Anyone fans of the Tour de France

Sorry, but I still think dangerous precedent is being set here. What's to stop groups of people setting out to destroy the lives of innocents in the future by banding together and saying "we saw/witnessed xyz"? I also don't like the idea that key witnesses are "speaking up" in return for reduced punishments...there's people who have done what Armstrong is being accused of, and worse, who will get nothing more than a 6 month suspended sentence!!! What's to say these people aren't inventing stuff to save their own necks because they feared being caught and facing the full brunt of the sanctions themselves? After all, this has practically been set up on the basis that those not giving statements against Armstrong, or having no evidence to give are going to receive exactly that if/when found guilty.

Further to that...just because it was possible to "beat" the tests back then does not mean that an individual was guilty of it. In fact, there is a line which says that cases are not investigated after certain period of time, but in the case of Armstrong that line has been ignored.

As for Armstrong refusing to give evidence...that is his right. I'd be reluctant to co-operate with an investigation under these circumstances also.

I don't know if the guy is guilty or not, although I suspect he's not as snow white as he might like people to think. However, I do have concerns over the process used to determine the alleged depth of his guilt and believe that is far from being honest in itself.

If I'm ever on trial Caley D, I want you on my jury!

How much proof do you want? Many trials are decided by witness testimony as a key element. I think your witness 'colusion' argument is extremely weak. Also it is commonplace, particularly in America for fellow accused people to turn 'States evedience' in return for lighter sentences.

Armstrong is as guilty as sin.

Plus the testimony from people who didn't dope who were forced out, the testimony from people like Greg LeMond who was blackmailed by Armstrong (if you don't shut up I'll pay people to say you doped too), the testimony from people who were not in the team but knew and were smeared, bullied etc by Armstrong.

Truly an evil man who deserves far more punishment than he's getting.

Sorry, but I still think dangerous precedent is being set here. What's to stop groups of people setting out to destroy the lives of innocents in the future by banding together and saying "we saw/witnessed xyz"? I also don't like the idea that key witnesses are "speaking up" in return for reduced punishments...there's people who have done what Armstrong is being accused of, and worse, who will get nothing more than a 6 month suspended sentence!!! What's to say these people aren't inventing stuff to save their own necks because they feared being caught and facing the full brunt of the sanctions themselves? After all, this has practically been set up on the basis that those not giving statements against Armstrong, or having no evidence to give are going to receive exactly that if/when found guilty.

That's absolutely true, one danger in any trial or judicial process that uses witnesses is that witnesses could falsify their testimony. They could collude with each other to get a story straight and co-ordinate their testimony. However, where's the evidence that they did this? Lance Armstrong, as we can see from the money being claimed back from him, had resources running to millions of dollars, highly paid lawyers. Do you think that a story cobbled together by a few cyclists would stand up to scrutiny from these people? Obviously Lance thought it would as he didn't challange them. The testimony given by Hamilton, Hincapie etc was given to a federal grand jury under oath, if they all colluded in that then they'll go to prison, it's a serious crime in the US.

Further to that...just because it was possible to "beat" the tests back then does not mean that an individual was guilty of it. In fact, there is a line which says that cases are not investigated after certain period of time, but in the case of Armstrong that line has been ignored.

Armstrong was accused of doping during Tours a couple of years ago, during his comeback. The legitimacy of the timeframe was challanged by Lance in court in the US and he lost.

As for Armstrong refusing to give evidence...that is his right. I'd be reluctant to co-operate with an investigation under these circumstances also.

He didn't refuse to give evidence, he refused to contest the charges. He pleaded guilty. Quite different from refusing to give evidence in his own defence.

I don't know if the guy is guilty or not, although I suspect he's not as snow white as he might like people to think. However, I do have concerns over the process used to determine the alleged depth of his guilt and believe that is far from being honest in itself.

You'll have to look pretty hard to find anyone who thinks Lance is snow white now. Also, his guilt or the depth of it isn't alleged, it's been proven and he refused to contest the charges, pleading guilty

Imagine a criminal case that had more than twenty eye witnesses and forensic evidence pointing to someones guilt. Do you honestly think that isn't enough for guilt? As above, can you be on the jury if I'm ever accused of a criminal conspiracy.

Witness statements/evidence have to be corroborated, and from everything that I have read there's little (if anything) to do that other then a group of people (all with something to gain) backing up each others stories.

There's no real forensic evidence....in fact the case seems to rely heavily on the lack of forensic evidence and a, IMO, flimsy "we couldn't test for it at the time" argument or "the authorities were in on it too".

You also have to wonder why, if so many were in on it, did they choose to go so heavily after one individual? Surely if the evidence is so damning then they could have moved to take the whole lot of them down in equal measure?

I get the whole "states evidence" thing, I just don't like it....it leads people to believe that those capable of lies, cheating and scheming can all of a sudden turn into model citizens doing their civic duty and giving reliable information with no thoughts at all being given to them being more concerned about saving their own butt.

Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree on all this....but for me it just doesn't square.

Witness statements/evidence have to be corroborated, and from everything that I have read there's little (if anything) to do that other then a group of people (all with something to gain) backing up each others stories.

Not everyone who gave evidence was a doper. Some had retired from cycling, some weren't professional cyclists, some were cyclists who refused to dope. What did his former massuese have to gain? Also, you say they were backing up each others stories, its worth stating (again) that the evidence was given to a grand jury. If this large collection of people, not all of whom know each other, somehow collaborated to fix up a story don't you think the US justice system would have something to say about it? Do you think that such a conspiracy is even possible, dozens of people perjuring themselves without contradicting each other? Judges and lawyers are qualified to pick these things apart, I doubt a motely crew of former racing cyclists could outwit them.

In addition to this admissions of doping have cost a lot to some of those involved. We are seeing people losing their jobs in cycling teams because of this and Floyd Landis nearly got put in prison for fraud after confessing he doped. He and his manager started a 'Fight for Floyd' fund for people to contribute to fund his legal actions following his doping in the 2006 Tour and when he subsequently admitted he'd doped the US government prosecuted him, he only avoided the slammer by paying the money back.

There's no real forensic evidence....in fact the case seems to rely heavily on the lack of forensic evidence and a, IMO, flimsy "we couldn't test for it at the time" argument or "the authorities were in on it too".

There is forensic evidence, samples that indicate doping. They are included in the USADA report, which you can read online. There is also extensive analysis by other people that Lance Armstrong's testing indicates doping, which you can read.

You also have to wonder why, if so many were in on it, did they choose to go so heavily after one individual? Surely if the evidence is so damning then they could have moved to take the whole lot of them down in equal measure?

Armstrong was the team leader of the biggest doping team. He won the biggest race in cycling seven times and, as the report says, lead the biggest doping conspiracy in the history of sport. That's why they 'went' for him - of course there are also other people involved in the same case, doctors and team management.

I get the whole "states evidence" thing, I just don't like it....it leads people to believe that those capable of lies, cheating and scheming can all of a sudden turn into model citizens doing their civic duty and giving reliable information with no thoughts at all being given to them being more concerned about saving their own butt.

That's true enough but the point is if they were all lying, if this was all orchestrated by the witnesses then why not try and attack their stories? It would be impossible to give evidence so detailed, so in depth that was falsified and for it to stand up to scrutiny. What you are saying is the standard defence for people who are accused by co-operating witnesses, they are lying, they are saving themselves etc. If all these people were lying and had co-ordinated their story then a. it would be one of the biggest conspiracies in US legal history, the US DOJ/FBI etc would be all over it and they'd all be in prison and b. Armstrong would've fought it, one thing no-one can say about him is that he's a quitter. He didn't because he knew the case was overwhelming.

Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree on all this....but for me it just doesn't square.

What we'll have to do is agree that Lance Armstrong is a cheat and that he doped. After all, he agrees that, which he showed by refusing to contest the charges.

Incidentally, Eufemiano Fuentes, a doctor who has been widely implicated in Operation Puerto, is supposed to have said that he had many Spanish footballers as patients that Spain could be stripped of the World Cup if he talks. Juventus' club doctor was convicted of running an EPO ring in the 1990s. I wonder if we'll ever see something similar to Armstrong's fall happen to footballing figures?

Just out of interest CaleyD, what are your thoughts on the persecution of Jimmy So-vile?

"Was never charged with anything, no evidence at all, just the word of 300 unreliable witnesses...."

Incidentally, Eufemiano Fuentes, a doctor who has been widely implicated in Operation Puerto, is supposed to have said that he had many Spanish footballers as patients that Spain could be stripped of the World Cup if he talks. Juventus' club doctor was convicted of running an EPO ring in the 1990s. I wonder if we'll ever see something similar to Armstrong's fall happen to footballing figures?

Interesting, I hadn't heard about that.

I also only learnt last week that footballers pump themselves up with caffeine pills before a game. This was in the news when England's game in Poland was postponed and the players then needed sleeping pills, which some were speculating might have explained their lethargic performance the next day.

All that is perfectly legit of course, but I just wondered if the use of caffeine is across the board eg at our level?

Just out of interest CaleyD, what are your thoughts on the persecution of Jimmy So-vile?

"Was never charged with anything, no evidence at all, just the word of 300 unreliable witnesses...."

Now then, Now then....I'm not touching that one

Well footballers have been accused in the past, I remember the Sunday Times running a whole story on Argentina's 1978 WC win, and of course there's the shocking case of the Algerian team from the 1980's who've experienced a high level of deformities in subsequently conceived offspring (having appointed an East European trainer)...

Juventus' team doctor was done for EPO offences in the 1990s and Vialli has admitted that he was doped during his football career. Pep Guardiola failed drug tests (although he managed to get it overturned) for nandrolone. I'd be amazed if EPO usage wasn't common at certain clubs during the 1990s, when there was no test.

I think there is a cultural issue with doping in football. Fans don't really care, they support their club or country and want to win, bollocks to the rest of it. Look at the reaction to Rio Ferdinand's doping test (he missed three out of competition tests, the equivelent of a failed test). Gary Neville just about took the England national team out on strike in protest! If, for example, Wayne Rooney was found to have suspect blood levels does anyone honestly think that Man Utd or the FA would ban him? There's no chance, Man Utd are a business and Rooney is a commodity for them and the FA know that if they took action he'd just pull an Alan Shearer/John Terry and stop playing for England, the FAs cash cow. Also, Man Utd and England fans wouldnt' care, they just want their team to win the Premiership or World Cup.

Also, there's a culture of thinking that physical prowess and fitness is someone less important than technique and football, particularly in this country, is stuck on the idea that there's an untouchable, genius and magic in football that is above considerations like fitness, stamina. Whenever a manager wants to be passive-aggressive about losing and pay a backhanded compliment they say that a team are 'big and strong' or well organised, as though that's somehow a bad thing. The idea that you can take a player and dope him to make him a better, more effective footballer is not a popular one but the fact is drugs like EPO would be ideal for football. It would actually benefit our team, we try to play a pressing game but have lulls during games simply because it's such a demanding system. Get the blood bags out Terry! (only joking of course).

Heres's a list of doping cases in football - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Doping_cases_in_association_football

The only Scot on the list is Willie Johnston

Armstrong will be interviewed by Oprah next week.  Word is, he's going to 'fess up as he wants to come back to triathlons or marathons.  However, a confession could cause him to be charged with perjury as he has stated under oath in previous court actions that he has never doped.  He is also being sued for $10m+ by a prize insurance fund and could face further federal charges.

And there's also the issue of libel damages he won over the years from the likes of the Sunday Times and anyone else who dared tell the truth about him.

Yep.  He could be due David Walsh/Sunday Times £1m.

Armstrong will be interviewed by Oprah next week.  Word is, he's going to 'fess up as he wants to come back to triathlons or marathons.  However, a confession could cause him to be charged with perjury as he has stated under oath in previous court actions that he has never doped.  He is also being sued for $10m+ by a prize insurance fund and could face further federal charges.

Yeah I saw that, any ideas where you could see it?

It's being streamed on her website, I assume it's Oprah.com or something like that.

 

It's a cowardly move.  He'll get a soft focus, teary eyed chat about how he had cancer and he's sorry and he loves his kids and he had to do it.  He could've held a presser where cycling or at least sports journalists could question him.  I doubt Oprah will call him out.

 

When Marion Jones appeared to confess being a juicer, she effectively said she accidentally took steroids and then lied under oath about it, all OW did was wipe her tears.

Yeah I agree totally, It will be all sympathetic talk from OW

And Lance will be awkward, wanting to see this..

I think Betsy Andreu has it right - this will be all about Lance. He can't confess to doping - and those are the least of the allegations against him. Will he apologise for pressurising others in his team to dope? Will he apologise for dealing in doping products? Will he apologise for ruining people who didn't agree with him? Will he apologise to his ex-physio for inferring she was a prostitute? Think not. If he makes a full confession, the feds will be down on him like a ton of bricks.

Nothing would make me want to watch the confession, only the results.

I can just see the news reports blasting in after the show...

The only proof is still the word of former proven liars and cheats of team mates who coincidentally have written books recently. I definitely have my suspicions, but as I have said before he has never failed a drug test out of over 500 during his career. His chemists or physicists should be Nobel prize winners if they successfully masked him over his career.

Personally I doubt his chat with his friend Oprah will reveal anything.

Yes i know

The only proof is still the word of former proven liars and cheats of team mates who coincidentally have written books recently. I definitely have my suspicions, but as I have said before he has never failed a drug test out of over 500 during his career. His chemists or physicists should be Nobel prize winners if they successfully masked him over his career.

Personally I doubt his chat with his friend Oprah will reveal anything.

The testimony was given under oath to a Federal Grand Jury, if they are lying then they will go to prison. They don't mess around when it comes to lying to a Grand Jury in the US - Marion Jones was given a prison sentence for lying about doping to one in a similar case. As far as I know, the only person who gave testimony against Armstrong who has written a book was Tyler Hamilton, and he wrote the book after giving his testimony.

Not all of thosre who gave testimony were 'proven liats and cheats' - his former masseuse gave testimony, she told the truth about Armstrong and he insinuated she had mental problems and was a 'whore'. Also, if you are prosecuting dopers, you are going to take testimony from dopers. If the testimony was suspect or they were making it up, then Armstrong had the opportunity to challenge them in arbitration and he chose not to do that.

Regarding the tests, I don't think Michele Ferrari is in line for a Nobel prize. Up until 2000/01 there wasn't a reliable test for EPO so it was essentially free reign - Armstrong's frozen samples from this time tested positive for EPO in 2005 but he managed to slap down this in court, by disputing the state they were held in. Upon the introduction of the test, Tyler Hamilton told how Dr Ferrari beat the test - previously EPO was taken subcutanously to be released into the body over a period of time, following the test it was used in 'micro' doses intravenously, thus clearing the body faster. Also, there were few tests that could pick up blood transfusions, if done professionally. Armstrong also used his influence over the sport and the UCI to get positive tests torn up (he failed tests for cortisone as well, and produced a back-dated doctors note).

Edited January 12, 201313 yr by ictchris