The Lance Armstrong I've followed and read about all these years wouldn't give up now, if he were innocent. He'd follow it up like he did investigating cancer. He'd consider it a challenge, which if won would make the world finally admit that he was right. Every hour riding in the snow and rain in training is worth a few months or a year of fighting, especially when he can afford the best resources money can buy.
He's still a hero of mine - he's the consummate professional, checking every tiny box that could possibly affect his performance, despite having some serious physiological advantages that might have left others feeling confident that they had it in the bag. He rode in the worst weather, just because he might compete in that weather. He lived for his life's work like most of us never will.
I believe he simply competed in a time where many really good racers were doping, and if you want to check all the boxes, that was one you had to seriously consider.
This is not he-said-she-said rumours. It includes 2009 and 2010 blood samples consistent with blood doping. Witnesses aren't enemies, they are some of his closest allies, people who he relied on for tens of thousands of kilometres. At some point the weight of evidence starts to mount up.
Keep in mind that the doctors (like Ferrari) who (allegedly) helped him, were experts in their field. They would have known every technique used to catch doping, and would have tested their methods against them. That's how you beat testing - you do your own testing, and if you can mask doping well enough, you use it on your top athletes.
Armstrong says he's willing to take people to court for this. If so, he's not only interested in moving on with his life. Moving on with his life would be ignoring it, and moving on.
So: still a hero and one of the most amazing athletes ever, but guilty.
"The international bodies governing cycling have ordered USADA to stop, have given notice that no one should participate in USADA’s improper proceedings, and have made it clear the pronouncements by USADA that it has banned people for life or stripped them of their accomplishments are made without authority."
Perhaps he was advised that these guys can't do anything because they don't have the authority, so stop fighting them. I can declare that I strip Armstrong of his titles, but nobody will listen to me, so what would be the point of him fighting me? I guess we will find out what authority USADA really has now that Armstrong has quit fighting them.
>>It includes 2009 and 2010 blood samples consistent with blood doping.
You need to back that up with some data. Especially when the agency that refuses to accept his 'hundreds' of previous tests says this.
Besides your proof is:
a. Team mates that say he was doping. Must be taken at face value.
b. Doctors who are super experts and might be supplying drugs which no body else can detect.
Regarding b)- If its true then dope testing is seriously broken. And with that now everybody who has every played a sport needs to be rechecked again.
I think all the man is asking is to give him evidence based on tested samples. And why is it so difficult for the test agencies to disclose those reports when they claim to have found it in 2009-2010.
Absence of previous proof of guilt is not proof of innocence. No smart doping doctor would employ a technology that was detectable, and from what we know of Lance, he sure wouldn't use it unless he was absolutely sure.
And, no, I don't need to prove it, the USADA does. And the only person currently standing in the way of proof being submitted is Lance. Google armstrong "fully consistent" "blood doping" and you'll see the USADA is widely reported as having this evidence. There's no doubt that they would bring it to court. And how would they convince 10 ex-teammates to testify against him if it wasn't true? Why would 10 different cyclists all decide now's the time to make up a story, if it meant their victories were also nullified?
If you want evidence, pressure him, not me. It's his legacy that's at stake here.
I've got all of his books, have followed him since forever, still have his victories on tape. I'd love, love for him to be innocent.
>>Absence of previous proof of guilt is not proof of innocence.
Or in other words guilty unless proven innocent?? Sorry I don't think how standard justice system works any where in the whole world.
>>No smart doping doctor would employ a technology that was detectable, and from what we know of Lance, he sure wouldn't use it unless he was absolutely sure.
So we first totally convince ourselves that he is a cheat and then set up a game totally designed to prove that. Again presumption of guilt is not compatible with natural justice.
>>and you'll see the USADA is widely reported as having this evidence.
This is like person A accusing person B of being a thief. When asked to provide the proof- person A says he won't. But rather we must first decide that B is actually a thief and must prove his innocence other wise he is guilty by default.
I don't think his legacy is at stake here. It was clear that if USADA had any proof they would not be holding it since past 3-4 years.
>>>>Absence of previous proof of guilt is not proof of innocence.
>>Or in other words guilty unless proven innocent??
Would you not put words in my mouth, please? Here are the facts:
1) You can't prove innocence, you can only prove guilt. 100 tests that fail to prove guilt do not prove innocence. That does not make him guilty, that just means the burden of proof is still on the accusers.
2) They say they will bring forth evidence that proves guilt. Their case rests on 10+ witnesses and blood tests.
3) He's stopping the process, which prevents them from submitting the evidence.
4) His current behaviour is not consistent with his previous behaviour. He's never given up without a fight before.
>>You can't prove innocence, you can only prove guilt. 100 tests that fail to prove guilt do not prove innocence.
Sorry you can. A person is either innocent or guilty. Never both. So as long you don't prove him guilty he continues to remain innocent.
>>They say they will bring forth evidence that proves guilt. Their case rests on 10+ witnesses and blood tests.
'They' should! Seriously. What are they waiting for, from the past 3-4 years?
>>He's stopping the process, which prevents them from submitting the evidence.
No body is stopping anything. All they have to do is give out their proof in open which can be validated.
>>His current behaviour is not consistent with his previous behaviour. He's never given up without a fight before.
That basically happens when you torture and trouble a person for years without proof, the person realizes that the other side has gamed the system to beat him hence playing more only means legitimizing their staged game.
So as long you don't prove him guilty he continues to remain innocent.
In a legal sense this is true under most jurisdictions, but it isn't true in any absolute sense. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that
I believe he simply competed in a time where many really good racers were doping, and if you want to check all the boxes, that was one you had to seriously consider.
This. I've personally always suspected he was doping. Not because of any complaints about his character (I always did and continue to admire him) but because I just have a hard time believing anyone could make it so far in this sport without using performance-enhancing drugs.
It's a big part of the reason why stage racing is not my favorite cycling event.
Comments
The Lance Armstrong I've followed and read about all these years wouldn't give up now, if he were innocent. He'd follow it up like he did investigating cancer. He'd consider it a challenge, which if won would make the world finally admit that he was right. Every hour riding in the snow and rain in training is worth a few months or a year of fighting, especially when he can afford the best resources money can buy.
He's still a hero of mine - he's the consummate professional, checking every tiny box that could possibly affect his performance, despite having some serious physiological advantages that might have left others feeling confident that they had it in the bag. He rode in the worst weather, just because he might compete in that weather. He lived for his life's work like most of us never will.
I believe he simply competed in a time where many really good racers were doping, and if you want to check all the boxes, that was one you had to seriously consider.
This is not he-said-she-said rumours. It includes 2009 and 2010 blood samples consistent with blood doping. Witnesses aren't enemies, they are some of his closest allies, people who he relied on for tens of thousands of kilometres. At some point the weight of evidence starts to mount up.
Keep in mind that the doctors (like Ferrari) who (allegedly) helped him, were experts in their field. They would have known every technique used to catch doping, and would have tested their methods against them. That's how you beat testing - you do your own testing, and if you can mask doping well enough, you use it on your top athletes.
Armstrong says he's willing to take people to court for this. If so, he's not only interested in moving on with his life. Moving on with his life would be ignoring it, and moving on.
So: still a hero and one of the most amazing athletes ever, but guilty.
This quote really stuck out for me...
"The international bodies governing cycling have ordered USADA to stop, have given notice that no one should participate in USADA’s improper proceedings, and have made it clear the pronouncements by USADA that it has banned people for life or stripped them of their accomplishments are made without authority."
Perhaps he was advised that these guys can't do anything because they don't have the authority, so stop fighting them. I can declare that I strip Armstrong of his titles, but nobody will listen to me, so what would be the point of him fighting me? I guess we will find out what authority USADA really has now that Armstrong has quit fighting them.
>>It includes 2009 and 2010 blood samples consistent with blood doping.
You need to back that up with some data. Especially when the agency that refuses to accept his 'hundreds' of previous tests says this.
Besides your proof is:
a. Team mates that say he was doping. Must be taken at face value.
b. Doctors who are super experts and might be supplying drugs which no body else can detect.
Regarding b)- If its true then dope testing is seriously broken. And with that now everybody who has every played a sport needs to be rechecked again.
I think all the man is asking is to give him evidence based on tested samples. And why is it so difficult for the test agencies to disclose those reports when they claim to have found it in 2009-2010.
Absence of previous proof of guilt is not proof of innocence. No smart doping doctor would employ a technology that was detectable, and from what we know of Lance, he sure wouldn't use it unless he was absolutely sure.
And, no, I don't need to prove it, the USADA does. And the only person currently standing in the way of proof being submitted is Lance. Google armstrong "fully consistent" "blood doping" and you'll see the USADA is widely reported as having this evidence. There's no doubt that they would bring it to court. And how would they convince 10 ex-teammates to testify against him if it wasn't true? Why would 10 different cyclists all decide now's the time to make up a story, if it meant their victories were also nullified?
If you want evidence, pressure him, not me. It's his legacy that's at stake here.
I've got all of his books, have followed him since forever, still have his victories on tape. I'd love, love for him to be innocent.
>>Absence of previous proof of guilt is not proof of innocence.
Or in other words guilty unless proven innocent?? Sorry I don't think how standard justice system works any where in the whole world.
>>No smart doping doctor would employ a technology that was detectable, and from what we know of Lance, he sure wouldn't use it unless he was absolutely sure.
So we first totally convince ourselves that he is a cheat and then set up a game totally designed to prove that. Again presumption of guilt is not compatible with natural justice.
>>and you'll see the USADA is widely reported as having this evidence.
This is like person A accusing person B of being a thief. When asked to provide the proof- person A says he won't. But rather we must first decide that B is actually a thief and must prove his innocence other wise he is guilty by default.
I don't think his legacy is at stake here. It was clear that if USADA had any proof they would not be holding it since past 3-4 years.
>>>>Absence of previous proof of guilt is not proof of innocence.
>>Or in other words guilty unless proven innocent??
Would you not put words in my mouth, please? Here are the facts:
1) You can't prove innocence, you can only prove guilt. 100 tests that fail to prove guilt do not prove innocence. That does not make him guilty, that just means the burden of proof is still on the accusers.
2) They say they will bring forth evidence that proves guilt. Their case rests on 10+ witnesses and blood tests.
3) He's stopping the process, which prevents them from submitting the evidence.
4) His current behaviour is not consistent with his previous behaviour. He's never given up without a fight before.
>>You can't prove innocence, you can only prove guilt. 100 tests that fail to prove guilt do not prove innocence.
Sorry you can. A person is either innocent or guilty. Never both. So as long you don't prove him guilty he continues to remain innocent.
>>They say they will bring forth evidence that proves guilt. Their case rests on 10+ witnesses and blood tests.
'They' should! Seriously. What are they waiting for, from the past 3-4 years?
>>He's stopping the process, which prevents them from submitting the evidence.
No body is stopping anything. All they have to do is give out their proof in open which can be validated.
>>His current behaviour is not consistent with his previous behaviour. He's never given up without a fight before.
That basically happens when you torture and trouble a person for years without proof, the person realizes that the other side has gamed the system to beat him hence playing more only means legitimizing their staged game.
So as long you don't prove him guilty he continues to remain innocent.
In a legal sense this is true under most jurisdictions, but it isn't true in any absolute sense. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that
I believe he simply competed in a time where many really good racers were doping, and if you want to check all the boxes, that was one you had to seriously consider.
This. I've personally always suspected he was doping. Not because of any complaints about his character (I always did and continue to admire him) but because I just have a hard time believing anyone could make it so far in this sport without using performance-enhancing drugs.
It's a big part of the reason why stage racing is not my favorite cycling event.