Lance Armstrong stripped of Tour de France titles for doping

$ilva $hadow wrote:

PaperMacheMario wrote:

emilythestrange wrote:So how do they find him guilty when he hasn't failed or skipped any tests?

He'll only be found guilty by this system because it trusts the word of known cheats over his, and over actual tests. Why would you bother to go through defending yourself in a system that puts a cheats word in front of yours when you haven't failed any of the tests you had to take?

But if he was innocent I don't understand why he wouldn't do the tests to prove it. Why would he not want to clear his name, as opposed to just denying it?

Even if he was not innocent, that's the biggest bullshit stance to ever take on any matter.

Because? I know if I was publically accused of something I hadn't done, I'd do everything I could to prove myself innocent.

Eighthours wrote:

emilythestrange wrote:@Eighthours Do you mean professionally? He's not quitting cycling as a hobby, at least. He's quitting a fight against a bunch of cheats.

No, I mean in terms of giving up the fight to clear his name. Which he said he would never do, and had some choice words over what he thought of quitters. I'm sure he thought he'd be found guilty... but even that wouldn't have stopped him before. He would have fought on if he was innocent - he's going against everything he's ever said on this issue. What's different in this case is that he would have been condemned by multiple ex team mates, and I strongly suspect that him quitting is just to introduce an air of ambiguity over his guilt, an ambiguity that his supporters are now seizing upon.

In conclusion, Armstrong is very clever. He has managed to position himself as a wronged fall guy, and there are many people who will believe him. Personally I think he's guilty as hell because he has gone against his previous statements for personal advantage.

Surely there aren't any conclusive tests they can do right now to actually prove him guilty though? (Not any fair tests, at least). The way I see it, the 'guilty' decision is made purely by favoring what known cheats have to say above what someone who hasn't failed any tests has to say. I just don't see how that can be right or fair. It seems he isn't partaking in this because the system to find him innocent or guilty is not a fair one.

Seems like such a horrid, sorry affair that an athlete of astounding achievement gets hounded into submission after years of accusations without any hard evidence.

$ilva $hadow wrote:

PaperMacheMario wrote:

emilythestrange wrote:So how do they find him guilty when he hasn't failed or skipped any tests?

He'll only be found guilty by this system because it trusts the word of known cheats over his, and over actual tests. Why would you bother to go through defending yourself in a system that puts a cheats word in front of yours when you haven't failed any of the tests you had to take?

But if he was innocent I don't understand why he wouldn't do the tests to prove it. Why would he not want to clear his name, as opposed to just denying it?

Even if he was not innocent, that's the biggest bullshit stance to ever take on any matter.

Exactly, it's up to these organisations to prove his guilt, not for him to prove his innocence in this circumstance. Anyone can make that accusation on an innocent and drag their name through the mud. I have read a little on the case I'm still yet to figure out how they have proved him guilty. From what it seems it's a bunch of riders words against another.

While I have no doubt he doped (the top 15 riders or so around that time were all doping), I just can't see how they have found him guilty without cold hard evidence

PaperMacheMario wrote:

$ilva $hadow wrote:

PaperMacheMario wrote:

emilythestrange wrote:So how do they find him guilty when he hasn't failed or skipped any tests?

He'll only be found guilty by this system because it trusts the word of known cheats over his, and over actual tests. Why would you bother to go through defending yourself in a system that puts a cheats word in front of yours when you haven't failed any of the tests you had to take?

But if he was innocent I don't understand why he wouldn't do the tests to prove it. Why would he not want to clear his name, as opposed to just denying it?

Even if he was not innocent, that's the biggest bullshit stance to ever take on any matter.

Because? I know if I was publically accused of something I hadn't done, I'd do everything I could to prove myself innocent.

Then if you're innocent why are you giving up to prove what you already know? Like I said before, it's up to the courts to prove your guilt, not for you to prove your innocence

Floex wrote:

PaperMacheMario wrote:

$ilva $hadow wrote:

PaperMacheMario wrote:

emilythestrange wrote:So how do they find him guilty when he hasn't failed or skipped any tests?

He'll only be found guilty by this system because it trusts the word of known cheats over his, and over actual tests. Why would you bother to go through defending yourself in a system that puts a cheats word in front of yours when you haven't failed any of the tests you had to take?

But if he was innocent I don't understand why he wouldn't do the tests to prove it. Why would he not want to clear his name, as opposed to just denying it?

Even if he was not innocent, that's the biggest bullshit stance to ever take on any matter.

Because? I know if I was publically accused of something I hadn't done, I'd do everything I could to prove myself innocent.

Then if you're innocent why are you giving up to prove what you already know? Like I said before, it's up to the courts to prove your guilt, not for you to prove your innocence

Because he could end all the doubt and uncertainty over it. Who cares who's job it is to do what, if he cares about his reputation then why wouldn't he come out and prove himself not guilty? I understand that it's very much an innocent until proven guilty stance, but what's the problem with actually proving himself innocent?

If the evidence is as flimsy as has been suggested it shouldn't be that difficult to fight.

Maybe he's worried about more coming out? There's a lot of rumours surrounding the test he supposedly failed in 2001.

Can't see how we'll ever know for sure but it's hard to see how he couldn't have cheated unfortunately.

emilythestrange wrote:So how do they find him guilty when he hasn't failed or skipped any tests?

He'll only be found guilty by this system because it trusts the word of known cheats over his, and over actual tests. Why would you bother to go through defending yourself in a system that puts a cheats word in front of yours when you haven't failed any of the tests you had to take?

his guilt is not presumed just because "known cheats" say he did it. it's because he won his titles at a time when everyone was cheating.

over the past 15 years over a third of the top 10 finishers in the tour de france have either been banned or have admitted to blood doping. and that's just the ones who were caught by the uci's incompetent and probably corrupt measures. are we supposed to assume that lance armstrong is in such great physical condition that he can consistently outperform "known cheats" for over a decade? be realistic.

and it's completely laughable for you to handwave away the word of "known cheats". at this point there is no doubt that he cheated and his clever statement(which you've completely accepted as truth) isn't any more credible than their word.

PaperMacheMario wrote:

Floex wrote:

PaperMacheMario wrote:

$ilva $hadow wrote:

PaperMacheMario wrote:

emilythestrange wrote:So how do they find him guilty when he hasn't failed or skipped any tests?

He'll only be found guilty by this system because it trusts the word of known cheats over his, and over actual tests. Why would you bother to go through defending yourself in a system that puts a cheats word in front of yours when you haven't failed any of the tests you had to take?

But if he was innocent I don't understand why he wouldn't do the tests to prove it. Why would he not want to clear his name, as opposed to just denying it?

Even if he was not innocent, that's the biggest bullshit stance to ever take on any matter.

Because? I know if I was publically accused of something I hadn't done, I'd do everything I could to prove myself innocent.

Then if you're innocent why are you giving up to prove what you already know? Like I said before, it's up to the courts to prove your guilt, not for you to prove your innocence

Because he could end all the doubt and uncertainty over it. Who cares who's job it is to do what, if he cares about his reputation then why wouldn't he come out and prove himself not guilty? I understand that it's very much an innocent until proven guilty stance, but what's the problem with actually proving himself innocent?

How can he prove anything now anyway? If to say he was, for whatever reason, doped out of his mind right now and took a bloodtest, what would it prove? It would prove he is guilty today but not yesteryear. Unless there are documentation from doctors, bloodtests from that period I don't know how to prove his guilt.

The top ten in the Tour the years Lance Armstrong won.

Red are convicted, suspended, failed drug tests etc.
Orange are strong links to doping.
Green is for those who have never been directly suspected of doping.

Bigerich wrote:

The top ten in the Tour the years Lance Armstrong won.

Red are convicted, suspended, failed drug tests etc.
Orange are strong links to doping.
Green is for those who have never been directly suspected of doping.

Pretty strong case, no way can anyone believe he is super human and BEAT the dopers just through hardwork. Lance was just smarter than those other guys and got away with the crime until now

8raz wrote:at this point there is no doubt that he cheated

How? I don't want to have an overblown argument, I just can't comprehend how anyone knows he definitely cheated when he didn't fail any tests. Just because there was widespread doping doesn't mean he has to be guilty of it too, does it?

I don't understand how he is supposed to go about proving his innocence when it's only word against word at this stage. How can anyone prove their innocence if the tests are so meaningless?

Whatever systems are in place are clearly at huge fault here. Also with that image, what constitutes 'strong links to doping'? (My teammates said I'm guilty?)

emilythestrange wrote:Surely there aren't any conclusive tests they can do right now to actually prove him guilty though? (Not any fair tests, at least). The way I see it, the 'guilty' decision is made purely by favoring what known cheats have to say above what someone who hasn't failed any tests has to say. I just don't see how that can be right or fair. It seems he isn't partaking in this because the system to find him innocent or guilty is not a fair one.

just because someone is caught cheating, it doesn't mean that anything they have to say is invalid. you've already disregarded the statements and testimonys of a bunch of people simply because they were caught cheating. that doesn't seem very fair to me. especially when armstrong pretends to feign disgust at cheaters while being as guilty as any of them/

Seems like such a horrid, sorry affair that an athlete of astounding achievement gets hounded into submission after years of accusations without any hard evidence.

jesus christ lance armstrong's pr team have done a number on you.

I suspect especially Zubeldia would be bitter that he never won the Tour.

Nardello and Sastre would have won it twice, if you count the orange among the red (some more than others, if you witness the drop in form the individual rides experienced).

Most of these former teammates willing to testify against Armstrong aren't doing so because they were offered deals though. What use is a deal like that worth when most of them have retired anyway? They were interviewed by a federal grand jury in 2010 and had to finally tell the truth because if they were caught lying they'd face criminal trials for perjury. The USADA have used those sworn statements as the foundation for their case against Armstrong and are effectively forcing his former teammates to testify against him. He isn't defending himself because he is wants to avoid being sued by the likes of SCA or the Sunday Times.

OK 8raz, this is obviously a pointless discussion since you already know he cheated

No smoke without fire....... just sayin'

PaperMacheMario wrote:

$ilva $hadow wrote:

PaperMacheMario wrote:

emilythestrange wrote:So how do they find him guilty when he hasn't failed or skipped any tests?

He'll only be found guilty by this system because it trusts the word of known cheats over his, and over actual tests. Why would you bother to go through defending yourself in a system that puts a cheats word in front of yours when you haven't failed any of the tests you had to take?

But if he was innocent I don't understand why he wouldn't do the tests to prove it. Why would he not want to clear his name, as opposed to just denying it?

Even if he was not innocent, that's the biggest bullshit stance to ever take on any matter.

Because? I know if I was publically accused of something I hadn't done, I'd do everything I could to prove myself innocent.

No you strawberry floating wouldn't.

If you felt that something was unfair or you were going to be condemned anyway, you wouldn't do it.

$ilva $hadow wrote:

PaperMacheMario wrote:

$ilva $hadow wrote:

PaperMacheMario wrote:

emilythestrange wrote:So how do they find him guilty when he hasn't failed or skipped any tests?

He'll only be found guilty by this system because it trusts the word of known cheats over his, and over actual tests. Why would you bother to go through defending yourself in a system that puts a cheats word in front of yours when you haven't failed any of the tests you had to take?

But if he was innocent I don't understand why he wouldn't do the tests to prove it. Why would he not want to clear his name, as opposed to just denying it?

Even if he was not innocent, that's the biggest bullshit stance to ever take on any matter.

Because? I know if I was publically accused of something I hadn't done, I'd do everything I could to prove myself innocent.

No you strawberry floating wouldn't.

If you felt that something was unfair or you were going to be condemned anyway, you wouldn't do it.

Oh yeah sorry, I forgot you knew me personally.

emilythestrange wrote:How? I don't want to have an overblown argument, I just can't comprehend how anyone knows he definitely cheated when he didn't fail any tests. Just because there was widespread doping doesn't mean he has to be guilty of it too, does it?

I don't understand how he is supposed to go about proving his innocence when it's only word against word at this stage. How can anyone prove their innocence if the tests are so meaningless?

because up until recently, even if the blood sample was positive, the reliability of the tests was still really bad. it's now widely accepted that blood testing around the period of armstrong's dominance was well below standard and possibly corrupt. if you want to know about the integrity of the testing, think about the guys who've admitted to doping and passed most if not all of their tests. we have much better tests today and guess what? it's still really hard to catch athletes because they're constantly coming up with new ways to cheat the system.

and yes it almost certainly means he's guilty. the benefits of blood doping have been documented to the extent where you can actually see the performance increase in cyclists over the "elo period". it was essentially an arms race and while "known cheats" were gradually shaving minutes off their cycle times the exact same thing was happening with currently "unknown cheats" such as armstrong. i suppose is just a coincidence and he simply raised his game? please.

Floex wrote:

Bigerich wrote:

The top ten in the Tour the years Lance Armstrong won.

Red are convicted, suspended, failed drug tests etc.
Orange are strong links to doping.
Green is for those who have never been directly suspected of doping.

Pretty strong case, no way can anyone believe he is super human and BEAT the dopers just through hardwork. Lance was just smarter than those other guys and got away with the crime until now

See, while I think he probably did cheat to an extent there's no way you can call that a strong case. It's all circumstantial and evidence ought to be provided.

Circumstantial evidence is far below par.