egafd.com

"lance armstrong and the witch hunt" that should be the title. It seems the 'witch hunt' by one Travis Tygart of USADA contains zero evidence, on the other side Armstrong has passed 100's of tests over the years both blood and Urine."

As I have already pointed out, his blood samples retrospectively tested have found to contain EPO, a banned substance. Secondly even if this wasnt the case, a dozen witness statements to the effect that Armstrong was a regular doper would be and are sufficient.

Of course, the blood samples could be a plant. The dozen or so witness statements could be from people who are just out to get him because they are envious etc etc. I doubt it somehow.

The bloody samples taken in 2009-2010 are only claims as I understand it and the criminal investigation case was I believe drop in a Court in the USA due to lack of evidence.

He has been test more than anyone over the years and never as yet been banned from cycling so all this is sounding more like a "conspiracy theory"

Conspiracy Theory?

What I suggest you do is read through the statement that USADA made when Armstrong threw in the towel with regard to the charges that USADA made.

The USADA case is supported by the World Anti-Doping Agency. So to read this link below and then to argue that there is "zero evidence" against Armstrong and that all of this is just a witch hunt by one man, is totally delusional.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/au ... -armstrong

Basically, Armstrong's technique has been to terrorise those who accuse him of doping whether they be fellow cyclists, team masseuse etc etc. He tried to terrorise USADA to drop the case by bringing a lawsuit. Following the dismissal of Armstrong's lawsuit on Monday, August 20, 2012, by the federal court in Austin, Texas, he walked away rather than hear the umpteen witness statements and evidence that Armstrong was a long time doper.

This sounds like rendition.....the Yanks think that is fair game aswell. Who will they go after next? Ali, Sampras?? It stinks fair and square.

US Anti-Doping Agency's hasn't the power to remove his 'Tour de France' titles only the 'International Cycling Union' can!

Armstrong's choice that he would not challenge USADA's charges makes it still only allegations, lets have a proper trial and not one based on the USADA's 'he doesn't want to continue so HE must be guilty'.

USADA's own rules cover only the last eight years but they want to call in his 1999 victory etc etc etc That can't be right.

I have also read than many of the people who claim he took drugs have themselves been convicted of doping, so it is a bit rich to believe these people over Armstrong who hasn't yet to be shown in the wrong.

And Armstrong himself has been tested more than any other person in sport, so out of the many Tour de France's not one drug test ever turned up that was positive? They'd even wake him up early do a test but I as I understand he didn't fail one.

This from wiki:

"From his return to cycling in the fall of 2008 through March 2009, Armstrong submitted to 24 unannounced drug tests by various anti-doping authorities. All of the tests were negative for performance-enhancing drugs"

And to add one last point he isn't been banned as yet and here is the least statement from UCI that is the world governing body for cycling. The only people that can remove his titles and ban him.

-----------------

Press Release: UCI's statement on Lance Armstrong's decision

24.08.2012

The UCI notes Lance Armstrong?s decision not to proceed to arbitration in the case that USADA has brought against him.

The UCI recognises that USADA is reported as saying that it will strip Mr. Armstrong of all results from 1998 onwards in addition to imposing a lifetime ban from participating in any sport which recognises the World Anti-Doping Code.

Article 8.3 of the WADC states that where no hearing occurs the Anti-Doping Organisation with results management responsibility shall submit to the parties concerned (Mr Armstrong, WADA and UCI) a reasoned decision explaining the action taken.

As USADA has claimed jurisdiction in the case the UCI expects that it will issue a reasoned decision in accordance with Article 8.3 of the Code.

Until such time as USADA delivers this decision the UCI has no further comment to make.



UCI Press Services

I hope you lads never appear on the jury of a murder trial.

The prosecution brings 12 witness statements from disparate individuals that they personally saw the accused stab to death the victim (take dope or have in their possession doping materials ) and your line is that it is a "witch hunt" and unless there is a video of him stabbing the bloke to death, it is clearly just speculation.

Blimey. It's a wonder anyone gets found guilty if you lads are typical of juries.

Now to Dog.

"David Johnson Conspiracy Theory"

You called it a conspiracy theory, not me. I call it commonsense based on overwhelming evidence.

"Armstrong's choice that he would not challenge USADA's charges makes it still only allegations,"

No. He was found guilty in absentia. Read the links I have given you!!!!!!!! Just because someone doesn't turn up at a hearing doesn't mean they have a 100% copper bottomed way of walking away from that hearing. If that was the case no-one would ever be found guilty of anything. Clearly!

"lets have a proper trial and not one based on the USADA's 'he doesn't want to continue so HE must be guilty'.

Armstrong has refused to attend an independent hearing. Yet again, I have to tell you that walking away at the last minute DOES NOT INVALIDATE the evidence. What Armstrong is obviously doing is avoiding attending any kind of hearing because he had run out of legal options.

"I have also read than many of the people who claim he took drugs have themselves been convicted of doping,"

So what? Once again, read the link re. whistleblowers. ONe of Armstrong's accusers was the team masseuse who described how the team went bananas when Armstrong came back with a positive test for steroids. They rushed around like headless chickens until the team doc came up with a back dated prescription for steroid cream for saddle sores. WHat possible motive would a little person like a team masseuse have for making the whole story up? That is why USADA also cited medical staff as well as Armstrong.

"And Armstrong himself has been tested more than any other person in sport, so out of the many Tour de France's not one drug test ever turned up that was positive? They'd even wake him up early do a test but I as I understand he didn't fail one."

You are extraordinarily naive. Doping was endemic in professional cycling during the period of Armstrong's heyday. Some teams drove round cars full of doping gear and had medical staff which were completely complicit.

Just ask yourself why was Armstrong terrified of attending an independent inquiry with independent adjucators after the court had thrown out his legal objections?

The answer is obvious. His time is up and he was shitting himself at the thought of all the detailed witness statements coming out.

!laugh! !laugh! !laugh!

David Johnson wrote:
"You called it a conspiracy theory, not me. I call it commonsense based on overwhelming evidence."

Go a head and hang him! I point out it is all down to the "Union Cycliste Internationale" as to what we should look to as a verdict, not the press or the opinion of USADA. As I understand it the UCI are the only body that can ban him and remove his titles. I will wait for their verdict.

I note that you picked up a quote from the Wikipedia entry on Armstrong.

YOu seem to have missed this part of the entry

"Armstrong has continually denied using illegal performance-enhancing drugs and has described himself as the most tested athlete in the world.[ A 1999 urine sample showed traces of corticosteroid in an amount that was not in the positive range. A medical certificate showed he used an approved cream for saddle sores which contained the substance.[65] Emma O' Reilly, Armstrong's masseuse said she heard team officials worrying about Armstrong's positive test for steroids during the Tour. She said: "They were in a panic, saying: 'What are we going to do? What are we going to do?'". According to O'Reilly the solution was to get one of their compliant doctors to issue a pre-dated prescription for a steroid-based ointment to combat saddle sores. O'Reilly said she would have known if Armstrong had saddle sores as she would have administered any treatment for it. O'Reilly said that Armstrong told her: "Now, Emma, you know enough to bring me down." O'Reilly said on other occasions she was asked to dispose of used syringes for Armstrong and pick up strange parcels for the team.

David wrote:
"urine sample showed traces of corticosteroid in an amount that was not in the positive range"

Yes David, the main part of the evidence is hearsay which can't really adequately substantiate in a Court unlike the many blood tests and piss samples that Mr Armstrong has given and passed!