BBC: Lance Armstrong to have his 7 titles stripped. - Page 4

funk de fino · 24th August 2012, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Aepervius

One he said she said is one thing.

A few of them with chemical evidence is another.

Bring it?

funk de fino · 24th August 2012, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Resume

All of them? It's they said, he said.

Indeed. Some real evidence and not hearsay is what I would require.

Resume · 24th August 2012, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by funk de fino

Indeed. Some real evidence and not hearsay is what I would require.

They're all lying? And the USADA is out to get him? And L'Equipe?

Not buying it.

funk de fino · 24th August 2012, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Resume

They're all lying? And the USADA is out to get him? And L'Equipe?

Not buying it.

How much evidence did the Feds see that wasnt deemed sufficient? Tainted witness. Offers of who knows what?

My brother once told my mother I stole some mmey from her. Guess what?

The USADA is all about McCarthyism.

Resume · 24th August 2012, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by funk de fino

How much evidence did the Feds see that wasnt deemed sufficient? Tainted witness. Offers of who knows what?

My brother once told my mother I stole some mmey from her. Guess what?

The USADA is all about McCarthyism.

There were to be at least ten witnesses if this went to arbitration, which is probably why Armstrong quit.

Not buying your CT.

LTC8K6 · 24th August 2012, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by funk de fino

How much evidence did the Feds see that wasnt deemed sufficient? Tainted witness. Offers of who knows what?

My brother once told my mother I stole some mmey from her. Guess what?

The USADA is all about McCarthyism.

Keep in mind the different standards of evidence. Arbitration has a much lower standard than a criminal case. They can accept anything they decide to accept in arbitration, at the will of the officials, and Lance would have agreed to that arbitration process at some point.

You could easily win a criminal case and lose in arbitration on the exact same evidence.

I still think Lance should release the report when the USADA provides it to him and UCI.

Nessie · 24th August 2012, 12:53 PM

I have been watching the Tour De France for the past 20 years. It has until recently always had issues with drug use and cheating. I came to accept that it was a race to find the best cyclist, based on the person, bike, team and use of drugs. Lance Armstrong did not fail any tests at the time. That was at a time when cyclist after cyclist was failing and the culture of doping permeated the sport.

As has been pointed out those who came second are also likely or proven blood dopers. That may well be true for third, fourth and so on. Why not just blank out the results for the whole of the Tour De France for those seven years? And a good few years either side of that.

I think he should keep his titles as he was the best cyclist when faced with lots of competition from many other cyclists including from those who were definitely cheating.

Marcus · 24th August 2012, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

Who'd be stupid enough to believe anything Floyd "I denied doping for years and duped people out of millions to fund my case, then eventually admitted that I was a cheat and tried to blame everyone else" Landis said?

The problem is, it's not just Floyd. If it was, it would be much easier to dismiss the whole thing.

Caper · 24th August 2012, 01:35 PM

How do they even figure out who to give the titles to? I'm of the belief that with that many people cheating (during that time) you would have to be almost superhuman to crack the top 20.... I don't know if there were any of at least the top 10 they haven't caught dopping all ready.

schplurg · 24th August 2012, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by mikedenk

Actual hard evidence has been hinted at, but not confirmed AFAIK. The bulk of the USADA's case seems to rely on circumstantial evidence - Armstrong complained that the USADA offered leniency to numerous other riders in exchange for testimony.

Whoever ends up with the titles is almost certainly also a blood doper/PED user, so what's the point? I'd rather see my tax $ go towards education and prevention.

Ya, me too!

Quote:

The U.S. Postal Service gave tens of millions in sponsorship dollars to Armstrong’s teams, and the government may yet try to claw that taxpayer money back.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/mo...#ixzz24UvuEgyD

Our failing USPS gave how much? Oh man...

qayak · 24th August 2012, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by Nessie

I have been watching the Tour De France for the past 20 years. It has until recently always had issues with drug use and cheating. I came to accept that it was a race to find the best cyclist, based on the person, bike, team and use of drugs. Lance Armstrong did not fail any tests at the time. That was at a time when cyclist after cyclist was failing and the culture of doping permeated the sport.

As has been pointed out those who came second are also likely or proven blood dopers. That may well be true for third, fourth and so on. Why not just blank out the results for the whole of the Tour De France for those seven years? And a good few years either side of that.

I think he should keep his titles as he was the best cyclist when faced with lots of competition from many other cyclists including from those who were definitely cheating.

So then you have to reinstate all the titles from all the other athletes who were stripped of theirs. Why is it that Armstrong should get a special pass on wrongdoing?

George152 · 24th August 2012, 01:42 PM

So those who couldn't beat the man on the track do so through innuendo and he said she said.
The drug tests were all negative

qayak · 24th August 2012, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by funk de fino

How much evidence did the Feds see that wasnt deemed sufficient? Tainted witness. Offers of who knows what?

The USADA got a lot of new information from the federal investigation. Remember, just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it isn't against the rules in the Tour. Armstrong isn't being charged with a crime, he is being stripped of the titles he won through cheating.

qayak · 24th August 2012, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by George152

So those who couldn't beat the man on the track do so through innuendo and he said she said.
The drug tests were all negative

No, the drug tests were not all negative. Remember too, according to the rules, blood samples can be held and retested at a later date. They have the results of those later date tests now.

dudalb · 24th August 2012, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by funk de fino

He said, she said. Not credible.

That depends on the number of his teammates. If it is just one or two, I agree. If it gets into the 7 or 8,then it has to be taken seriously.

dudalb · 24th August 2012, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by George152

So those who couldn't beat the man on the track do so through innuendo and he said she said.
The drug tests were all negative

Uh, there are well developed techniques of being able to beat the drug tests. I give you Barry Bonds in Evidence.............

dudalb · 24th August 2012, 02:38 PM

I have a sick feeling this is going to play out like the Joe Paterno scandal. A lot of his admirers will,intially,deny guilt,scream "Witch Hunt" and "He Was Framed",but as the evidence mounts,there will be a bunch of disillusioned people.

dudalb · 24th August 2012, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by qayak

The USADA got a lot of new information from the federal investigation. Remember, just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it isn't against the rules in the Tour. Armstrong isn't being charged with a crime, he is being stripped of the titles he won through cheating.

What concerns me is the automatic condeming of all eye witness testimony as "'He Said/She Said". There is some eyewitness testimony that is not very reliable, but other testimony that is pretty damning.

funk de fino · 24th August 2012, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Resume

There were to be at least ten witnesses if this went to arbitration, which is probably why Armstrong quit.

Not buying your CT.

Sorry Mr Skeptic!

lionking · 24th August 2012, 03:19 PM

Why should the titles be redistributed if Armstrong is stripped of them? Just declare the tours as having no winner. There are a whole heap of reasons why the second place getter may have not come second if Armstrong wasn't there.

PhantomWolf · 24th August 2012, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by Resume

There were to be at least ten witnesses if this went to arbitration, which is probably why Armstrong quit.

Not buying your CT.

So if the police got ten people to point the finger at you for murder by telling that if they didn't then it'd be them in the spotlight, or by reducing charges against them, then you really would be guilty?

Caper · 24th August 2012, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

I have a sick feeling this is going to play out like the Joe Paterno scandal. A lot of his admirers will,intially,deny guilt,scream "Witch Hunt" and "He Was Framed",but as the evidence mounts,there will be a bunch of disillusioned people.

The evidence has already mounted.... it's been around for years.

qayak · 24th August 2012, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

What concerns me is the automatic condeming of all eye witness testimony as "'He Said/She Said". There is some eyewitness testimony that is not very reliable, but other testimony that is pretty damning.

More concerning, from a skeptic perspective, is the automatic rejection of evidence, and witnesses, without knowing what it shows, or they say.

Armstrong has the money to fight the charges and has done so up until now. That's the reason this all took so long. How long did the trial take? I don't know but the judge just dismissed it this week and Armstrong didn't waste any time in announcing he wouldn't be fighting the charges anymore.

He knew what the result would be and he knows what evidence they have against him. If it really isn't any good, then it would make sense to fight the charges. Obviously, he knows the evidence is good.

Matthew Best · 24th August 2012, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

So if the police got ten people to point the finger at you for murder by telling that if they didn't then it'd be them in the spotlight, or by reducing charges against them, then you really would be guilty?

If the police managed to find ten people who know me and who would stand up in court and say they saw me shoot someone, well, let's just say I wouldn't hold out much hope of being acquitted.

Matthew Best · 24th August 2012, 03:31 PM

Here's a story from last month about one of the people who was probably going to testify against Armstrong:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/sp...pagewanted=all

Resume · 24th August 2012, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

So if the police got ten people to point the finger at you for murder by telling that if they didn't then it'd be them in the spotlight, or by reducing charges against them, then you really would be guilty?

If I were guilty, then yes

Resume · 24th August 2012, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

I have a sick feeling this is going to play out like the Joe Paterno scandal. A lot of his admirers will,intially,deny guilt,scream "Witch Hunt" and "He Was Framed",but as the evidence mounts,there will be a bunch of disillusioned people.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that. For that reason, like the Paterno threads, I'm gonna exit stage left before it get's really testy around here.

Better for my BP.

applecorped · 24th August 2012, 03:38 PM

dopestrong

qayak · 24th August 2012, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by applecorped

dopestrong

Nike has pledged to support Armstrong 100% and have issued a new corporate logo:

Just Do It!

Marcus · 24th August 2012, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Here's a story from last month about one of the people who was probably going to testify against Armstrong:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/sp...pagewanted=all

That's Big George, Lance's long time lieutenant and one of the most respected riders. With this years ride, he has participated in more TDF's than any other person.

Marcus · 24th August 2012, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Glass. How it was done until the early 70s.

Now that you mention it I do remember seeing those glass IV bottles in old movies. Just for fun I searched and found that they are easily available, it turns out that they're still used for certain meds.

Marcus · 24th August 2012, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by funk de fino

Indeed. Some real evidence and not hearsay is what I would require.

Eyewitness testimony is not hearsay. If you testified that someone told you that they say lance doping, that would be hearsay.

Howie Felterbush · 24th August 2012, 04:24 PM

I'm surprised to see so many Euros and Aussies sticking up for an American that straight-up owned the best your countries could produce for God knows how long.

Seems like you lot should be screaming for his (doped-up) blood, as touchy as you are about getting beat by USAins at things.

Also, his real last name is Gunderson.

I Ratant · 24th August 2012, 04:38 PM

How down the list of finishers will they have to go to find the first verifiable non-doping rider for any of those years?
Or will it be the 70 guys with the "same time" in the peloton that get the medals, when everyone ahead of the pack has been disqualified?

Damien Evans · 24th August 2012, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Howie Felterbush

I'm surprised to see so many Euros and Aussies sticking up for an American that straight-up owned the best your countries could produce for God knows how long.

Seems like you lot should be screaming for his (doped-up) blood, as touchy as you are about getting beat by USAins at things.

Also, his real last name is Gunderson.

He didn't beat any of ours, they were all either domestiques or going for the Green Jersey at the time.

Howie Felterbush · 24th August 2012, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

He didn't beat any of ours, they were all either domestiques or going for the Green Jersey at the time.

No Australians in any of the TdF's Gunderson won?

Really? I mean, if you're in the race, and you're from Australia, and Lance Gunderson wins, he beat you, I don't care what color your jersey is. You may be racing for the points, but what everyone wants is the overall win. That's why it's called the overall.

I admit, I don't know or care to know anything about bicycling. Far as I'm concerned, it became irrelevant the minute the motorcycle was invented.

Matthew Best · 24th August 2012, 05:14 PM

And yet, here you are.

Howie Felterbush · 24th August 2012, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

And yet, here you are.

I'm more interested in the apparent vendetta against Gunderson.

Seems to me like he's the kind of cat you'd want to keep around, not hound into worse-than-obscurity. The doping agency either has something solid or they just have a real hard-on for Lance.

More to the point, as Al Pacino said in Glengarry Glen Ross, "What do you ******* care?"

Vortigern99 · 24th August 2012, 06:31 PM

Calling Lance Armstrong "Gunderson" is like calling Natalie Portman "Herschlag". What's the point? People change their names for a reason. Why not respect it?

Howie Felterbush · 24th August 2012, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Calling Lance Armstrong "Gunderson" is like calling Natalie Portman "Herschlag". What's the point? People change their names for a reason. Why not respect it?

Because "Gunderson" is hilarious and "Armstrong" isn't.

Makes me think of Fargo.

24th August 2012, 12:05 PM	#121
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,795	Originally Posted by Aepervius One he said she said is one thing. A few of them with chemical evidence is another. Bring it?
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

24th August 2012, 12:06 PM	#122
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,795	Originally Posted by Resume All of them? It's they said, he said. Indeed. Some real evidence and not hearsay is what I would require.
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

24th August 2012, 12:09 PM	#123
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,029	Originally Posted by funk de fino Indeed. Some real evidence and not hearsay is what I would require. They're all lying? And the USADA is out to get him? And L'Equipe? Not buying it.
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,029

24th August 2012, 12:13 PM	#124
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,795	Originally Posted by Resume They're all lying? And the USADA is out to get him? And L'Equipe? Not buying it. How much evidence did the Feds see that wasnt deemed sufficient? Tainted witness. Offers of who knows what? My brother once told my mother I stole some mmey from her. Guess what? The USADA is all about McCarthyism.
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

24th August 2012, 12:15 PM	#125
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,029	Originally Posted by funk de fino How much evidence did the Feds see that wasnt deemed sufficient? Tainted witness. Offers of who knows what? My brother once told my mother I stole some mmey from her. Guess what? The USADA is all about McCarthyism. There were to be at least ten witnesses if this went to arbitration, which is probably why Armstrong quit. Not buying your CT.
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,029

24th August 2012, 12:47 PM	#126
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,674	Originally Posted by funk de fino How much evidence did the Feds see that wasnt deemed sufficient? Tainted witness. Offers of who knows what? My brother once told my mother I stole some mmey from her. Guess what? The USADA is all about McCarthyism. Keep in mind the different standards of evidence. Arbitration has a much lower standard than a criminal case. They can accept anything they decide to accept in arbitration, at the will of the officials, and Lance would have agreed to that arbitration process at some point. You could easily win a criminal case and lose in arbitration on the exact same evidence. I still think Lance should release the report when the USADA provides it to him and UCI.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

24th August 2012, 12:53 PM	#127
Nessie Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch. Posts: 4,856	I have been watching the Tour De France for the past 20 years. It has until recently always had issues with drug use and cheating. I came to accept that it was a race to find the best cyclist, based on the person, bike, team and use of drugs. Lance Armstrong did not fail any tests at the time. That was at a time when cyclist after cyclist was failing and the culture of doping permeated the sport. As has been pointed out those who came second are also likely or proven blood dopers. That may well be true for third, fourth and so on. Why not just blank out the results for the whole of the Tour De France for those seven years? And a good few years either side of that. I think he should keep his titles as he was the best cyclist when faced with lots of competition from many other cyclists including from those who were definitely cheating.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

24th August 2012, 01:04 PM	#128
Marcus Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Austin Posts: 1,841	Originally Posted by Damien Evans Who'd be stupid enough to believe anything Floyd "I denied doping for years and duped people out of millions to fund my case, then eventually admitted that I was a cheat and tried to blame everyone else" Landis said? The problem is, it's not just Floyd. If it was, it would be much easier to dismiss the whole thing.

24th August 2012, 01:35 PM	#129
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,969	How do they even figure out who to give the titles to? I'm of the belief that with that many people cheating (during that time) you would have to be almost superhuman to crack the top 20.... I don't know if there were any of at least the top 10 they haven't caught dopping all ready.
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,969

24th August 2012, 01:37 PM	#130
schplurg Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 924	Originally Posted by mikedenk Actual hard evidence has been hinted at, but not confirmed AFAIK. The bulk of the USADA's case seems to rely on circumstantial evidence - Armstrong complained that the USADA offered leniency to numerous other riders in exchange for testimony. Whoever ends up with the titles is almost certainly also a blood doper/PED user, so what's the point? I'd rather see my tax $ go towards education and prevention. Ya, me too! Quote: The U.S. Postal Service gave tens of millions in sponsorship dollars to Armstrong’s teams, and the government may yet try to claw that taxpayer money back. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/mo...#ixzz24UvuEgyD Our failing USPS gave how much? Oh man...
schplurg Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 924

24th August 2012, 01:41 PM	#131
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,714	Originally Posted by Nessie I have been watching the Tour De France for the past 20 years. It has until recently always had issues with drug use and cheating. I came to accept that it was a race to find the best cyclist, based on the person, bike, team and use of drugs. Lance Armstrong did not fail any tests at the time. That was at a time when cyclist after cyclist was failing and the culture of doping permeated the sport. As has been pointed out those who came second are also likely or proven blood dopers. That may well be true for third, fourth and so on. Why not just blank out the results for the whole of the Tour De France for those seven years? And a good few years either side of that. I think he should keep his titles as he was the best cyclist when faced with lots of competition from many other cyclists including from those who were definitely cheating. So then you have to reinstate all the titles from all the other athletes who were stripped of theirs. Why is it that Armstrong should get a special pass on wrongdoing?
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,714	__________________ "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them." (Mark Twain)

24th August 2012, 01:42 PM	#132
George152 Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hamilton New Zealand Posts: 2,043	So those who couldn't beat the man on the track do so through innuendo and he said she said. The drug tests were all negative
	__________________ Unemployment isn't working

24th August 2012, 01:47 PM	#133
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,714	Originally Posted by funk de fino How much evidence did the Feds see that wasnt deemed sufficient? Tainted witness. Offers of who knows what? The USADA got a lot of new information from the federal investigation. Remember, just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it isn't against the rules in the Tour. Armstrong isn't being charged with a crime, he is being stripped of the titles he won through cheating.
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,714	__________________ "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them." (Mark Twain)

24th August 2012, 01:50 PM	#134
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,714	Originally Posted by George152 So those who couldn't beat the man on the track do so through innuendo and he said she said. The drug tests were all negative No, the drug tests were not all negative. Remember too, according to the rules, blood samples can be held and retested at a later date. They have the results of those later date tests now.
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,714	__________________ "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them." (Mark Twain)

24th August 2012, 02:35 PM	#135
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,836	Originally Posted by funk de fino He said, she said. Not credible. That depends on the number of his teammates. If it is just one or two, I agree. If it gets into the 7 or 8,then it has to be taken seriously.

24th August 2012, 02:36 PM	#136
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,836	Originally Posted by George152 So those who couldn't beat the man on the track do so through innuendo and he said she said. The drug tests were all negative Uh, there are well developed techniques of being able to beat the drug tests. I give you Barry Bonds in Evidence.............

24th August 2012, 02:38 PM	#137
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,836	I have a sick feeling this is going to play out like the Joe Paterno scandal. A lot of his admirers will,intially,deny guilt,scream "Witch Hunt" and "He Was Framed",but as the evidence mounts,there will be a bunch of disillusioned people.

24th August 2012, 02:40 PM	#138
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,836	Originally Posted by qayak The USADA got a lot of new information from the federal investigation. Remember, just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it isn't against the rules in the Tour. Armstrong isn't being charged with a crime, he is being stripped of the titles he won through cheating. What concerns me is the automatic condeming of all eye witness testimony as "'He Said/She Said". There is some eyewitness testimony that is not very reliable, but other testimony that is pretty damning.

24th August 2012, 02:56 PM	#139
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,795	Originally Posted by Resume There were to be at least ten witnesses if this went to arbitration, which is probably why Armstrong quit. Not buying your CT. Sorry Mr Skeptic!
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

24th August 2012, 03:19 PM	#140
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,670	Why should the titles be redistributed if Armstrong is stripped of them? Just declare the tours as having no winner. There are a whole heap of reasons why the second place getter may have not come second if Armstrong wasn't there.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

24th August 2012, 03:21 PM	#141
PhantomWolf Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base Posts: 9,962	Originally Posted by Resume There were to be at least ten witnesses if this went to arbitration, which is probably why Armstrong quit. Not buying your CT. So if the police got ten people to point the finger at you for murder by telling that if they didn't then it'd be them in the spotlight, or by reducing charges against them, then you really would be guilty?
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page. 1 on 1 Debating Forum for Skeptics and sceptics.

24th August 2012, 03:26 PM	#142
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,969	Originally Posted by dudalb I have a sick feeling this is going to play out like the Joe Paterno scandal. A lot of his admirers will,intially,deny guilt,scream "Witch Hunt" and "He Was Framed",but as the evidence mounts,there will be a bunch of disillusioned people. The evidence has already mounted.... it's been around for years.
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,969

24th August 2012, 03:29 PM	#143
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,714	Originally Posted by dudalb What concerns me is the automatic condeming of all eye witness testimony as "'He Said/She Said". There is some eyewitness testimony that is not very reliable, but other testimony that is pretty damning. More concerning, from a skeptic perspective, is the automatic rejection of evidence, and witnesses, without knowing what it shows, or they say. Armstrong has the money to fight the charges and has done so up until now. That's the reason this all took so long. How long did the trial take? I don't know but the judge just dismissed it this week and Armstrong didn't waste any time in announcing he wouldn't be fighting the charges anymore. He knew what the result would be and he knows what evidence they have against him. If it really isn't any good, then it would make sense to fight the charges. Obviously, he knows the evidence is good.
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,714	__________________ "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them." (Mark Twain)

24th August 2012, 03:29 PM	#144
Matthew Best Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 4,147	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf So if the police got ten people to point the finger at you for murder by telling that if they didn't then it'd be them in the spotlight, or by reducing charges against them, then you really would be guilty? If the police managed to find ten people who know me and who would stand up in court and say they saw me shoot someone, well, let's just say I wouldn't hold out much hope of being acquitted.

24th August 2012, 03:31 PM	#145
Matthew Best Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 4,147	Here's a story from last month about one of the people who was probably going to testify against Armstrong: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/sp...pagewanted=all

24th August 2012, 03:32 PM	#146
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,029	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf So if the police got ten people to point the finger at you for murder by telling that if they didn't then it'd be them in the spotlight, or by reducing charges against them, then you really would be guilty? If I were guilty, then yes
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,029

24th August 2012, 03:36 PM	#147
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,029	Originally Posted by dudalb I have a sick feeling this is going to play out like the Joe Paterno scandal. A lot of his admirers will,intially,deny guilt,scream "Witch Hunt" and "He Was Framed",but as the evidence mounts,there will be a bunch of disillusioned people. I wouldn't hold my breath on that. For that reason, like the Paterno threads, I'm gonna exit stage left before it get's really testy around here. Better for my BP.
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,029

24th August 2012, 03:38 PM	#148
applecorped Rotten to the Core Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 10,675	dopestrong
	__________________ All You Need Is Love.

24th August 2012, 03:59 PM	#149
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,714	Originally Posted by applecorped dopestrong Nike has pledged to support Armstrong 100% and have issued a new corporate logo: Just Do It!
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,714	__________________ "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them." (Mark Twain)

24th August 2012, 04:00 PM	#150
Marcus Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Austin Posts: 1,841	Originally Posted by Matthew Best Here's a story from last month about one of the people who was probably going to testify against Armstrong: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/sp...pagewanted=all That's Big George, Lance's long time lieutenant and one of the most respected riders. With this years ride, he has participated in more TDF's than any other person.

24th August 2012, 04:05 PM	#151
Marcus Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Austin Posts: 1,841	Originally Posted by BenBurch Glass. How it was done until the early 70s. Now that you mention it I do remember seeing those glass IV bottles in old movies. Just for fun I searched and found that they are easily available, it turns out that they're still used for certain meds.

24th August 2012, 04:10 PM	#152
Marcus Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Austin Posts: 1,841	Originally Posted by funk de fino Indeed. Some real evidence and not hearsay is what I would require. Eyewitness testimony is not hearsay. If you testified that someone told you that they say lance doping, that would be hearsay.

24th August 2012, 04:24 PM	#153
Howie Felterbush Bow Tie Daddy Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: In the twilight, singing all the old lullabies Posts: 5,333	I'm surprised to see so many Euros and Aussies sticking up for an American that straight-up owned the best your countries could produce for God knows how long. Seems like you lot should be screaming for his (doped-up) blood, as touchy as you are about getting beat by USAins at things. Also, his real last name is Gunderson.
	__________________ "Don't be too offended by the likes of him - I hear he doesn't even own ascots." -JoeyDonuts "I must be more tired than I thought. Howie, you are starting to make sense." -MG1962 "You're a mean old evil cynic. And mean." Halfcentaur

24th August 2012, 04:38 PM	#154
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	How down the list of finishers will they have to go to find the first verifiable non-doping rider for any of those years? Or will it be the 70 guys with the "same time" in the peloton that get the medals, when everyone ahead of the pack has been disqualified?

24th August 2012, 04:44 PM	#155
Damien Evans Up The Irons Tagger Join Date: May 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 25,305	Originally Posted by Howie Felterbush I'm surprised to see so many Euros and Aussies sticking up for an American that straight-up owned the best your countries could produce for God knows how long. Seems like you lot should be screaming for his (doped-up) blood, as touchy as you are about getting beat by USAins at things. Also, his real last name is Gunderson. He didn't beat any of ours, they were all either domestiques or going for the Green Jersey at the time.
	__________________ WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? - Death "Racism is a disease in society. We're all equal. I don't care what their colour is, or religion. Just as long as they're human beings they're my buddies." - Mandawuy Yunupingu, lead singer of Yothu Yindi