Armstrong's fall from grace may help ...

Armstrong's fall from grace may help cycling

There are 252 comments on the NBC29 story from Aug 24, 2012, titled Armstrong's fall from grace may help cycling. In it, NBC29 reports that:

Cyclist Floyd Landis has pleaded not guilty to wire fraud in San Diego and prosecutors agreed to defer prosecution on condition he makes restitution to people from whom he raised money to fund his fight against... Cyclist Floyd Landis agreed Friday to repay donors nearly a half-million dollars that he raised to challenge doping allegations in an ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC29.

CvilleMechEngr

Charlottesville, VA

#82 Oct 15, 2012
thinking free wrote:
<quoted text>I beg to differ, Pete Rose fell from grace when he got found out, Penn St has been obliterated, plenty of sports stars lives and legends have gone by the wayside as a result of wrong doing, as they should.
I have more sympathy for Pete Rose (his offenses had nothing to do with his record) and Penn State players (they are paying for someone else's offense) than I do Lance Armstrong. It appears that he and many others were involved in activity that could have directly affected their performance. I wasn't supporting or denouncing him. I was saying that the world will always mention his record as long as it remains unbroken. That's my opinion.
My Opinion_El Paso_Texas

El Paso, TX

#83 Oct 15, 2012
Gus wrote:
<quoted text>
Harry,after all this I've pretty well lost faith in all of them but I'm still curious to hear what the IOCs response will be to USADA then will I form my final opinion,albeit I will always enjoy Bike Racing...cheers!
I hear you loud and clear Gus! That old "Soap Opera Circus" that all of us observed since summer of 2006.

Cheers to you as well!
turtle

Huddersfield, UK

#84 Oct 17, 2012
My Opinion_El Paso_Texas wrote:
<quoted text>
Turtle and GeeMan,
I did go back and re-read the posts as I do that often for trying to get it correct before writing here.
I would suggest that everyone try doing that and then maybe all of us can stay on topic. We don't get anything accomplished by attacking one another.
This case has been a shit hole and it's been sad that it has taken so long in having people come forward to testify and admit to their own doping. That is if it is the entire TRUTH here!
I feel that both Travis Tygart and the USADA are as dirty and incompetent as Pat McQuaid and the UCI has been in all of this.
Those guys act more and more like the Gustopo then any civilized legal system and that is what all of us should focus on as well.
So far it's always been the riders only who were getting nailed hard, while the rest who were involved in the doping skipped away FREE!
This is the first case were 11 other riders were allowed to skip away, but their cycling carreer were
Cheers
The big post above raised some interesting issues. The comparing of usada with the uci i think is unfair and wrong though. You may not like the way they have gone about this investigation. but the usada actually does what it is meant to. Without getting itself into contractionary jurisdictional situations( sorry about the b--- sh--) long words.
How can the uci govern cycling and promote it with sponsors and areas, while having to punish dopers which bring bad publicity and less sponsors ect. They should not be doing both, there is a clear conflict of interests. Also the money lance gave them with some of the money buying a :blood doping analyzer. Now we have a three way conflict happening. Verbruggen saying in May 2011: "There is nothing. I repeat again: Lance Armstrong has never used doping. Never, never, never. I say this not because I am a friend of his, because that is not true. I say it because I'm sure." Is an absolutely crazy and very worrying thing to have said. The uci is not comparable with usada. I know people have said on this forum going after lance is big game hunting. Maybe, and when you think about it quite tight. I wish doping organisations in other countries were given the mandate and were keen to go after suspected dopers. Ie in spain maybe or italy.With the ability to go beyond the 8 year limit. Saying that they have always done it and dopings not new does not change the fact that getting rid of doping would be better for the sport and the riders. its a deteatish attitude to take. Dick pond told Verbruggen that cycling had a problem, Verbruggen reply was that it was the fans fault as they wanted the riders at 4o km average and were not satisfied with 20 km racing.And that the riders needed to prepare themselves to ride at this higher tempo. Again absolutely f-----g crazy from the man governing this sport.
Usada are not complicit with doping they are trying to do what the uci is not doing because of its conflicting position and the attitudes of its former and new president. The testing is so far behind and useless that other evidence like what usada are presenting in this case is necessary. If you read through the supporting evidence and not just the reasoned decision you find and see just how bad lance and his cohorts have been. Not only in doping but harassing witness's, potential fraud and much more. It stacks up and shows la to be more guilty than most thought. If left to the uci this would all have been inadmissible if they even got this far. Also the taking down of such a prominent and giant of cycling really will help to deter others and stop them from going down the they all do it path. Showing that no one can get away with it.However big and powerful they may be. It sets a great precedent.
I understand your misgivings about usada but they are nothing like the uci, they are our police in this. But good cops not bad ones.
la deserves everything that his heading his way.
turtle

Huddersfield, UK

#85 Oct 17, 2012
My Opinion_El Paso_Texas you raised some interesting issues in your post to both me and geeie

The big post above raised some interesting issues. The comparing of usada with the uci i think is unfair and wrong though. You may not like the way they have gone about this investigation. but the usada actually does what it is meant to. Without getting itself into contractionary jurisdictional situations( sorry about the b--- sh--) long words.
How can the uci govern cycling and promote it with sponsors and areas, while having to punish dopers which bring bad publicity and less sponsors ect. They should not be doing both, there is a clear conflict of interests. Also the money lance gave them with some of the money buying a :blood doping analyzer. Now we have a three way conflict happening. Verbruggen saying in May 2011: "There is nothing. I repeat again: Lance Armstrong has never used doping. Never, never, never. I say this not because I am a friend of his, because that is not true. I say it because I'm sure." Is an absolutely crazy and very worrying thing to have said. The uci is not comparable with usada. I know people have said on this forum going after lance is big game hunting. Maybe, and when you think about it quite tight. I wish doping organisations in other countries were given the mandate and were keen to go after suspected dopers. Ie in spain maybe or italy.With the ability to go beyond the 8 year limit. Saying that they have always done it and dopings not new does not change the fact that getting rid of doping would be better for the sport and the riders. its a deteatish attitude to take. Dick pond told Verbruggen that cycling had a problem, Verbruggen reply was that it was the fans fault as they wanted the riders at 4o km average and were not satisfied with 20 km racing.And that the riders needed to prepare themselves to ride at this higher tempo. Again absolutely f-----g crazy from the man governing this sport.
Usada are not complicit with doping they are trying to do what the uci is not doing because of its conflicting position and the attitudes of its former and new president. The testing is so far behind and useless that other evidence like what usada are presenting in this case is necessary. If you read through the supporting evidence and not just the reasoned decision you find and see just how bad lance and his cohorts have been. Not only in doping but harassing witness's, potential fraud and much more. It stacks up and shows la to be more guilty than most thought. If left to the uci this would all have been inadmissible if they even got this far. Also the taking down of such a prominent and giant of cycling really will help to deter others and stop them from going down the they all do it path. Showing that no one can get away with it.However big and powerful they may be. It sets a great precedent.
I understand your misgivings about usada but they are nothing like the uci, they are our police in this. But good cops not bad ones.
My_Opinion_El_Pa so_Texa

El Paso, TX

#86 Oct 17, 2012
Response to Turtle #84

1. USASA is responsable for bringing the cheaters and dopers to account for their misdeeds. But, the riders continue being the only ones punished.

Giving deals and pardons to dopers/cheaters in order to bring one main one isn't exactly rounding up everyone involved in that doping/cheating ring. And it's not solving the big problem of doping in cycling.

UCI should be only a union represaenting the cyclists and stay away from punishing the riders. But, the UCI is a very big problem in their own ways and they need to be completely cleaned out with a new group coming on board!

2. A thourough investigations needs to be brought about on and in the UCI! No sporting team nor athlete should be allowed to donate to any governing agency!!!
3. Please provide us here the web site that shows the supporting evidence so that I can see if I missed something?

Then why hasn't USADA cleaned up doping in other sports here in the United States?

4. There I have to disagree as there are far too many cyclists who already believe that there is already another ring in place in another country! Just check the cycling forums at "CyclingNews" and the "Daily Peleton."
Cheers
turtle

Huddersfield, UK

#87 Oct 17, 2012
My_Opinion_El_Paso_Texa wrote:
Response to Turtle #84
1. USASA is responsable for bringing the cheaters and dopers to account for their misdeeds. But, the riders continue being the only ones punished.
Giving deals and pardons to dopers/cheaters in order to bring one main one isn't exactly rounding up everyone involved in that doping/cheating ring. And it's not solving the big problem of doping in cycling.
UCI should be only a union represaenting the cyclists and stay away from punishing the riders. But, the UCI is a very big problem in their own ways and they need to be completely cleaned out with a new group coming on board!
2. A thourough investigations needs to be brought about on and in the UCI! No sporting team nor athlete should be allowed to donate to any governing agency!!!
3. Please provide us here the web site that shows the supporting evidence so that I can see if I missed something?
Then why hasn't USADA cleaned up doping in other sports here in the United States?
4. There I have to disagree as there are far too many cyclists who already believe that there is already another ring in place in another country! Just check the cycling forums at "CyclingNews" and the "Daily Peleton."
Cheers
its just the usada site after the reasoned decision here, http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/
go in the appendices and supporting materials tab
i think we agree on almost everything, and i do share your concern about it being only riders being punished. where are the dopers in other sports and the facilitators of these drugs ?
cycling has to take it at the moment because it did get totally out of control and crazy. Who gets blamed for that , there are plenty possibles or probables .

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#88 Oct 19, 2012
My Opinion_El Paso_Texas wrote:
<quoted text>
Considering that most charities are non-prophet and that they are also set up for tax-free purpose, then they all must be crooked as well by your opinion here.
I think I'll listen to what the Canncer Association has to say before I'm going to listen to someone who really doesn't know anything here!
Are you suggesting that because charities are non-profit (prophet means something totally different), they are exempt from being crooked? There's a different between being crooked and being crooked and getting caught.

Why don't you file a FOIA request with the American Cancer Society before you take their word at face value with no evidence to back it up?

Do you think the marketing and advertising budgets of the American Breast Cancer Foundation, or the American Breast Cancer Society are somehow funded by monies that do not arise from donations, when their purported use of funds obtained through donations is for cancer/breast cancer research and treatment?

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#89 Oct 19, 2012
Response to "Turtle['s]" post to My_Opinion_El_Paso

Not that I disagree with you Turtle, because by and large I do, but have you looked at the list of prohibited substances published by the USADA, and the list of TUEs?

The USADA's proverbial "mission in life," is to find fault by any means it can. If only to that extent alone, I have to give My_Opinion_El_Paso credit for his complaint.

Think about it; a cyclist sustains a bad sprain on his left ankle while on a training ride, three days before the Giro D'Itala. He's treated and the injury is exhaustively documented. His doctor gives him a script for Prednisone, a steroidal anti-inflammatory medication, to speed healing to the sore tendons. Should this cyclist be prohibited from riding on the Giro because, on the advise of his doctor, he subjected himself to treatment by means of a prohibited substance, without first getting a TUE from the USADA? I say no.

What about if George Hincapie, who after a 19 year career retired after this year's TDF (you will recall how Team Sky welcomed him to ride up front with them at the final stage in Paris, and even Bradley Wiggins waved him with courtesy as he passed him), had a sudden drop of testosterone levels that jeopardized his muscle mass; should he have been forced to retire prior to this year's TFD? Should he be given a TUE because his treatment was "medically necessary?" I say no to both.

That there are abusers out there, I do not disagree with that. Personally, I think Lance Armstrong's "falling on his sword" is nothing more than the proverbial "cloak and dagger" act, and his behavior is unequivocally a disgrace to the sport of cycling. Personally, I refuse to participate with my cycling organization in any further Livestrong rides that benefit the Livestrong foundation. However, my opinion of Lance is not due of the allegations, which although quite circumstantial are rather insurmountable; it's because he just, as we say in the U.S., "threw in the towel."

The proceedings against him were not criminal; they were administrative, which follows the civil standard of evidence. Lance, for lack of a better comparison, "plead the 5th." In civil matters, pleading the 5th is an inference of wrongdoing and can be considered by the Court (actually it is, more often than not) as such an admission.

For being the purported "champion" everyone believed him to be; for being an example of perseverance and winning his battle against cancer, he surely behaved like either a boy with something to hide, or a man who simply didn't care.

Personally, I think it was a combination of both, the former being the most evident.
GeeMan

Broxburn, UK

#90 Oct 19, 2012
UCI work outside their remit.
WADA work outside their remit.

To clean up cycling you need to rewrite WADA Code and make it complete with all the 'areas they do not stick to' included. It is really as simple as that, WADA you wrote it so re-write it.

Until it is rewritten however stick to the rules or the morality you wish to allude is missing in others is also missing within yourself.

I have absolutely no problem having LA sanctioned as appropriate but not in the way it is being done.

I have however become quite concerned that all LA Sponsors have said we don’t support Athlete Armstrong but 100% behind Livestrong Armstrong.

These are clever powerful and well connected companies who would not jump out of a frying pan into a fire, so to speak.
If the corporate damage to follow is greater than it is being suggested now they would run!

Therefore from a cynical point of view are we actually witnessing an Athlete being destroyed in public OR the public cleansing of a future US President having any future damage removed now in public to build him up for office?
What other reason are these powerful US iconic brands pledging themselves to Armstrong for?
GeeMan

Broxburn, UK

#92 Oct 19, 2012
@C democrat you have misconstrued it.

I have read the File, all of it. If you also look at post on here from way before I don’t contest if doping occurred but the process which I explained in the other post and have asked for you to defend the flawed actions of USADA.

I am interested to know how you feel about the guy who tells the world that LA is guilty before he issues any charges or evidence.

Is the guy who refuses to go to an independent hearing panel with independently selected Panel members?

Is the guy who wants to condemn LA, tell him he shall get a fair hearing and fails to tell everyone that he alone selects the panel members who are on the list that was selected by him?

Is there any clue in the 2 paragraphs above why Tygart did not want to lose control?

I also asked in other post how you reconcile US Law for USADA but refused to LA.
Is that just part of the game as well?

You have come on with babble but no substance.

You present links to the USADA File to people who have read it and discussed it.

My issue is and has always been the process and lack of due process and the US Law was HUGE in that File so I would like you to tell us how it has got there and how it remains an exclusive access to USADA.

In my occupation we have discovery but that doesn’t appear to work here, does it?
My_Opinion_El_Pa so_Texa

United States

#93 Oct 19, 2012
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you suggesting that because charities are non-profit (prophet means something totally different), they are exempt from being crooked? There's a different between being crooked and being crooked and getting caught.
Why don't you file a FOIA request with the American Cancer Society before you take their word at face value with no evidence to back it up?
Do you think the marketing and advertising budgets of the American Breast Cancer Foundation, or the American Breast Cancer Society are somehow funded by monies that do not arise from donations, when their purported use of funds obtained through donations is for cancer/breast cancer research and treatment?
Better yet, why don't you provide all of us here the proof that the LiveStrong foundation is crooked!

Cheers
GeeMan

Broxburn, UK

#94 Oct 19, 2012
El Paso it is just another ranter with comments from newspapers and media sites.

Reasoned ramblings.
My_Opinion_El_Pa so_Texa

United States

#95 Oct 19, 2012
Conservative Democrat wrote:
Response to "Turtle['s]" post to My_Opinion_El_Paso
Not that I disagree with you Turtle, because by and large I do, but have you looked at the list of prohibited substances published by the USADA, and the list of TUEs?
The USADA's proverbial "mission in life," is to find fault by any means it can. If only to that extent alone, I have to give My_Opinion_El_Paso credit for his complaint.
Think about it; a cyclist sustains a bad sprain on his left ankle while on a training ride, three days before the Giro D'Itala. He's treated and the injury is exhaustively documented. His doctor gives him a script for Prednisone, a steroidal anti-inflammatory medication, to speed healing to the sore tendons. Should this cyclist be prohibited from riding on the Giro because, on the advise of his doctor, he subjected himself to treatment by means of a prohibited substance, without first getting a TUE from the USADA? I say no.
What about if George Hincapie, who after a 19 year career retired after this year's TDF (you will recall how Team Sky welcomed him to ride up front with them at the final stage in Paris, and even Bradley Wiggins waved him with courtesy as he passed him), had a sudden drop of testosterone levels that jeopardized his muscle mass; should he have been forced to retire prior to this year's TFD? Should he be given a TUE because his treatment was "medically necessary?" I say no to both.
That there are abusers out there, I do not disagree with that. Personally, I think Lance Armstrong's "falling on his sword" is nothing more than the proverbial "cloak and dagger" act, and his behavior is unequivocally a disgrace to the sport of cycling. Personally, I refuse to participate with my cycling organization in any further Livestrong rides that benefit the Livestrong foundation. However, my opinion of Lance is not due of the allegations, which although quite circumstantial are rather insurmountable; it's because he just, as we say in the U.S., "threw in the towel."
The proceedings against him were not criminal; they were administrative, which follows the civil standard of evidence. Lance, for lack of a better comparison, "plead the 5th." In civil matters, pleading the 5th is an inference of wrongdoing and can be considered by the Court (actually it is, more often than not) as such an admission.
For being the purported "champion" everyone believed him to be; for being an example of perseverance and winning his battle against cancer, he surely behaved like either a boy with something to hide, or a man who simply didn't care.
Personally, I think it was a combination of both, the former being the most evident.
In reference to a bad sprain and using a medicine that is on the list of prohibited meds isn't a good argument as there are usually three or four other meds that can be used for the same ailment that are on the list of legal medications. But, that was why the "TUE" was implemented into the program in order to provide an avenue of legal process without beating up the individual athlete.

Cheers
My_Opinion_El_Pa so_Texa

United States

#96 Oct 19, 2012
GeeMan wrote:
@C democrat you have misconstrued it.
I have read the File, all of it. If you also look at post on here from way before I don’t contest if doping occurred but the process which I explained in the other post and have asked for you to defend the flawed actions of USADA.
I am interested to know how you feel about the guy who tells the world that LA is guilty before he issues any charges or evidence.
Is the guy who refuses to go to an independent hearing panel with independently selected Panel members?
Is the guy who wants to condemn LA, tell him he shall get a fair hearing and fails to tell everyone that he alone selects the panel members who are on the list that was selected by him?
Is there any clue in the 2 paragraphs above why Tygart did not want to lose control?
I also asked in other post how you reconcile US Law for USADA but refused to LA.
Is that just part of the game as well?
You have come on with babble but no substance.
You present links to the USADA File to people who have read it and discussed it.
My issue is and has always been the process and lack of due process and the US Law was HUGE in that File so I would like you to tell us how it has got there and how it remains an exclusive access to USADA.
In my occupation we have discovery but that doesn’t appear to work here, does it?
Check and Checkmate!
turtle

Huddersfield, UK

#97 Oct 19, 2012
mmmmmm again note to self to reply to some more unreasonable and incorrect posts, with unclear sentences, which there appears to have been a pattern of over many posts. At first i thought it was bad english but the mounting up of critical sentences being worded incorrectly, demonstrates a clear pattern of misleading and incorrect statements used to disenfranchise other contributors to threads. It is possible to use the same facts in support of various theories or arguments. It is also possible to draw different conclusions from the same facts and present different opinions. Yet opinions are exactly that, and this should not be misunderstood. For far too many opinions are being expressed as facts or in a more generous reflection of the evidence, opinions being expressed as the only or right opinion to conclude from the facts. Also - point to oneself to elaborate on. The movement from one argument to another, not unlike a retreat from one underfire and now untenable position to the next until that too becomes untenable. Another point to oneself - the positions or arguments which have become untenable. Due to a disputed point or argument crossing from opinion to fact with newly available supporting evidence or the stating of existing evidence. Never being accepted by the opposing party in the discussion, just ignored or left behind in the retreat, but sadly and one could say with unsportsmanlike conduct never conceded.
Finally the constant, complete and utter disregard to some facts. A constant repeating of untrue statements, which when challenged are just ignored and stated again and again, sends the image that person or persons are unwilling to grow! or further their knowledge base irrelevant of which opinion they support. We can all always learn new things and expand are own horizons.
My_Opinion_El_Pa so_Texa

United States

#98 Oct 20, 2012
turtle wrote:
mmmmmm again note to self to reply to some more unreasonable and incorrect posts, with unclear sentences, which there appears to have been a pattern of over many posts. At first i thought it was bad english but the mounting up of critical sentences being worded incorrectly, demonstrates a clear pattern of misleading and incorrect statements used to disenfranchise other contributors to threads. It is possible to use the same facts in support of various theories or arguments. It is also possible to draw different conclusions from the same facts and present different opinions. Yet opinions are exactly that, and this should not be misunderstood. For far too many opinions are being expressed as facts or in a more generous reflection of the evidence, opinions being expressed as the only or right opinion to conclude from the facts. Also - point to oneself to elaborate on. The movement from one argument to another, not unlike a retreat from one underfire and now untenable position to the next until that too becomes untenable. Another point to oneself - the positions or arguments which have become untenable. Due to a disputed point or argument crossing from opinion to fact with newly available supporting evidence or the stating of existing evidence. Never being accepted by the opposing party in the discussion, just ignored or left behind in the retreat, but sadly and one could say with unsportsmanlike conduct never conceded.
Finally the constant, complete and utter disregard to some facts. A constant repeating of untrue statements, which when challenged are just ignored and stated again and again, sends the image that person or persons are unwilling to grow! or further their knowledge base irrelevant of which opinion they support. We can all always learn new things and expand are own horizons.
I know that I make mistakes when writing here, but I do try proof reading before positing.

You might try proof reading before posting as well Turtle. You might also want to consider writing as though you're not talking to yourself.

As to your above writing, it has no real points since you seem to be rambling more then trying to suport your augment.

Cheers
turtle

Huddersfield, UK

#99 Oct 21, 2012
My_Opinion_El_Paso_Texa wrote:
<quoted text>
I know that I make mistakes when writing here, but I do try proof reading before positing.
You might try proof reading before posting as well Turtle. You might also want to consider writing as though you're not talking to yourself.
As to your above writing, it has no real points since you seem to be rambling more then trying to suport your augment.
Cheers
sorry, rambling as accused! what a load of nonsense, i must of been way way way gone when i wrote that rubbish. sorry to all who had to read it

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#100 Oct 23, 2012
My_Opinion_El_Paso_Texa wrote:
<quoted text>
Better yet, why don't you provide all of us here the proof that the LiveStrong foundation is crooked!
Cheers
Why should I do that? You're the one saying it isn't. The burden of proof is on you.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#101 Oct 23, 2012
GeeMan wrote:
@C democrat you have misconstrued it.
I highly doubt it.
GeeMan wrote:
I have read the File, all of it. If you also look at post on here from way before I don’t contest if doping occurred but the process which I explained in the other post and have asked for you to defend the flawed actions of USADA.
I'm not going to read 4 or 5 pages of posts to get background on each poster, just to debate a singular post of yours which I can do from the context of such post. I'm not here to judge your character, but to debate a point of controversy.
GeeMan wrote:
I am interested to know how you feel about the guy who tells the world that LA is guilty before he issues any charges or evidence.
Nice try, but that dog won't hunt. See, I could tell you that my initial reaction about that guy's comment, which you have not substantiated to me, the same way I feel about the Arabs who lived in NYC, who were partying in the streets of Brooklyn on 9/11. But, we must look at both of those expressions as one which in the U.S. we give our lives to defend; our freedom of expression pursuant to the 1st Amendment. Why don't you go and look that up?
GeeMan wrote:
Is the guy who refuses to go to an independent hearing panel with independently selected Panel members?
Is the guy who wants to condemn LA, tell him he shall get a fair hearing and fails to tell everyone that he alone selects the panel members who are on the list that was selected by him?
Is there any clue in the 2 paragraphs above why Tygart did not want to lose control?
Did that guy hold a gun to Armstrong's head and force him not to respond, or did Lance have an opportunity to respond but chose not to?
GeeMan wrote:
I also asked in other post how you reconcile US Law for USADA but refused to LA.
Is that just part of the game as well?
Did you ask me directly? Because if memory serves me well, this is the first post you direct to me.
GeeMan wrote:
You have come on with babble but no substance.
I can't expect a Brit to understand U.S. Law, even if he happens to be a Barrister.
GeeMan wrote:
You present links to the USADA File to people who have read it and discussed it.
Really? Wow! Maybe I should go back to school and see if my alma matter has added MIND READING to the curriculum.
GeeMan wrote:
My issue is and has always been the process and lack of due process and the US Law was HUGE in that File so I would like you to tell us how it has got there and how it remains an exclusive access to USADA.
In my occupation we have discovery but that doesn’t appear to work here, does it?
Ah, discovery. You slip in that term as if it's supposed to startle me. But, on the presumption you also don't read minds, allow me to say that in my profession we also have discovery. It happens to be part of a proceeding subject to the United States' system of jurisprudence, of which the USADA isn't a part.

Now, the USADA, as a recognized entity by Congress to investigate doping in Olympic, Paralympic, Pan American, and Para Pan American sports, does have Congressional power to conduct administrative proceedings without involving the Legal system. While it may mimic the judicial system's operational "M.O.," it isn't required to follow it to the proverbial "T."

But, since you're so hung up on due process, I submit that Lance had an opportunity to invoke his right of due process, but he chose not to do it and gave up.

Your gripe is with Lance's actions, or better yet, inaction. Why aren't you asking him why he gave up?

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#102 Oct 23, 2012
My_Opinion_El_Paso_Texa wrote:
<quoted text>
In reference to a bad sprain and using a medicine that is on the list of prohibited meds isn't a good argument as there are usually three or four other meds that can be used for the same ailment that are on the list of legal medications. But, that was why the "TUE" was implemented into the program in order to provide an avenue of legal process without beating up the individual athlete.
Cheers
Are any of those meds you mention, which are in the list of legal medications, able to return an athlete with a bad sprain to competition status within a 3 day window? How fast do you think the USADA will issue a TUE for a steroidal anti-inflammatory medication?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Tour de France Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Greg Lemond demands 'corrupt' cycling czars resign (Oct '12) Aug 7 Bikers 7
Tour de France fiasco Jul '16 S-M- Johnson 1
News Cycling: Lance Armstrong 'still lying' says USA... (Jan '13) Jun '16 Greg McManom 29
News Lance Armstrong's doping drugs (Jan '13) Jan '16 Fart news 189
News Not Even Lance Deserves This (Dec '13) Aug '15 kiki2 42
News Stephanie McIlvain and Lance Armstrong at a 200... (Jul '15) Jul '15 TheRaceRadio 1
News Alberto Contador lays claim as cycling great, a... (Jun '15) Jun '15 DCDierking 1
More from around the web