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

[mistertim]

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

Haven't we covered this just recently? The type of evidence they had against him is valid in any civil or criminal court as long as it holds up to scrutiny. Again, you don't have to have the fingerprints to find a person guilty of doing something if you have plenty of other evidence.

And it is accusations and allegations that he had every right to contest. To provide his own evidence to refute theirs. To show that their evidence was not enough to find him guilty (just like in any court). He declined that right and decided not to contest their evidence.

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.

There is NOT ZERO EVIDENCE. Why do people keep saying this? They had various evidence against him and apparently lots of it. Again, there are many types of evidence. To use the fingerprint analogy again...using your definition of "evidence" should a person ONLY EVER be able to be found guilty of something if their fingerprints or DNA were found on the scene, no matter what other evidence there is that he/she did it?

[Thiebear]

He falls below the evidence the recent baseball star stood before Congress on and was found not guilty.
It's damn hard to convict just because years later he's tired of fighting it.

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

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.Google Lance Armstrong positive test, and you will not receive any responses suggesting a positive test. You will find the following: So no, Lance Armstrong did not test positive for cortico-steroids.

good, we dont need more people keeping their head in the sand

the prescription was illegitimate

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

your head is still in the sand. HE HAD THE CHANCE TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE AND SAID I WONT DO IT! If this happened in the court of law, he would be found guilty because he has CHOSEN not to defend himself. Think about that.

if a man is alleged to have murdered someone, and the accuser said "I am tired of fighting this," What do you think happens to the accused?

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.

he calls my response idiotic, yet types that

You have the right to not defend yourself. The first question the judge asks of the accused is, "how do you plea?" You can either say guilty or not guilty.

---------- Post added August-24th-2012 at 12:14 PM ----------

You've already shown your clear bias which makes it hard to take you serious.

of course, but you have shown NO BIAS yourself

the nerve of you to say that while still defending Lance Armstrong and believing he is innocent.

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.

remember, I am biased, yet he keeps typing there is zero evidence despite all the eye witness testimony that was against Armstrong. Or the very fact that HE HAS CHOSEN NOT TO DEFEND HIMSELF!!

He absence of a defense is a guilty plea.

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.

nonsense

and his samples were tested later and found to have EPO and steroids.


put it like this, Lance Armstrong's time was faster than the winner of the 1998 tour , Marco Pantani, who was done for doping himself. But I get it, Lance was superman.

[amm0409]

Google Lance Armstrong positive test, and you will not receive any responses suggesting a positive test.

So basically its just an assumption that his taken drugs or cheated? I really hope that none of the baseball players taken steroids or any sport for that matter make it to the HOF. If they have strip them away from it as well

[MattFancy]

put it like this, Lance Armstrong's time was faster than the winner of the 1998 tour , Marco Pantani, who was done for doping himself. But I get it, Lance was superman.

Close case! Hey broke a record! CHEATED!

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

Close case! Hey broke a record! CHEATED!

yeah, he rode a faster time, a year after cancer, than a guy who was doping. Nope, NOTHING SUSPICIOUS AT ALL

list of the Tour De France podium for each of Armstrong's wins

- 1999 du 3 au 25 juillet
1. ARMSTRONG Lance (Usa)
2. ZULLE Alex (Sui) (doper)
3. ESCARTIN Fernando (Esp) (doper)

- 2000 du 1er au 23 juillet
1. ARMSTRONG Lance (Usa)
2. ULLRICH Jan (All) (doper)
3. BELOKI Joseba (Esp) (doper)

- 2001 du 7 au 29 juillet
1. ARMSTRONG Lance (Usa)
2. ULLRICH Jan (All) (doper)
3. BELOKI Joseba (Esp) (doper)

- 2002 du 6 au 28 juillet
1. ARMSTRONG Lance (Usa)
2. BELOKI Joseba (Esp) (doper)
3. RUMSAS Raimondas (Lit) (doper)

- 2003 du 5 au 27 juillet
1. ARMSTRONG Lance (Usa)
2. ULLRICH Jan (All) (doper)
3. VINOKOUROV Alexandre (Kaz) (doper)

- 2004 du 3 au 25 juillet
1. ARMSTRONG Lance (Usa)
2. KLÖDEN Andreas (All) (doper)
3. BASSO Ivan (Ita) (doper)

- 2005 du 2 au 24 juillet
1. ARMSTRONG Lance (Usa)
2. BASSO Ivan (Ita) à 4’40" (doper)
3. ULLRICH Jan (All) à 6’21" (doper)

but no, Lance was the clean one

If you go to top 5, I think only one guy wasnt a doper and had no allegations attached to him.

[Taylor703]

AsiaticSkinsFan-

Please prove he cheated. Hearsay by caught dopers is not evidence.

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

Please prove he cheated.

the statement he made yesterday was enough proof for me, the USADA, and hopefully the UCI.

[mistertim]

AsiaticSkinsFan-

Please prove he cheated. Hearsay by caught dopers is not evidence.

I'm sorry but you're incorrect. Witness testimony is valid evidence. Especially if you have multiple witnesses who corroborate. The fact that they were caught doping does NOT mean their testimonies are invalid. If that were the case then in any court you couldn't have one person involved in a crime testify against the other, and we all know that isn't the case. Witness testimony certainly CAN be invalidated, but just saying "well he is just mad and doesn't like me" or "well he got caught too" ain't the way it is going to happen.

[amm0409]

the statement he made yesterday was enough proof for me, the USADA, and hopefully the UCI.

It will never be known, looks like just eyewitnesses. All here say, not saying the witnesses are invalid

So the eyewitnesses are people with scientific means, like a physician?

[Trippster]

I am one of the biggest Armstrong fans but he cheated. There is no way a clean rider could beat riders who are cheating. Plus, those drug tests are easy to pass. I believe if every rider in the Tour de France was clean during those years, Armstrong would have won.

[amm0409]

There is no way a clean rider could beat riders who are cheating.

and who's to say he didn't beat the cheaters clean? Pretty easy to say he did, but will we ever know, all going to be opinions.

Im not going to say anything unless there is a fact he took steroids, sucks he doesn't want to stand up, but thats his decision.

[Hersh]

I'm sorry but you're incorrect. Witness testimony is valid evidence. Especially if you have multiple witnesses who corroborate. The fact that they were caught doping does NOT mean their testimonies are invalid. If that were the case then in any court you couldn't have one person involved in a crime testify against the other, and we all know that isn't the case. Witness testimony certainly CAN be invalidated, but just saying "well he is just mad and doesn't like me" or "well he got caught too" ain't the way it is going to happen.

Which counts more in a court of law: A) Having various agencies coming into court and admitting 400 plus tests and never having a positive test or B) Having people caught cheating, say he was cheating.

Now, if the USADA has positive tests, they should produce that evidence. I think that's what people defending Armstrong would like to know. What's there actual evidence?
Also, there should be some acknowledgement that people shouldn't have to fight these charges for 20, 30 or 40 years or else they are guilty. He's been fighting them for 10-15 years already.

[GhostofSparta]

So here's my question: How do the vacated titles work (assuming it happens?) It's like when Penn St had to vacate all it's wins, do they just give all those games (races) to the other guys? Do Lances' title just go to the 2nd place guy (who, according to Asiatic's charts were all dopers)? If so, what's the point? Or do they have to re-test every sample from every participant to give it to somebody who was actually clean?

[Hooper]

Well, now that you've told me that your anonymous friend told you that Lance must have taken drugs I guess that settles it.

Yep. Just made it up.

Just like all of Lance's teammates. All out to get him.

Everybody just hates Lance.

Come on. There is NO WAY Lance backs down if he didn't do drugs.