So who won the tour from 1999 to 2005
1 lurker |
80 watchers
Aug 2012
10:14pm, 24 Aug 2012
678 posts
|
MudMeanderer
It's a red herring to argue he's being found guilty until proven innocent. USADA have put together a case (or at least so far said they have), and LA has decided not to contest it. Without putting forth a defence it's unlikely his side will win - the law would be something of a farce if the action of not choosing to contest a position was taken as evidence that that position must be the true one. The non disclosure of the USADA case makes for a bit of a murky issue, though as the dispute between the UCI and USADA last week found, their own rules didn't require the publishing of the case before the hearing. I believe in part concerns of witness intimidation were the reason for not releasing details before the case was heard. |
Aug 2012
10:17pm, 24 Aug 2012
599 posts
|
golfpag
in 1999 he did actually give a unusual blood test but it was so small that it fell outside of the positive range and he had a certificate to substanciate its use
|
|
Aug 2012
10:19pm, 24 Aug 2012
600 posts
|
golfpag
A 1999 urine sample showed traces of corticosteroid in an amount that was not in the positive range. A medical certificate showed he used an approved cream for saddle sores which contained the substance. If you go here there are masses of info on Lance Armstrong en.wikipedia.org |
|
Aug 2012
11:39pm, 24 Aug 2012
9,509 posts
|
Stander
MM - in a court of law (not the same I know - but same principle) if the prosecution puts forward a case and the defendant offers nothing on what would a jury decide? Same here if only one side puts forth a case then the case has to be settled on the strength (or weakness) of that case. I'll await for information on just what the USADA has by way of "proof" before making up my own mind if LA is guilty or not. However, if I were innocence I'd fight tooth and nail to defned myself. That being said, my understanding is that LA isn't the biggest fan of the USADA and it's authorithy so not pandering to them may be because of that rather than him being guilty. |
|
Aug 2012
11:47pm, 24 Aug 2012
9,510 posts
|
Stander
Having said the above though, 20 years ago I didn't go to court and defend a fixed penalty notice even though I was innocence as the 200 mile round trip to the court and hassle was less than paying the thirty quid and taking the three points.
|
Aug 2012
1:00am, 25 Aug 2012
17,441 posts
|
SPR
Kimmage interview: rte.ie The authority thing is BS, how can the national anti doping agency not have juristiction over doping? PR once again. Lance knows the rules he signed up too, he isn't stupid. Walsh said it on 5live earlier, there's enough evidence out there for anyone willing to look before USADA even release their evidence. |
|
Aug 2012
1:03am, 25 Aug 2012
17,442 posts
|
SPR
*Too* should be *to*
|
|
Aug 2012
1:15am, 25 Aug 2012
17,443 posts
|
SPR
BTW Lance's first submission of the case was thrown out due to being a PR stunt. www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-federal-lawsuit-against-usada-dismissed Court documents revealed by the New York Times, quote Sparks with having the following response: "This Court is not inclined to indulge Armstrong's desire for publicity, self-aggrandizement or vilification of Defendants, by sifting through eighty mostly unnecessary pages in search of the few kernels of factual material relevant to his claims." The Court claimed that the lawsuit filed earlier in the day contained "allegations" which were separate to the case and therefore "the Court must presume, were included solely to increase media coverage of this case, and to incite public opinion against Defendants." A footnote on the documents states the following: "Contrary to Armstrong's apparent belief, pleadings filed in the United States District Courts are not press releases, internet blogs, or pieces of investigative journalism. All parties, and their lawyers, are expected to comply with the rules of this Court, and face potential sanctions if they do not." |
|
Aug 2012
1:26am, 25 Aug 2012
17,444 posts
|
SPR
A clickable link: cyclingnews.com
|
Aug 2012
8:24am, 25 Aug 2012
4,624 posts
|
Bazoaxe
I've had a good look and read. The evidence appears either circumstantial, alleged by dopers who were caught and denied their guilt or came up with unplausible excuses or from people who allege one thing but others present issue denials. There is nothing that proves guilt however with all this stuff you have to believe. No smoke without fire. If usada are going to strip titles IMO they have a duty to put their evidence forward. if they don't then an element of doubt exists. Armstrong doesn't need to defend himself but surely his guilt needs proven and can't be assumed I suspect this story has some way to run yet. |
Related Threads
-
Cheating in amateur sports
Apr 2017
-
Are you doping? Do you know someone who is?
Mar 2017
-
Tour De France
Aug 2020
-
Le Tour 2016
Jul 2016
-
Tour de France 2016
Jun 2016
-
T\'Tour in otley
Apr 2016
-
Le Tour 2015
Aug 2015
-
Le Tour 2014
Jun 2015
-
Tour of Britain
Jan 2015
-
Womens Tour Of Britain
May 2014
