Because they're sore losers. I honestly can't believe the USADA hasn't been shut down. What they are doing is positively un-patriotic. They're trying to strip an ambassador for cancer and the USA of all his sporting titles post '98. Americans should be up in arms. It would be like a similar organisation trying to posthumously strip Earnhardt of all his NASCAR titles because some of his jealous team mates said he broke the rules, the people would go mad.
Lance Armstrong charges
- Thread starter fozzybear
- Start date
Because they're sore losers. I honestly can't believe the USADA hasn't been shut down. What they are doing is positively un-patriotic. They're trying to strip an ambassador for cancer and the USA of all his sporting titles post '98. Americans should be up in arms. It would be like a similar organisation trying to posthumously strip Earnhardt of all his NASCAR titles because some of his jealous team mates said he broke the rules, the people would go mad.
How do you know they are even 'losers'? The names of the witnesses were not released.
So it's ok to cheat provided you say that cancer is bad?
And yet Bolt is clean as a whistle, as far as we know.
Appears that he's now been stripped of all his titles and banned.
*: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19369375
*: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19369375
Last edited:
Can I get a link for that? One that actually appears to know what it's talking about? So far, all I'm getting is stories saying that the USADA wants him stripped of his titles, but that doesn't mean he actually has been stripped of his titles.
by the USADA
Exactly my point. The articles are making these claims, but the USADA can only ask the UCI to strip him of his titles as far as I know.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/uk...5mViNSE_knO-5pEPA?docId=N0168591345806783469A
apparently usada cant really do it, however they have chosen to await the information from usada as well as this being passed to lance
"A statement read: "The UCI notes Lance Armstrong's decision not to proceed to arbitration in the case that USADA has brought against him.
"The UCI recognises that USADA is reported as saying that it will strip Mr. Armstrong of all results from 1998 onwards in addition to imposing a lifetime ban from participating in any sport which recognises the World Anti-Doping Code.
"Article 8.3 of the WADC states that where no hearing occurs the Anti-Doping Organisation with results management responsibility shall submit to the parties concerned (Mr Armstrong, WADA and UCI) a reasoned decision explaining the action taken.
"As USADA has claimed jurisdiction in the case the UCI expects that it will issue a reasoned decision in accordance with Article 8.3 of the Code."
I personally think lance has done this so that he can actually see the information and case against him before possibly taking it to the court of arbitration who would possiblyy be much more independant than usada in lances eyes.
apparently usada cant really do it, however they have chosen to await the information from usada as well as this being passed to lance
"A statement read: "The UCI notes Lance Armstrong's decision not to proceed to arbitration in the case that USADA has brought against him.
"The UCI recognises that USADA is reported as saying that it will strip Mr. Armstrong of all results from 1998 onwards in addition to imposing a lifetime ban from participating in any sport which recognises the World Anti-Doping Code.
"Article 8.3 of the WADC states that where no hearing occurs the Anti-Doping Organisation with results management responsibility shall submit to the parties concerned (Mr Armstrong, WADA and UCI) a reasoned decision explaining the action taken.
"As USADA has claimed jurisdiction in the case the UCI expects that it will issue a reasoned decision in accordance with Article 8.3 of the Code."
I personally think lance has done this so that he can actually see the information and case against him before possibly taking it to the court of arbitration who would possiblyy be much more independant than usada in lances eyes.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 9,173
I can totally understad why he gave po his legal fight. Why waste your accumulated life's earnings fighting a federally funded body through the courts. The damage is done they've sullied his name following fairly dodgy tactics and still they have no failed tests to show us.
In 2009 he finished 3rd at the ages of 37. Now in 2009 if he was on drugs you would have expected them to catch him, yet he came that close to winning an 8th tour. They must still be crap at their job or Lance Armstrong is just a bit special.
Now I've got a little tired of the doping stories but ultimately who is going to be the winner if not Lance all his contemporaries have actually failed drugs tests.
This really makes the USADA look bad in my eyes and reinforces some of my negative opinons on the US legal system in general.
In 2009 he finished 3rd at the ages of 37. Now in 2009 if he was on drugs you would have expected them to catch him, yet he came that close to winning an 8th tour. They must still be crap at their job or Lance Armstrong is just a bit special.
Now I've got a little tired of the doping stories but ultimately who is going to be the winner if not Lance all his contemporaries have actually failed drugs tests.
This really makes the USADA look bad in my eyes and reinforces some of my negative opinons on the US legal system in general.
In what way does it make them look bad?
They are an anti-doping agency, it's their job to investigate allegations of drug misuse in sport.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 9,173
Their headline witnesses are if the news outlets are to be believed are dopers themselves and the implication is that this is a plea bargain process for some of them. So without any failed tests they are relying on possibly prejudiced witness statements. Also they have unilaterally announced this ban yet the UCI hasn't it seems been included in the process so we don't even know if the ban will be upheld.
Which names are you thinking of?
From this source, some of the alleged witnesses are named as:
George Hincapie
Levi Leipheimer
Christian Vande Velde
David Zabriskie
None of these riders have failed a drugs test and all are currently still competing. Dont seem like "prejudiced witnesses" to me?
The plot thickens...
http://www.wltx.com/news/article/198878/2/Lance-Armstrong-to-Lose-7-Tour-de-France-Titles
Grabs popcorn...
I hope this goes all the way to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, it gets all sorted out & they leave Lance in peace to get on with his life.
I wonder what the world anti doping agency has to say about it. A USA agency telling a global sports governing body what to do?? I don't think UCI will like that TBH.
http://www.wltx.com/news/article/198878/2/Lance-Armstrong-to-Lose-7-Tour-de-France-Titles
Grabs popcorn...
I hope this goes all the way to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, it gets all sorted out & they leave Lance in peace to get on with his life.
I wonder what the world anti doping agency has to say about it. A USA agency telling a global sports governing body what to do?? I don't think UCI will like that TBH.
![[DOD]Asprilla](/styles/overclockers/avatars/8.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
WADA is backing USADA.
UCI is doing it's usual trick of pretending there isn't a problem. Unfortunately that's the thinking that allowed doping to get so out of control in cycling in the first place.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
I don't actually even know if the UCI can. I think only ASO can actually strip him because it's their race.