Lance Armstrong

[dom9]

Perhaps, but it's still based around assumption which I don't really like, I might be old fashioned here but surely innocent until proven guilty?

If he is guilty nail him to the ground with all the evidence and then there is no reason for doubt and he'll forever more be known as a drugs cheat.

Perhaps with the labs, I think essentially this is just highlights the need for change. Armstrong and whether he did/didn't cheat is secondary for me as the more this rumbles on the more I believe the governing bodies need to be investegated as there is no way he could have managed this on his own.

Sorry I feel like I am arguing Armstongs innocence here which I am not, I just want to see it laid bare and leave anyone currently cheating through drugs under no illusions that they will be caught and punished.

Do you think this is much different to Rio Ferdinand missing a drug test, and his subsequent ban?

I guess Rio was seen to be clearly a breaking a rule with his non appearance at the test, whereas in this case, rules are being applied retrospectively.

[Neil Young]

Perhaps, but it's still based around assumption which I don't really like, I might be old fashioned here but surely innocent until proven guilty?

If he is guilty nail him to the ground with all the evidence and then there is no reason for doubt and he'll forever more be known as a drugs cheat.

Perhaps with the labs, I think essentially this is just highlights the need for change. Armstrong and whether he did/didn't cheat is secondary for me as the more this rumbles on the more I believe the governing bodies need to be investegated as there is no way he could have managed this on his own.

Sorry I feel like I am arguing Armstongs innocence here which I am not, I just want to see it laid bare and leave anyone currently cheating through drugs under no illusions that they will be caught and punished.

Whether or not any individual outside the process accepts it, the fact is Armstrong is deemed to be guilty of doping. So, while it's reasonable to have reservations, we can't wait any longer for that to be clarified absolutely before moving on to the next targets.

If Armstrong really is guilty, then the UCI have serious questions to answer. You can hold on to the 'if' (and I'm certainly leaving the possibility open in my mind) but, as far as the world is concerned, he's guilty. It's what happens next that's really important, unless new evidence/events change the default verdict of guilty.

And we have to remember it's Armstrong himself who is denying us the chance to look at the evidence - we can all draw our own conclusions from that unquestionable fact.

[RichC]

Do you think this is much different to Rio Ferdinand missing a drug test, and his subsequent ban?

I guess Rio was seen to be clearly a breaking a rule with his non appearance at the test, whereas in this case, rules are being applied retrospectively.

yes completely, Ferdinand was banned for not being a drugs user but for missing the test, it was a harsh sentence handed out but it was used as a warning for others that missing the test will be punished greatly - how many footballers have missed tests the same way as Rio since this? Not many I would imagine.

My point is Armstrong has apparently passed every single test through is career that must have run into the hundreds.

If they rules are being applied fine, but what is the evidence to decide he's a drugs cheat? At the moment it's hearsay and assumption he's gulity so I'll say it once more.

The evidence needs to be released!

[Neil Young]

Do you think this is much different to Rio Ferdinand missing a drug test, and his subsequent ban?

I guess Rio was seen to be clearly a breaking a rule with his non appearance at the test, whereas in this case, rules are being applied retrospectively.

I'd say Armstrong's behaviour is different in degree and different in kind.

And Ferdinand did at least defend himself. Armstrong has fought against adjudication using legal manoeuvres and then failed to put up a defence in, for want of a better phrase, open court. He has effectively pleaded guilty.

[RichC]

Whether or not any individual outside the process accepts it, the fact is Armstrong is deemed to be guilty of doping. So, while it's reasonable to have reservations, we can't wait any longer for that to be clarified absolutely before moving on to the next targets.

If Armstrong really is guilty, then the UCI have serious questions to answer. You can hold on to the 'if' (and I'm certainly leaving the possibility open in my mind) but, as far as the world is concerned, he's guilty. It's what happens next that's really important, unless new evidence/events change the default verdict of guilty.

And we have to remember it's Armstrong himself who is denying us the chance to look at the evidence - we can all draw our own conclusions from that unquestionable fact.

I agree about moving onto other targets, as I said he's really a minor part of this now in the grand scheme of things, I guess I look at Suarez who was found guilty without any real evidence against him (I know the FA and all that) hence I'd rather it was shown in all it's ugly glory.

The UCI certainly do have some questions to answer, I do not believe for one second if guilty they either at the very lower end of the spectrum have suspicions about him to the other end of being compliant and assisted the cheating.

Has he ? I know he's not contesting it with the USADA but what is to stop them coming out with the evidence? As far as I know he tried and failed to stop the proceedings? surely that leaves them the right to discolse why he's been found guilty as a drugs cheat?

[RichC]

Again I'll make it clear I am not an Armstrong apologist I just want to see exactly what they've got in terms of finding him gulity, who else is involved and what deals have been cut to obtain this information.

All bloody unlikely though

[Neil Young]

Everything I've read suggests USADA will release some of the evidence but that they won't be in a position to release it all. I'm not sure why - I expect an explanation will emerge in time.

And all along Armstrong fans/"doping deniers" will use the defence that the allegations have not been proved and that there is another explanation why the remaining evidence hasn't been disclosed, like it's dubious, it's a smear or whatever, and any explanation for withholding the evidence is manipulation by USADA.

Well, the allegations will remain unproved because Armstrong refused to have them tested by bailing out on the process.

[Assassin]

Am I allowed to comment in this thread?

[RichC]

And that is the problem, but not releasing the evidence it does offer that defence as you said, bring it all out warts and all and then there is nowhere to hide.

[RichC]

Am I allowed to comment in this thread?

No









of course you can

[Assassin]

No









of course you can

I can't be arsed now

[Neil Young]

Again I'll make it clear I am not an Armstrong apologist I just want to see exactly what they've got in terms of finding him gulity, who else is involved and what deals have been cut to obtain this information.

All bloody unlikely though

Sure, I understand your position completely and share it to an extent.

The one thing about following cycling over the last twenty years, so long as you don't wilfully blind yourself to it, is that you inevitably develop a more nuanced view on doping and the fight against it than a simple black and white, "they're all cheats and anyone who isn't 100% clean must be banned for life" on the one hand, and "let them all dope and may the best drugs win" attitude on the other.

[Neil Young]

And that is the problem, but not releasing the evidence it does offer that defence as you said, bring it all out warts and all and then there is nowhere to hide.

But you have to blame Armstrong for that, not USADA.

[RichC]

this years tour and the olympics I hope have helped improve the sports credibility as whilst there are those that will cheat for the most part the sport is probably at it's cleanest for years.

[RichC]

But you have to blame Armstrong for that, not USADA.

why? He's said he's not contesting it so surely that means it can be released.