Lance Armstrong Doping Charges to Be ...

Lance Armstrong Doping Charges to Be Given Extra Weight by Teammate Testimony

There are 23 comments on the BleacherReport story from Jul 5, 2012, titled Lance Armstrong Doping Charges to Be Given Extra Weight by Teammate Testimony. In it, BleacherReport reports that:

The seven-time winner of the Tour de France has long been suspected by many of having cheated his way to those famous victories, but he has managed to avoid being proven as a performance enhancing drug user - until now.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at BleacherReport.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
My Opinion_El Paso_Texas

United States

#24 Oct 12, 2012
Athos wrote:
<quoted text>The TT bars evolved fom the SKI sport/position, the first I believe were the Scott DH (downhill) bars
The idea of the Aero Bar may well have come from the downhill skiing position and it was the Scott company who made the first aero bars that Greg Lemond used at the TDF.

It was logical to get Scott invloved here as they already made excellent ski poles and they used similar aluminum tubing for the aero bars as well.

Greg Lemond went on to ultilizing the wind tunnel for improving his aero poistion as many other cyclists have lso done.

Huddersfield, UK

#25 Oct 14, 2012
GeeMan wrote:
wang you are not dissapointing me again.
Read my posts AGAIN and I am the one who said they were ALL at it and there you go.
I am not often wrong but I am right again!
20 out of 21 podiums in TDF dopers and the other has the jury out.
wang whats your point again? Do you have one?
Toned down their document ? maybe you can educate me on this as i do not understand how you know this. If i am making any incorrect assumptions please tell me and i apologise beforehand if that is the case. But did you read their document before they spell checked and double checked what they were saying? do you work at usada and were part of the presentation of this document? If what you mean is that their document does not say as much as maybe "you" assumed or guessed they would because of earlier statements by them. Then maybe that is what you should have said. i am sorry for being so so pedantic geeman and i know this is a very minor point to be making. Your accusations of hollow and lack of content will no doubt be aired again and i fully understand what you are saying. But quite clearly i am responding to your incorrect statements and trying to help you to be more accurate. In this way my post is not here to bring new facts , when i do wish to do that i will say so but this post and many others is in response to your misleading comments so is thus about that. Its just that you repeatedly present your thoughts and ideas in a light which can be misunderstood. This point is far from being one of the more sensitive and contentious that you have made. I do not want to be constantly pulling you up on misrepresentation of facts and stretching truth and opinions. But please try to refrain from being misleading geeman.You do make some good points and have some interesting things to say on the subject. So it is a shame that you opinions do not always match the facts you are quoting. Try researching a lot more about this case before making one sided comments. If you take time to read the better informed and concise posts by others on this forum you will see they make even handed comments based on FACTS and not what suits their views which you appear to be doing. Almost all the facts to this case are available on the net for you to read and then change your opinions.
Your thoughts and reference to different cyclists team directors and doctors is interesting and very much worthy of note. Yet it is la's past teams and directors/doctors at issue here and obviously is the reason why they are under scrutiny and what the posts here refer to as that is the issue being discussed, not pantani's/lemonds or any other cyclist. As you are so well informed maybe you can tell me if chris carmeachle has always been la's trainer and what is his past qualifications and connections to cycling teams? being busy with the family gives me little time to do the research you clearly enjoy and have time to do. The broader issue and widespread doping throughout the era la was active and before is of course relevant and worth attention. I am sure there are other threads here + in other cycling forums where this can be followed up. This thread if i am not mistaken is meant to be about teammates of la's testimony giving extra weight to the doping charges he faces. So i apologise if i am off the point also.
Thanks for any imfo you can share geeman, and look forward to hearing from you. oh sory about the mix up with posts, in a bit of a rush and my airhead just can not cope. thx again in advance geeie

Broxburn, UK

#26 Oct 15, 2012
turtle I appreciate that you are making reasoned arguments.

My comments on USADA are posted and when we look at the past and test them out there are holes as I have suggested.

On the dopers in the Peloton it takes time to look at who was the Team Medical Advisor, Riders own Advisors and which team and team mates were affected directly as well as by association but it is all there. I am fortunate to have been heavily into cycling and seen these names come up time and time again.

It may happen one day, but would take time, to have a full mind map of all those in the sport to see how many links exists for each rider, the more links the bigger the suspicion and when we have admissions it is even clearer.

If we take the stance of no one can win we have a lost decade+ in cycling which is pointless. All it needs is a commentary on how it was achieved.

I know that when I contest USADA file it looks like LA lover but you know I have been consistent on doping but I think what if I was defending this what issues would be handed to me to resolve and there are many.
It has a lot of substance but also put together on the basis of weight, i.e. if I make a big mountain and the top is cut off I still have a big mountain.

I am also completely confused if the fight against doping and the need to get to the truth is there and LA was the main man in it, WHY has he never been asked/told to testify? He has taken oaths in hearings in US but not under Federal/State Law so the chance of perjury is not there unless under a new Court action.
Make him testify in 2010 and when it comes out there is no problem of dragging his ass back in the court for perjury and jail.
That I see is a serious omission by US Law.

I like to see justice served but I am unable to support a route that has confusion and with some of the evidence associated to each other it is concerning. There is enough good evidence that stands alone but it is also washed up with nonsense unfortunately.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Cycling Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Cycling: Lance Armstrong 'still lying' says USA... (Jan '13) Jun '16 Greg McManom 29
Wheel'n Wood Apr '16 Billy Smith 1
News Mattis is a no, so who else is there? Apr '16 charlie foxtrot 1
How To Connect A Bicycle Chain Feb '16 NewYorkView 1
How To Remove A Bicycle Chain Feb '16 NewYorkView 1
Spruzza Feb '16 Billy Wright 1
News Lance Armstrong's doping drugs (Jan '13) Jan '16 Fart news 189
More from around the web