US Anti-Doping Agency charges Armstrong

I'm not at all sure what you are asking here :confused:

-----Rob, if a very important decision of that scope was reached;
then it must have some solid foundation behind it, no?
Assumption is no more an option, and it ain't part of the equation.

This ain't small peanuts we're talkin' here.
 
Lance Armstrong's Tour titles stripped

By Julien Pretot | Reuters

GENEVA, Oct 22 (Reuters) - Lance Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and banned for life on Monday after the International Cycling Union (UCI) ratified the United States Anti-Doping Agency's (USADA) sanctions against the American.
The long-awaited decision has left cycling facing its "greatest crisis" according to UCI president Pat McQuaid and has destroyed Armstrong's last hope of clearing his name.
"Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling. Lance Armstrong deserves to be forgotten in cyclling," McQuaid told a news conference as he outlined how cycling, long battered by doping problems for decades, would have to start all over again.
"The UCI wishes to begin that journey on that path forward today by confirming that it will not appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and that it will recognise the sanction that USADA has imposed.
"I was sickened by what I read in the USADA report."
On Oct. 10, USADA published a report into Armstrong which alleged the now-retired rider had been involved in the "most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping program that sport has ever seen".
Armstrong, 41, had previously elected not to contest USADA charges, prompting USADA to propose his punishment pending confirmation from cycling's world governing body.
Former Armstrong team mates at his U.S. Postal and Discovery Channel outfits, where he won his seven successive Tour titles from 1999 to 2005, testified against him and themselves and were given reduced bans by the American authorities.
"It wasn't until the intervention of federal agents...they called these riders in and they put down a gun and badge on the table in front of them and said 'you're now facing a grand jury you must tell the truth' that those riders broke down," McQuaid added.
Armstrong, widely accepted as one of the greatest cyclists of all time given he fought back from cancer to dominate the sport, has always denied doping and says he has never failed a doping test.
He said he had stopped contesting the charges after years of probes and rumours because "there comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, 'Enough is enough'".
WIDESPREAD DOPING
McQuaid, who faced criticism from several quarters for his and the UCI's handling of the affair, said he would not be resigning.
"Cycling has a future. This is not the first time cycling has reached a crossroads or that it has had to begin anew," he said in front of a packed room full of journalists and television cameras.
"When I took over (as president) in 2005 I made the fight against doping my priority. I acknowledged cycling had a culture of doping. Cycling has come a long way. I have no intention of resigning as president of the UCI.
"I am sorry we couldn't catch every damn one of them red handed and throw them out of the sport."
Other issues such as the potential re-awarding of Armstrong's Tour titles and the matter of prize money will be discussed by the UCI Management Committee on Friday.
Tour director Christian Prudhomme has said he believes no rider should inherit the titles given doping was so widespread among the peloton at the time but McQuaid made it clear that that decision rested with his organisation, not the Tour organisers.
USADA charged five people over the doping ring. Doctors Luis Garcia del Moral and Michele Ferrari and trainer Pepe Marti have been banned for life while Armstrong's mentor Johan Bruyneel has chosen to go to arbitration along with doctor Pedro Celaya.
Armstrong's last hope that the UCI might not ratify USADA's ruling sprang from long-running dispute between the two bodies over who should handle of the case.
In statements issued at the news conference, the UCI continued the feud with USADA despite ratifying its decision.
"Even apart from any discussion on jurisdiction, it would have been better that the evidence collected by USADA had been assessed by a neutral body or person who was not involved in collecting the evidence and prosecuting the defendant," it said.
"This would have avoided both the criticism of a witch hunt against Mr Armstrong and the criticism that the UCI had a conflict of interest."
The UCI also said it had dope tested Armstrong 218 times and the fact he never tested positive and "beat the system" means that other organisations such as the World Anti-Doping Agency should share the responsibility of accepting the results.
USADA CEO Travis Tygart later issued a statement approving of the UCI's action but warning that more needed to be done.
"Despite its prior opposition to USADA's investigation into doping on the U.S. Postal Service cycling team and within the sport, USADA is glad that the UCI finally reversed course in this case and has made the credible decision available to it," he said.
"This determination to uphold USADA's decision on the U.S. Postal Services case does not by itself clean up cycling nor does it ensure the sport has moved past the obstacles that allowed doping to flourish in the age of EPO and blood transfusions.
"For cycling to truly move forward and for the world to know what went on in cycling, it is essential that an independent and meaningful Truth and Reconciliation Commission be established so that the sport can fully unshackle itself from the past. There are many more details of doping that are hidden, many more doping doctors, and corrupt team directors and the omerta has not yet been fully broken."
In recent years the Tour de France and cycling had looked to be winning the battle against dopers but when asked if the sport would one day be free of the scourge, McQuaid answered: "No."
There was no immediate response from Armstrong or his lawyers.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) did respond, amid suggestions that Armstrong could be stripped of his 2000 Sydney Olympics time trial bronze.
"We will study UCI's response to the USADA report and await to receive their full decision including further potential sanctions against Lance Armstrong as well as regarding any ramifications to his case," an IOC official told Reuters.
"The UCI has announced that its Management Committee will meet on Friday to decide on further action in the light of today's statement. It is good to see that all parties involved in this case are working together to tackle this issue."

-----Here, just reread it, anyone, and everyone.
 
I think it speaks volumes that after all the time and money spent by the US Dept of Justice on their investigation they declined to prosecute Armstrong.
 
-----Smart move somehow methinks; saves a lot of embarrassment, and further MONEY!

So I continue to be confused by your point? It has appeared that you think Lance is definitely guilty of doping, but you also think the evidence is not enough for a criminal conviction? Is that a fair description?
 
Slang of U.S. origin.] An unfair, biased, or hasty judicial proceeding that ends in a harsh punishment; an unauthorized trial conducted by individuals who have taken the law into their own hands, such as those put on by vigilantes or prison inmates; a proceeding and its leaders who are considered sham, corrupt, and without regard for the law.

The concept of kangaroo court dates to the early nineteenth century. Scholars trace its origin to the historical practice of itinerant judges on the U.S. frontier. These roving judges were paid on the basis of how many trials they conducted, and in some instances their salary depended on the fines from the defendants they convicted. The term kangaroo court comes from the image of these judges hopping from place to place, guided less by concern for justice than by the desire to wrap up as many trials as the day allowed.

The term is still in common usage by defendants, writers, and scholars critical of a court or a trial. The U.S. Supreme Court has also used it. In in re gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1967), a case that established that children in juvenile court have the right to due process, the Court reasoned, "Under our Constitution, the condition of being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court." Associate Justice william o. douglas once wrote, "[W]here police take matters in their own hands, seize victims, beat and pound them until they confess, there cannot be the slightest doubt that the police have deprived the victim of a right under the Constitution. It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court" (Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97, 71 S. Ct. 576, 95 L. Ed. 774 [1951]).

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.


kangaroo court n. 1) a mock court set up without legal basis, such as a fraternity, sports team or army squad might set up to punish minor violations of organizational decorum. 2) slang for a court of law in which the violations of procedure, precedents, and due process are so gross that fundamental justice is denied. It usually means that the judge is incompetent or obviously biased. (See: star chamber proceedings)

It probablyis.
 
I am reluxtnt to make a definitive statement without all the evidence. I'm not willing to read 1000 page report unless somebody pays me.
 
The standard of evidence they(USADA) uuse is "clear and onvincing " subtantially more ikely than not. Overwhelming evidence is not a legal standard. It is less than beyond a reasonable doubt more than a preponderance pf evidence.

The means of proof is by "any relaible means." "A posiitive drug test is not required." From what I have seen they do not mention how they deal with a negative test.
 
So I continue to be confused by your point? It has appeared that you think Lance is definitely guilty of doping, but you also think the evidence is not enough for a criminal conviction? Is that a fair description?

-----Rob, I'm going to make it very clear once and for all.

Lance is a disgrace to his sport; cycling. Period! ...Him, and many many others like him.
What I believe simply don't matter; I can read and understand what's going on.

As for our system of laws; screw that, it has more injustice in it than real justice!
Money is the evil power, and it rules! ...Everywhere.

Just don't get cut doing your bad deeds that's all. ...And Lance thought that he had it all figured out!
 
---Furthermore, if you believe in justice by means of lawyers, prosecutors, judges, prisons' guards, rehabilitation, rich accused people (poor ones too), and all that court law system; sorry folks but you have somethin' else comin'!

Money is an evil that most people can't even see! ...And the corrupted becomes the corruptors!
It's a vast and vicious circle that surrounds all of us! And to brake free of it is to live with a true goal in life. It's a personal choice, and not a dictated or influenced one. Money has nothing to do with true values.

There I said it, and I'm proud of it too. I'll fight for the rest of my life for peace, equality, fairness, truthfulness, and for what's real inside the heart of men & women. :b
 
Last edited:
The question for Lances' accusers is, what lie should we believe? The lie you told when you claimed you were not doping or the lie you told when you sadi Lance was doping. What ponuishment if any did you suffer for admitting you doped? After all, that is the basis for crediblity, an admission against penal interest. Severely lackinbg if there is no punishment.
 
Here's my dilemma (which matters only to me and my personal value system): on one hand, Lance never failed a doping test (and passed hundreds), the federal government declined to prosecute (presumably for lack of evidence) and the eyewitness testimony against him is obviously biased, as is the USADA. OTOH, there's objective evidence that doping was (is?) pervasive in professional cycling, and although the eyewitness testimony is obviously biased, there's an awful lot of it.
 
A million weak cases does not make one strong one. They can be used to show a common scheme or plan, The common scheme or plan needs to have a signature or uniqueness. You still have to sustain the standard of proof as to each and every element of each and every count.These are complex evidentiary issues. The problem is the USADA is investigator, prosecutor and Judge.

If Lance Armstrong is guilty. He needs to man -up. I don't want him to be cyclings Pete Rose.
 
If Lance Armstrong is guilty. He needs to man -up. I don't want him to be cyclings Pete Rose.

I could not agree more. On the one hand, this could be some huge conspiracy, the objective of which is not clear (to me) and on the other, Lance is actually guilty.

Too many things don't add up on either side: On the prosecution side, they have ZERO scientific evidence that he doped. He passed every test that they gave him. They chose not to prosecute. And just because doping is prevalent in most sports does not mean Lance is guilty. Nor does it mean he is guilty because team mates said he was. They may have an agenda that we are not aware of.

On the defense side, silence is like taking the 5th amendment - everyone assumes you are guilty.

Do I have an opinion on the matter? Yes I do.

And Bob, while our system of justice is far from perfect, I'll take it over almost anything else out there.
 
On the defense side, silence is like taking the 5th amendment - everyone assumes you are guilty.

I don't think Lance has been silent.A detailed response to each and every accusation is different from participating in a kangaroo court.. Pete Rose made himself irrelevant by waiting so long to confess.

A timely confession would probably have no criminal consequences and would go a long way to restoring the validity of cycling. I would remain Lance Armstrong of one thing-Penn State. If they had turned Jerry Sanddusky in they could have treated it as an isolated incident. Sandusky would be home with his family by now..
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu