to produce a positive result in a blood or urine sample. Apparently (according to some US journos on Twitter) the punishments handed down by USADA are illegal and are likely to be challenged.

And besides, if these witnesses also abused are they going to be banned? Is the testimony of a drugs cheat reliable?

Quoted from codhead91

Is the testimony of a drugs cheat reliable?

That's the usual Armstrong defence. So far he's used it against former team mates Hamilton, Landis, Andreu and Swart, who have all stated that they doped with Armstrong. They have all (except Armstrong) tested positive for banned substances or have admitted doping.

A similar line about 'jealously' used against Lance's former mechanic Mike Anderson and assistant Emma O'Reilly following their allegations about Lance's drug use. Same line has been used against Greg Lemond, three time Tour de France winner, who questioned Armstrong's association with Italian doctor Michele Ferrari, previously convicted of supply illegal drugs to cyclists.

Former team-mate Jonathan Vaughters also recently admitted doping, saying he quit the sport (and a 500,000 euro/year contract) because he didn't want to dope. Vaughters never tested positive. Widespread rumours that other former Armstrong team-mates George Hincapie, Christian Vandevelde, Dave Zabriskie and Levi Leipheimer were to testify against Lance in court. None of them have tested positive.

Because Lance has chosen not to defend himself, we may never know the whole truth, which is a shame. We may never know if new clinical evidence has come to light. The bit about him maybe doping in 2009 is interesting - even those who thought he might have doped from 1999-2005 thought he must have been clean by 2009.

Quoted from Rodley Mariner

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/24/lance-armstrong-fight-doping-charges?newsfeed=true

It might not be an admission of guilt but it's pretty hard not to interpret it as one isn't it?

still feel he is innocent.Ive read about this from other sources and the impression I get is where he has come from  to achieve what he has(impressive)  some people will always question him

The chances are most of the evidence will come out as they go after the folks behind Armstrong. Bruneel and co.

Problem is for a long time the dopers were well ahead of the authorities and most have only recently admitted it or not in some cases,

Luckily Lance was never one of my favorite riders anyway, and my favorites have already been found guilty!



On the other hand late 90s cycling was bloody good to watch  

Quoted from leicmariner

The chances are most of the evidence will come out as they go after the folks behind Armstrong. Bruneel and co.

Problem is for a long time the dopers were well ahead of the authorities and most have only recently admitted it or not in some cases,

I hope the evidence does get made public, I think the sport needs to move on but it can't with so many questions unanswered.

The idea that Armstrong's clean because he never failed a drugs test is meaningless. Only dopey dopers get caught - the cheats are usually a step ahead of the tests. There's more here if anyone's interested, albeit from an athletics point of view: [url]http://www.tracktalk.net/showpost.php?p=225673&postcount=8[/url]. If the same scrutiny that's applied to cycling was applied to other sports, you'd see lots more headlines about drugs in sport. Especially swimming, athletics, tennis.

Just to disagree with you Leics  , I think 1985-1990 was the best era for cycling: Hinault, Lemond, Roche, Fignon, Herrera, Hampsten etc. Not squeaky clean by any means, but a lot cleaner than the sport became by the mid-90s.