[Lance] Armstrong throws in the towel [on doping charges]

niuniu said:

But you know nothing about the swimmer. You didn't even know her name.

When presented with actual facts of her and other swimmer's times you call me a 'fanatic'?

Bizarre.

Click to expand...

Yeah, because I don't know Usain Bolt either, I can't be convinced that he dopes..like all the rest of them? And because some experts said this or that changes s.th.? Because she's Chinese? And yeah what was that Commie-hate thing about? That was bizarre. What did the experts say about Ullrich, Lance et al. when they were on top? There are soo many cases with negative blood-test later proven positive.

And yes, the way you posted, I think you're a fan of her. But, please let's end this. You can't convince me as I can't convince you.

twietee said:

Yeah, because I don't know Usain Bolt either, I can't be convinced that he dopes..like all the rest of them? And because some experts said this or that changes s.th.? Because she's Chinese? And yeah what was that Commie-hate thing about? That was bizarre. What did the experts say about Ullrich, Lance et al. when they were on top? There are soo many cases with negative blood-test later proven positive.

And yes, the way you posted, I think you're a fan of her. But, please let's end this. You can't convince me as I can't convince you.

Click to expand...

Usain Bolt is famous for being the fastest man in the planet. The most accomplished swimmer is Michael Phelps, yet you didn't mention him, you mention an unknown girl. Only reason you heard of the Chinese swimmer is because of one US coach shouting his mouth off then the sensationalism spread through the Western media as is usual with Chinese red scare stories (the politics of it seems beyond you though).

I see you haven't once commented on any of the facts from the Chinese swimmer, instead resulting to calling me a 'fan'. I don't even follow swimming.

niuniu said:

Usain Bolt is famous for being the fastest man in the planet. The most accomplished swimmer is Michael Phelps, yet you didn't mention him, you mention an unknown girl. Only reason you heard of the Chinese swimmer is because of one US coach shouting his mouth off then the sensationalism spread through the Western media as is usual with Chinese red scare stories (the politics of it seems beyond you though).

I see you haven't once commented on any of the facts from the Chinese swimmer, instead resulting to calling me a 'fan'. I don't even follow swimming.

Click to expand...

Stop assuming what I read or not. You're on the wrong track. Only thing I read about Olympia was actually a small article about doping stating that a 16yo swims nowadays faster than some top trained athletes are running with their feet. And I did mention Phelps and Bolt as well. Your 'facts' do not interest me. I'm equally interested in the running techniques of Justin Gatlin or Ben Johnson. That means i'm theoretically interested, but not as a fact why they could run so exceptionally fast.

And you do know that Armstrong isn't Chinese, do you? Cold War is over long ago.

twietee said:

Stop assuming what I read or not. You're on the wrong track. Only thing I read about Olympia was actually a small article about doping stating that a 16yo swims nowadays faster than some top trained athletes are running with their feet. And I did mention Phelps and Bolt as well. Your 'facts' do not interest me. I'm equally interested in the running techniques of Justin Gatlin or Ben Johnson. That means i'm theoretically interested, but not as a fact why they could run so exceptionally fast.

And you do know that Armstrong isn't Chinese, do you? Cold War is over long ago.

Click to expand...

The Chinese swimmer is Chinese and was picked on only by an American coach (the whole concept of which was discredited.)

Only you sought to bring her up again, bizarrely. I took time to show you the facts of that story, but you call me a fanatic instead.

niuniu said:

Only you sought to bring her up again, bizarrely. I took time to show you the facts of that story, but you call me a fanatic instead.

Click to expand...

What does 'up again' mean? Just because you seem to have followed that event closely doesn't mean anybody else was. I never talked about her before. She was just an example..because, you know, swimming is like cycling known for doping. The whole Chinese-Commie-hate-stuff came from your side.

I suspect runners and cyclers of 'performance enhancement' (haha..what a great euphemism)..but shouldn't suspect swimmer because their, what, young, different nation, because somebody else said s.th.? You made that case big in this thread not me.

twietee said:

What does 'up again' mean? Just because you seem to have followed that event closely doesn't mean anybody else was. I never talked about her before. She was just an example..because, you know, swimming is like cycling known for doping. The whole Chinese-Commie-hate-stuff came from your side.

I suspect runners and cyclers of 'performance enhancement' (haha..what a great euphemism)..but shouldn't suspect swimmer because their, what, young, different nation, because somebody else said s.th.? You made that case big in this thread not me.

Click to expand...

I didn't follow it closely. It was a blip in the news, instantly and widely discredited (commie-hate being part of it). You brought it up in this thread.

There was a really interesting radio programme on here a few weeks ago. Basically the gist was that sports scientists who been modelling the way the human body can recover under extreme stress have been calling out some of the Tour de France results (particularly some of the late recoveries when finishing) as biologically impossible without some sort of doping. It was really fascinating they way they could model what was going on with the race patterns and pretty much say which had to be doped results and which were possible without. Did anyone else here in the Uk hear it (Radio 4)?

jeremy h said:

There was a really interesting radio programme on here a few weeks ago. Basically the gist was that sports scientists who been modelling the way the human body can recover under extreme stress have been calling out some of the Tour de France results (particularly some of the late recoveries when finishing) as biologically impossible without some sort of doping. It was really fascinating they way they could model what was going on with the race patterns and pretty much say which had to be doped results and which were possible without. Did anyone else here in the Uk hear it (Radio 4)?

Click to expand...

Were these recent years or the dirty 90s they were talking about?

niuniu said:

Were these recent years or the dirty 90s they were talking about?

Click to expand...

I'll try and see if it's still on iPlayer, or listen again or something. As far as I can remember, the theories and research were relatively recent but they were also going back through older stuff which was reinforcing their ideas and confirming things.

Edit: Think it might have episode 3 of Science in Sport but it's all expired in terms of listening again...

jeremy h said:

I'll try and see if it's still on iPlayer, or listen again or something. As far as I can remember, the theories and research were relatively recent but they were also going back through older stuff which was reinforcing their ideas and confirming things.

Click to expand...

No worries I'll dig it out myself. I did read an analysis showing that stage times were on average 10% slower now than the 90s which they attribute to the introduction of new doping tests so am interested to see if they think stages times are still too high..

niuniu said:

No worries I'll dig it out myself. I did read an analysis showing that stage times were on average 10% slower now than the 90s which they attribute to the introduction of new doping tests so am interested to see if they think stages times are still too high..

Click to expand...

Yes, it was all to do with that. If I remember correctly it wasn't just the whole stage time they were looking at but the very last bits of each race and bringing in all sorts of stuff about recovery and latic acid etc. The conclusions seem to be that the very recent results (our side burned Mod) were biologically possible but there has been some iffy stuff post the 90's.

niuniu said:

He was only officially charged two months ago. He hadn't even begun to fight the charges.

The evidence against him had been built up over years. That evidence included blood tests and a range of witnesses that would testify to seeing him dope, including old teammates.

Click to expand...

He's been accused of doping by many different people over the last decade. In 2010, federal prosecutors opened a case against him and it just ended a few months back. They dropped the case after 2 years with no charges being filed.
Then USADA decided to continue the prosecution...

http://www.lancesupport.org/lance-investigation.php
http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/lance-armstrongs-endgame?page=0,0
http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling...ose-lance-armstrong-doping-case-press-charges

Saying that he just began fighting the allegations is quite naive.

killerrobot said:

He's been accused of doping by many different people over the last decade. In 2010, federal prosecutors opened a case against him and it just ended a few months back. They dropped the case after 2 years with no charges being filed.
Then USADA decided to continue the prosecution...

http://www.lancesupport.org/lance-investigation.php
http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/lance-armstrongs-endgame?page=0,0
http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling...ose-lance-armstrong-doping-case-press-charges

Saying that he just began fighting the allegations is quite naive.

Click to expand...

I said he's only been charged 2 months ago. You know the difference between charges and allegations I assume. The charges his lawyers will fight on his behest, with his personal fortune he can afford to fight charges if he is truly innocent.

No innocent rich man would walk away from serious charges without a fight. The opportunity for Vindication?

niuniu said:

I said he's only been charged 2 months ago. You know the difference between charges and allegations I assume. The charges his lawyers will fight on his behest, with his personal fortune he can afford to fight charges if he is truly innocent.

No innocent rich man would walk away from serious charges without a fight. The opportunity for Vindication?

Click to expand...

He's guilty alright... Cheating scum

niuniu said:

I said he's only been charged 2 months ago. You know the difference between charges and allegations I assume. The charges his lawyers will fight on his behest, with his personal fortune he can afford to fight charges if he is truly innocent.

No innocent rich man would walk away from serious charges without a fight. The opportunity for Vindication?

Click to expand...

You know the difference between fighting federal prosecutors for two years, then having the USADA go after you for the same allegations and then saying it's only been going on for two months, don't you?

The case, if it continues, goes to arbitration. USADA has a 58-2 record within the arbitration courts, so it really doesn't matter how much money he has to throw at legal fees or not.
His stance seems like someone's that wants to quite wasting years on fighting the allegations and get on with his life, guilty or not.

Our legal system is messed up here (how can you be not-guilty in criminal court, but guilty in civil court?), add in a kangaroo court where you are guilty regardless even though there is no evidence that says otherwise (except for some jealous ex-teammates or liars who are making stuff up to not get in trouble).

While doping is bad, and it should be tested against and monitored, there were too many negative tests and other people monitoring him. If you train hard enough, it is possible. The Kenyas can run a marathon twice as fast as me, but I don't think they use PED. Usain Bolt can run a 100m twice as fast as me, but I don't think he uses PED. Lance Armstrong can ride a well engineered race bike over a hundred miles a day for 3 weeks, but I don't think he used PED. I can barely ride 75 miles right now. If I took PED, I'm not going to be able to ride that much further or faster compared to what improvements I would see from training everyday, eating right, and sleeping in an altitude bag(or is that banned?).

killerrobot said:

You know the difference between fighting federal prosecutors for two years, then having the USADA go after you for the same allegations and then saying it's only been going on for two months, don't you?

The case if it continues, goes to arbitration. USADA has a 58-2 record within the arbitration courts, so it really doesn't matter how much money he has to throw at legal fees or not.
He seems he'd like to quite wasting years on the allegations and get on with his life, guilty or not.

Click to expand...

Clearing your name in court and retaining the sanctity of everything you ever worked for is not 'wasting years'. Did you say something about naivety earlier?

Regardless, when I say charges, I mean charges. You can go back to the 90s for all I care and talk about his media and teammate spats for all I care - with someone else.

rcappo said:

If I took PED, I'm not going to be able to ride that much further or faster compared to what improvements I would see from training everyday, eating right, and sleeping in an altitude bag(or is that banned?).

Click to expand...

And if I eat right, sleep right, train in the mountains and see Dr Fuentes on a regular basis, your effort will be worth less than nothing professional wise. Sad thing isnt' it. And people will even cheer for me and laugh about your clumsy try to cycle fast, not speaking about sponsors.

niuniu said:

Clearing your name in court and retaining the sanctity of everything you ever worked for is not 'wasting years'. Did you say something about naivety earlier?

Regardless, when I say charges, I mean charges. You can go back to the 90s for all I care and talk about his media and teammate spats for all I care - with someone else.

Click to expand...

USADA doesn't have the power to strip him of any titles. More naivety??

If spending more time with his cancer foundation and family rather than worrying about professional cycling and charges than haven't been proven is a waste of everything he's worked for, then I guess you're right. I'm sure his 470M raised for cancer research is less important to the world than the Tour de France.

killerrobot said:

USADA doesn't have the power to strip him of any titles. More naivety??

If spending more time with his cancer foundation and family rather than worrying about professional cycling and charges than haven't been proven is a waste of everything he's worked for, then I guess you're right. I'm sure his 470M raised for cancer research is less important to the world than the Tour de France.

Click to expand...

Not fighting the charges means they have recommended he gets stripped (which they have now done). No innocent man would take that chance. His titles are everything. If their decision is upheld, new winners for the years he won will be declared.

Also, by not fighting the charges, he dumps on his teammates.

niuniu said:

Not fighting the charges means they have recommended he gets stripped (which they have now done). No innocent man would take that chance. His titles are everything. If their decision is upheld, new winners for the years he won will be declared.

Also, by not fighting the charges, he dumps on his teammates.

Click to expand...

You're jumping the gun on a lot of this. Their recommendation means squat until the ICU says it doesn't. Their recommendation also doesn't prove his guilt.

Why do you insist his titles are the only thing that matter to him? Any smart professional realizes they won't be able to compete in their sport forever and that they need to find a different outlet in life that will make them happy.

Your "no innocent man would" argument means absolutely nothing as plenty of innocent men have been persecuted wrongly and given up their fight against institutions hellbent on their destruction (Galileo pops into mind immediately) and plenty of guilty men have walked away scot-free.

killerrobot said:

You're jumping the gun on a lot of this. Their recommendation means squat until the ICU says it doesn't. Their recommendation also doesn't prove his guilt.

Why do you insist his titles are the only thing that matter to him? Any smart professional realizes they won't be able to compete in their sport forever and that they need to find a different outlet in life that will make them happy.

Your "no innocent man would" argument means absolutely nothing as plenty of innocent men have been persecuted wrongly and given up their fight against institutions hellbent on their destruction (Galileo pops into mind immediately) and plenty of guilty men have walked away scot-free.

Click to expand...

Armstrong is like Galileo?

Armstrong is a 7 title world record holder who built an empire around his wins facing the threat of being stripped. He pays his lawyers and they clear him if innocent. If the evidence looks too strong, you throw your hands up and damage mitigate.

Real world, not the flat one.

niuniu said:

Armstrong is like Galileo?

Armstrong is a 7 title world record holder who built an empire around his wins facing the threat of being stripped. He pays his lawyers and they clear him if innocent. If the evidence looks too strong, you throw your hands up and damage mitigate.

Real world, not the flat one.

Click to expand...

You're the one that started the "no innocent man would" bs.

So why didn't the feds prosecute him?

He will be mitigating for libelous remarks that will cost him his empire fortunes if he loses his titles. Real world (not the flat one either). Just gotta love the legal system that works for those that have the means. Maybe that's why he's gonna save on the legal fees now because he knows he'll get more money out them later on.

EDIT: Just an after thought, it's kind of funny to think about empires being built through completely honest and ethical means in the first place.

killerrobot said:

You're the one that started the "no innocent man would" bs.

So why didn't the feds prosecute him?

He will be mitigating for libelous remarks that will cost his empire fortunes if he loses his titles. Real world (not the flat one either). Just gotta love the legal system that works for those that have the means. Maybe that's why he's gonna save on the legal fees now because he knows he'll get more money out of it later on.

EDIT: Just an after thought, it's kind of funny to think about empires being built through completely honest and ethical means in the first place.

Click to expand...

So we got a conspiracy story now about Lance making more money out of this in the future.

I think the truth is much simpler. Damage mitigation from a man with faced with insurmountable evidence. Try and hang on to the few remaining fans who kept their fingers in their ears all these years.

niuniu said:

So we got a conspiracy story now about Lance making more money out of this in the future.

I think the truth is much simpler. Damage mitigation from a man with faced with insurmountable evidence. Try and hang on to the few remaining fans who kept their fingers in their ears all these years.

Click to expand...

What's the truth? I think everyone is still waiting to hear it. Since you have all the answers I hope you can fill us all in.

EDIT: BTW, my "conspiracy theory" is straight from Armstrong's lawyers' mouth. It would help if you read all the article linked to by the OP. We'll have to see if anything comes of the threat, but that's how the legal system works in the real world.

"You are on notice," Armstrong attorney Tim Herman said in a letter, "that if USADA makes any public statement claiming, without jurisdiction, to sanction Mr. Armstrong, or to falsely characterize Mr. Armstrong's reasons for not requesting an arbitration as anything other than a recognition of (International Cycling Union) jurisdiction and authority, USADA and anyone involved in the making of the statement will be liable."

Click to expand...

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/story/2012-08-23/Armstrong-doping-charges/57258616/1