OT-- Lance,

[Douglas C. Neidermeyer]

Say it ain't so.......

[Doug]

It really doesn't matter for a lot of reasons when you think it out. Of course it would be nice if he talked but the credibility of either the racers or the governing board is questionable at the very least. I wish it was presented in a court of law instead but that's not going to happen apparently. What's funny is the feds investigated Lance and dropped the case due to lack of evidence yet this one cycling board has all kinds of evidence (credible ??).

[Kurt Ullman]

Feds need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't know for sure how the bylaws of the organization work, but I would doubt it is that stringent. '

[nestork]

I wish Lance Armstrong was clean as a whistle, but the evidence against it is insurmounatble. Cycling, like weightlifting and "professional wrestling", has always been a sport where steroids provide a significant advantage.

Unfortunately, this is a case where they can't prove he used steroids, but all of the team mates on the cycling teams he raced for testified that he did. So, who ya gonna believe; Lance or a dozen different team mates that raced with him?

Kinda reminds me of the Salem Witch trials. There's no direct evidence, but a whole he11uva lot of circumstantial evidence. And, if that was good enough to drown or burn a woman in 1640 for being a witch, then why isn't it good enough to strip Lance Armstrong of all his medals today?

Evidence is evidence. Circumstantial evidence doesn't come about on it's own any more than direct evidence does. There can only be so many co-incidences before one stops and says "Hey, wait a minute". All the co-incidences beyond that simply serve to shake the credibility of the accused. No one can have co-incidence working for them.

[dennisgauge]

If only they could hang politicians out to dry so easily...

[Ed Pawlowski]

They should call him Tippy, as in tip of the iceberg. I'm amazed they it was so well hidden for so long, but his teammates ratted him out.

[Jim Elbrecht]

I find it interesting that they can't just give the number 2 guy in his Tour De France wins, the win because; "Every single rider that finished second to Lance has since been connected to doping, and the majority of them have either been directly convicted in ways comparable to Armstrong or confessed to their own crimes."

Jim

[Kurt Ullman]

In that case I don't why they can't let him keep it. You really can't make an unlevel playing field argument.

[Doug]

Amen to that !!

[krw]

He was too good. Can't have that.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Bicycle racing is not quite the sport many people think it is. Teams compete, but they also pay salaries to the participants. It is not like a bunch of enthusiasts get together just to race for the fun of it. Like all "sports" it is a business.

[CRNG]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 20:00:26 +0000, nestork wrote in Re Re: OT-- Lance,:

I have not been following this in the news. How do the team mates know he used steroids? Did they see him use them?

[Roanin]

>> everyone_was_chating_from_1999_to_2005_.html

Does not matter, he still pedaled the bike. They have no direct evidence against him except hearsay. Leave him the hell alone.

R

[dennisgauge]

He didn't use steroids, BTW.

They are accusing him of BLOOD DOPING. Blood doping is done one of two ways:

1. Stockpiling your own blood and giving yourself transfusions of red cells before a competition.
2. Injecting a hormone that stimulates production of red blood cells.

More red cells means more oxygen to the muscles and better aerobic performance, something you need to win long bike races.

[George]

Its called voting. We get a chance to hire and fire them then. Too bad so many people are so absorbed in the red vs blue team stuff that they don't realize we need to fire most of them.