The Long Fall of Lance Armstrong

snowleopard said:
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.
Click to expand...
And here's your answer -- until there's some evidence and proof, you cannot possibly make any judgements. At all. All you can do is unfairly criticize him, call him a liar, call into question everything he's done -- and to what purpose? What are you trying to accomplish by doing that? What's the rush to burn him at the stake? If there are high-power investigations being done at the highest level, why not let the process play out? Why does there need to be any judgement passed, especially one that can only be done in light of a lack of actual evidence?

Seems to me that the bare minimum that's going on here is character assassination. If he's guilty, it will be found out. Until then, he's innocent until proven guilty.

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.
Click to expand...
Sure. So why not go after those who are actually guilty? Crucify Landis, if you want. Crucify Mark McGwire or whatever his name was. At least they are actually guilty of something, having been proven and then having confessed and admitted it.

I mean, seriously -- was this country better off for having the Salem witch hunts?

I'm not saying Armstrong is innocent. But I am saying that until there is actual evidence, there is no basis on which to condemn him.
 
milksac said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, by golly, I guess that means that every athlete juices. Maybe we should go after Michael Jordan next -- I mean, obviously, anyone that good must be on the juice, and I'm sure we can dig up someone who will say so. And then let's go after Rafael Nadal -- obviously he must be doping too, nobody can be that good unless they're on the stuff, right? And then, that Michael Phelps guy, let's string him up too. Hell, we got Agassi, let's get the rest of 'em...

Where does it stop?

Hey, I have an idea -- how about it stops when an athlete admits to it, or -- barring that, a prosecutor presents evidence, a defense presents their evidence, and a judge and jury present their verdict.

But the bigger point is -- what business is it of yours, mine, or ours, to go proclaiming judgement upon these people who are, last I checked, actual human beings with actual feelings and lives and all that, and who should be allowed at least the bare minimum standards of decency?

An arrest does not a conviction make.

And an accusation is not evidence of guilt.

Tiger Woods was guilty as hell, and nobody had an inkling. Duke LaCrosse was innocent of any of the accusations and charges, but the public tarred and feathered them.

Who, exactly, is hurt by waiting to pronounce judgement upon someone, until you've at least actually heard the evidence and the defense?
 
Landis was already gone after. He was sanctioned by USADA and that was upheld by CAS. He was suspended for two years, which he served, and fined $100,000, which he paid. After admitting his guilt, Floyd stated he would do all he could to pay back any money he took from anyone. At this point I don't know anymore I could ask from the guy.

As far as Armstrong goes, I believe there is evidence. Enough for me to believe he lied, and enough for the WSJ, NYT, SI, and others to write articles. The failed cortisone test that the UCI broke the rules to reverse. The positives for EPO, verified by renowned anti-doping physiologist Michael Ashenden, the UCI chose to ignore on legal technicalities, and because Armstrong was at that time retired, and had made large donations to the UCI. The two failed testosterone tests where the confirmation was improperly administered. One may feel that Floyd Landis is a liar, as he did lie in the past. Maybe you think he's still lying, and actually was clean and is lying about that too. But there's also testimony by the long list from those I listed above, both in the SCA hearing, and to USADA. Are they all bitter liars? All of them out with an axe to grind?

No, I'm not saying that Armstrong should be thrown in prison. That would not be right, nor just. At least not until he is found guilty if that is the case and judged and sentenced as such. But I do think he cheated, and that there is ample evidence to show so. He cheated other riders, he cheated fans, he cheated patients who needed drugs he used for himself, and he cheated sponsors. And I think for someone like myself to see this ample evidence I've studied over the last decade and point my finger at him and call him a cheater is just, and not the same as implying he should be sent to prison, now. If you feel that means I'm condemning him, so be it. But I'd also encourage you to study what I have, see what I have. I can share plenty of links for you, many of the to scientific studies and lab reports. I believe your eyes would be opened too.
 
Okay, well, I'm stepping out of the conversation at this point. I have no dog in this fight, other than a general wish for a society that would elevate itself towards believing the best in people rather than suspecting the worst in people.

Lives were destroyed during the whole "repressed memories" horsecrap that was spreading back in the '80's and '90's. The Tawana Brawley thing, and the Duke Lacrosse thing, and the thousands of people who are in prison right now unjustly, lead me to think that it is an overall wiser course of action to reserve judgement until all the facts are known and both sides have had their say. People do lie, for whatever reason. And those lies can do tremendous damage to individuals.

Let me just throw in my last words that, if you were ever on the other side of being accused of something, you might appreciate this perspective a whole lot more.
 
But isn't criticizing him, calling him a liar passing judgment to you?

What about BP, or KBR, Halliburton, or the Wall Street bankers. Many of whom have never been found guilty of anything. Do you not feel like pointing fingers at them?
 
There aren't thousands of innocent people in prison. However, if you make an accusation, it's out there for good, and especially in this modern age where if it's on the Internet, it's true, you can't unring the bell -- it never, ever goes away.

Which is why everyone should hold their tongues when accusing anyone of anything until they have concrete reason to do so.
 
Do you not feel like pointing fingers at them?
Click to expand...
Do I want to point fingers at someone? Of course not! Why would someone want to point the finger of judgement at someone else? That's something that should only be done when you HAVE to. When your daughter brings home her boyfriend for your approval. When you serve on a jury. When you're deciding whether to invest your life savings with someone. When it matters.

Look at your hand. When you point the finger at someone else, there are three fingers pointing back at you, and all that.

Look, I had to serve on a jury where we were having to decide the fate of a man accused of sexually molesting a 12-year-old girl. I took that responsibility extremely seriously. Because the accusation is bad enough -- that's a scarlet letter that would be very tough for that man to shake, even if he was completely innocent. His picture had already appeared in the newspaper, and for a lot of folks that's enough, right?

But further, the idea of convicting him of that crime, would carry a life sentence. Not a sentence in prison, that wasn't up to us -- that's for the judge to decide. But if he was to be found guilty, he will NEVER be free of that. He can repent all he wants, he can confess, he can make restitution, he could start a foundation for eliminating child abuse, whatever. But he will always, and forever, for the rest of his life, have to register with the police that he is a Convicted Sex Offender. And his name and his picture will always and forever be listed in the database of registered sex offenders. And any time he moves into a new neighborhood, you can bet that there will be people printing out his picture, posting it on telephone poles and mailboxes throughout the neighborhood, warning everyone that this dangerous criminal lives nearby.

It is a life sentence.

We sat and listened to the evidence. And we waited for his defense, and he provided none. I wanted him to provide a defense. I wished he would have had some compelling story, that would at least have put doubt onto the prosecution's case, so that we would at least have two stories to weigh and could then deliberate as reasonable adults, weighing in the gravity of the alleged offense, and the severity of the penalties, and all that. But he offered no defense. None. He didn't take the stand, and no witnesses were called in his defense. At all. So ... we had no choice but to convict, and he will now and forever bear that millstone around his neck -- and, fairly so, because he was indeed guilty.

I have no problem with the notion that someone may very well be guilty of the crime they're accused of. But judgement in the Lance Armstrong case is not mine. Judgement was mine, when I served on that jury. In this Armstrong case, it is not. And I would hope and pray that whoever does hear that case, will take their responsibility as seriously as the situation warrants, and as seriously as the twelve of us did in deciding the sex offender's case.

There are, at a minimum, two sides to every story, and each should be weighed equally, until one is found proven to be at fault. At that point, and only at that point, can you make an appropriate judgement.
 
What do you consider actual affirmative evidence?

I mean, should SI, the WSJ and others (BBC now today) have not published their articles without it? Should I not have started this thread without it? Should the media not cover anything without it?

Floyd Landis claimed he and Lance doped together at the same time in front of many people on the team. Michael Ashenden believes his testing to be accurate. To me this is actual affirmative evidence. To sentence to prison? Maybe, maybe not. That's for the courts to decide. To look into and determine whether one thinks he cheated and lied. Yes. While one may like to discredit Landis for his past lies, it is well known that courts use testimony from even convicted felons as eyewitness testimony. And if you wish to discredit Landis anyway, assuming he has some sort of scorched earth mindset, there's still all the others I listed. To me, this is enough for someone like SI and the others to publish, and the rest of us to discuss it. And from what I've read, enough to spread the word to others to read up on it as well.
 
You sound like you want him to be guilty snowleopard. :/

Innocent until proven guilty. None of the allegations have ever held up right ? But I can see where one dominates as he has to be reason for concern. He must be doping, right ? What about Jacques Anquetil or Eddy Merckx or Miguel Indurain ?

I'm as bummed as the next dude to see these guys doping. Manny Ramirez and Big Papi was a major let down for me (although I laughed when ARod was exposed)

I'm not saying he has not done it and understand in todays world, but, nothing has stuck (yet)
 
What do you mean by guilty? Sentenced to prison? That's beyond what I'm stating.

I just want the truth to come out. Do that, and I believe plenty will stick. To me the whole issue has been whitewashed and ignored by not only the governing bodies of the sport, but by the media and masses as well. If everyone who bought Armstrong products, or who suffered cancer or believed they could defeat it because of Armstrong, and all the sponsors that paid him money, if in the end they don't care whether he doped or not, then so be it. But I do believe the information should come to light. Not be tucked away and covered by greedy cycling officials.

All those men you listed indeed did dope, and should be ashamed for doing so.But unlike all of them Lance built his reputation, and an extremely profitable empire on being drug free during a time when the sport was rotten to he core, worse than any other time in it's history. If he would like to confess because no one should care, then do so. I'm sure Novitzky will answer the phone if Lance were to call.
 
Sorry, I have not read any of your post because I take offense at the title. But I will make this generic statement:

I am currently writing and directing a feature length cycling documentary. The only thing I will say is that the doc gives a feel of, "out with the old and in with the new." It focuses on the new generation. Because even after recognizing the amazing feats of Lance Armstrong and others of his generation, there are many names that the media does not talk about. Because they don't bring in the sponsors like Armstrong does...

I know there are a lot of opinions on the issue of doping, and it is not so easy as saying, Innocent until proven guilty" as there are many countries, media sources and federations weighing in, and they all play by different rules. It is an "Old boy Network" and that in itself, is cycling's biggest problem. There are top officials that condemn a rider and leak information without proof, the newspapers, officials and labs share info, and in Europe, a rider seems to be guilty until proven innocent, which is impossible to do..It may be no better here in the states, I don't know.

BUT, I think there are big changes happening in the sport, for the better. We have an amazing and deep pool of talent coming up and It should make for some fun and exciting racing for years to come. As time goes by, I hope that we will be able to believe in their performances.


Cheers,
Brian
 
tmnt said:
It's such a shame when atheltes go down that road.

I was hugely dissapointed when it came to light that Chael Sonnen was done for PEDS when he fought UFC middleweight champ Anderson Silva.

All the great work he'd done in that fight not only means nothing now but he will never really be looked at the same again.
Click to expand...

Chael Sonnen is not a crook*.

He was taking testosterone as part of a HRT regimen...because he never went through puberty. I mean, listen to the man talk - that is not the voice of a man. He was cleared by the Nevada State Athletic Commission executive director** and thought that this clearance would apply to the California commission. He in fact informed the CSAC about this therapy and was cleared...until he wasn't.

*Chael Sonnen will serve 2 years probation for pleading guilty to Federal charges of money laundering
**NSAC executive director Keith Kizer has never met Chael Sonnen
CHAEL SONNEN IS NOT A CROOK
 
So anyway whilst everyone is debating "did he do it" - seems Lance Armstrong himself couldnt give two hoots. Recently in Australia we had major flooding and the clean up is really only getting going. Lance Armstrong came to Australia and organised a ride to raise money for flood victims with a number of other associations including the Queensland police service.

Lance Armstrong today in Brisbane
 

Attachments

  • lance.jpg
    lance.jpg
    45.7 KB · Views: 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top