Lance comeback

Discussion about professional racing
carl
Posts: 77
Joined: 29 Jan 2011 13:11
Real Name:
Location: redditch

Post by carl » 16 Jun 2012 21:35

I dont like the bloke, he has tried to hide behind his illness to make himself an upstanding person, but he cheated. Ppl say why are they still hounding him 10yrs on...but then why do they reopen murder cases 10yrs on. imagine the look when he gets stripped of those titles, priceless. Just my view.

User avatar
Neil Compton
Posts: 256
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
Real Name:
Location: Northfield

Post by Neil Compton » 17 Jun 2012 07:58

Cheated?. Still hasn't been proven.

User avatar
Johnnyc
Posts: 43
Joined: 28 Dec 2008 23:33
Real Name:
Location: Kitts Green

Draw your own conclusions

Post by Johnnyc » 17 Jun 2012 11:38


User avatar
Neil Compton
Posts: 256
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
Real Name:
Location: Northfield

Post by Neil Compton » 28 Jun 2012 12:54

Interesting article that someone i work with told me about.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/sports/o ... trong-case

User avatar
Ed Moss
Posts: 506
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 23:51
Real Name: Ed Moss
Contact:

Post by Ed Moss » 30 Jun 2012 10:31

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/18655970

Well someone thinks he's been a naughty boy....

User avatar
Johnnyc
Posts: 43
Joined: 28 Dec 2008 23:33
Real Name:
Location: Kitts Green

Post by Johnnyc » 30 Jun 2012 10:42

It'll be interesting to see Armstrong's power and influence at work on this one...

User avatar
Ed Moss
Posts: 506
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 23:51
Real Name: Ed Moss
Contact:

Post by Ed Moss » 30 Jun 2012 11:54

He's hired private investigators to follow the prosecution, just like the incident with Simeoni, he tries to crush the opposition with money and power.

LA will do everything in his power to fight this. legal or not, he's got too much money to loose, look how much he makes out of Livestrong :?

User avatar
Johnnyc
Posts: 43
Joined: 28 Dec 2008 23:33
Real Name:
Location: Kitts Green

Post by Johnnyc » 30 Jun 2012 16:49


User avatar
George
Posts: 2330
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 30 Jun 2012 18:20

Neil Compton wrote:Interesting article that someone i work with told me about.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/sports/o ... trong-case
"Interesting" isn't the first adjective that springs to my mind, Neil, I'm afraid.

User avatar
Neil Compton
Posts: 256
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
Real Name:
Location: Northfield

Post by Neil Compton » 30 Jun 2012 19:58

A few weeks ago i had a knock on my door and it was the police come to take me down to the station for questioning about an incident that took place between me and the owner of the takeaway below me.

At the station i was interviewed and statements were read out to me from parties involved. The statements contained a pack of lies. I could not believe what i was being accused of. Anyway i made my own statement and was told the case would be presented to the crown prosecution service to see if it would go to court.

I've just received a letter saying 'A lengthy investigation has been conducted and all lines of enquiry exhausted, this was presented to the CPS and reviewed by them. Following this the decision was made that there will be no further police action taken against you'.

Why? No evidence. It would have just been their word against mine.

Lets just say it's not nice being accused of something that i didn't do.

User avatar
George
Posts: 2330
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 05 Jul 2012 09:28


User avatar
Neil Compton
Posts: 256
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
Real Name:
Location: Northfield

Post by Neil Compton » 05 Jul 2012 09:55

A six month delayed ban for the four iders who have testified against him which dosn't start until the end of the season. Oh and they have all opted not to be considered for the olympics. Talk about let off lightly.

Like i said before some people will say anything to save their own neck.

User avatar
George
Posts: 2330
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 05 Jul 2012 13:29

Neil Compton wrote:A six month delayed ban for the four iders who have testified against him which dosn't start until the end of the season. Oh and they have all opted not to be considered for the olympics. Talk about let off lightly.
Neil, there's no question that there's some sleazy plea-bargaining been going on. I find it as distasteful as you do. But does it follow that therefore all the witnesses are lying? What reason does the USADA have for offering them inducements to implicate Lance? Surely by far the most plausible reason is that USADA has strong grounds for suspecting him of wrongs at least as great as those for which the others are to be banned, but (without their testimony) lacks sufficient hard proof to nail him.
Neil Compton wrote:Like i said before some people will say anything to save their own neck.
I'm sure you're right, Neil. But I just can't understand why you find it so much easier to believe that a whole bunch of witnesses are lying to save their necks, than to believe that Lance is lying to save his.

User avatar
Philip Whiteman
Posts: 2045
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 16:17
Real Name:
Location: Drayton, Worcestershire

Post by Philip Whiteman » 05 Jul 2012 13:35

I do not place myself at the top of Lance's fan list, however I think that it is better to reserve judgement until all the evidence has been heard and the verdict has been given. We must remember that he is innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

User avatar
Ed Moss
Posts: 506
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 23:51
Real Name: Ed Moss
Contact:

Post by Ed Moss » 05 Jul 2012 14:28

Does seem they got off lightly....Wonder if they will be allowed to continue on the tour?

laurence_cooley
Posts: 1119
Joined: 31 Dec 2011 13:48
Real Name:
Location: Harborne

Post by laurence_cooley » 05 Jul 2012 14:36

Ed Moss wrote:Does seem they got off lightly....Wonder if they will be allowed to continue on the tour?
The story about the bans doesn't seem clear yet: http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/vaug ... 53993.html.

User avatar
George
Posts: 2330
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 05 Jul 2012 14:43

Philip Whiteman wrote:I do not place myself at the top of Lance's fan list, however I think that it is better to reserve judgement until all the evidence has been heard and the verdict has been given. We must remember that he is innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
Phil, I've said all along that I merely suspect him of doping. My suspicions have become stronger and stronger over the last 10 years, but I do nevertheless reserve my final judgement.

User avatar
George
Posts: 2330
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 05 Jul 2012 14:53

lc1981 wrote:The story about the bans doesn't seem clear yet.
Vaughters:
"Asked if he had testified against the seven-times Tour de France winner Armstrong, the former professional cyclist refused to comment."

Leipheimer:
"I cannot comment, I'm here to ride my bike."

Hincapie:
"I've always tried to do the right thing for my sport but I've got other things on my mind here."

Hardly unequivocal denials.

"No 6 months suspensions have been given to any member of Slipstream Sports. Today or at any future date."
That does not exclude the possibility that it was intimated to lawyers that, if the witnesses cooperated, that is the type of treatment they could expect. I've never been a party to any plea-bargaining agreement, but I doubt whether it's normal procedure to have a signed contract. Time will tell whether the story in De Telegraaf has any basis.

User avatar
Neil Compton
Posts: 256
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
Real Name:
Location: Northfield

Post by Neil Compton » 05 Jul 2012 17:19

George wrote:
Neil Compton wrote:A six month delayed ban for the four iders who have testified against him which dosn't start until the end of the season. Oh and they have all opted not to be considered for the olympics. Talk about let off lightly.
Neil, there's no question that there's some sleazy plea-bargaining been going on. I find it as distasteful as you do. But does it follow that therefore all the witnesses are lying? What reason does the USADA have for offering them inducements to implicate Lance? Surely by far the most plausible reason is that USADA has strong grounds for suspecting him of wrongs at least as great as those for which the others are to be banned, but (without their testimony) lacks sufficient hard proof to nail him.
Neil Compton wrote:Like i said before some people will say anything to save their own neck.
I'm sure you're right, Neil. But I just can't understand why you find it so much easier to believe that a whole bunch of witnesses are lying to save their necks, than to believe that Lance is lying to save his.
You have answered your own question George. If they are going on testimony alone without sufficient hard proof then i have to lean on the side of the accused. Even though a number of riders appear to have testified against him it does look like they have come to some kind of deal and don't forget it was proven that they took drugs. So at the moment and because of these things i'd still rather believe that Lance is innocent.

User avatar
Ed Moss
Posts: 506
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 23:51
Real Name: Ed Moss
Contact:

Post by Ed Moss » 05 Jul 2012 21:26

They also all asked not to be selected for the Olympics last week, no statement but I suspect they knew what was coming.

User avatar
Ed Moss
Posts: 506
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 23:51
Real Name: Ed Moss
Contact:

Post by Ed Moss » 07 Jul 2012 19:07

And someone else who "Never tested positive"

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ullrich ... in-cycling

Handled with much more dignity than LA.

User avatar
George
Posts: 2330
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 07 Jul 2012 19:46

Interesting.

User avatar
Ed Moss
Posts: 506
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 23:51
Real Name: Ed Moss
Contact:

Post by Ed Moss » 10 Jul 2012 08:42

Bless him....A court date gets closer

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstro ... -dismissed

"This Court is not inclined to indulge Armstrong's desire for publicity, self-aggrandizement or vilification of Defendants, by sifting through eighty mostly unnecessary pages in search of the few kernels of factual material relevant to his claims."

:D

User avatar
Neil Compton
Posts: 256
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
Real Name:
Location: Northfield

Post by Neil Compton » 10 Jul 2012 09:48

Don't get me started on judges.

User avatar
George
Posts: 2330
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 10 Jul 2012 10:44

I don't think Lance is used to being spoken to like that. I do hope federal judge Sam Sparks is ex-directory.

User avatar
Ed Moss
Posts: 506
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 23:51
Real Name: Ed Moss
Contact:

Post by Ed Moss » 10 Jul 2012 14:00

Wish I was Lances Lawyer, the boat, daft car and retirement house would have already been ordered

Les Ladbury
Posts: 100
Joined: 29 Nov 2006 17:52
Real Name:

Post by Les Ladbury » 11 Jul 2012 10:08

Philip Whiteman wrote:I do not place myself at the top of Lance's fan list, however I think that it is better to reserve judgement until all the evidence has been heard and the verdict has been given. We must remember that he is innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
Greetings from sunny France.

Well said Philip. What you have said says it all.
Les

User avatar
Ed Moss
Posts: 506
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 23:51
Real Name: Ed Moss
Contact:

Post by Ed Moss » 11 Jul 2012 16:47

"Proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt."

Only way he will get off is on a legal technicality, not because he wasn't a naughty boy, which is how he's fighting this.

User avatar
George
Posts: 2330
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 11 Jul 2012 22:26

I've never been sure how one decides whether a doubt is reasonable. There is always some doubt about anything and 'reasonableness' is a rather subjective concept.

It's obvious that USADA thinks he's guilty. That leaves three options:
a) He's guilty.
b) USADA is incompetent.
c) There's a conspiracy against him.

USADA are presenting a lot of evidence to support a). Until someone presents equally compelling evidence to support b) and/or c) I don't quite see what legal basis there is for regarding any residual doubt as reasonable.

User avatar
Neil Compton
Posts: 256
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
Real Name:
Location: Northfield

Post by Neil Compton » 12 Jul 2012 09:41

I've still yet to see what the evidence is? Someone saying that he doped is not evidence.

User avatar
Johnnyc
Posts: 43
Joined: 28 Dec 2008 23:33
Real Name:
Location: Kitts Green

Post by Johnnyc » 12 Jul 2012 11:07


User avatar
George
Posts: 2330
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 12 Jul 2012 11:37

Neil Compton wrote:I've still yet to see what the evidence is? Someone saying that he doped is not evidence.
You may not regard it as such, Neil, but a court of law does (unless the witness is unreliable, or there is reason to think that he/she is mistaken).

If 10 of your club mates say under oath "I saw Neil eat beans on toast at the café" a court will conclude that you ate beans on toast at the café, unless your lawyer can show that we are all lying or can't tell the difference between beans and sausages. The basic principles in this case are the same.

User avatar
Neil Compton
Posts: 256
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
Real Name:
Location: Northfield

Post by Neil Compton » 12 Jul 2012 13:59

generally speaking one person's word against another would not normally be enough to mount a case in court if there were no other evidence available. eg - what happened to me.


If i didn't eat beans on toast but ten people in the Beacon said i did and that was sufficient for a court to find me guilty then i'd be screwed. It still dosn't mean i ate beans on toast though. Like i said before one person, two persons, however how many persons word against another is still just that.

User avatar
Johnnyc
Posts: 43
Joined: 28 Dec 2008 23:33
Real Name:
Location: Kitts Green

Post by Johnnyc » 12 Jul 2012 14:05

Hold on Neil - I swear I saw you eating beans on toast once!

User avatar
Neil Compton
Posts: 256
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
Real Name:
Location: Northfield

Post by Neil Compton » 12 Jul 2012 14:44

Yer i don't mind beans on toast but i'm more partial to egg on toast. :)

User avatar
CakeStop
Posts: 1258
Joined: 17 Nov 2006 21:57
Real Name: Steve Smith
Location: Birmingham

Post by CakeStop » 12 Jul 2012 19:36

I haven't been following this story - can someone let me know whether or not all the accusers are previous proven or admitted dopers?
Eat cake before you're hungry

User avatar
George
Posts: 2330
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 12 Jul 2012 22:08

By 'accusers' I take it you mean witnesses? I'm not sure that they are all admitted/convicted dopers, but most are, certainly (according to the media).

To paraphrase from memory the reports I've read: all the witnesses say that they shared dope, suppliers, doping know-how, medical support, etc with Lance, and some say they saw him use it.

If plea-bargaining has been going on, one can reasonably argue that the offer of leniency potentially compromises the witnesses' credibility. However, the law has always allowed evidence from confessed accomplices; the mere fact that a person is or has been guilty of a crime doesn't automatically invalidate his/her testimony against a fellow accused. The court has to consider the witnesses' credibility in the round, taking everything (including the inducements) into account.

User avatar
CakeStop
Posts: 1258
Joined: 17 Nov 2006 21:57
Real Name: Steve Smith
Location: Birmingham

Post by CakeStop » 12 Jul 2012 23:55

I thought the word "accusers" was appropriate because, before I became bored and switched off, it sounded as though these charges arose directly because of their accusations rather than because of other evidence which has simply been corroborated by the testimony of established dopers.

I don't believe the beans analogy is a good one because eating beans doesn't represent illegal cheating. So when bean eaters accuse someone else of doing the same it's not quite the same as a bunch of criminal cheats accusing someone else of being a fellow cheat. I personally don't care whether he's guilty or not but, regardless what line a US court might take, unless there is other substantive evidence I'd consider this to be testimony of unreliable witnesses rather than reliable evidence.

What I do wish is that the cycling world would find a way of moving on, forgetting the past and putting all it's energy in eliminating current and future doping.
Eat cake before you're hungry

Albert Cox
Posts: 59
Joined: 21 Nov 2006 16:56
Real Name:
Location: Birmingham

Post by Albert Cox » 13 Jul 2012 07:06

Well said Steve!
ALC

User avatar
George
Posts: 2330
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 13 Jul 2012 10:19

CakeStop wrote:I thought the word "accusers" was appropriate because, before I became bored and switched off, it sounded as though these charges arose directly because of their accusations rather than because of other evidence which has simply been corroborated by the testimony of established dopers.
I suppose the label 'accuser' is reasonable for, say, Landis, who made accusations in the context of his own public admission of guilt, outside the context of any action against Lance. However, it's not an appropriate label for several others, e.g. Hincapie, who, the media stories lead us to believe, resisted all requests to give evidence until subpoena'd and obliged to answer questions under oath.
CakeStop wrote:I don't believe the beans analogy is a good one because eating beans doesn't represent illegal cheating.
It's a deliberately frivolous analogy, Steve. However, I stand by the validity of the basic principle underpinning it: if 10 witnesses say someone did something, which that person denies doing, a court will normally believe the 10 witnesses, unless it can be shown that their evidence is unreliable.

If my analogy is weak in any respect, it is that it fails to reflect the credibility balance one would have in a legal case. If 10 people say they saw Neil have beans on toast and he says he actually had eggs on toast, you (the judge) will ask yourself "Why would Neil say that if it weren't true?" and "Is this something that those 10 witnesses could be mistaken about?"

There's no reason why Neil would lie about what he ate, and every possibility that the witnesses weren't paying that much attention and/or are muddling this Sunday up with last Sunday. By contrast, there are obvious reasons for the accused in a doping case to lie, and it's hard to see how his team mates could be mistaken about whether they did or did not dope together.
CakeStop wrote:I'd consider this to be testimony of unreliable witnesses rather than reliable evidence.
If the evidence of an accomplice is by definition unreliable, simply because he is an accomplice, we need to let a large percentage of the current prison population free. The evidence of accomplices is routinely accepted in law. Obviously, a court doesn't just accept it at face value; it considers how likely it is that the witness may be lying or honestly mistaken. But the evidence isn't dismissed just because the witness is an accomplice.

What's more, evidence has an accumulative weight: one person can make an honest mistake, but 10 people are less likely to make the same honest mistake; one person may have a personal incentive to lie, but 10 people whose circumstances and relationships with the accused all differ are less likely to all have an incentive for lying.
CakeStop wrote:What I do wish is that the cycling world would find a way of moving on, forgetting the past and putting all it's energy in eliminating current and future doping.
To a large extent, I support that sentiment. However, I think maybe you're forgetting a) that Lance is still influential within the sport as a team co-owner and icon to upcoming generations, and b) that it's not just Lance who has been charged. Bruyneel has also been charged; if he is found not guilty, he will presumably continue running a team, nurturing riders, etc. Various doctors and other back-room team members are also accused and will presumably remain associated with the sport if found not guilty. I assume that the USADA wants this alleged systematic doping ring out of the sport precisely because it is committed to "eliminating current and future doping".

Anyway, I have once again frittered away 40 minutes of my working day on this, so I am now going to try and refrain from further comment.

User avatar
Ed Moss
Posts: 506
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 23:51
Real Name: Ed Moss
Contact:

Post by Ed Moss » 13 Jul 2012 18:20

"What I do wish is that the cycling world would find a way of moving on, forgetting the past and putting all it's energy in eliminating current and future doping."

This is what it's doing, Armstrong is pretty much the last one of that era to face charges/get a ban. Once it's all over then we can move on, he shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, what message does that send out to the 15 year old future pro?

User avatar
George
Posts: 2330
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 13 Jul 2012 19:20

I think I first suspected something fishy might be going on when the Discovery team swept past my vantage point at the '05 Tour:

Image

User avatar
Ed Moss
Posts: 506
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 23:51
Real Name: Ed Moss
Contact:

Post by Ed Moss » 11 Aug 2012 13:58

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/judge-d ... usada-case

Looks like we will have to wait another week...

Here's a bit more "evidence"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6DmNMGEuI0

Unbelievable.....

User avatar
Neil Compton
Posts: 256
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
Real Name:
Location: Northfield

Post by Neil Compton » 13 Aug 2012 20:00

Lance breaking away after an attack on a climb.

evidence?

unbelievable.

"I couldn't find anything but conclusions (in the charges)," Sparks said. "Not one name, not one event, not one date,” said Sparks.

Tim
Posts: 1255
Joined: 06 Sep 2011 17:02
Real Name: Tim Egan
Location: Bournville

Post by Tim » 13 Aug 2012 20:36

I was 100% in the def guilty camp due to simply believing his performances and times are physiologically impossible and all the other top 10 riders of that era have been found guilty/confessed.

However, since watching the olympics and seeing unbelievable performances and complete dominance by the British team I am doubting that line of thinking.

I still think though that as half of Lance's team and many of Bruneeyl's riders have tested positive his achievements are tainted even if he is found innocent. If Froome and any of the other Sky riders tested positive in the next twelve months Wiggins' win would be a lot less impressive as it is such a team sport.

Of course it could transpire in the future that Brailsford is in fact the new Bruneeyl/Ferrari.

User avatar
CakeStop
Posts: 1258
Joined: 17 Nov 2006 21:57
Real Name: Steve Smith
Location: Birmingham

Post by CakeStop » 13 Aug 2012 20:41

I presumed that Ed meant evidence of the adverse effect of drugs - young fit athlete leaves coked up old druggy behind.
Eat cake before you're hungry

Tim
Posts: 1255
Joined: 06 Sep 2011 17:02
Real Name: Tim Egan
Location: Bournville

Post by Tim » 13 Aug 2012 20:41

On the guilty side though Cycle Sport makes a good point this month, "not testing positive", Lance's main line of defense for 13 years, doesn't mean he's innocence.

David Miller, Ulrich, Basso, and Riis have never failed a test.

User avatar
Neil Compton
Posts: 256
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
Real Name:
Location: Northfield

Post by Neil Compton » 13 Aug 2012 21:04

The way Froome rode in some of the mountain stages in this years tour he could have left all the riders for dead including Wiggo. I'd go as far to say that if he had been on another team he would have won. I guess that means he must have been on something.

And Steve, yes you hit the nail on the head.

User avatar
George
Posts: 2330
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 13 Aug 2012 21:46

Neil Compton wrote:The way Froome rode in some of the mountain stages in this years tour he could have left all the riders for dead including Wiggo. I'd go as far to say that if he had been on another team he would have won. I guess that means he must have been on something.
One small difference, Neil:
There isn't a list of Froome's team-mates, associates and beaten rivals as long as your arm who say that they doped with him and/or have been proven to have doped.

User avatar
Neil Compton
Posts: 256
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
Real Name:
Location: Northfield

Post by Neil Compton » 13 Aug 2012 21:53

Not yet George no but success does breed contempt in some circles.
Last edited by Neil Compton on 13 Aug 2012 21:57, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply