Lance Armstrong dopes.

[Ishmael]

The USADA is pretty much a self appointed, bogus entity. The have NO official standing other than what they have appointed to their selves. Because they award nothing, they can not strip anything from anyone that has been awarded anything by another entity.

Their procedures are simple, accept our judgement and be found guilty, or protest and be found guilty. It's a rigged game and there is no wonder, in my mind, why Armstrong just decided to quit playing. Some seem to think that that is an admission of guilt. Under what auspices?

Lance merely said, "Go fuck yourself, I'm no longer going to play your game."

What is their motive in all of this? Well, an indication might be that they want Armstrong to give them ALL of the endorsement monies he's earned over the years.

This is NOT about truth, justice, or the American way. It's about money and the desire for one, self-appointed, non-government sanctioned, entity to take from one that which it has not earned.

Ishmael

 

[Kitschshaman]

The USADA is pretty much a self appointed, bogus entity. The have NO official standing other than what they have appointed to their selves. Because they award nothing, they can not strip anything from anyone that has been awarded anything by another entity.

Their procedures are simple, accept our judgement and be found guilty, or protest and be found guilty. It's a rigged game and there is no wonder, in my mind, why Armstrong just decided to quit playing. Some seem to think that that is an admission of guilt. Under what auspices?

Lance merely said, "Go fuck yourself, I'm no longer going to play your game."

What is their motive in all of this? Well, an indication might be that they want Armstrong to give them ALL of the endorsement monies he's earned over the years.

This is NOT about truth, justice, or the American way. It's about money and the desire for one, self-appointed, non-government sanctioned, entity to take from one that which it has not earned.

Ishmael

You pretty much hit the proverbial nail on the head. Bunch of little Hitlers trying to make the most of their little bit of power.

 

[Beco]

The USADA is pretty much a self appointed, bogus entity. The have NO official standing other than what they have appointed to their selves. Because they award nothing, they can not strip anything from anyone that has been awarded anything by another entity.

Their procedures are simple, accept our judgement and be found guilty, or protest and be found guilty. It's a rigged game and there is no wonder, in my mind, why Armstrong just decided to quit playing. Some seem to think that that is an admission of guilt. Under what auspices?

Lance merely said, "Go fuck yourself, I'm no longer going to play your game."

What is their motive in all of this? Well, an indication might be that they want Armstrong to give them ALL of the endorsement monies he's earned over the years.

This is NOT about truth, justice, or the American way. It's about money and the desire for one, self-appointed, non-government sanctioned, entity to take from one that which it has not earned.

Ishmael

Lance was so last week......

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

A good summation of the whole "get Lance" movement:

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/27/lance-versus-the-losers

 

[Busybody]

Here is a question I hope someone can answer

We all know DOPING is illegal and if caught will lead to the most dire of consequences

EVERYONE KNOWS THAT

All test given to LA have come back negative

The only "evidence" the agency says it has is that MANY people, including team-mates saw him dope

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

IF LA DOPED, WOULD HE DO IT IN FRONT ON MANY? MAYBE ONE, BY ACCIDENT....BUT MANY? AND OFTEN?



Makes ZERO SENSE

 

[blobfish]

He's an American that won a European race. Musta been doping.

 

[Busybody]

He's an American that won a European race. Musta been doping.

I often thought that

JELOUSY

 

[blobfish]

I often thought that

JELOUSY

Yup. Even the IOC is tougher on American athletes than they are on anybody else.

 

[thør]

Ish hit the nail square on the head.

 

[islandman]

Point of order for an otherwise passé thread topic: The U.S. Congress recognizes the USADA as the "national organization to carry out all elements of the anti-doping program for Olympic and Paralympic sports".

Ergo, the USADA has an official standing with the government.

 

[CHNOPS]

USADA has Congressional authority (and even funding) to enforce the Workd Anti-Doping Code. They serve the same role for the US Olympic team. They are non-profit and fully funded.

They have three positive blood tests showing Armstrong transfused and doped. They have the testimony of teammates--most of whom have denied doping themselves until now--consistent with those tests.

If they are wrong, Armstrong had nothing to fear from a full hearing. The worst--very worst, farthest end of possible--outcome was what has happened now: judge upholds their findings and strip him of titles and money. But there is a full range of better-case scenarios that were available to him, if he was innocent and presented his best defense. There were probably better case scenarios available if he fought at all.

He's rich as God. He's not a lawyer, his lawyers are lawyers. The only obligation he'd have is some occasional testimony. Now he has to talk about it all the time.

He's either the dumbest fuck on the face of the planet, or he found the only way to be found guilty that still lets him claim he's not...and gets people like the OP who never even heard of the USADA until now putting the problem on their head, instead of Armstrong's own.

Someone says you killed someone, and you didn't, you don't decide that prison would be better than a couple of years fighting it. Anyone suggesting otherwise ignores how motherfucking tough you have to be race in the TDF at all, let alone win it, let alone win it 7 times, let alone 7 times in a ROW, doped or otherwise. You don't work an entire career to establish a legacy and then decide it's not worth fighting for when someone comes along with a baseless accusation.

He doped. He's been good at intimidating anyone who has suggested it in the past, but he met his match this time. That's the whole story.

 

[islandman]

He's raised half a billion for cancer research.

You people need to get your priorities straight.

 

[CHNOPS]

He's raised half a billion for cancer research.

You people need to get your priorities straight.

Which has what do to, exactly, with whether he doped?

Bernard Madoff made money for people too. Might as well let him off!

 

[islandman]

Which has what do to, exactly, with whether he doped?

Bernard Madoff made money for people too. Might as well let him off!

It has nothing to do with whether he doped. That's only important to soft-in-the-head people who feel that he's somehow personally betrayed them. Everyone else could care less about it and whether he retains his medals.

No, Madoff, robbed Peter to pay Paul. That's not "making money".

 

[CHNOPS]

It has nothing to do with whether he doped. That's only important to soft-in-the-head people who feel that he's somehow personally betrayed them. Everyone else could care less about it and whether he retains his medals.

No, Madoff, robbed Peter to pay Paul. That's not "making money".

Nobody I know feels personally betrayed by him, since most people knew he was doping all along. Maybe you just hang out with softer-headed people than most?

The news story is not about his foundation, it is about whether or not he doped. Therefore, that is what people are talking about. When and if there is a news story about his foundation, your non sequitur will be relevant. Until then, it sounds like you're trying to make the argument that the law should be different for people who do good things with some of their time, regardless of what they are doing with the rest of their time. Is that right?

By the way, you played a semantic game with the Madoff thing. Individual investors made money from him. That's "making money," if you're that investor, regardless of the mechanism behind it. You knew that, though. Maybe you were hoping I didn't.

 

[islandman]

Nobody I know feels personally betrayed by him, since most people knew he was doping all along. Maybe you just hang out with softer-headed people than most?

The news story is not about his foundation, it is about whether or not he doped. Therefore, that is what people are talking about. When and if there is a news story about his foundation, your non sequitur will be relevant. Until then, it sounds like you're trying to make the argument that the law should be different for people who do good things with some of their time, regardless of what they are doing with the rest of their time. Is that right?

By the way, you played a semantic game with the Madoff thing. Individual investors made money from him. That's "making money," if you're that investor, regardless of the mechanism behind it. You knew that, though. Maybe you were hoping I didn't.

You play "semantics", I respond with "clawbacks"....and I know you know what that means.

His successes are the reason why he raised $ via Livestrong. You don't have the latter without the former. And since the USADA didn't award his TDF medals, you've just underscored Ishamel's point.

And yes, I do hang out with some soft-in-the-head people. They're mostly baseball fans who don't want Bonds in the HoF.

 

[CHNOPS]

His successes are the reason why he raised $ via Livestrong. You don't have the latter without the former.

Actually, let's go with this for a second.

Let's say that Armstrong did dope. Stipulate that for a moment.

His cancer foundation is based on his narrative: he fought back from the brink of death to beat testicular cancer and win the Tour de France 7 times in a row.

That narrative has raised half a billion dollars for cancer research.

Now let's say he wouldn't have won those races without doping. Maybe 2nd or 3rd, maybe worse.

His foundation would have been based on a false narrative: he didn't 'fight back and win,' he fought back and cheated.

Is that a legitimate narrative to raise money on, or is that robbing Peter to pay Paul too?

 

[CHNOPS]

Not to heartily agree with myself or anything, but...

Armstrong Could Have Kept 5 Tour Medals If He Had Cooperated

 

[CHNOPS]

And since the USADA didn't award his TDF medals, you've just underscored Ishamel's point.

No, sorry. It's a rhetorically, logically, and morally flawed argument. You steal a TV and cops come get you, you don't get to say, "You can't arrest me, you didn't put that TV in the store in the first place!"

They're a recognized enforcement arm. He just found a way to make the conversation be about something other than getting caught.

 

[kbate]

Not to heartily agree with myself or anything, but...

Armstrong Could Have Kept 5 Tour Medals If He Had Cooperated

So if he came in and confessed, they 'might' have let him keep 5 titles.

I call bullshite. They would have pressed as hard as possible and called any denial of anything a cover-up which they did even without evidence of a cover-up.

 

[islandman]

Actually, let's go with this for a second.

Let's say that Armstrong did dope. Stipulate that for a moment.

His cancer foundation is based on his narrative: he fought back from the brink of death to beat testicular cancer and win the Tour de France 7 times in a row.

That narrative has raised half a billion dollars for cancer research.

Now let's say he wouldn't have won those races without doping. Maybe 2nd or 3rd, maybe worse.

His foundation would have been based on a false narrative: he didn't 'fight back and win,' he fought back and cheated.

Is that a legitimate narrative to raise money on, or is that robbing Peter to pay Paul too?

It's neither.

Donors' expectations were fulfilled, assuming all monies went towards cancer research. Madof's investors can't say the same....actually, maybe they can given that they expected either a gain or a loss. And they got both.

 

[CHNOPS]

So if he came in and confessed, they 'might' have let him keep 5 titles.

I call bullshite. They would have pressed as hard as possible and called any denial of anything a cover-up which they did even without evidence of a cover-up.

USADA's case against Armstrong was built primarily on witness testimony and blood samples indicative of doping.

If he didn't dope, this would have been ridiculously easy to remove from the table, no?

 

[Adre]

This is a guy who routinely throws people under the bus. Wife, teammates, friends. My wife refused to hire him as a motivational speaker because of his personal reputation. He is very likely a cheater. He's done some good stuff along the way to burnish his reputation, but personally he is a shite. And now a quitter, it seems.

 

[CHNOPS]

It's neither.

Donors' expectations were fulfilled, assuming all monies went towards cancer research. Madof's investors can't say the same....actually, maybe they can given that they expected either a gain or a loss. And they got both.

There are lots of cancer foundations. Can we agree that that narrative is greatly responsible for people choosing Armstrong's in particular to donate to?

If I buy a hammer because you tell me it was made by orphans, and it's not, it's true: I still have a hammer either way. But I bought more than the object. I bought the narrative.

Now let's go with the idea that his is false, that in fact he beat cancer and then cheated his way to 7 titles. Should anyone who would NOT have chosen his foundation, had that been the story line, be allowed to have their money back?

That is, you're saying their expectations were fulfilled. If THEY say they weren't, what then?

 

[islandman]

This is a guy who routinely throws people under the bus. Wife, teammates, friends. My wife refused to hire him as a motivational speaker because of his personal reputation. He is very likely a cheater. He's done some good stuff along the way to burnish his reputation, but personally he is a shite. And now a quitter, it seems.

He quit lying.

Is that so wrong?