Lance makes statement about USADA charges. (Page 2)

Exactly my thoughts as I listened to ESPN radio on my way to work this morning. "Admission of guilt" was a phrase the reporter threw out. As of yet, I don't see any evidence of admission. Typical sensationalized reporting from news sources hungry for the "scoop".

IF he did take PEDs (and I am not qualified to make that judgement either way), the broad brush picture shows he was the best 7x at beating the next PED user, ie Jan Ullrich (by his own admission). See http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/feb/09/tour-de-france-jan-ullrich-banned. I still admire Lance Armstrong for what he accomplished as well as the others who take on this gruelling event. All are gifted athletes, all are fierce competitors, all are trying to get an edge. That said, taking PEDs is not the way to go regardless of outcome.

I absolutely agree with everything you just said in that last paragraph. It's what I've been wondering all along - what's the point of all this?

As stated, I don't think that the UCI will strip Lance of his Tour titles as it will then have the impossible task of declaring a winner from the 'also-rans' who have subsequently been found guilty of doping or are under heavy suspision. Jan Ullrich, Marco Pantani, Beloki, Virenque, Basso etc -who out of this list would be considered a 'clean' winner. It would be a complete mess and hipocritical to award victory to one of these guys if Lance is stripped unless of course they award no winners for those years.

I think that Lance was on the juice for sure, they all were. Look at the times and power outputs for the hors category climbs during that period that aren't even close to being matched these days. It is what it is, he won 7 titles during an era when most of them probably doped. However, in this instance maybe the legend of his accomplishments is more important than the truth to not only the sport of cycling but history and his stature in general. They should just let it be........

Well I was visiting with Google... WADA backs USADA. So USADA is the sanctioning body for drug testing protocol under the cycling federation. UCI says it has jurisdiction for sanctions... but who knows.

The bad thing is... when you take your ball and go home because you no longer think you have to play the game... it usually does not end well.

At least right now LAs lawyer sent a letter to USADA saying that he is not cooperating because there is a question of jurisdiction and they need to work that out before LA will play the game... ya, that does not work. He very well be stripped.

Thanks Shane. And I agree with the bolded... even if UCI has a bit of a claim, it still does not sound right. Another can or worms and inconsistencies.

As far as I understand, USADA is the US national agency under WADA and WADA adopts the decisions made by the national agencies. UCI has subscribed to WADA rules and as such TdF being an UCI event falls under WADA rules and sactions. That's how the link to stripping the TdF titles is made, so it's not officially USADA who strips his titles, but as their decision is adopted by WADA UCI have no choice. 

Now, at each point it's possible that some organisation may object or refuse. I read in one news source that UCI had attempted to become part in the USADA process against LA but USADA refused claiming that UCI had no credibility with a history of cover up and working against effective doping control. That's what the news source wrote.

This coincides with my own impression back when I still cared to follow TdF, that forces were working more in perceived commercial interests than in the interest of the sport. 

BR

If a child grows into an athlete today, and enters the world stage, we're reasonably confident that any doping will be found.  But that child will have grown up in a world where even in the back circles it is definitely not "OK" to dope.  

Contrast that when we grew up (I'm of similar age to Lance).  That was definitely NOT the case.  It was "ok" as long as you didn't get caught.

Enter the crusaders who 1) wanted to change that fast and 2) wanted to go back into the past to make it right.  On 1, totally agree.  On 2, totally disagree.  

These are power hungry fanatics whose eyes are bloodshed red and can't see context from images.  But what makes it especially stupid is that they put in good rules (testing) and then decided those rules were invalid, that they would go after someone on the basis of hearsay.  I read a statement from the USADA that Lance not fighting is tantamount to admitting guilt.  REALLY?  This was said in the USA?  Crazy crusaders - they are acting like the Spanish inquisition.

Obviously, I'm a Lance fan, because I"m looking at the facts of the case, at the facts of his accomplishments way before TDF, and at the facts of his life.

X2

One of the most horrible results of this entire sordid tale is that we will no be forced to hear from Greg LeMond non-stop, and how this proves, yet again, how he (in his own mind) is/was/and ever will be the greatest cycling champion of all time, and if you are not Greg LeMond either in the past or in the future you must have been cheating because no one is as great as Greg Lemond except Greg Lemond.  Thus to be faster than Greg LeMond or to exceed Greg LeMonds accomplishments means of course that you are cheating because as we all know or should know Greg Lemond is/was/and ever will be the greatest.

All hail Greg Lemond!!!!

I totally agree... that is the worst possible outcome of all this.

If I am understanding correctly, the USADA is banning Lance, whom isn't and wasn't competing in cycling and allowing multiple admitted currently racing dopers to continue racing because of their testimony?

If that is the case I think this just makes the sport look even more worse. Sends a de factor message of dope, dope in front of others, win, then tell an agency about and seek out a deal.

Lame.

Also, granted they do say he covered everything up and doped for so long. Should the USADA remain consitent and ban Justin Gatlin for example? or other past users?

Call me a conspiracy theorist but I think Lance has more fight in him and is setting up a battle with the USADA.

Here’s what I understand of what’s happened so far or will happen:

*USADA files doping charges against Lance. He’s given a specific amount of time to respond and go to arbitration. USADA has all these witnesses who are set to testify and have been promised “something” for coming forward.

*Lance files suit in Austin that the USADA doesn’t have jurisdiction over the case. The suit is dismissed because the court doesn’t feel that they are appropriate to hear the case and that Lance has not suffered a loss.

*Lance up against a deadline informs the USADA that he will not participate in arbitration.

*USADA has stated that Lance’s refusal is basically an admission of guilt.

*USADA must now prepare a written report outlining the evidence they used to conclude that Lance doped. He will be issued a lifetime ban in the sports sanctioned in the US.

*The report is distributed to other parties including the WADA. Signers of the WADA must abide by the findings, which means the UCI must strip Lance of his titles.

*My conspiracy theory:

Lance understands that the USADA case is a witch hunt and he would never get a fair shake at the arbitration table. Once he is stripped of his titles he has now suffered a loss. Could he then again bring suit against the USADA saying they didn’t have jurisdiction over the case? There’s a better chance of the case being heard at this point. Now, instead of the USADA presenting their doping case to a USADA friendly arbitration panel they have to present their case in a court of law. The witnesses that were given deals to testify at arbitration now have to testify under oath in a court of law. The “immunity” they would have had at arbitration doesn’t apply here. Would they still be as willing to come forward? Does the USADA case fall apart at this point? Does Lance then sue the USADA for tarnishing his image?

I could be way off base but it's a slow Friday morning at work so what the heck!!

Here's what I want to know...

What is the sanctioning body for the Tour De France that declares the winner and issues the prizes?  Isn't that the International Cycling Federation?  If so, just what "titles" does the USADA have the power to strip?  What are they going to do, break into his house and take the trophies and yellow jerseys?  If the sanctioning body over the Tour says who won and they don't recognize the authority of the USADA (The ICF does not and says THEY have jurisdiction) then who cares what the USADA says he won and didn't?

As for the "banned for life", who gives a chit?  The guy's retired and is not coming back to professional cycling.

So if Lance says f*** it and decides not to oppose the USADA anymore, but they don't have the power to remove records, trophies or international recognition, what does it matter?

Just how much power and sway does the USADA have over what Lance has accomplished in the past?

That's what I want to know.

No... when you forfeit, you forfeit. In any proceeding, it you take your ball and go home, you loose any recourse. A court of law has no jurisdiction over this. He is choosing not to fight. It's done. He doesn't have a leg to stand on.

USADA moves forward with their findings. It's the same for any other athlete that chooses not to go to arbitration. And he isn't getting a life time ban because he is not contesting it, he is getting a life time ban because USADA thinks that is a fair punishment for their findings.

$500 Million raised for cancer is what I take away for his 7 wins, no matter if he worked the system like the rest of them.

What has Greg LeMond done?

UCI presides over the TdF. USADA can only make a recommendation for the UCI to strip him of the titles, it's not a given. And since the UCI and US Cycling have basically told USADA to pound sand, I'm not sure anything will happen to his titles.

If he IS stripped of them, they will end up being awarded to the 11th place finishers or some crap anyway, since everyone on the list has doped and been caught in the past.

Got fat and became a media *****.