Lance Armstrong -- WOW -- just wow

[Halcyon]

I alternate between feeling badly for him and thinking that they wouldn't have pushed it this far if it weren't true.....:confused:

[catz]

I don't know what to believe about the doping. But, it does seem crazy that they can strip him of his titles after he passed their drug tests. There should be a statute of limitations or something.

 

:iagree: He's passed their drug tests, they have no physical evidence. I followed the tour very closely when he was involved and he always came out looking clean. Maybe he is guilty, but I just don't see without evidence that he either doped or evidence that he manipulated the test process stripping him of his medals. It's a bad precedent and definitely reeks of a witch hunt IMO.

[Halcyon]

:iagree: He's passed their drug tests, they have no physical evidence. I followed the tour very closely when he was involved and he always came out looking clean. Maybe he is guilty, but I just don't see without evidence that he either doped or evidence that he manipulated the test process stripping him of his medals. It's a bad precedent and definitely reeks of a witch hunt IMO.

:iagree::iagree:

[Spy Car]

I thought he was accused of using EPO, and blood doping? Hadn't heard steroids.

 

My error in the type of doping he is accused of using.

 

Bill

 

ETA: I went back and edited my original post so I wasn't putting out misinformation. Thanks for pointing that out.

Edited August 24, 2012 by Spy Car

[GinaPagnato]

I alternate between feeling badly for him and thinking that they wouldn't have pushed it this far if it weren't true.....:confused:

 

 

:iagree:

 

I don't WANT to believe it, partly because he is an inspiration for cancer survivors, and partly because there's been no conclusive evidence of him doping or cheating in any way.

[nono]

I alternate between feeling badly for him and thinking that they wouldn't have pushed it this far if it weren't true.....:confused:

 

Doesn't the possibility exist that someone on the other side is trying to bully his/her point across to save face for his/her job? I wish, wish, wish that I knew this type of thing never happened. Luckily for me, the stakes were never so high. (No medals involved).

[Spy Car]

:iagree:

 

I don't WANT to believe it, partly because he is an inspiration for cancer survivors, and partly because there's been no conclusive evidence of him doping or cheating in any way.

 

Not true. Fellow team-members have admitted their own doping and have first-hand knowledge of Lance Armstrong's doping as well.

 

Bill

[Plucky]

You guys are gonna beat me up, but I always thought his testicular cancer was caused by the steroids. I can also see him doping again. To him cycling and winning are the most important things in his life and I suspect he'd be willing to risk his life for them.

[GinaPagnato]

Not true. Fellow team-members have admitted their own doping and have first-hand knowledge of Lance Armstrong's doping as well.

 

Bill

 

 

Yes, but is that conclusive evidence? The testimony of his competitors when there is no forensic evidence to link him to doping?

[Catwoman]

My feeling is that, whether or not the allegations are true, if they can't prove it, they shouldn't be able to take such extreme action against him.

 

I have a real problem with the fact that "innocent until proven guilty" is not being applied here.

[Spy Car]

Yes, but is that conclusive evidence? The testimony of his competitors when there is no forensic evidence to link him to doping?

 

People go to the electric-chair on less evidence.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

My feeling is that, whether or not the allegations are true, if they can't prove it, they shouldn't be able to take such extreme action against him.

 

I have a real problem with the fact that "innocent until proven guilty" is not being applied here.

 

I think the conclusion is he has been proven guilty. That is the point.

 

Bill

[cin]

Yes, but is that conclusive evidence? The testimony of his competitors when there is no forensic evidence to link him to doping?

 

Also, if they are accused, why are they not charging them with all this? They are only going after Armstrong.

[Kathryn]

My feeling is that, whether or not the allegations are true, if they can't prove it, they shouldn't be able to take such extreme action against him.

 

I have a real problem with the fact that "innocent until proven guilty" is not being applied here.

 

:iagree:

[Catwoman]

I think the conclusion is he has been proven guilty. That is the point.

 

Bill

 

I'm not well-versed in this case, but as I understand it, he only evidence they seem to have, has come from potentially disgruntled former teammates who had already been caught doping.

 

Hardly the most credible witnesses. :glare:

 

Misery loves company.

[nono]

People go to the electric-chair on less evidence.

 

Bill

 

 

Whoa. My Dad always taught me that two wrongs don't make a right.

[LisaKinVA]

Not true. Fellow team-members have admitted their own doping and have first-hand knowledge of Lance Armstrong's doping as well.

 

Bill

 

But WHY did they accuse Armstrong? If you read some of the statements linked you will find accusations from 3rd parties that the USADA offered "sweetheart" deals to former teammates to accuse Armstrong of something. There is some pretty ****ing evidence against the USADA (and, what I find most ****able is the fact that they are not abiding by their own rules and regulations, allowing Armstrong even the ability to defend himself...). We have all of these claims coming from the USADA, but they won't provide Armstrong any manner in which he could prepare a proper defense (Again, things that, according to the process that has been established are SUPPOSED to be provided).

 

My in laws are being sued, and the shenanigans of the USADA are similar to what they have been up against. The prosecution (the people who purchased their house) has been going after them for years, dropped the case the week it was supposed to go to court, and then again at the last minute, reinstated the case. It's harassment. They don't have a case, but they keep hoping that if they keep going that my in-laws will settle (which isn't going to happen).

[Catwoman]

Whoa. My Dad always taught me that two wrongs don't make a right.

 

But three rights make a left. :tongue_smilie:

[Spy Car]

I'm not well-versed in this case, but as I understand it, he only evidence they seem to have, has come from potentially disgruntled former teammates who had already been caught doping.

 

Hardly the most credible witnesses. :glare:

 

Misery loves company.

 

It isn't true. Those prepared to testify against him include George Hincapie, who was the "domestique" in all 7 of Armstrong's Tour de France victories. He and Armstrong were very close friends. Hincapie is by all reports a reliable person who had no axe to grind with Lance Armstrong. Not a "disgruntled" former team-mate, but one who is reluctantly telling the truth.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

But WHY did they accuse Armstrong?

 

They accused him because he was doping. People knew he was doping. People have testified they saw him doping. And it is the job of the anti-doping agency to stop doping.

 

Seems pretty clear.

 

Bill

[LisaKinVA]

It isn't true. Those prepared to testify against him include George Hincapie, who was the "domestique" in all 7 of Armstrong's Tour de France victories. He and Armstrong were very close friends. Hincapie is by all reports a reliable person who had no axe to grind with Lance Armstrong. Not a "disgruntled" former team-mate, but one who is reluctantly telling the truth.

 

Bill

 

Not completely true... Hincapie admitted to doping, and was given a sweetheart deal (in line with some of the charges against the USADA). A "miraculous" 6-month suspension that begins AFTER the cycling season. :confused:

[Spy Car]

Not completely true... Hincapie admitted to doping, and was given a sweetheart deal (in line with some of the charges against the USADA). A "miraculous" 6-month suspension that begins AFTER the cycling season. :confused:

 

That does not make him "disgruntled" or someone with an axe to grind against Armstrong. Reports have it that he and Armstrong were very close mates for years. There is no suggestion that he had it in for Armstrong.

 

This sort of doping was endemic in cycling and Armstrong—being a completive guy—did what he needed to do to have the same edge as his competitors. This is not a hard thing to understand. I like the guy. The achievements were extraordinary (doping or not), and his efforts with live strong I respect. But it is pretty clear he was doping. No way to get around that.

 

Bill

[LisaKinVA]

That does not make him "disgruntled" or someone with an axe to grind against Armstrong. Reports have it that he and Armstrong were very close mates for years. There is no suggestion that he had it in for Armstrong.

 

This sort of doping was endemic in cycling and Armstrong—being a completive guy—did what he needed to do to have the same edge as his competitors. This is not a hard thing to understand. I like the guy. The achievements were extraordinary (doping or not), and his efforts with live strong I respect. But it is pretty clear he was doping. No way to get around that.

 

Bill

 

The point is that the USADA went on a fishing expedition trading leniency for finger pointing/accusations, none of which can be substantiated.

 

This is an accusation made by at least one of Armstrong's former teammates against the USADA. A former Tour winner who was caught doping, and they were made an offer -- help us get Lance, and we'll go easy on you.

 

Some people will fold...thinking nothing bad will really happen. After all, there is no proof. Tell a lie often enough and all that.

 

If we are willing to shout guilty because someone else points the finger, or an overly eager prosecutor won't let something go... there is no justice. Our system is riddled with people who were falsely accused, and sometimes convicted, if we just shrug and say, "oh well...must be true," that supports the perversion of the rule of law...especially when the prosecutors in this case are knowingly violating their own rules and the rules of the Board of Review.

[Spy Car]

The point is that the USADA went on a fishing expedition trading leniency for finger pointing/accusations, none of which can be substantiated.

 

The anti-doping agency is changed with investigating "doping." they investigated based on well-grounded suspicions. Calling doing the job that assigned a "fishing expedition" insults their legitimate purpose.

 

And the accusations have been substantiated. Armstrong doped. It is sad that a like-able guy, and one who has an inspiring story, has been caught up in a scandal. But he was one of many bike-racers who doped, and he is one of many that got caught.

 

We can bury our heads in the sand, or face reality.

 

This is an accusation made by at least one of Armstrong's former teammates against the USADA. A former Tour winner who was caught doping, and they were made an offer -- help us get Lance, and we'll go easy on you.

 

Which is situation-normal in the American justice system. People get reduced sentences every day for testifying against co-conspirators.

 

Some people will fold...thinking nothing bad will really happen. After all, there is no proof. Tell a lie often enough and all that.

 

Lying would make people guilty of felonies. You really think a dozen team-makes (including close friends) would turn on him and lie under oath?

 

If we are willing to shout guilty because someone else points the finger, or an overly eager prosecutor won't let something go... there is no justice. Our system is riddled with people who were falsely accused, and sometimes convicted, if we just shrug and say, "oh well...must be true," that supports the perversion of the rule of law...especially when the prosecutors in this case are knowingly violating their own rules and the rules of the Board of Review.

 

If he was clean he could have (should have) fought the charges. Nope.

 

Bill

[LisaKinVA]

The anti-doping agency is changed with investigating "doping." they investigated based on well-grounded suspicions. Calling doing the job that assigned a "fishing expedition" insults their legitimate purpose. And the accusations have been substantiated. Armstrong doped. It is sad that a like-able guy, and one who has an inspiring story, has been caught up in a scandal. But he was one of many bike-racers who doped, and he is one of many that got caught.

 

No. He wasn't caught, he was accused. The USDA is basing their review on information that is 16-17 years old. Additionally, other charges are based upon things that would not stand in court, that are well beyond the statute of limitations, etc. The federal government closed the investigation without filing charges, the USADA then took up the charge using information that violates both federal law AND their own rules.

 

Whether or not Armstrong doped can't be PROVEN.

 

Which is situation-normal in the American justice system. People get reduced sentences every day for testifying against co-conspirators.

 

HOWEVER, this violates the rules the USADA put in place to protect the accused. Again, they are violating their own procedures and rules, statutes of limitations, breaking the rule of law, and more. I find this particularly telling about the USADA's actions.

 

Lying would make people guilty of felonies. You really think a dozen team-makes (including close friends) would turn on him and lie under oath? If he was clean he could have (should have) fought the charges. Nope. Bill

 

Notice, they didn't assist federal investigators during their two year investigation, which was dropped. Why was that? The USADA had leverage against them, and the feds did not. While I get the sentiment, and wish he'd keep fighting, I also get why he's done. From the reading I've done, I think the arbitration had a pre-determined outcome, and without a fair playing field, why bother? It's exhausting.

 

People will believe what they are inclined to believe...but looking at the actual evidence and ruling on that, and looking at the rules and regulations the USADA has been willing to flagrantly and wantonly disregard, I'm going to still say this isn't right, and it shouldn't stand.

[Spy Car]

For a guy who rode in 2000 mile 21 day bike-races to claim that defending himself against doping is "too exhausting" strikes me a disingenuousness in the extreme.

 

I wish the guy was clean. I like the man, but....

 

Bill

[ktgrok]

You guys are gonna beat me up, but I always thought his testicular cancer was caused by the steroids. I can also see him doping again. To him cycling and winning are the most important things in his life and I suspect he'd be willing to risk his life for them.

 

He didn't take steroids, he has never been accused of taking steroids. He's accused of having too many red blood cells, most likely from getting a blood transfusion, of his own stored blood. That does not cause cancer.

[Spy Car]

He didn't take steroids, he has never been accused of taking steroids. He's accused of having too many red blood cells, most likely from getting a blood transfusion, of his own stored blood. That does not cause cancer.

 

Reports suggest he was using Cortisone and Testosterone in addition to EPO and blood doping.

 

Bill

[JessReplanted]

I haven't read the whole thread,

 

but,

 

I've been suspicious of him ever since he broke up with Sheryl Crow. ;)

 

 

:lol:

[Audrey]

For a guy who rode in 2000 mile 21 day bike-races to claim that defending himself against doping is "too exhausting" strikes me a disingenuousness in the extreme.

 

I wish the guy was clean. I like the man, but....

 

Bill

 

 

Well, there's physical exhaustion and there's emotional exhaustion. Maybe he's saying he just doesn't have any more emotion to pour into the fight.

 

FTR: I'm ambivalent about the issue. If he did dope up, he knew that was wrong and the consequences should fall where they should fall. On the other hand, some people can get very harsh when their friends succeed. It's very difficult to know one way or the other if Armstrong is truly guilty. It would be a shame if all those races were bogus, but, given today's ruling, an equal shame if they weren't.

[Spy Car]

Well, there's physical exhaustion and there's emotional exhaustion. Maybe he's saying he just doesn't have any more emotion to pour into the fight.

 

We are talking about of the most hyper-competitive persons on the planet. I don't buy the "exhaustion" argument. Pretty lame, actually.

 

FTR: I'm ambivalent about the issue. If he did dope up, he knew that was wrong and the consequences should fall where they should fall. On the other hand, some people can get very harsh when their friends succeed. It's very difficult to know one way or the other if Armstrong is truly guilty. It would be a shame if all those races were bogus, but, given today's ruling, an equal shame if they weren't.

 

Doping was rampant in bike racing. What he did was not unusual. I understand why he did what he did. As long as people can get away with doping in sports there is a tremendous incentive for athletes to not lose the advantage others gain. I get it.

 

Bill

[fraidycat]

We are talking about of the most hyper-competitive persons on the planet. I don't buy the "exhaustion" argument. Pretty lame, actually.

Bill

 

How about financially exhausted? That and emotional exhaustion are valid reasons to just stop, IMO. He's got a family to think about.

 

Even if he did dope...he's RETIRED now. What's the point of "banning" him? Somebody in the USADA has got an axe to grind and they're using YOUR money (and everybody else in the USA) to do it. I assume Lance gets the financial burden of his defense all to himself.

[Impish]

Not true. Fellow team-members have admitted their own doping and have first-hand knowledge of Lance Armstrong's doping as well.

 

Bill

No. They *claim* to have first hand knowledge. They have no proof beyond what they SAY happened.

 

and since the ppl who are saying these things were caught doping themselves, I sincerely doubt the veracity of their statements. If you'll dope, cheat and lie in your sport, I wouldn't trust you to tell the truth about a teammate.

 

There's no proof. Just the words of other guilty parties, who do have reason to lie (their deals w/the governing body).

 

Ridiculous.

[Plucky]

I haven't read the whole thread,

 

but,

 

I've been suspicious of him ever since he broke up with Sheryl Crow. ;)

 

 

:lol:

 

Me, too! But no man can stay with a toilet paper nazi. JK!

[TravelingChris]

I saw him race in the Tour de France when we lived in Belgium since the Tour was in Belgium for a bit close to where we lived (we lived about 15 miles from France).

 

I am sick of the anti doping agency. I am not for doping but I agreed with his position that unless a person is representing the US, what they did in another country is for that country to prosecute, in terms of doping or other illegal activities.

 

I also think that if all the blood tests and other tests could not find any problem, then even if you believe those accusers, how do you know that all the other competitors weren't also using the same techniques that couldn't be detected.

 

The man did work very hard. He was an excellent athlete, particularly impressive because of his cancer.

 

WHat else? Well since early next week our country's debt will be up to 16 Trillion dollars, it makes me angry that so much government expenditure is wasting on prosecuting what I think is a relatively victimless crime that happened in another country many years ago. Meantime, as a recent thread here indicated, we have a growing problem with slavery occurring in our own country, which is certainly not a victimless crime. That is just one possible way we could be using prosecutors better.

[Alte Veste Academy]

Well, there's physical exhaustion and there's emotional exhaustion. Maybe he's saying he just doesn't have any more emotion to pour into the fight.

 

Right. And, you know, court battles don't exactly produce the same sort of endorphin rush of cycling or provide the same (literally) do-or-die inspiration as battling cancer.

 

We are talking about of the most hyper-competitive persons on the planet. I don't buy the "exhaustion" argument. Pretty lame, actually.

 

Doping was rampant in bike racing. What he did was not unusual. I understand why he did what he did. As long as people can get away with doping in sports there is a tremendous incentive for athletes to not lose the advantage others gain. I get it.

 

Bill

 

Honestly, I am just :001_huh: :confused: about the way you are so matter-of-fact, absolutely positive about this based on mere hearsay. If your son found himself in Lance Armstrong's position in another 20 years, would you throw him under the bus so readily? Hard to believe. Pretty lame, actually.

[TranquilMind]

I have to admit I find it hard to believe he would pump his body full of drugs after surviving cancer. I'm pretty sure I read his cancer had like a 50% chance of survival.:001_huh: I can't imagine surviving that and then pumping myself full of steroids.

 

Yes, it seems illogical that he would do this, after being forced through the whole cancer experience.

[Spy Car]

Yes, it seems illogical that he would do this, after being forced through the whole cancer experience.

 

You think a guy who knows he could go at anytime doesn't have an impetus to "go out big?"

 

This is a guy who must see fame as a way to be "immortal." Being a "hero" is part of the classical tradition.

 

Bill

[Mrs Mungo]

I think making a deal to stay in the sport is a HUGE incentive for someone to lie. I don't know whether or not he was doping, but I don't know that I believe someone with a really good reason to lie and make a deal.

[NatashainDFW]

1. The USADA has no authority to strip Lance of his titles. Period. They can say they do but it holds no weight anywhere so eh.

 

2. The USADA has been asked 3 times by Armstrong's defense to provide a copy of the evidence so they could prepare to defend him and have been refused 3 times.

 

3. It has been mentioned multiple times that the USADA offered amazing deals to other cyclists caught doping to provide statements against Armstrong. There are those that have refused because they said in all the time they had known him and every competition they had been in with him they had never seen, heard or were suspicious of him.

 

4. The USADA has a statute of limitations of 8 years for doping investigations UNLESS the person they are investigating has admitted to doping. The USADA is going back 17 years which is completely against their own rules.

 

5. Armstrong is done fighting. The USADA holds no standing in the court of law and can not strip him of his titles. He can't continue to try to come back as a triathlete but I don't blame him for being done with this. His attorneys can't even prepare a proper defense for him because the USADA won't provide a copy of the evidence. Since the consequences the USADA can hand down are so minute in the grand scheme of things walking away is a logical choice.

 

*By the way the one time Armstrong had a test that had even a hint of being off (out of 500+ tests) the doctor that administered the tests (with no ties to Armstrong) said he would not be able to stand up in court and say that Armstrong did test positive. He did say that the slight off of his blood test could easily be explained because it was so slightly off. It was not off in the realm that would hold up as doping in any court.

[Jackie in NE]

After reading this part of the thread, I just have to wonder.... have any of you imagined yourselves in a similar situation??

Just for kicks, let's imagine a situation where, as a homeschooler, you've been accused by several of your neighbors, (who just feel that you think you're too high and mighty.... too good for public schools, etc.) of emotional abuse of your children.... After all, you're not allowing them to be socialized, you're not teaching them the right stuff.... whatever! They say that you're breaking the law, and they keep saying it. You defend yourself. They can't prove their point. They continue to slander you in the local newspaper "saying" that "they know" you did terrible things. They continue and continue and continue. After all, they have unlimited funds (tax $$) at their disposal. You fight and fight and fight, all the while trying to continue the work you really value (homeschooling your dc). Finally, when there's no end in sight, you say "Enough is enough"! I'm going to have to give up homeschooling if I continue to spend all my time fighting these guys. I quit!

 

Yes, I realize that there are holes in my analogy. But seriously, I'm surprised at those of you who equate hearsay, or unreliable testimony, with guilt. Especially Spy Car. You seem to be a proponent of guilt by association. NOTHING has been proven. We live in America. Some of you are way too willing to abandon the rule of law, and throw out the rights on which this country is founded. It's astounding.

[nono]

But three rights make a left. :tongue_smilie:

 

Indeed! (One more week Catwoman, one more week, and I get my streets back! LOL)

[melmichigan]

1. The USADA has no authority to strip Lance of his titles. Period. They can say they do but it holds no weight anywhere so eh.

 

2. The USADA has been asked 3 times by Armstrong's defense to provide a copy of the evidence so they could prepare to defend him and have been refused 3 times.

 

3. It has been mentioned multiple times that the USADA offered amazing deals to other cyclists caught doping to provide statements against Armstrong. There are those that have refused because they said in all the time they had known him and every competition they had been in with him they had never seen, heard or were suspicious of him.

 

4. The USADA has a statute of limitations of 8 years for doping investigations UNLESS the person they are investigating has admitted to doping. The USADA is going back 17 years which is completely against their own rules.

 

5. Armstrong is done fighting. The USADA holds no standing in the court of law and can not strip him of his titles. He can't continue to try to come back as a triathlete but I don't blame him for being done with this. His attorneys can't even prepare a proper defense for him because the USADA won't provide a copy of the evidence. Since the consequences the USADA can hand down are so minute in the grand scheme of things walking away is a logical choice.

 

*By the way the one time Armstrong had a test that had even a hint of being off (out of 500+ tests) the doctor that administered the tests (with no ties to Armstrong) said he would not be able to stand up in court and say that Armstrong did test positive. He did say that the slight off of his blood test could easily be explained because it was so slightly off. It was not off in the realm that would hold up as doping in any court.

 

The bold is the part I'm really not understanding.

 

I'm waiting to hear what the UCI says after we hear what the USADA's "reasoned decision" is.

[Murphy101]

My feeling is that, whether or not the allegations are true, if they can't prove it, they shouldn't be able to take such extreme action against him.

 

I have a real problem with the fact that "innocent until proven guilty" is not being applied here.

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

This is a prime case of "put up or shut up" imnsho.

 

And the man has been investigated TWICE before in courts and cleared, but that wasn't the usa organization and doesn't seem to count? And this is his refusal to go before arbitration, NOT a court, which is total BS bc only, what? Iirc two? People have ever had arbitration in their favor which sounds like not much arbitration to me but a predetermined outcome setup.

 

I don't blame him for being done. It sounds crooked as all heck.:glare:

[MariannNOVA]

Indeed! (One more week Catwoman, one more week, and I get my streets back! LOL)

 

Oh, my -- I remember those days!!!!!;)

 

The best beach days are coming!

[Catwoman]

Indeed! (One more week Catwoman, one more week, and I get my streets back! LOL)

 

Shall we begin the countdown to the Day After Labor Day? :D

[fraidycat]

After reading this part of the thread, I just have to wonder.... have any of you imagined yourselves in a similar situation??

Just for kicks, let's imagine a situation where, as a homeschooler, you've been accused by several of your neighbors, (who just feel that you think you're too high and mighty.... too good for public schools, etc.) of emotional abuse of your children.... After all, you're not allowing them to be socialized, you're not teaching them the right stuff.... whatever! They say that you're breaking the law, and they keep saying it. You defend yourself. They can't prove their point. They continue to slander you in the local newspaper "saying" that "they know" you did terrible things. They continue and continue and continue. After all, they have unlimited funds (tax $$) at their disposal. You fight and fight and fight, all the while trying to continue the work you really value (homeschooling your dc). Finally, when there's no end in sight, you say "Enough is enough"! I'm going to have to give up homeschooling if I continue to spend all my time fighting these guys. I quit!

 

Yes, I realize that there are holes in my analogy. But seriously, I'm surprised at those of you who equate hearsay, or unreliable testimony, with guilt. Especially Spy Car. You seem to be a proponent of guilt by association. NOTHING has been proven. We live in America. Some of you are way too willing to abandon the rule of law, and throw out the rights on which this country is founded. It's astounding.

 

I haven't reread the whole post, but IIRC SpyCar Bill is about the only one who believes the USADA, and he's an afterschooler. :tongue_smilie:

[Trish]

A lot more info on the Lance Armstrong case came out today. Particularly about the huge payments to the doping doctor that Lance supposedly cut ties with. Anyone still think he's totally innocent?

[Catwoman]

Oh dear. Not this thread again. :glare:

[Spy Car]

A lot more info on the Lance Armstrong case came out today. Particularly about the huge payments to the doping doctor that Lance supposedly cut ties with. Anyone still think he's totally innocent?

 

The non-afterschoolers may eventually come around to facing the obvious truth of the situation. They are a little slow sometimes :tongue_smilie:

 

I wish we could "say it ain't so Joe," but the man doped. The whole sport was deeply corrupted during those years and Lance Armstrong did the same think a lot of other riders of that era did. He doped. He got caught.

 

Bill