Metal Sludge Gossip Board

will most likely be stripped of titles, and banned for life:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/ ... 3-21-52-08

NeverSurrender wrote:will be stripped of titles, and banned for life:

"The decision sets up a likely lifetime ban from the sport and the possibility that Armstrong will be stripped of his signature achievement - the extraordinary run of Tour titles he won from 1999-2005."

I'm not saying it won't happen but the words "likely" and "possibility" are in there.

No chance they let him keep any of it. They've been after his ass for years.

It's just a matter of time.

I think it's bullshit.
They've been after his ass for years but still can't come up with a shred of evidence against him.
Let's strip him of everything cuz gosh darnit, we know he must have done it.

Kudos to him for fighting off the big C and being an inspiration to others doing the same, but you don't recover from what he went through and kick ass in the Tour de France. He was doped to the gills, like the rest of them, and should suffer the same fate that any other drug cheat suffered.

yea take the trophies, he keeps the 150 million:he lost

I'm sick of these steroid witchhunts. There should be a statute of limitations on this shit. It's ridiculous.

Looks like it's gonna happen.
Innocent until proven.....um...nothing.
We think it, so shall it be.

Crazy Levi wrote:I'm sick of these steroid witchhunts. There should be a statute of limitations on this shit. It's ridiculous.

I was reading that by him coming out of "retirement" and participating in the last Tour basically opened the door for the hunt to continue.

WTF wrote:

Crazy Levi wrote:I'm sick of these steroid witchhunts. There should be a statute of limitations on this shit. It's ridiculous.

I was reading that by him coming out of "retirement" and participating in the last Tour basically opened the door for the hunt to continue.

Yep. He came back and doped again just to finish in third place. Great move.

But seriously, I'm sick of all this shit. So Penn State didn't win any football games over the past 15 years, and nobody won the Tour de France for a decade. Uh, ok.

It's all getting to be ridiculous.

Well, he said he is done fighting yet now he's threatening a lawsuit if he's stripped of his titles.

Facedown wrote:Well, he said he is done fighting yet now he's threatening a lawsuit if he's stripped of his titles.

That's because the USADA doesn't have jurisdiction over the ICU.

It's like the NCAA trying to tell the NBA, NFL or MLB to impose sanctions on a professional athlete.

This whole thing is ludicrous on so many levels...first off I don't give a fuck what happens to Lance Armstrong. He is a nasty, egotistical, arrogant cocksucker. A piece of shit as a human being, but a great athlete, doping or no doping. Whatever value or meaning that has for the world, it is what it is. To me it means nothing, he's a great cyclist, some people are great carpenters, whoopy fucking do. On the other hand, kudos to him for raising a lot of money for cancer.

My opinion on this particular episode of the ridiculous ongoing saga? He's doing the right thing, the smart thing. What the fuck should he care anymore? It's a part of his life that's in the past now, he's filthy rich, he'll always be famous and there are those who will believe him and those who won't, always will be. He's seen this for the silliness that it is and just walked away. I'd do the same.

The most ludicrous thing about this whole story is the amount of media attention and the focus of scrutiny from all these regulatory bodies. I mean we're talking about a man riding a bicycle for fuck's sakes. Banking scandals destroy the world's economy and get swept under the carpet. Meanwhile they're relentless in pursuing this ultimately meaningless issue and pushing to have Lance Armstrong and Roger Clemens thrown in jail. What a fucked up country, what a fucked up world.

fret123 wrote: My opinion on this particular episode of the ridiculous ongoing saga? He's doing the right thing, the smart thing. What the fuck should he care anymore? It's a part of his life that's in the past now, he's filthy rich, he'll always be famous and there are those who will believe him and those who won't, always will be. He's seen this for the silliness that it is and just walked away. I'd do the same.

Filthy rich? Yeah. But this opens the door for a number of corporations to sue him for millions of dollars.

Facedown wrote:I think it's bullshit.
They've been after his ass for years but still can't come up with a shred of evidence against him.
Let's strip him of everything cuz gosh darnit, we know he must have done it.

His teammates were going to testify against him. And not just bitter ones with nothing to lose like Floyd Landis. The speculation was that a systematic doping regime was going to be exposed, plus bribery against teammates not to say anything.

Many prominent cyclists he beat either were caught, or were not caught, but later admitted to doping during this period. And the guy who beat all of them was clean.....

This year's Alpe D'Heuz winner finished in a time that during Armstrong's era would have netted him 40th incidentally.

shocked_the_monkey wrote:

Facedown wrote:I think it's bullshit.
They've been after his ass for years but still can't come up with a shred of evidence against him.
Let's strip him of everything cuz gosh darnit, we know he must have done it.

His teammates were going to testify against him. And not just bitter ones with nothing to lose like Floyd Landis. The speculation was that a systematic doping regime was going to be exposed, plus bribery against teammates not to say anything.

Many prominent cyclists he beat either were caught, or were not caught, but later admitted to doping during this period. And the guy who beat all of them was clean.....

This year's Alpe D'Heuz winner finished in a time that during Armstrong's era would have netted him 40th incidentally.

Great, NONE of that is proof.
I'm not defending the guy, I'm attacking the notion that Innocent until PROVEN guilty doesn't apply in this case.

Facedown wrote:

shocked_the_monkey wrote:

Facedown wrote:I think it's bullshit.
They've been after his ass for years but still can't come up with a shred of evidence against him.
Let's strip him of everything cuz gosh darnit, we know he must have done it.

His teammates were going to testify against him. And not just bitter ones with nothing to lose like Floyd Landis. The speculation was that a systematic doping regime was going to be exposed, plus bribery against teammates not to say anything.

Many prominent cyclists he beat either were caught, or were not caught, but later admitted to doping during this period. And the guy who beat all of them was clean.....

This year's Alpe D'Heuz winner finished in a time that during Armstrong's era would have netted him 40th incidentally.

Great, NONE of that is proof.
I'm not defending the guy, I'm attacking the notion that Innocent until PROVEN guilty doesn't apply in this case.

he's the one who decided to quit fighting.

So that proves he's guilty?
You would probably quit fighting too if someone was coming after you for years, spreading lies and attacking your credibility (until proven otherwise) and spending a bunch of money to defend yourself.
To me it's more of a "I'm done defending myself, I've put everything out there and you still can't prove a thing.
Now it's your turn. Provide proof or shut the fuck up".

Facedown wrote:So that proves he's guilty?
You would probably quit fighting too if someone was coming after you for years, spreading lies and attacking your credibility (until proven otherwise) and spending a bunch of money to defend yourself.
To me it's more of a "I'm done defending myself, I've put everything out there and you still can't prove a thing.
Now it's your turn. Provide proof or shut the fuck up".

Of course, it's not proof, the only proof is if I had a photo of him with a syringe in his arm.

Why quit now? He's spent years fighting similar allegations when he was a professional cyclist. If someone was criticising my legitimacy, character, honesty and achievements, damn right i'd defend my self. If he won, which as the clean athlete he told us he is/was, he would've done, wouldn't the USADA have to pay costs anyway? (don't know enough about such legal matters to be sure

He can paint it whatever way he wants, it'll forever appear as an admission of guilt.

Facedown wrote:So that proves he's guilty?
You would probably quit fighting too if someone was coming after you for years, spreading lies and attacking your credibility (until proven otherwise) and spending a bunch of money to defend yourself.
To me it's more of a "I'm done defending myself, I've put everything out there and you still can't prove a thing.
Now it's your turn. Provide proof or shut the fuck up".

I don't have any proof. I just know if I never did it, Iwouldn't give up.

he knows what will happen when he gives up, and he knows the rules.

I have no clue if he did it or not, but i find it funny you think he beat a bunch of dopers 7 times straight, while never doping himself. Enough so you're telling people to shut the fuck up on a message board, when said person never even said he was guilty.

Are you in love with him or something?

shocked_the_monkey wrote:Of course, it's not proof

Exactly and he shouldn't be stripped of anything until they provide some.

As far as defending himself, I think I explained it but here's another way to look at it.
What is he supposed to do, keep saying "No" everytime something new comes up?
That would make it look like he's defending himself and he would appear less guilty somehow?
He has simply run out of new ways to defend himself. Last resort is to say the ball is in your court, prove I did anything.
So far, they can't.

NeverSurrender wrote:Are you in love with him or something?

Can you read?
I didn't tell people to shut the fuck up, notice the quotation marks?

Facedown wrote:

shocked_the_monkey wrote:Of course, it's not proof

Exactly and he shouldn't be stripped of anything until they provide some.

As far as defending himself, I think I explained it but here's another way to look at it.
What is he supposed to do, keep saying "No" everytime something new comes up?

He could sue the people who have come out in the media and claimed they saw him using PEDS. You know like Bo Jackson was going to do, and the woman recanted? yeah, like that.

Facedown wrote:

shocked_the_monkey wrote:Of course, it's not proof

Exactly and he shouldn't be stripped of anything until they provide some.

As far as defending himself, I think I explained it but here's another way to look at it.
What is he supposed to do, keep saying "No" everytime something new comes up?
That would make it look like he's defending himself and he would appear less guilty somehow?
He has simply run out of new ways to defend himself. Last resort is to say the ball is in your court, prove I did anything.
So far, they can't.

They have testimony and analytical findings.

It says it collected blood samples from him in 2009 and 2010 that were "fully consistent with blood ma­nipu­la­tion including EPO use and/or blood transfusions".
More than 10 cyclists as well as cycling team employees witnessed Lance Armstrong using performance-enhancing drugs and techniques, the letter says.

These aren't the ones from 1999 which Armstrong refused to have retested for EPO.

It's arguments like this that make me realize why he isn't defending himself anymore.

Facedown wrote:It's arguments like this that make me realize why he isn't defending himself anymore.

I agree.

The proof he's a cheat is pretty iron clad....

Facedown wrote:It's arguments like this that make me realize why he isn't defending himself anymore.

So you don't think he should sue or anybody saw him do it, and they're all lying?

did you think OJ was innocent too?

NeverSurrender wrote:

Facedown wrote:It's arguments like this that make me realize why he isn't defending himself anymore.

So you don't think he should sue or anybody saw him do it, and they're all lying?

did you think OJ was innocent too?

Case in point...

So you wouldn't sue ANY of the people making up lies about you?

Bo Jackson was going to. Now people believe him.

NeverSurrender wrote:So you wouldn't sue ANY of the people making up lies about you?

Bo Jackson was going to. Now people believe him.

What does what I would do or what Bo Jackson was going to do have to do with this?
Does proof mean anything to you or is circumstantial evidence all you need?