24 Comments

  1. Remember crooks Bernie Madhoff, Allen Stanford, and the most recent Russell Wasendorf all pretended to be great philanthropists while they simultaneously cheating all their clients blind. Reminds you any other cheetah?

  2. “This court is not inclined to indulge Armstrong’s desire for publicity, self-aggrandizement or vilification of Defendants, by sifting through 80 mostly unnecessary pages in search of the few kernels of factual material relevant to his claims,” US district judge Sam Sparks said today as he dismissed the doper’s frivolous lawsuit.

  3. because you could make a shedload of money and be (mistakenly) regarded as one of the greatest athletes of all time! Th

  4. Lance Armstrong Faces Grim Endgame as His Doctors Are Banned for Doping (abc news). While the seven-time Tour de France champion maintains that he never used any performance enhancing drugs, official sanctions (lifetime bans) have now been handed down against three men directly linked to Armstrong’s cycling achievements.

  5. “This court is not inclined to indulge Armstrong’s desire for publicity, self-aggrandizement or vilification of Defendants, by sifting through 80 mostly unnecessary pages in search of the few kernels of factual material relevant to his claims,” US district judge Sam Sparks said today as he dismissed the doper’s frivolous lawsuit.

  6. I think Lance Armstrong used doping but I don’t care. If you take away his tour the France victories you can take all others victories just aswell. Armstrong did only what all other winners also did.

  7. Long live lance Armstrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Innocent till proven guilty :) 100% Armstrong supporter 🙂

  8. Incorrect title. He doesn’t have the balls to face his current charges like a man. He will cut and run.

  9. I think Lance Armstrong used anything he could to win he thought he could get away with, there is something underneath with him as a man that gives me as a Holy Man the feeling he is a mean and dishonest person.
    I get to ride with George Hincapie when he catches up with me on a trail we share, he is not that fast normally. But Mr. Armstrong I just do not like on a human level and I only dislike bad people.
    Thank you for the story.

  10. I think that there is a simple explanation. He medicated. The UCI did not see him as a threat. They knew that all the other riders were doping, so in view of the fact that he had an orchiectomy (according to his wikipedia page), and that testosterone use is a standard medication for those with one testicle, they may have allowed him to do so. The man came back from the brink. Once agreeing to let him medicate (in a normal way) they could not then tell him to stop, nor publicise their decision.

  11. ghostzapper2006

    DOPESTRONG. Dave Millar, Rasmussen and a host of others known cheaters never tested positive either. Seven year relationship with convicted fraud Dr Ferrari, the EPO doping Dr. His 1999 tests were found positive for EPO. Proven cheat. Same idiots that think OJ Simpson was innocent think armstrong is too. LOL

  12. Yup; I gather that they are going for that, and that is what will negate the 8-year statute of limitations for ‘doping’ that generally applies — and there’s where the threat of wiping out ALL LA’s TDF victories lies.

    This USADA investigation clearly is “mind and management”; they aren’t after the little guys that went along with the team(s)’ doping regimen. They want to nail the group at the top that orchestrated it, and they appear to be saying Lance was part of that group.

  13. Most evidence in this case is simply based on the testimony of 10 witnesses. There are non-analytical positive tests which rely on the accumulation of evidence, rather than on the positive result of any one test. Nonetheless, samples that have been collected are not subject to manipulation by Armstrong, and furthermore, detection of masking agents for EPO and testosterone are available to corroborate drug/hormone consumption, as are masking agents for blood doping.

  14. Fair enough. I am not sensing the USADA Board is going to need it, nor (likely) the Arbitration Panel that would address any appeal from Lance.

    Thing is re: “hard evidence”, those with money and human ressources / access to them (like Lance) have access to a plethora of masking agents. The anti-doping science is always a step or two behind the doping science. Add to that, that there is no ‘foreign agent’ when you are doping with your own blood.

  15. StrangeDeimos

    He, stupidly, presented a sheet with his bloodvalues. Promptly took it down.Showed a patern of hematocrite level staying roughly the same while doing a grueling race like the tour de france, even going up. Contrasted by the values in the Giro, same year where an expected drop of hematocrit occured. Keep in mind that scientist expect something like a 10% drop when riding the tour de france. He never declined, if he was some genetic freak why didnt the giro that year show the same results?

  16. Maybe the question is, will the corroborating testimony of several witnesses be enough to overcome benefit of doubt in the absence of direct physical evidence of urine analysis. I’m still in doubt about whether valid physical evidence exists. I would like to know this for sure.

  17. None. Don’t care. They have more than 10 witnesses, including former teammates that have sworn under oath at the threat of perjury (that’s jail time … think Roger Clemons) that they saw him dope.

    Hey, the window is smashed and 10 buddies say they saw you do it, you’re going to be found guilty. They don’t need to find the rock.

    Criminal charges were for fraud; grand jury were yokels (like all you Youtuber’s) and in way over their head. But it was just a front to get the witness statements

Comments are closed.