Lance Armstrong charges
- Thread starter fozzybear
- Start date
Get it round you Lance
Chances of a prison spell? Marion Jones went down for lying under oath. When you add witness intimidation to the mix...
I doubt it.
The recent charges were not criminal charges and didnt go to court anyway, so he was not under oath for that.
He might have lied under oath during the investigation into the misspending of public money a few years ago, but i think there would need to be a criminal investigation into his lying before he could face imprisonment and that would have a different burden of proof than the USADA charges and could be harder to prove.
As pointed out earlier in the thread, doping is a criminal offence in some European countries (including France) so i suppose he could be locked up there if he goes back. I doubt the US would extradite him (Could they even do that for an offence which is not illegal in US?).
Armstrong should be more worried about SCA and the millions he fraudulently took from then in a Lawsuit.
I'm actually tending a bit towards the idea that Rabobank pulling out of cycling might be a good thing.
For all the good that nailing Armstrong does, the UCI is still massively complicit, and still refuses to take any blame for the situation. At the very least they were massively negligent, and their tired "Oh, that's all in the past, it won't happen again" stance is not going to help keep cycling clean. They need to visibly stand against doping, Verbruggen needs to go, and McQuaid should seriously consider his own opinion.
Losing a bit of money from sponsors might just nudge them a little more than press pressure has ever done.
Haha, you're doing this again are you? I'm not angry in the slightest, I'm just pointing out that your need to constantly act like you're the most knowledgeable person in the room, when you're quite clearly not, isn't needed here. I'm not even a particularly big cycling expert either. But the difference is that I don't pretend to be.
I'll put it simply: You don't have any proof that drugs are rife in cycling right now. No-one does. It might be, but there's not much evidence of it at the moment, so making a statement of fact is misguided.
For all the good that nailing Armstrong does, the UCI is still massively complicit, and still refuses to take any blame for the situation. At the very least they were massively negligent, and their tired "Oh, that's all in the past, it won't happen again" stance is not going to help keep cycling clean. They need to visibly stand against doping, Verbruggen needs to go, and McQuaid should seriously consider his own opinion.
Losing a bit of money from sponsors might just nudge them a little more than press pressure has ever done.
Haha, you're doing this again are you? I'm not angry in the slightest, I'm just pointing out that your need to constantly act like you're the most knowledgeable person in the room, when you're quite clearly not, isn't needed here. I'm not even a particularly big cycling expert either. But the difference is that I don't pretend to be.
I'll put it simply: You don't have any proof that drugs are rife in cycling right now. No-one does. It might be, but there's not much evidence of it at the moment, so making a statement of fact is misguided.
Yes they do. Armstrong failed a number of drugs tests, and the USADA has evidence to prove it. He's a lying sack of ****.
The full USDA report is available here. It is utterly devastating and proves conclusively that Armstrong was the orchestrator and enforcer of a massive, highly sophisticated doping ring.
Tour de France is looking like a joke these days:
I think that's a little harsh to be honest, given the breadth and depth of doping within Cycling. Armstrong may have been one of the chief orchestrators of the cheating, but he was hardly the only one to blame. Doping or not doping, he came back from life threatening cancer, and that in itself should be remembered, if not for cycling but for other sufferers.Pat Mcquaid said:
It does seem to me that he's being made a scapegoat, they should all be banned for life.
He was a good cyclist, but that wasn't the sport he was best at. He was the best at the meta-game of doping. It's impossible to know if he was a great cyclist because how can you separate that from his doping?
That picture of all the TdF winners known to have doped makes me think the rest pretty much have to be considered guilty until proven innocent, which is pretty awful.
And lastly, I don't care that he survived cancer. That doesn't mitigate his later offences.
That picture of all the TdF winners known to have doped makes me think the rest pretty much have to be considered guilty until proven innocent, which is pretty awful.
And lastly, I don't care that he survived cancer. That doesn't mitigate his later offences.
As Paul Kimmage put quite neatly in an article recently, how come no-one gushes praise about Matt Wilson, for coming back from cancer to race in the TdF?
Because he didn't win it by cheating, or because he didn't set up an ego-stoking publicity machine? Your pick.
Because he didn't win it by cheating, or because he didn't set up an ego-stoking publicity machine? Your pick.
It's interesting how many organisations by the day now seem to be demanding money back. David Millar's article yesterday was quite interesting because he explained how that even if Armstrong wants to come clean, he can't really do that because his admission of guilt could result in jail time and huge fines.
I wonder how much he will have left in the bank when he comes out of this. It's also interesting that there have been nothing in the way of statements from his camp. He was very active on Twitter and his account now appears to be dead.
I wonder how much he will have left in the bank when he comes out of this. It's also interesting that there have been nothing in the way of statements from his camp. He was very active on Twitter and his account now appears to be dead.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 7,806
- Location
- Under the Hill
Guilty or innocent I find it hard to think that very many will be successful. It's pretty clear that all but current endorsement contracts will have delivered the additional publicity the investment was used to generate at the time and any resultant revenue increases.
Anyone else see this in the Gazzetta dello Sport?
http://english.gazzetta.it/More_spo...nk-accounts-fake-contracts-912946609743.shtml
It's only tangentially linked to Armstrong, but wow, that sounds like it's going to be one hell of a case when it's brought out.
Well apparently the SCA money was quite clearly dependent on LA being the appointed champion of the TdF in 2005, as that's how he got out of the first legal case against it. But now, of course, he's quite clearly not the appointed champion any more.
http://english.gazzetta.it/More_spo...nk-accounts-fake-contracts-912946609743.shtml
It's only tangentially linked to Armstrong, but wow, that sounds like it's going to be one hell of a case when it's brought out.
Well apparently the SCA money was quite clearly dependent on LA being the appointed champion of the TdF in 2005, as that's how he got out of the first legal case against it. But now, of course, he's quite clearly not the appointed champion any more.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/23/lance-armstrong-appeal-usada-uci
Wow, Tygart really doesn't like Armstrong or the UCI at all does he. While not disputing their findings, I can see where McQuaid is coming from in some of his comments.
Wow, Tygart really doesn't like Armstrong or the UCI at all does he. While not disputing their findings, I can see where McQuaid is coming from in some of his comments.
Wasn't really those ones I was thinking of really, more what WeeBull mentions, the cases where he took legal action against accusations of doping and won.
Suspended
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 5,722
- Location
- Buckingamshire
That's wrong.
There have been a number of high profile GC riders tested positive or had odd blood values this year. No offence intended, but if you think GC is clean then you're deluded.
McQuaid is part of the problem. He obstructed the investigation by USADA as much as he could. The UCI was complicit in aiding Armstrong in his cheating.
Greg LeMond's open letter to UCI:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...eg-lemond-to-uci-president-pat-mcquaid_262523
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...eg-lemond-to-uci-president-pat-mcquaid_262523
So LA is doing an interview with Oprah Winfrey which allegedly will have him confess to his doping charges but many think it will be more of a concession than a confession. A rehearsed, staged TV interview over a court room - makes sense.