AP: Armstrong won't challenge doping allegations; loses Tour titles (Lance to confess)

[endzone_dave]

If people want to believe that Barry Bonds, Lance Armstrong, and the Jamacian track athletes excel because of just hard work and excellent training programs, they can continue to live in their fantasy world.

[Popeman38]

Lance failed a drug test in 1999.

He was allowed to continue racing tho.

He did NOT fail a drug test. His test showed traces of corticosteroid in an amount that was not in the positive range. A medical certificate showed he used an approved cream for saddle sores which contained the substance. I am not saying Armstrong is innocent, but you can't say he failed a test when he did not.

[Corcaigh]

Your proof? Oh....none.

Proof of what? Americans don't care about a stupid bike race unless one of their own is winning it? Or that Lance didn't cheat?
Or that a sizable number of Americans don't care about cheating?

[Popeman38]

Look, I have no idea if Lance Armstrong doped. I have no idea because like a majority of Americans, I couldn't care less about cycling. But this much I know: you aren't guilty of something unless you can be proven guilty. There is a line, "it's not what you know, it's what you can prove" that fits very appropriately here. Lance Armstrong has never failed a dug test. Not in any of the thousands of tests he took year round all over the world. Does that mean he is innocent? Nope. But it means testing wise, he is not guilty. We didn't strip the gold medal from the Chinese swimmer in the Olympics because EVERYONE suspected her of doing something.

Everyone stating that dropping the fight shows his guilt, or that they would never drop a fight if they were innocent are naive. In order to keep fighting these allegations (and all of the accusers are people who have tested positive themselves, and they were never willing to talk before they were busted), Armstrong would literally be bled dry financially. The legal costs associated with hiring legal teams to represent you would bankrupt him eventually. Would being broke and still having the allegations dog you accomplish anything? The USADA would not stop because Armstrong ran out of money.

Can you imaging the outrage if MLB suspended a player 50 games because other suspended athletes went on record that they witnessed that player inject themselves? Or if the NFL suspended a player for violating the leagues substance abuse policy based on witness testimony/public believe alone? Hell, half the NFL would be suspended every year with that standard of "proof". Athletes test positive all the time, serve their bans, and then resume their career. Just look at the Olympics track and field. But rarely do we ever deal with an athlete passing every drug test subjected to and years later going after that athlete based on public suspicion, tainted witness testimony. Floyd Landis? Really? Mr "I didn't do anything wrong and will fight this to the death", tested positive, admitted to it, and now is suddenly believable?

Like I said in opening, I don't know if Armstrong cheated. I am not particularly fond of him, have no emotional attachment to his accomplishments, and don't care about the sport. But you have to PROVE someone cheated. That hasn't happened yet.

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

He did NOT fail a drug test. His test showed traces of corticosteroid in an amount that was not in the positive range. A medical certificate showed he used an approved cream for saddle sores which contained the substance. I am not saying Armstrong is innocent, but you can't say he failed a test when he did not.

he tested positive for cortisone, and would have been fine if he told someone ahead of time. he didnt.

[Popeman38]

he tested positive for cortisone, and would have been fine if he told someone ahead of time. he didnt.

He DID NOT test positive. The levels in the test were not high enough to trigger a positive result. It was flagged as suspicious, but not positive. There is a difference. There are thresholds for determining pass/fail. He did not pass the threshold for fail. No matter how many times you say he failed, the test says otherwise.

Unless we are speaking of a different test.

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

Look, I have no idea if Lance Armstrong doped. I have no idea because like a majority of Americans, I couldn't care less about cycling. But this much I know: you aren't guilty of something unless you can be proven guilty.

then why doesnt he fight this? And there are witnesses who say he used.

The USADA would not stop because Armstrong ran out of money.

you mean like how Armstrong has done to everyone who has doubted his accomplishments?

Can you imaging the outrage if MLB suspended a player 50 games because other suspended athletes went on record that they witnessed that player inject themselves? Or if the NFL suspended a player for violating the leagues substance abuse policy based on witness testimony/public believe alone? Hell, half the NFL would be suspended every year with that standard of "proof". Athletes test positive all the time, serve their bans, and then resume their career. Just look at the Olympics track and field. But rarely do we ever deal with an athlete passing every drug test subjected to and years later going after that athlete based on public suspicion, tainted witness testimony. Floyd Landis? Really? Mr "I didn't do anything wrong and will fight this to the death", tested positive, admitted to it, and now is suddenly believable?

well this is what happened in MLB with Jose Canseco telling on everyone and those he told on getting caught.

And its not just former teammates. Its doctors, documents of pay offs, re-tested samples which have shown to be positive of PEDs or of blood doping, etc. The American media hasnt been touching this story at all and I feel a lot of people are ignorant to how guilty Armstrong actually is.

But you have to PROVE someone cheated. That hasn't happened yet.

then go to trial and prove yourself.

A judge just a month ago threw out a lawsuit Armstrong had against the USADA because he wasnt actually trying to prove himself innocent but to just win a PR fight.

---------- Post added August-24th-2012 at 11:26 AM ----------

He DID NOT test positive. The levels in the test were not high enough to trigger a positive result. It was flagged as suspicious, but not positive. There is a difference. There are thresholds for determining pass/fail. He did not pass the threshold for fail. No matter how many times you say he failed, the test says otherwise.

Unless we are speaking of a different test.

if they find a foreign substance that is banned in your body, you have tested positive. It wasnt enough to warrant a ban, but its a positive test.

---------- Post added August-24th-2012 at 11:31 AM ----------

also, that 1999 positive test was actually an illegitimate prescription according to Emma O'Reilly, who was a USPS team worker at the time.

http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/saddle-sore

http://bicycling.com/blogs/theselect...game%E2%80%9D/

[mistertim]

<snip for brevity>

Like I said in opening, I don't know if Armstrong cheated. I am not particularly fond of him, have no emotional attachment to his accomplishments, and don't care about the sport. But you have to PROVE someone cheated. That hasn't happened yet.

You do realize that people can be found guilty in courts of law exactly by the means that they were using in the case against Lance, right? You don't have to have fingerprints from a gun in order to convict a person of a crime where he used it; there are many types of evidence. This is sort of like a guy doing a plea bargain or pleading no contest, except it isn't a criminal case so Lance doesn't go to jail or anything. In the eyes of the law it is seen as an admission of guilt as far as how they treat it, which is why they'll strip him of his titles. But technically there is no admission of guilt.

[Destino]

I'm not a Lance Armstrong fan. The guy sets off my bull**** alarms almost as often as I hear him speak. Having said that there is something inherently wrong with the way doping allegations simply get recycled forcing people to combat them endlessly. There is a reason the US did away with double jeopardy.

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

You do realize that people can be found guilty in courts of law exactly by the means that they were using in the case against Lance, right? You don't have to have fingerprints from a gun in order to convict a person of a crime where he used it; there are many types of evidence. This is sort of like a guy doing a plea bargain or pleading no contest, except it isn't a criminal case so Lance doesn't go to jail or anything. In the eyes of the law it is seen as an admission of guilt as far as how they treat it, which is why they'll strip him of his titles. But technically there is no admission of guilt.

its shocking how people dont realize this

they are only doing this because its Lance Armstrong, that is it.

[Popeman38]

You do realize that people can be found guilty in courts of law exactly by the means that they were using in the case against Lance, right? You don't have to have fingerprints from a gun in order to convict a person of a crime where he used it; there are many types of evidence. This is sort of like a guy doing a plea bargain or pleading no contest, except it isn't a criminal case so Lance doesn't go to jail or anything. In the eyes of the law it is seen as an admission of guilt as far as how they treat it, which is why they'll strip him of his titles. But technically there is no admission of guilt.

People are found guilty in court all the time, but they get to face their accusers. Armstrong doesn't get that right. So sure, if you want to use an apples and oranges comparison to justify an watermelon to cantaloupe reality, feel free. He didn't admit to anything, and dropping his fight is not a "no contest"/plea bargain. It is an "I quit". Doesn't mean he is guilty, and shouldn't be taken as a justification of the USADA's case.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Having said that there is something inherently wrong with the way doping allegations simply get recycled forcing people to combat them endlessly. There is a reason the US did away with double jeopardy.

Exactly, not to mention statute of limitations.

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

People are found guilty in court all the time, but they get to face their accusers. Armstrong doesn't get that right. So sure, if you want to use an apples and oranges comparison to justify an watermelon to cantaloupe reality, feel free. He didn't admit to anything, and dropping his fight is not a "no contest"/plea bargain. It is an "I quit". Doesn't mean he is guilty, and shouldn't be taken as a justification of the USADA's case.

if someone were to do that in a typical court, they would be found guilty.

I dont get why people are just suspending logic and thinking for Lance Armstrong

[Popeman38]

This is my last response to this poster, as he has shown himself to be quite the harassing type in multiple threads who keeps repeating himself and refusing to acknowledge any other point of view not directly supporting his. Take, for example, his positive test claim.

if they find a foreign substance that is banned in your body, you have tested positive. It wasnt enough to warrant a ban, but its a positive test.

Google Lance Armstrong positive test, and you will not receive any responses suggesting a positive test. You will find the following:

A 1999 urine sample showed traces of corticosteroid in an amount that was not in the positive range. A medical certificate showed he used an approved cream for saddle sores which contained the substance. That is sourced: News & Features. Inside Communications. Retrieved July 26, 2006.- "Throughout his career only one test showed indications of the presence of doping products. In the 1999 Tour, a urine sample showed small traces of cortico-steroids. Armstrong was cleared, however, when his U.S. Postal team, produced a medical certificate showing that he used a cream to ease the pain of a saddle sore. Even that sample, however, was below the levels that would have triggered a positive result at the time."

So no, Lance Armstrong did not test positive for cortico-steroids.

its shocking how people dont realize this

they are only doing this because its Lance Armstrong, that is it.

No, we are doing this because nothing has been PROVEN regarding Lance Armstrong doping. It is all accusations and allegations.

if someone were to do that in a typical court, they would be found guilty.

I dont get why people are just suspending logic and thinking for Lance Armstrong

Idiotic response. You don't get to decide to stop defending yourself in a criminal trial. You defend yourself, or you plea bargain. NEITHER ONE WAS DONE HERE.

[Taylor703]

its shocking how people dont realize this

they are only doing this because its Lance Armstrong, that is it.

You've already shown your clear bias which makes it hard to take you serious. I honestly could careless about cycling or Lance but I've had enough of people being convicted of things when there is ZERO evidence to do so. Now I understand this is different, he's not going to jail but the reality is he is being stripped of his titles due to hearsay by people who were proven to be dopers. If it comes out that he had multiple failed tests or USADA can prove he did it then fine, I'll agree with the punishment, however until they show clear evidence that he cheated I'm not going to agree that he did anything wrong.