|
Tygart is living in the past.  
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 18:07 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 09:00 |
|
|
Malevolent Toilet posted:Makes me wonder if the Brits are the guys who are best at doping right now.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 18:10 |
|
|
Considering Lance Armstrong is just one guy and the USADA has in comparative terms infinite resources to bring to bear against Lance, US tax dollars well spent, its not hard to imagine someone tired of getting dragged through the meat grinder. USADA has been pushing for this so long, going well past its own 8 year statute of limitations, it has become a farce. Even Sam Sparks, the judge that tossed Lance's suit against the USADA, said in his opinion that the USADA and those pursuing Lance have done more to tarnish their own reputations, and the sport. Lance's sponsor Nike is still sticking by him, with good reason, anyone watching this can see due process has broken down. Lance has been some where between 500 and 600 times, the closest they got was an error in the testing procedure at their own labs making the test inadmissible. Lance's teammate who accuses him of doping a long side him has certainly nothing to gain by helping the USADA. Then there is the nature of the USADA's funding which comes from tax payers, seeing as how it has to compete for federal funding and justify its existence Lance has to be guilty. Why shouldn't he be after all the time, money and attention spent on pursuing him, it would be an embarrassment for the USADA to admit this was all a giant snipe hunt. The fun really starts when you have federal prosecutors, with broad discretionary powers, opting not to pursue a case against Lance because they cite a lack of evidence. Presumably the USADA is working off the same evidence, yet they some how have determined its enough to go after Lance. But its okay, because if Lance really wanted to fight this and was innocent he could go through the USADA arbitration panel to prove his innocence. I think we can all rest assured that there would be zero bias in this panel to find an innocent man guilty, despite coming from an organization who's zealousness borders on an Ahab like obsessiveness. Also is a smart move on Lance's part to step above the fray. His sponsors like Nike still support him, he still has strong public support and a strong brand name. Also you could not ask for a better response from the USADA, hours after his announcement they dove on the opportunity. PR wise that looks pretty bad, also maybe it gives Lance a better opportunity to pursue legal options by pointing to this and questioning if he could get a fair shake through the USADA's process. Also the general feeling I get from all this is Lance really hasn't been stripped of anything. By walking away and saying there are better things in life to deal with its left Tygart and the USADA looking like a bunch of old ladies that banned you from Bingo night. Who gives a gently caress about Bingo? Ideally Lance is an innocent man, at the very least he is innocent by a lack of evidence. I'd rather see the USADA come out and say they think he did it but drop the case because they have nothing, as opposed to going with the "I feel it in my bones" approach to determine he was doping.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 18:15 |
|
|
Scooter_McCabe posted:By walking away and saying there are better things in life to deal with its left Tygart and the USADA looking like a bunch of old ladies that banned you from Bingo night. Who gives a gently caress about Bingo? He walked away because the case against him is so damning. Armstrong didn't want the graphic details of his doping being exposed by experts, his former teammates and doctors in what would be a very public trial. It's a very cynical move by Armstrong, but it's an effective one given how many people are still regurgitating falsehoods his PR team have circulated for years.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 18:20 |
|
|
I don't understand how this doesn't open him up for liability from the sponsors who gave him money? I mean they gave him money as they felt he was best representing them ,but he turns out to have been doping this whole time not so much.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 18:22 |
|
|
Quanta posted:He walked away because the case against him is so damning. That is your opinion and some people disagree.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 18:22 |
|
|
Scooter_McCabe posted:Ideally Lance is an innocent man, at the very least he is innocent by a lack of evidence. I'd rather see the USADA come out and say they think he did it but drop the case because they have nothing, as opposed to going with the "I feel it in my bones" approach to determine he was doping. No. He chased another competitor from the sport, his TEAM used every means to make another biker feel discouraged, he has multiple people who also doped claiming he did as well. The evidence is all against him. Did you even WATCH the video?
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 18:23 |
|
|
Scooter_McCabe posted:Ideally Lance is an innocent man, at the very least he is innocent by a lack of evidence. I'd rather see the USADA come out and say they think he did it but drop the case because they have nothing, as opposed to going with the "I feel it in my bones" approach to determine he was doping. You haven't read this thread at all, have you? There's plenty of evidence and testimony against Lance. By failing to fight it in court he keeps that evidence under wraps. Talking about a lack of positive test results is just rubbish. We don't require DNA evidence for every murder conviction in this country. Testimony from ten eye witnesses is more than enough.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 18:24 |
|
|
Hollis posted:I don't understand how this doesn't open him up for liability from the sponsors who gave him money? I mean they gave him money as they felt he was best representing them ,but he turns out to have been doping this whole time not so much. It does open him up to sponsors who want to sue him to recoup some of the costs.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 18:25 |
|
|
Yeah I mean don't most contracts for sponsors have some sort of morality clause? And doping is illegal in France could he possibly face Jail Time? Also, why do the French hate him I never understood that.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 18:27 |
|
|
Andy Dufresne posted:It does open him up to sponsors who want to sue him to recoup some of the costs. His main sponsors are sticking with him though, so I doubt it'll be an issue. quote:Yeah I mean don't most contracts for sponsors have some sort of morality clause? And doping is illegal in France could he possibly face Jail Time? You're assuming the sponsors even want to part ways with him. So far hasn't been the case. If they put every person who doped into jail, there would be hundreds of professional bikers serving time.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 18:28 |
|
|
Hungryjack posted:That is your opinion and some people disagree.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 18:29 |
|
|
They can't get at his money anyway, it's all in his foundation.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 18:30 |
|
|
Hungryjack posted:I'm a bit unclear on this: He is banned from any USADA sanctioned event for life now, which includes marathons and Ironmans. For those not paying attention, Lance was competing pretty heavily in Ironman events near the top of the masters (40+) division in the past few years. This is also why I don't buy the fact that he chose not to fight the case "because they don't have authority over [Lance]." They clearly do. He's giving up his career and hobby because he doesn't want to go in front of the Court of Arbitration for Sport and have all his dirty laundry aired in public. It's all about protecting his image as much as possible now, and it's clearly working on a lot of people.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 18:31 |
|
|
Macintyre posted:His main sponsors are sticking with him though, so I doubt it'll be an issue. Poor sad old gently caress couldn't leave the limelight. If he had just stayed retired none of this probably would have happened. So arrogant.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 18:31 |
|
|
Andy Dufresne posted:It does open him up to sponsors who want to sue him to recoup some of the costs. I'm not so sure it does though? At most I think they could argue that any recent/current investments could be recouped. This case coming out doesn't retroactively go back and cause people to un-buy their Nike/whatever apparel.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 18:32 |
|
|
please respond posted:They will silently drop him in time so as not to cause further bad PR form themselves, but rest assured his value as a sponsored athlete is gone. His value as a sponsored athlete stopped when he retired. It's the livestrong name that keeps the partnership going. He's just as arrogant as everyone else in the massively corrupt sport of professional bike racing.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 18:32 |
|
|
Lyon posted:I'm not so sure it does though? At most I think they could argue that any recent/current investments could be recouped. This case coming out doesn't retroactively go back and cause people to un-buy their Nike/whatever apparel. His contracts almost certainly had stipulations that they could end the relationship and reclaim the costs if he were sanctioned for doping. Pretty standard stuff. quote:His value as a sponsored athlete stopped when he retired. It's the livestrong name that keeps the partnership going. Not so, he was making appearance fees and still promoting his sponsors at the time that the USADA sanctioned him. The sanctions prevented him from racing an Ironman event he had already signed up for. Andy Dufresne fucked around with this message at Aug 24, 2012 around 18:35 |
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 18:33 |
|
|
Andy Dufresne posted:His contracts almost certainly had stipulations that they could end the relationship and reclaim the costs if he were sanctioned for doping. Pretty standard stuff. Is that standard stuff? I am not a bicycle contract lawyer.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 18:37 |
|
|
Doping or not, who cares. Cycling at his level was obviously an incredibly dirty sport and he was still better than all of the other people using performance enhancing drugs. An impressive feat regardless, especially in light of his triumph over cancer. I've long been suspicious of him being clean given all the other cyclists that were caught.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 18:40 |
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:1.) Allowing all PEDs in competition isn't going to work because there's always going to be a subset that you would never allow because of the acute health risks. Like something that will grow a donkey penis on your head and cause you to drop dead within five years. But, if this subset is outlawed, people will still do it to get an advantage, so you are right back where you started with regards to people injecting themselves with substances that the rest of the field doesn't know about. I think you're looking at this from generally the right perspective, but I disagree with your conclusion. Ultimately, you can't make a rule against something that *everyone* does and still meaningfully enforce it. If doping's really that widespread -- and all evidence is that it is -- they either need to dramatically open up the allowed-substances list to include, well, everything that doesn't mean you grow an extra head, or they just need to stop having bicycle races, because the only other option is test everyone and then disqualify everyone (eventually, even if it's two decades later when the tests catch up to the blood samples on file). That's it, those are the options. If you throw out everyone, then all you've done, functionally, has been to spend a lot of money and time to not have a race at all (and given a bunch of people severe medical side effects in the meanwhile). So we might as well allow most everything, limit testing to severely harmful substances, and try to at least steer the competition into the administration of safe(r) drugs. Let people use whatever they want so long as it isn't long-term harmful, and test for "potential harm to user" rather than "anything that gives a competitive advantage".
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 18:42 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:So we might as well allow most everything, limit testing to severely harmful substances, and try to at least steer the competition into the administration of safe(r) drugs. Let people use whatever they want so long as it isn't long-term harmful, and test for "potential harm to user" rather than "anything that gives a competitive advantage". What would stop a rider from using all of the listed allowed substances and then using THAT ONE not on the list they know they can hide...etc. The black market will then be on the more health-hazardous PEDs.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 18:48 |
|
|
It's apparent we need to outlaw bicycles. Keep those assholes off the road when I'm trying to drive over These Great American Appalachians on a fine sunny Sunday.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 18:48 |
|
|
Andy Dufresne posted:He is banned from any USADA sanctioned event for life now, which includes marathons and Ironmans. For those not paying attention, Lance was competing pretty heavily in Ironman events near the top of the masters (40+) division in the past few years. This is also why I don't buy the fact that he chose not to fight the case "because they don't have authority over [Lance]." They clearly do. As a triathlete, this is the part that I find most interesting. Lance wasn't just competing well in the master's division, he was winning races as a pro and setting a course record along the way. It's unfortunate I will not get to see him compete in Kona. Would this prevent him from competing as an age grouper as well? I believe USAT rules prevent someone from competing as a pro and then as an age grouper in the same calendar year, but conceivably next year he could race Ironman as an age grouper. That would be awkward.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 18:48 |
|
|
Hungryjack posted:As a triathlete, this is the part that I find most interesting. Lance wasn't just competing well in the master's division, he was winning races as a pro and setting a course record along the way. It's unfortunate I will not get to see him compete in Kona. Would this prevent him from competing as an age grouper as well? I believe USAT rules prevent someone from competing as a pro and then as an age grouper in the same calendar year, but conceivably next year he could race Ironman as an age grouper. That would be awkward. He can race as an age grouper next year.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 18:59 |
|
|
Andy Dufresne posted:You haven't read this thread at all, have you? There's plenty of evidence and testimony against Lance. By failing to fight it in court he keeps that evidence under wraps. There is testimony from witnesses with character issues. If they had strong physical evidence to back up their witnesses, sure I'd be fine with punishing lance. But we don't have that, we have stuff like the video which can go a lot of different ways. The video makes Lance look like a dick, but keep in mind that it can be argued Lance was telling him to shut his mouth because he is a liar. Would I go out of my way to gently caress over a competitor who was talking poo poo about me, absolutely. It can be said for certain that it was an attempt to silence legitimate accusations of doping, you could certainly draw inferences, but that's not enough. Sure plenty of murder convictions happen without DNA evidence. At the same time there is usually other physical evidence on hand to make a conviction. Its nice to have DNA evidence available as it has also lead to a number of convictions being overturned. To have Lance test positive for doping would be our equivalent to damning DNA evidence but we don't have that. I have testimony from people who all suffer from character issues, produced by an organization that has not conducted itself well in this PR debacle. As for the evidence being under wraps, its already out there as his tests have been highly publicized and federal prosecutors have looked into it and failed to find anything that would allow them to bring criminal charges. Now a civil trial certainly has far more lax standard for evidence, but Lance has already tried to use the courts to deal with this. His suit was thrown out and the opinion states for him to go through the USADA's process. If your alleging that USADA process is broken it really doesn't make much sense to drop that position and submit yourself to that process. If Lance decided to try another suit to fight this he stands to have it thrown out again with a similar opinion. If Lance is in fact guilty, of course he played this well and is walking away better than he deserves. If you asked me to personally determine guilt or innocence I couldn't be comfortable with making a finding of guilt. I'd throw my hands up and say this is a complete mess and tell the USADA to get its poo poo straight so when you have a blockbuster case like this you have your man.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 18:59 |
|
|
Killin_Like_Bronson posted:What would stop a rider from using all of the listed allowed substances and then using THAT ONE not on the list they know they can hide...etc. The black market will then be on the more health-hazardous PEDs. Well, for one thing, a much higher risk/reward ratio, since there will be many substances that are allowed for use *without* risk of expulsion. Beyond that, though, you can't prevent all crime -- there are still murders. But if it's something that *everyone* is already doing, trying to criminalize it is futile and counterproductive anyway.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 19:02 |
|
|
Scooter_McCabe posted:There is testimony from witnesses with character issues. If they had strong physical evidence to back up their witnesses, sure I'd be fine with punishing lance. But we don't have that, we have stuff like the video which can go a lot of different ways. The video makes Lance look like a dick, but keep in mind that it can be argued Lance was telling him to shut his mouth because he is a liar. Would I go out of my way to gently caress over a competitor who was talking poo poo about me, absolutely. It can be said for certain that it was an attempt to silence legitimate accusations of doping, you could certainly draw inferences, but that's not enough. That cyclist never said a word about Lance, he only talked about cleaning the doping from cycling. The fact that Lance took it personally is the telling part of the story that you completely loving missed. HTH The evidence is NOT out there at all. Those ten eyewitnesses have testified to a grand jury and the records are sealed. They have no other opportunity to speak under oath now. Finally, the USADA's process isn't important here, its the CAS - which is also used by WADA and the UCI. Lance's opportunity to prove that USADA was just railroading him lies with the CAS, and Lance would rather pull out and protect what's left of his image than to actually appeal with an independent and respected arbitration organization.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 19:06 |
|
|
Yeah, I'm not seeing what everyone else is seeing (and following that by chastising those who do not see what they see). Yes, doping is a problem in cycling and yes, the people that Armstrong beat were doping, but no one seems to acknowledge that Cycling is not a one-man sport. Armstrong is on a team of players and that team is what allowed him to take his victories. As someone who watched the tour, I can attest that Armstrong's team played to push him to first. People are acting like Armstrong shot himself up and finished an hour ahead of everyone else when most races came down to tense, last-minute finishes with seconds between the winners. I don't know if he doped or didn't, but I don't believe in passing judgement on a guy when I haven't seen any of the evidence against him. What I do think is that he would have won regardless of doping, granted his team was supporting him to win.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 19:06 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Well, for one thing, a much higher risk/reward ratio, since there will be many substances that are allowed for use *without* risk of expulsion. Beyond that, though, you can't prevent all crime -- there are still murders. But if it's something that *everyone* is already doing, trying to criminalize it is futile and counterproductive anyway. I know what you mean, I just see abuse either way.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 19:11 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:So we might as well allow most everything, limit testing to severely harmful substances, and try to at least steer the competition into the administration of safe(r) drugs. Do that and you've got 1) institutional doping at pretty much every level of the sport and 2) a major loss in viewers and fans leading to a loss of revenue. It's in the best interest of any pro sport to maintain at least a veneer of integrity, so this will never happen. Good thing, too, because gently caress pussy cheaters.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 19:12 |
|
|
Sythe2o0 posted:Yeah, I'm not seeing what everyone else is seeing (and following that by chastising those who do not see what they see). Yes, doping is a problem in cycling and yes, the people that Armstrong beat were doping, but no one seems to acknowledge that Cycling is not a one-man sport.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 19:14 |
|
|
Why do I get a weird Papa Joe vibe from the Lance Armstrong supporters in this thread? Not that I'm equating his cheating to raping kids, but there's definitely a "My country right or wrong, my Armstrong sober or doped." kind of vibe.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 19:23 |
|
|
Malevolent Toilet posted:Do that and you've got 1) institutional doping at pretty much every level of the sport and 2) a major loss in viewers and fans leading to a loss of revenue. It's in the best interest of any pro sport to maintain at least a veneer of integrity, so this will never happen. Good thing, too, because gently caress pussy cheaters. It wouldn't be "cheating" any more than drinking Gatorade is. Past that it's just a matter of marketing. "Race of the Six Million Dollar Men" or whatever.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 19:23 |
|
|
Andy Dufresne posted:That cyclist never said a word about Lance, he only talked about cleaning the doping from cycling. The fact that Lance took it personally is the telling part of the story that you completely loving missed. HTH Okay he did take it personally, but that could be because of all the scrutiny he was under and then this rider makes an innocent comment, Lance takes it as a dig at him and proceeds to shut him down. Was it stupid and poor sportsmanship on Lance's part, yeah but its not concrete and can be open to interpretation. Which is exactly my point, I can see it your way at the same time if someone wanted to make a case for Lance they can spin that argument their way. I thought the USADA's process was important because the UCI was waiting on its results to determine if it would take any actions. But believe me I would hope Lance is guilty of everything they say he is and he just slipped through their fingers on being nailed with definitive evidence.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 19:23 |
|
|
Thundercracker posted:Why do I get a weird Papa Joe vibe from the Lance Armstrong supporters in this thread? Not that I'm equating his cheating to raping kids, but there's definitely a "My country right or wrong, my Armstrong sober or doped." kind of vibe. Because this is all a liberal conspiracy.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 19:27 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:It wouldn't be "cheating" any more than drinking Gatorade is. Past that it's just a matter of marketing. "Race of the Six Million Dollar Men" or whatever. HGH? Not cheating. TRT? Not cheating. EPO? Not cheating.  Call it whatever you want but it would basically be the "It's OK to Cheat League" and it would be fake wrestling bullshit. That's an argument only John Yoo could love.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 19:30 |
|
|
Scooter_McCabe posted:I thought the USADA's process was important because the UCI was waiting on its results to determine if it would take any actions. But believe me I would hope Lance is guilty of everything they say he is and he just slipped through their fingers on being nailed with definitive evidence. USADA's process is important and part of it is Lance's right to appeal to the CSA, which is the same arbitration agency used by the UCI and WADA. By declining to fight the ruling in arbitration it becomes binding. If the USADA had denied him that right or made him appeal to "Some totally legitimate American based arbitration agency" UCI and WADA would probably have issues with the ruling. But that didn't happen, even though that's the narrative Lance is trying to preach.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 19:31 |
|
|
Malevolent Toilet posted:HGH? Not cheating. TRT? Not cheating. EPO? Not cheating. People cheat in every sport. Should we ban Rudy Fernandez from basketball for his flopping act against France and the USA?
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 19:41 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 09:00 |
|
|
In the end, the good he has done will outweigh the wrong. When you have an organization that has brought in half a billion dollars to support people with cancer, who gives a poo poo about cheating to win some bike races? I know his winning of the Tour de France seven times certainly helped the organization, but the end truly justifies the means here.
|
| # ? Aug 24, 2012 19:43 |
|
