Lance Armstrong Folds, Will Be Stripped of Titles

He could throw millions at his his lawyers, and in the end, the deck was stacked against him. Sometimes, you just need to know when to hold them and when to fold them. Lance Armstrong folded today. He really had no choice.

The US Doping Agency can take away his medals and titles, and prevent him from competing in the future, but it can't take away his memories and all the good times he had. He's still ahead.

< Thursday Morning Open Thread | Empire State Building Shooting: Dispute Between Co-Workers? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Lance, meet Jim Thorpe (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by scribe on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 05:34:37 AM EST
    This has been a decade-long vendetta by the cycling PTB, who just couldn't handle the idea of an American taking over the sport and left no stone unturned and no snitch behind in their quest to get him.

    For being too good.

    Lance is still the winner of all those titles, in my book.

    Ridiculous (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 06:20:33 AM EST
    If at least one of (none / 0) (#43)
    by Natal on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 12:58:57 PM EST
    Lance's postal teammates came out and said Lance never  doped he'd have a stronger case.  But no one has.  Why hasn't his best and trusted friend George Hincapie come out to defend him?

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#44)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 01:14:18 PM EST
    and quite likely, Hincapie is one of the ten.

    I disagree with Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 06:19:39 AM EST
    I believe Armstrong doped and the evidence was strong for this.

    The deck was stacked against him because well. he doped.

    I didn't say he did or didn't dope (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 08:45:13 AM EST
    Either way, he has good memories and a long ride. He's ahead because no one can take his experiences and memories away from him.

    How many people get to ride a bike for a living and spend their days outside, doing what they love. He got to do it for years, and you can take away his medals, but you can't take away the good times he had.


    Think of all the good times (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 09:03:10 AM EST
    The guys who finished in second place would have had - being the legitimate winners....

    Whoever came next (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 09:11:09 AM EST
    who weren't juicing, is the point.

    They could have had good memories too - but they were denied that.


    Thoe poor runner ups... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 09:15:23 AM EST
    So sorry for them

    A further can of worms would be opened when it came to deciding the winners of the tours that took place between 1999 and 2005, if Armstrong is excluded from the results.

    For example, runners-up to Armstrong during that period include the German Jan Ullrich and Ivan Basso, both of whom have served bans for doping offences.

    That is what makes this all sad (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by nyjets on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 09:28:15 AM EST
    More and more I am beginning to wonder if drug use among sports player, regardless if it is college,pro, etc, is everywhere.
    That sports players who do not take drugs are in the minority.

    If it's everywhere (none / 0) (#53)
    by Natal on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 02:33:38 PM EST
    then it's pretty much a level playing field.  

    Can they physically take the medals?? (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 09:24:41 AM EST
    Or is it a symbolic act??

    And if he says, I'm gonna keep'em, what do they do??

    And can anyone tell me about all those tests he passed??


    The World Anti-Doping Agency... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 09:57:09 AM EST
    special weapons and tactics unit has been dispatched to seize the medals and trophies.

    I suppose they get a black helicoper too (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 09:59:18 AM EST
    Might as well, everybody else gets one

    And, from what I read/hear, he's just (none / 0) (#7)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 06:49:19 AM EST
    not a very nice guy, either, which makes it easier for people to go after him - "Barry Bonds Syndrome," if you will.

    Well (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 07:06:58 AM EST
    his public image was of a great guy, Livestrong and all that.

    Even today you see a lot of resistance to accepting the obvious - he doped.


    The wiki article ... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 08:00:58 AM EST
    on "doping cases in cycling" is worth a look.  You can find it here.

    It's not complete.  And I'm no expert on cycling.  But it sure looks like the problem became much more rampant since the introduction of EPOs.


    I guess this leads to a tangential debate... (none / 0) (#45)
    by magster on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 01:38:23 PM EST
    (and not saying that Lance Armstrong is one of these people) but can you be a nice guy by doing meaningful actions if you are a total rude bu++-head in your personality and direct interactions with people.

    I had a boss who just made work life sometimes unbearable on a day to day basis but would then do things like buy airplane tickets so a secretary could visit family at Christmas or some such thing.


    as in how would St. Peter judge you... (none / 0) (#46)
    by magster on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 01:46:45 PM EST
    seeing as how heaven or hell is kind of a pass/fail how did you live your life question.

    Everyone I know who has worked with him (none / 0) (#49)
    by Angel on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 01:54:22 PM EST
    at LAF thinks he's a tremendous person.  

    But he's not competing with those people, (none / 0) (#52)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 02:25:28 PM EST
    and that's the frame of reference for the not-so-nice comments I've heard.

    I don't imagine one's foundation flourishes when one treats the people who work/volunteer for it like crap, so it doesn't surprise me that he can be seen as all-around great guy in one venue and total pr!ck in another.


    But look at how many people (none / 0) (#55)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 04:21:01 PM EST
    hate on the Yankees with no good reason :) Damn team spends money on players and wins one too many times, they MUST be a bunch of a**holes!! No respect I tell ya  ;)

    Nike is still standing by Lance. They've helped him raise over 100mil. In the end, what's going to be more important?


    My husband said that this morning too (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 08:30:27 AM EST
    They had too much on him, best to step out gracefully

    Worth noting (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 06:21:35 AM EST
    the case actually continues as Johan Bruyneel will go through the arbitration process and the evidence will be aired.

    Unless Bruyneel quits too.


    Cheating (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 08:35:02 AM EST
    One of the things I learned playing organized sports as a kid was cheating is fine, even acceptable and expected, as long as you get away with it.

    It really turned me off organized sports.

    This seems to be pretty true in business and politics as well.  And I've often wondered whether all this began with sports?  Filtered down from the professional world?  Or is it just part of human nature?

    I personally don't think it's the latter.

    As a little league coach (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 09:31:43 AM EST
    I am very sorry for you and have an anger at the adults who ran the sports in which that happened.

    But there are millions out there who don't cheat and who don't tolerate cheating.

    I wish you had played under them.


    There is only one sport ... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 10:09:37 AM EST
    I know of whose players regularly call fouls on themselves.  And that's Snooker.  Yet, despite this, Snooker has had more than its share of cheating scandals.

    I've heard that Little League has improved since I was a kid in the seventies and eighties.  Back then it was a horror show.  And cheating was the least of the problems.


    Agreed. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 01:55:28 PM EST
    People who feel compelled to cheat in order to win are actually losers at heart.

    I urge both of you to find a league and volunteer (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 04:33:23 PM EST
    You will be welcomed with open arms and a "do list."

    And don't worry if you are no expert on the "sport" you choose. There is plenty of things to do that doesn't require a Cy Young type background!


    The Code of Chivalry (none / 0) (#57)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 04:41:12 PM EST
    was meant to undermine the American- Lombardian "winning is everything" urge we've come to know..

    But I'd place the genesis in this country with social Darwinism and the thinking behind philosophies like John D Rockefeller's "American Beauty Rose" (hey, he was rich so he must've been right..because God rewards the diligent..)


    Just kind of reinforces (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by rdandrea on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 09:54:01 AM EST
    How hard it is to prove a negative.

    What good are doping tests if they are only believed when an athlete fails one?

    Agreed, all drug tests passed (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 07:02:40 PM EST
    Didn't he pass every drug test ever given to him? Doesn't that count for something?

    From his statement:

    "The only physical evidence here is the hundreds of controls I have passed with flying colors. I made myself available around the clock and around the world. In-competition. Out of competition. Blood. Urine. Whatever they asked for I provided. What is the point of all this testing if, in the end, USADA will not stand by it?"

    If you want to believe that Armstrong was juicing, then you should believe that all of the top competitors were doing the same. He beat all of them. I'm still a supporter.


    Really good comment (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by sj on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 12:05:56 PM EST
    by unreceivedogma attached to that article:
    Caffeine is performance enhancing. Why not ban that? Aspirin, were it invented today, is so powerful that it would not be an over the counter drug, you would need a script. Claratin was once prescription only, now it is OTC.

    Standards change, and in hindsight they can seem very arbitrary.

    So now we strip Armstrong of his titles and give them to who? The second best doped up cyclist of that year? How far down the line of finishers will they have to go until they fine someone "clean enough"? Let's face it: there were so many doing drugs in that era (and are still) that it was like getting high at an old Fillmore East concert: you didn't have to be smoking weed, you just had to be standing there inhaling the air.

    Anyway, I have to think about that.

    A few points (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by SuzieTampa on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 09:02:03 PM EST
    For cancer survivors, sometimes it can be difficult to hold up role models like Lance Armstrong or Kris Carr ("Crazy Sexy Cancer"). Armstrong had testicular cancer, one of the most curable types, even when advanced, as his was.

    I'm concerned with the use of EPO, which stimulates the production of red-blood cells. During chemo, I took it under the brand name of Procrit, which worked great for me. It is now black-boxed, with requirements on who gets how much, because some question whether it can cause promote cancer. If Lance did dope years ago, even before he got cancer, I hope he wasn't taking EPO. I hope the publicity over his case makes others learn about the risks.

    Remember that nonprofits compete with one another for money, and Lance has been wildly successful at this. LIVESTRONG and the American Cancer Society do some great things, but the focus is on the more common cancers. I'm on the board of a sarcoma nonprofit, and I wish we could get just a teeny tiny bit of their money. I guarantee I can find help for someone with sarcoma more easily than anyone at LS and ACS. To put it another way, there are great economies of scale at the enormous nonprofits. But they can't fill every niche.

    LIvestrong transcends his doping issues (3.67 / 3) (#36)
    by johncecil123 on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 11:23:17 AM EST
    All you have to do is attend a Livestrong event to be inspired, amazed, and overwhelmed with what Lance has created regarding fighting cancer. That is his legacy...seriously who cares that he doped with probably half the riders in the Tour ten years ago. His foundation continues to save lives and inspires millions of cancer survivors and their families.

    But why? (none / 0) (#63)
    by Teresa3 on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 02:19:12 AM EST
    Livestrong is mostly just a marketing campaign, in a similar vein to Komen.  Since 2010 it does not accept research proposals and gives a very small percentage of its money to research.

    Read this and maybe weep...sigh.

    It is more about "awareness" and about curing what ails Lance than what ails cancer patients.  It's also about making its supporters feel good which seems to be working..


    Lance makes money from Livestrong (none / 0) (#64)
    by johncecil123 on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 07:56:33 AM EST
    I read Teresa3's article that she linked to and find that there is no cause for "weeping" if you are a Lance fan. The article suggests that Lance's Foundation doesn't do much for cancer research but then acknowledges that it still does a heck of a lot for the millions of cancer survivors on many levels. It also uses the journalistic trick of raising a false spectre early in the article..."did Lance buy his own jet, how could he afford it?" suggesting something nefarious with Livestrong money, and then if you read far enough down and find out yeah...he did buy his own jet and there doesn't appear to be anything nefarious there. Clearly, a negative ploy by the author to cast doubts.

    I think that the bottom line again is simple regarding Lance Armstrong. If you have cheated in your life and as a result of that cheating, the power and fame you obtain is used to help literally and I mean literally millions of people, people who otherwise had lost hope and the will to live and the means to get assistance to help themselves...well you get a pass in my book.


    Wow, Teresa (none / 0) (#66)
    by SuzieTampa on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 01:12:45 PM EST
    That was an incredible article. I just wanted to note that NOT raising money for research isn't necessarily a terrible thing. At "my" nonprofit, we have never raised money for research, and that's never been our mission. As far as I know, we are the oldest sarcoma nonprofit that didn't serve one institution or one subtype of sarcoma. A patient whose husband was a graphic designer didn't want sarcoma patients to feel all alone. She also thought patients would benefit from talking to each other.

    They created a website in the 1990s and began emailing and mailing information all over. The woman died, but another woman she had met, an RN, took over and officially founded us in 1999. In a few years, she died, too. (About half the people diagnosed with soft-tissue sarcoma will die in 5 years. I don't have stats on bone sarcomas handy.)

    We try to get better care for people who have sarcoma right now. For example, we reimburse expenses up to $500 for people who need a second opinion from an expert. The money usually goes to travel expenses or a co-pay. In Colorado, we'd probably suggest someone get a second opinion at Huntman in Salt Lake City, which has a fabulous sarcoma center.

    By the way, the article mentions that Doug Ulman had melanoma and a rare cancer that's not named. That was sarcoma.

    I've been heading an effort to get July named as Sarcoma Awareness Month, but I'm shouldering the costs, which are few.

    Of course, I'm not trying to judge Livestrong one way or the other. I just wanted to make it clear that support services are valuable, too. Komen's push "For the Cure," obscures the fact that lots of people could live longer with fewer serious side effects if they got good information, a proper diagnosis, the best treatment available, access to clinical trials, etc.


    The Lance Armstrong Foundation's (none / 0) (#67)
    by Angel on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 06:50:09 PM EST
    primary mission is not research.  So why are you harping on that?

    Well, he's still ahead, if he knows in (none / 0) (#1)
    by observed on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 04:53:29 AM EST
    his heart that he didn't cheat.

    Heh (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 06:20:07 AM EST
    Six of his blood tests ... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 10:14:14 AM EST
    from '99 showed evidence of EPO use.  This evidence was thrown out because of chain of custody issues.

    But I believe that for this, and other reasons, everyone in the sport knew he was doping.  And that's why they kept going after him.


    chain of custody (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by womanwarrior on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 11:01:13 AM EST
    If it was thrown out for that reason, it was not reliable evidence.  If they can't show the chain, it could have been contaminated, tampered with, substituted, and is just not believable. You wouldn't want to be found guilty of drunk driving if they were careless with a blood sample, I don't think.

    True ... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 11:43:38 AM EST
    but my point was it wasn't a witch hunt.  There were strong reasons to believe he was doping.  This among them.  And that's why the investigations continued for as long as they did.

    not a witch hunt? (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by womanwarrior on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 08:14:52 PM EST
    To keep going from 1990's to now, years after he retired?
    Somebody made it their life's work to get him.

    You don't appear to ... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 10:59:29 AM EST
    understand the term "witch hunt".

    Can they do that? (none / 0) (#9)
    by markw on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 07:50:19 AM EST
    Does the US Anti-Doping Agency even have the authority to determine the winners of the Tour de France? I see that Armstrong is still listed as the winner for 7 years on the Tour de France website, though it may be the case that it just hasn't been updated yet.

    Oh, I see (none / 0) (#10)
    by markw on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 07:54:58 AM EST
    Just retread the NYT article. The US will make its case to the International Cycling Union, which will make a determination later. So it's predicted that Armstrong will be stripped of the Tour de Francetitles, but it hasn't officially happened yet.

    Yes (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 07:57:03 AM EST
    At least according to the Wiki page, so take it for what it's worth?

    So.... one guy who claims (none / 0) (#13)
    by fredquick21 on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 08:11:44 AM EST
    he's not doping and has done great charity work and millions love beats a ton of other bicyclest who were doping NOT ONCE but 7 TIMES including after a bout with cancer and i'm to believe he did not dope? Take your emotions out this people and stop with the THEY HAVE A VENDETTA stuff use logic people..... HE's guilty...  *DID R.Clemons or B.Bonds ever fell a TEST? NO but we don't like them as people so they are guilty.. RIGHT?...

    sorry, I can't get worked up over (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 08:49:49 AM EST
    whether someone took a drug or not. I could care less about that and that has never been what this story has been about to me. It's been about the tactics and the process used to beat him down. Years old charges the evidence of which is former associates and friends who sang for their supper to save their own hides.

    You may be Machiavellian enough to approve of the outcome. If you are, that's your shortcoming, not his. And all I'm saying is they can't take it all from him, they can only take away the accoutrements -- medals and titles.


    I'm of the opinion that he doped. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 02:12:13 PM EST
    But then, the evidence is also pretty considerable that so did much of his primary competition, so I consider the playing field to be level. Plus, Lance Armstrong is a cancer survivor, like myself, so I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for him.

    The relentless years-long investigations by cycling officials often led me to think they were channeling the ghost of Inspector Jobert from Les Miserables. Yeah, they finally got their man, mucho ex post facto, but what was the point, really? They mananged to make themselves look petty and vindictive in the process, that's all.



    They do have a vendetta. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by magster on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 09:44:58 AM EST
    Whether you think it's justified to spend tons of resources on retroactively stripping some guy's sports accomplishments versus using those resources to clean up the sport going forward is the issue.

    it seems in AMERICA (none / 0) (#15)
    by fredquick21 on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 08:30:55 AM EST
    if we're losing to foreign countries we immediately claim they are doping (Ye Shewien) yet if we win and other foreign countries claim we're doping it's a VENDETTA or they are jealous Carl Lewis was the first to point the finger at Ben Johnson and gladly claimed a gold medal after Ben Johnson test postive and was stripped of his gold medal even though he knew he had fail 3 doping test b4 the race as many americans (over 100) had yet his later admission is not is not something we as americans bring up when he was and to some still is considered the best olympian of all-time. By the way i also believe M.Phelps and many american olympic athletes were doping JMO the PED makers are always ahead of the test as an athlete all you need is a person doctor to test you twice a week if you test postive any decent doctor will find something to mask it also THERE IS NO RELIABLE HGH blood test...

    However, that doesn't mean he wouldn't have been a top rider w/o the juice...though of course just not as great a rider as he was.

    Heck, he ran in and won a trail marathon in CO recently. Granted, it wasn't an international race with Kenyans or anything, but still...

    You do realize (none / 0) (#32)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 10:12:01 AM EST
    doping in marathon running is also becoming common right?

    The Steamboat Stinger was an inaugural event with no prize money and no testing. For his age though, his winning time was respectable, but about 50 minutes slower than a competitive race for his age group over a USATF certified marathon course.


    Golly, thanks for the tip... (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 11:55:29 AM EST
    He ran a 3:18, or something, in a marathon on mountain trails. I'm no slouch at running, and the best I got was 3:40 in NYC on comparatively flat and smooth streets.

    At his age, on dirt, in the mountains, 3:18 is a very respectable time.

    The point is he's a damn good athlete, especially at long distance races. And he has the drive to train enough to excel at long distance races.

    iow, imo, he would have been a top rider w/o the juice, but probably not THE top rider.


    You may be able to answer this then (none / 0) (#40)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 12:20:02 PM EST
    Will Lance be eligible to run in any marathon going forward that has been sanctioned or certified by the IAAF or USATF?

    Dunno. (none / 0) (#42)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 12:38:50 PM EST
    You Forgot about His Dignity and... (none / 0) (#34)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 11:00:00 AM EST
    ...name in the records books, both of which will be used to judge him long after the current generation is gone.

    Everything else will be forgotten, he will be the guy that was stripped of his medals for using banned substances.

    The US Doping Agency can take away his medals and titles, and prevent him from competing in the future, but it can't take away his memories and all the good times he had. He's still ahead.

    If he used, as mentioned above, he's been living on stolen memories, taken from the riders who didn't use.  Lance knows, and lance has fought tooth and nail, seems odd to me that he's conceding defeat, it's not in his competitive nature.  Like Clemens, there wasn't any cost or any sacrifice nether would make to clear their names.  Why concede now ?

    Why walk away from this? Off the top of my head... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Farmboy on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 12:21:06 PM EST
    • predetermined guilty verdict by the ruling body: the USADA has already declared that he is guilty of doping, unless he can prove a negative. They're going to strip him of his record no matter what; continuing to argue with folks who've set up a "heads we win, tails you lose" scenario gains him nothing.

    • predetermined guilty verdict by some of his peers: the same peers who are trading anonymous accusations against him for immunity from punishment for their own proven doping.

    • predetermined guilty verdict by the media: everybody "knows" he was cheating. Just turn on the TV, read a paper, look at a blog, etc.

    Given the current situation his options are severely limited. Denying his guilt and walking away will provide a slim, if any, chance of positive outcome down the road.

    Personally, I'd like to see him get a fair and open trial, the whole works with an objective judge and jury, evidence, witnesses under oath, etc., before firing up ol' sparky. But I'm funny that way.


    Me Too... (none / 0) (#47)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 01:47:37 PM EST
    ...but, but Lance and attorneys are the only ones crying foul on the arbitration.  It's like him stating a race is predetermined and that's why he won't compete.  Not buying it, race, they point out why it was predetermined.  Don't make accusations, then refuse to participate because of your own accusations.

    • USADA, well of course they think he's guilty, it's why they are going after him.  They don't pursue people they think are clean.

    • Peers, pretty sure the 10 teammates who were set to testify, and presuming they are telling the truth, think he's guilty because they witnessed it.  There's a motive to lie for some, but not all IMO.  Trainers coaches, the list is too long to believe they are all lying.

    • Media, well that's subjective, seems like the media has been pro-Lance for a long time.  And really, what does the media have to do with the arbitration, are you suggesting it would affect the outcome ?

    To decline arbitration on the grounds that's it not going to be fair isn't really cutting it for me.  Go through and tell me why it's actually unfair, what's he got to lose ?  Exactly, all the anonymous accusations become public record.  He's got the cash, Nike said no problem, he's still our man.

    No one knows but a handful of people, but the evidence they have is solid and they have lots of it.  It's seems nearly impossible for someone who has never taken a banned substance to have this kind evidence against them, I would say it's approaching impossible.  A conspiracy on the grandest scale.

    I would love to hear why the USADA, has it in for Lance Armstrong.


    Ridculous (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 01:51:25 PM EST
    CAS is open and fair.

    Fair? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by womanwarrior on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 02:56:08 PM EST
    I thought that the witnesses testified by affidavit and there was no cross examination.  Fair?

    only if GITMO (none / 0) (#68)
    by diogenes on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 07:39:29 PM EST
    Testifying by affidavit is only unfair if supported by right wingers (i.e. military tribunals).