The Long Fall of Lance Armstrong

snowleopard said:
As to hard evidence, well, he is under federal investigation...
Click to expand...

Presumably an investigation to discover if there *is* any hard evidence, no? Just being investigated is no indication of guilt. When I worked at Westwood we had an artist who didn't show up one day. Didn't hear from him, couldn't get ahold of him, the next day he came in spitting fire. He had been arrested and imprisoned overnight. Why? Because there was a bank robbery, and he vaguely fit the description of the guy (tall and bald) and was within a certain radius of the bank. Took the police 24 hours to sort out that he was, in fact, absolutely innocent.

But you could say he was "arrested for bank robbery" and "where there's smoke, there's fire"... but that would be grossly unfair.

If Armstrong is under federal investigation, then the investigator will either determine that there is evidence, or that there is not. The existence of an investigation is not proof of anything. How many people have been falsely accused of an incredible range of crimes over the years? And all of them were "under investigation" because hey, allegations do have to be investigated. Doesn't mean that there's any credibility to those allegations.
 
Barry_Green said:
Presumably an investigation to discover if there *is* any hard evidence, no? Just being investigated is no indication of guilt. When I worked at Westwood we had an artist who didn't show up one day. Didn't hear from him, couldn't get ahold of him, the next day he came in spitting fire. He had been arrested and imprisoned overnight. Why? Because there was a bank robbery, and he vaguely fit the description of the guy (tall and bald) and was within a certain radius of the bank. Took the police 24 hours to sort out that he was, in fact, absolutely innocent.

But you could say he was "arrested for bank robbery" and "where there's smoke, there's fire"... but that would be grossly unfair.

If Armstrong is under federal investigation, then the investigator will either determine that there is evidence, or that there is not. The existence of an investigation is not proof of anything. How many people have been falsely accused of an incredible range of crimes over the years? And all of them were "under investigation" because hey, allegations do have to be investigated. Doesn't mean that there's any credibility to those allegations.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And if he walks away unscathed some people will accuse him of bribing his way out without a shred of evidence to back up that claim.

In fact, it's already been insinuated.
 
True. Though I don't think your analogy about the bank robbery is equal. This investigation has been going on for months, with many people subpoened to a grand jury. And not just about Armstrong. It goes much further than that. Managers, physicians, trainers, sporting directors, sponsors, many other riders. It's more akin to the Balco investigation than a bank robbery. Just that an alarming amount has pointed towards Armstrong.

I have no problem if people want to believe him when he says he's clean and would never dope. I just think that's a bit naive perhaps, but I do understand why people would want to believe that. The problem I have is when people believe the UCI is free from corruption, and nearly everyone who dopes in cycling gets caught, and those that dope but don't get caught through testing and sanctions are somehow not cheating.

You have to admit it's a bit peculiar that he donated thousands and thousands of dollars to the governing body who oversees the sport. Something no other cyclist did. Something that was denied by the UCI, then repeatedly shifted in the amount or reasons acknolwedge. It also wasn't bitter cyclists or fans who brought up the 'donation" but a highly respected former UCI council member who resigned (Sylvia Shenk). Link.
 
Last edited:
snowleopard said:
I have no problem if people want to believe him when he says he's clean and would never dope. I just think that's a bit naive perhaps, but I do understand why people would want to believe that. The problem I have is when people believe the UCI is free from corruption, and nearly everyone who dopes in cycling gets caught, and those that dope but don't get caught through testing and sanctions are somehow not cheating.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone here is saying that. They are just waiting to see what the evidence yields.
If that many people are being called forward and he is guilty, it will come out.

Corruption or not, sounds like the dirt is being swept out from under the carpet. Now let's see what happens.
 
Well, there's also being naturally inclined to take people at their word unless there's sufficient reason not to. If he doped, then he doped, but the zeal with which some people love to tear down heroes is one of the more depressing aspects of human nature.
 
Actually, there are a lot of people who still believe he didn't dope and take his word at that. Agree though that tossing the guy in prison without any sort of judicial hearing would be absurd. But I will say heroes are built up, sometimes by their own doing, as much as they are torn down. Roger Clemens comes to mind.

That Stewart show is from six years ago, when allegations first seriously surfaced. A great deal has happened since then.
 
Different topic. But yeah, there's probably a hell of a lot more to concern one's self with that may actually impact you, than topical headlines about athletes. I'm compelled to agree with you there.

I recommend Forks Over Knives, when you get a chance to see it.
 
I don't know that Armstrong is guilty (nor do I want him to be)- none of us do. And I certainly don't delight in tearing heroes down.

The problem with testing is that the chemists stay a step ahead of the testers in masking the signs of the PEDs- kind of like criminals outgunning law enforcement.

Enforcement (law and doping) is always a step behind.

But yeah, maybe there should be "clean leagues" and "enhanced leagues"...
 
OK, on the topic, I had no time to read all the posts, but for the past 12 years I work as a massage therapist (besides climbing and shooting videos). I worked with a person (can't use the name due to confidentiality issues-HIPPA), but I worked on someone who used to ride with Armstrong on US POstal Service team. He stated he personally witnessed him doping. I worked with 2 other cyclists (both retired now, one finished tour 4 times, so is no b.s.), that everyone dopes, you just don't get caught.
 
They think there's enough to warrant investigation, yes. But their investigation may very well reveal that the accusations are groundless. And even if they discover what they consider enough evidence to warrant issuing indictments, that is still not proof! He ain't guilty until a jury says he is. That's the way the justice system works. If a jury of his peers hears the accusations and the defense and decides that the accusations have merit and the defense is inadequate, then he's guilty.

And not until then.

People get tried and convicted in the media all the time, and it's reprehensible.
 
I don't follow the sport. I'm only familiar with it on a superficial level like almost everyone. I personally don't think the public will care much if it comes out that Lance Armstrong was doping, because his fame came from more than the fact that he was a great bicyclist. There have been many of those in history. What made him famous was his personal story, coming back from cancer to win the Tour multiple times, and even with the doping his is still an inspiring comeback story. That's kind of the point John Stewart was making, and how I think most of the public will view it.
 
Barry_Green said:
He ain't guilty until a jury says he is.
Click to expand...
Legally, you are correct. Everyone should be patient to see if he broke the law until either a judgment is passed by a court, or a plea is made.

I now ask if you believe he repeatedly lied when he insisted he never doped, and built his reputation on this, or if you believe he's telling the truth when he says he's always been clean? Perhaps you feel this is not relevant, it's an issue only if he broke the law or not. Whether he cheated others in order to win or not, whether he based his reputation and sold products on his being clean or not, or whether he lied to a bunch of cancer patients or not, doesn't mean a thing.

I however do feel this is relevant, and I do not believe he is telling the truth. I also don't believe that this is something to be decided exclusively by a court of law. I believe that the tests he failed, and cheated to have masked, or covered up by a corrupt sporting organization, when held under the microscope of science and logic are enough. And this doesn't even include Floyd Landis, Steven Swart, Frankie and Betsy Andreu, Emma O'Reilly, or Mike Anderson's (among others) statements. Nor the people that Robertogoz is mentioning.

I also believe a "so what" response is immoral. By ignoring, or even allowing doping in sports, those with the most money and least morals will always have access to the most superior products to help insure winning. I don't find that to be fair, or right.
 
Barry_Green said:
People get tried and convicted in the media all the time, and it's reprehensible.
Click to expand...
Yeah, like Marion Jones...well no not her, because it turns out she reaaly did juice.
What about Ben Johnson? After repeated denials Johnson ultimately admitted his drug use.
OK how about Mark Marguire? uh wait, not him either. Eventually he admitted juicing.
Rafael Palmero. Would be innocent if not for a positive test for steroids.
Alex Rodriguez. Nope.
Roger Clemens. We'll have to wait until this summer to find out the ending of the story.

Regarding accusations that turned out to be false, the only one I can think of off the top of my head is the Duke LaCrosse team. I agree that that story spun out of control quickly and the media did unfairly try the team in the court of public opinion. However that incident had nothing to do with performance enhancing drugs. Like it or not, most of the time when an athelete is accused of using PEDs it turns out to be true. In many cases it can take years to find out the truth, but eventually they write a tell all book or make a public apology like Marion Jones did. How many years will it take to find out the truth about Armstrong?

Almost all sporting events have been compromised by the athletes using performance enhancing drugs. And who can blame them? With the astronomical salaries these athletes make many of them find the risk of getting caught worth the financial reward if they can stay in the game for a few more years.
 
Actually, in the Duke Lacrosse case, the State AG originally looked at the evidence and dropped the case. It should have been over at that point, and hardly made the public eye. But the prosecuting DA, Mike Nifong, pushed forward with it anyway.

Nifong was later found in contempt, and disbarred for fraud, deceit and misrepresentation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top