Lance Armstrong

grahame · Oct 22, 2012

I think the likelyhood is that those seven tours will be left "unwon" as M. Prudhomme has suggested.

Otherwise this article, whilst light-hearted has some good clues about who may be awarded the victories based on other doping convictions.

sylus · Oct 22, 2012

If it was anyone else other than the governing cycling bodies it would be farcsical

it's almost like harry potter and voldermort with ..he who should not be named

Pyro Tim · Oct 22, 2012

USADA only have jurisdiction against US riders and teams. They fought their battle, but are not responsible for the rest of cycling. Was it a witchhunt? Who cares, the guy was guilty, and is now being asked to pay back $7.5 million by SCA, + €2.95 million by Le Tour

He's been dropped by his sponsors, Oakley confirmed today they have joined Trek, Nike and the brewer. He's up a creek without a paddle

RobMac · Oct 22, 2012

Surely he could do a deal with the SPO manufacturers now sponsorship or summit? :shock:

Iwasgoodonce · Oct 22, 2012

grahame":35mou66j said:
I think the likelyhood is that those seven tours will be left "unwon" as M. Prudhomme has suggested.

Otherwise this article, whilst light-hearted has some good clues about who may be awarded the victories based on other doping convictions.

That makes you think doesn't it? You have to go down to tenth and beyond some years.

gerryattrick · Oct 22, 2012

sylus":1dsymymo said:
If it was anyone else other than the governing cycling bodies it would be farcsical

it's almost like harry potter and voldermort with ..he who should not be named

Do you really believe that everyone in this whole disaster is wrong except Armstrong, and that he has done nothing to be blamed or punished for?

retrocomeback · Oct 22, 2012

Any future court case by those seeking a refund of monies from Lance will be the only place where we will finally see the true strength of this 'evidence' against him. I'm still on the fence until such time, the hearsay evidence held up as a torch by USADA and now UCI does them and indeed the sport more damage than they themselves care to realise. Thank god for the likes of Team Sky who have demonstrated this year what can be be achieved through unequivocal clean cycling.

hamster · Oct 22, 2012

I'm sorry, it is not hearsay. It is made by witnesses under oath. No different to a witness testimony that says someone stabbed somebody. A load of witnesses testified that he doped and they had seen him do it. Hearsay is that a mate knows a guy down the pub whose sister was a soigneur who saw him do it... :roll:

retrocomeback · Oct 22, 2012

I use the term hearsay loosely, on the legal basis that evidence from a co accused suspect (as I understand this evidence to be) cannot be relied upon to form the substantive evidence of the alleged offence. It might be good enough for a sporting authority but not a courtroom I'm afraid.

cchris2lou · Oct 22, 2012

retrocomeback":avznwiw4 said:
Any future court case by those seeking a refund of monies from Lance will be the only place where we will finally see the true strength of this 'evidence' against him. I'm still on the fence until such time, the hearsay evidence held up as a torch by USADA and now UCI does them and indeed the sport more damage than they themselves care to realise. Thank god for the likes of Team Sky who have demonstrated this year what can be be achieved through unequivocal clean cycling.

you wont have long to wait :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20029617

Lance Armstrong

grahame

Senior Retro Guru

sylus

Old School Grand Master

Pyro Tim

RobMac

Iwasgoodonce

Old School Grand Master

gerryattrick

retrocomeback

Retro Guru

hamster

Retro Wizard

retrocomeback

Retro Guru

cchris2lou

Similar threads

Latest posts