Lance Armstrong

I'm still confused as the whole thing seems half-@rsed. Has he been stripped of his T.D.F. titles? Is he UCI guilty as well as USDA guilty?
 
If a lesser organisation has the power to ruin a persons rep where will it end.

Surely UCI outranks USDA in cycling and in a recent football incident a UK court of law outranks the FA but apparently not.

In scotland in our courts we have a controversial 3rd verdict of 'not proven'. This basically in many folks eyes undermines the Innocent verdict.

If a lesser organisation can say guilty when a higher one says innocent then effectively the various organisations have our 'not proven' verdict.

Result the accussed is dead in the water, bad state of affairs. The USDA should have presented its evidence to the higher authority and if they acted and banned Lance then fine. Destroying someone even when the sports governing body says no case to answer is bad.

I'm not in favour of cheating but I do believe in the correct judicial process otherwise dictatorship and corruption are inevitable. Just look at Pussy Riot in Russia which is a corrupt dictatorship disguised thinly as a democracy.
 
cutns

-this guys been making a potload of groats recently,one has noticed...
 

Attachments

  • Hahahahahahahahahahahhh!!!!!.jpg
    Hahahahahahahahahahahhh!!!!!.jpg
    38.2 KB · Views: 859
velomaniac":151z4ioq said:
If a lesser organisation has the power to ruin a persons rep where will it end.

Surely UCI outranks USDA in cycling and in a recent football incident a UK court of law outranks the FA but apparently not.

In scotland in our courts we have a controversial 3rd verdict of 'not proven'. This basically in many folks eyes undermines the Innocent verdict.

If a lesser organisation can say guilty when a higher one says innocent then effectively the various organisations have our 'not proven' verdict.

Result the accussed is dead in the water, bad state of affairs. The USDA should have presented its evidence to the higher authority and if they acted and banned Lance then fine. Destroying someone even when the sports governing body says no case to answer is bad.

I'm not in favour of cheating but I do believe in the correct judicial process otherwise dictatorship and corruption are inevitable. Just look at Pussy Riot in Russia which is a corrupt dictatorship disguised thinly as a democracy.

UCI have 21 days to review the evidence, and appeal if they think so fit. USADA is not a lesser organisation, but the one responsible for dope testing and enforcing in the US. It is WADA recognised for this purpose. The UCI haven't had jurisdiction up to this point, which was proved when they tried to get involved, and were told to get back in their box. In addition, since there are accusations against them too, I am skeptical they can make a call without a conflict of interest. At the end of the day, I see little in how they can do anything but rubber stamp the verdict, which by all accounts is conclusive. LA was offered the opportunity to challenge this, and has had the report one imagines, but chose not to challenge it.

Anyone still clinging to the believe that LA was clean, in the dirtiest, darkest days of cycling is sadly deluded. 20 of the top 21 riders in one of the tours was doping, are you really telling me the one who won by some distance was clean?
 
The UCI are now stood around whistling and shoe gazing hoping that the fact they must have known about drug taking drug dealing fraudulant lying bullying two faced arrogant cheating Armstrong and his hired medical goons for many years.



al.
 
Pyro Tim":38e8ehj0 said:
velomaniac":38e8ehj0 said:
If a lesser organisation has the

Anyone still clinging to the believe that LA was clean, in the dirtiest, darkest days of cycling is sadly deluded. 20 of the top 21 riders in one of the tours was doping, are you really telling me the one who won by some distance was clean?

Well going by that if everyone was on drugs and he was the winner doesn't that technically mean he was still the best racer there???

:shock:
 
Possibly, but still a cheat. Drugs work differently for different physiology, plus who's to say he just didn't take more.

Personally I think leave his name there, with an asterix stating dirty race for each of them, as you can't award the win to anyone else
 
Back
Top