Tour de France

I haven't followed the case that closely, but before condemning Armstrong as a cheat, we should remember that the allegations against him (as I understand it) come from other riders who have been proven to be cheating. Every test he was subjected to at the time was negative. There is no 'actual' evidence that he ever took any drugs.
It is easy to say that his decision to end the fight is an admission of guilt, but it could also be that after a long and, no doubt, very wearing campaign to clear his name, perhaps he has really just reached the end of the road and decided fuck it, do what you will, I have a life to get on with.

It seems very odd to me that he can be stripped of titles purely on the say of other known cheats, it potentially opens the door for every other winner of every other event to be stripped by someone who has a grudge against them or who thinks they can cut a deal for a shorter ban by naming some other names.

I'm not saying he's innocent, but neither do I say he must be guilty, for me the case is very much unproven, and unless there is solid evidence, it should rest there, I just think the cycling authorities are over-reacting in an attempt to make their sport appear clean after years of unchecked drug abuse have been allowed to go on because they failed to act properly to prevent it then.

^^^ i do agree with innocent untill proven guilty but 10 team mates are willing to give evidence against him. 1 or 2 fair enough but 10! put that together with his decision not to fight the charges and it all looks pretty damning!

I do agree with Terance and Money that cheats should be punished. but from a practical point i just think it would be better to move forward and not keep digging in the past. Lance Armstronge has described it as a witch hunt and i agree with that. i very much doubt the same amount of effort,time and resources will go into ensuring all other cyclist from the last 20+ years are clean.

also agree with the points Munch is making unless all evidence is released its all still very ambigous.

(24-08-2012 13:25 )terence Wrote:  ...
but 10 team mates are willing to give evidence against him. 1 or 2 fair enough but 10!

Yeah that looks bad, but how has that come about? Who's to say that it wasn't just 1 or 2 initially making claims, and then the investigators 'prompted' the others to backup the allegations. Any evidence from other proven cheats is best dealt with as unreliable at best, and should have something more solid to support it before being acted upon.

As has been seen time and time again, miscarriages of justice are all too common, people locked up for crimes they didn't commit when the evidence wasn't really there, because people acted on first instinct and took the circumstantial evidence at face value.
I've served on a jury and been through this personally, 11 people saying guilty, mine the lone voice questioning the evidence. On closer examination of the facts of the case, and the requirements of the law, and the actual evidence submitted, the person was let off by 11 votes to one! That person could have been serving a prison sentence unjustly because people weren't looking at the actual evidence, but just acting on impulse and gut reaction.

Munch - Can I recommend a book for you http://www.amazon.co.uk/Untouchables-jus...960&sr=1-1 I think you'd really like it.

(24-08-2012 14:06 )munch1917 Wrote:  I've served on a jury and been through this personally, 11 people saying guilty, mine the lone voice questioning the evidence. On closer examination of the facts of the case, and the requirements of the law, and the actual evidence submitted, the person was let off by 11 votes to one! That person could have been serving a prison sentence unjustly because people weren't looking at the actual evidence, but just acting on impulse and gut reaction.

are sure you did not just watch 12 angry men with henry fonda or you are henry fonda?

the reason why he is not fighting the drugs charges anymore is that a us court dismissed his case to block the usada drugs investigation against him. also surely usada should release the evidance they have to show why they are investigate and as munch said 3 riders who are proven drug cheats came out in the press earlier in the year and said i saw armstrong doping and usada decided to launch yet another investigation on armstrong based on statements by 3 drug cheats, in a law court they would classed as unreliable witnesses and they testimony would be dismissed from the case and if usada have retested armstrong's samples and the tests were postive then the case can ago head but that was not the case then usada case would be dismissed and armstrong then has every right to start civil proceedings against usada for defamation of character.

usada are saying they hav the evidence and it will cum out in the next few weeks! apparently he has been tested more times than any other person in sport and never failed a test! he has been tested over 500 times up till 2009! but they are saying they hav got blood samples from armstrong which they will release to wada and the uci which they say are fully consistent with blood manipulation including epo use and or blood transfusions!

In theory, Lance could do time in prison if he was doping whilst riding for the US Postal Service team.

As a state sponsored team, he could be guilty of defrauding the US Treasury...

(24-08-2012 17:24 )Tumble_Drier Wrote:  In theory, Lance could do time in prison if he was doping whilst riding for the US Postal Service team.

As a state sponsored team, he could be guilty of defrauding the US Treasury...

he was investigated with federal charges against him last year but they dropped the case, lack of evidence.

(24-08-2012 17:47 )199lives Wrote:  

(24-08-2012 17:24 )Tumble_Drier Wrote:  In theory, Lance could do time in prison if he was doping whilst riding for the US Postal Service team.

As a state sponsored team, he could be guilty of defrauding the US Treasury...

he was investigated with federal charges against him last year but they dropped the case, lack of evidence.

USADA are saying they now have evidence. If there's anything in it the case will be reopened.