Lance makes statement about USADA charges. (Page 6)

What about non-WTC races? 

What does that mean?

My question is what is the end goal for this? You have spent all this money to catch a doper from years past...How does this help? Wouldn't those dollars be better spent educating current and future athletes? Or even research into better testing?

Why cherry pick one person? Shouldn't they be going after every single person? Or is it because it isn't a high profile person? 

I guess my point is that this is a total waste of money and time?

Where does it say this investigation is over and there are no more sanctions/bans for anyone?

Most of use would fail the drug tests if we were actually tested,  a lot of common cold medicines will make you fail.

I hope USADA is eventually forced to show its evidence, and why it (apparently) failed to follow some of its own rules/procedures.  At this point not even UCI appears to know exactly what is in USADA's case.  Curious that Judge Sparks, even in turning down LA's court case, questioned USADA's motives for pursuing the matter beyond its (USADA's) own statute of limitations, and chided USADA for not disclosing the substance of its evidence to the accused. 

Of course they will.....public opinion will demand it.  Don't worry, you'll get to decide if it was enough in your mind. 

And yeah, dope is dope.

Yeah, that's because you/me aren't professional athletes and don't have a clue what would make us fail a test.  The athletes do, and they don't take medicines that would make them fail.  

This is only difficult because most of us can't even comprehend what it takes to compete at the level these athletes do......we like to dream.....but that doesn't matter....we're not close.

Saw this posted on ST and thought it was an interesting interview.

Dan Patrick interview with Tygart:

http://www.danpatrick.com/2012/08/24/usadas-tygart-comments-on-decision-to-strip-armstrong-of-tour-de-france-titles/

Maybe nothing, but while Lance says "enough is enough" his lawyers' official letter to USADA General Counsel states that "Mr. Armstrong cannot proceed into the (USADA) arbitration" due to claim of jurisdiction by UCI.  That letter also seems to urge USADA to submit its "information and evidence" to UCI for "review and decision" OR take the "dispute" to CAS (Court for Arbitration for Sport).  If LA really wanted the "evidence" against him buried, why would his lawyers appear to push for further proceedings which would keep the case alive?????

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrongs-full-statement-on-usada

Because they are lawyers....that's how they get paid.

Here is a link to banned substances:

http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002037

Most professional athletes do not have the ability to figure all this out.  Even if they could the amount of cross contamination in drugs/vitamins/suppliments is much higher than anyone wants to acknowledge not to mention 75% of all pharmecutical produce go to livestock. So you accidentally eat the wrong piece of meat and you can come up positive. With all this the fact is that Lance has not failed any test,  or at least no test results have been released showing he has failed a test.

As for me not comprehending what it takes to compete at that level, please speak for yourself.  I swam at that level back in the 80's, and trained an olympic swimmer in the late 80's early 90's.  There are other on this board as well that have or are currently competing at an elite level.

I don't think this is over yet anyway, the charges still stand against others so they will have to produce this "evedence i"n order to convict. If they decide to drop the charges against the others then that would be  for

1 lack of eveidance

or

2 they just gunning for Lance, which would open them up for legal/criminal charges.

It's difficult for me to believe that they could not come up with enough evidence for the federal charges to go to court yet USADA says they have enough to prove him guilty.

Unfortunately I understand lawyers, legal proceedings, and "how they get paid" better than most, and far better I ever wished I would   Particularly given the level of sophistication of this "client" (LA), I somehow doubt this letter's language was submitted without his knowledge & consent.  Whether anything comes of it only time will tell.......