Armstrong is running out of people to try to discredit.
This from George Hincapie. Ouch!
"Two years ago, I was approached by U.S. federal investigators, and more recently by USADA, and asked to tell of my personal experience in these matters," the cyclist said in a statement published shortly after USADA's release. "I would have been much more comfortable talking only about myself, but understood that I was obligated to tell the truth about everything I knew. So that is what I did."
Lance Armstrong: Put out your torch and get the fuck off the island.
I just read (yeah, I actually read it, well, skimmed it at least) the USADA report and frankly, there's nothing new there. It's the same teammates, all of whom received minor punishments to continue to participate in the report, saying that Lance and they all doped. It then refers to the French sampling in 2004 of the 1999 blood samples, but the problem is that was discredited, or at least not allowed to stand, soon after it was reported. It rehashes the story that Lance bought off the Swiss cycling authority to hide another positive result (another story that doesn't rise to the level of credible evidence). And the report tries to go into extensive detail as to how these guys avoided positive tests while no one else was able to, and the best they can come up with is that these guys were good at guessing when the tests would be. Which of course makes no sense because anyone who was anyone tried as hard as they could for at least a decade to find any evidence that Lance was cheating and, in an age of smartphones and other instant social media, no one was able to snap a photo of these guys, lounging around in very public hotels and team trailer, doping and blood transfusing and testorone-patch wearing, as much as the report makes it out to be (and from reading the report these guys were travelling all around Europe with huge caches of blood that mysteriously no one ever saw).
It's not hard to see why the DOJ backed out of this investigation when they did - you can't win a case in court like this with the evidence they have.
I'll say it again like I did before - it's very possible that Lance doped. In fact, it's almost a near certainty. However, there's no actual, concrete evidence that he did, despite the efforts of a large number of people, and the entire country of France, to prove that he did. And at the end of the day, you have to prove it if you want to nail him.
I agree with GannonFan. This is report is full of sound and fury, but the specific proof is pretty weak.
So this is the George Hincapie Affidavit. Underwhelming. There is not a single statement of first-hand personal knowledge in here. It is all assumption.
93henfan wrote:C'mon people and lawyers. 7 TdF's in a row. Tell me deep down inside that you really believe he was clean. Be honest with yourself:lol:
He was better than those Frenchie's....fuck them. He rocked their shit. He was clean, passed their little tests. He played their game and beat their ass. Fuck the French.
"What I'm saying is: You might have taken care of your wolf problem, but everyone around town is going to think of you as the crazy son of a bitch who bought land mines to get rid of wolves."
93henfan wrote:C'mon people and lawyers. 7 TdF's in a row. Tell me deep down inside that you really believe he was clean. Be honest with yourselves.
I didn't say I thought he was clean.
But this report was supposedly going to be "proof positive" that Armstrong was dirty. It's not. Everything here has been said before, and the case against him still amounts to everyone at the top of the sport was doing, or on his team was doing it, so he must have been doing it too. That's all that's in this report.
And these suppositions may well be true, and it is hardly unreasonable for anyone to think so.
But this report is not a game changer. And as GF notes, none of this would hold up in a court of law, even under a preponderance standard, because so much of what is in this report would never be permitted into evidence.
Just because it's a witch hunt doesn't mean LA is innocent. But it is a witch hunt.
93henfan wrote:C'mon people and lawyers. 7 TdF's in a row. Tell me deep down inside that you really believe he was clean. Be honest with yourselves.
I didn't say I thought he was clean.
But this report was supposedly going to be "proof positive" that Armstrong was dirty. It's not. Everything here has been said before, and the case against him still amounts to everyone at the top of the sport was doing, or on his team was doing it, so he must have been doing it too. That's all that's in this report.
And these suppositions may well be true, and it is hardly unreasonable for anyone to think so.
But this report is not a game changer. And as GF notes, none of this would hold up in a court of law, even under a preponderance standard, because so much of what is in this report would never be permitted into evidence.
Just because it's a witch hunt doesn't mean LA is innocent. But it is a witch hunt.
I do admire your and GF's ability to read, process, and render decisive opinion on over 1,000 pages of testimony and evidence in less than half a day. Thanks for doing all the hard work for the rest of us.
93henfan wrote:
I do admire your and GF's ability to read, process, and render decisive opinion on over 1,000 pages of testimony and evidence in less than half a day. Thanks for doing all the hard work for the rest of us.
It's called skimming. Heck, there's also that handy thing at the start of the report called the "table of contents", which includes page numbers, to help you sort through the report. What page are you up to with your method?
The other part of the report that rings hollow is that whole section at the end where the USADA goes into extensive depth of how they have the last say on, what they call it, "results management". It just read like a temper tantrum against the UCI because the UCI hasn't ceded the right to govern their own sport. Again, just like the odds are that Armstrong was a doper, the UCI clearly hasn't done anywhere close to enough to police their own sport. But just like the USADA's case against Armstrong, which is strong on hearsay and innuendo, the USADA also seems to be wanting to reach a conclusion on who gets the final say without having the actual evidence to slam the door on the case. It's ironic, because the UCI may be so peeved by the last section that they end up not agreeing with the USADA, even if they too think Armstrong is a doper.
JoltinJoe wrote:
I didn't say I thought he was clean.
But this report was supposedly going to be "proof positive" that Armstrong was dirty. It's not. Everything here has been said before, and the case against him still amounts to everyone at the top of the sport was doing, or on his team was doing it, so he must have been doing it too. That's all that's in this report.
And these suppositions may well be true, and it is hardly unreasonable for anyone to think so.
But this report is not a game changer. And as GF notes, none of this would hold up in a court of law, even under a preponderance standard, because so much of what is in this report would never be permitted into evidence.
Just because it's a witch hunt doesn't mean LA is innocent. But it is a witch hunt.
I do admire your and GF's ability to read, process, and render decisive opinion on over 1,000 pages of testimony and evidence in less than half a day. Thanks for doing all the hard work for the rest of us.
Hah! I've been asked to comment on court decisions 15 minutes after they've been released. There is a trick to skimming legal documents and getting the information quickly.
andy7171 wrote:JFC! It's like Lance Armstrong F'ed 93's ex and one nutted in her face! 93 HATES LA!
Actually, I don't understand the group of LA fanboys you all are. You all smell like Sheryl Crowe with all the Armstrong cock you're sucking.
Lol at one nutted.
Huh? Is there anyone on this thread who has said that it's unlikely that Armstrong doped? I think everyone here believes he probably did. All I'm stating is that they don't seem to have the evidence that he did. And apparently the US Department of Justice agrees with me since they dropped out of this investigation when they realized they didn't have the evidence to convict.
bluehenbillk wrote:It doesn't really matter legally if Lance is guilty or not, he's already lost in the court of public opinion.
Seriously, in a sport where 90% of the racers were dirty you're going to tell me the clean guy is going to dominate?
I don't know that he's lost in the court of public opinion, but that's where this belongs.
I don't particularly care about LA, but I do hate witch hunts, particularly when the target's chief offense is that he is the most successful in his field. Why LA, and not other cyclists? Why Roger Clemens, and not other pitchers? Why Barry Bonds, and not some other slugger?
Frankly, I'm glad that Clemens was cleared; that Bonds was cleared, but for one minor charge which is likely to get reversed on appeal; and that the UCI appears ready to tell the USADA to shove it.
I hate especially hate when taxpayer money is blown on these witch hunts of high-profile athletes,because it often seems the investigator or the prosecutor is looking for a big scalp to add to his CV. Our money shouldn't be used so Travis Tygart can buff his resume and gain publicity taking down on guy who, whether he cheated or not, was still the best at what he did. It's an misuse of public funds for personal gain.
