Sorry but I could not resist this one

As I said, if he coughs up info re: the UCI, I'm all for a change in his sentence. But that is not what some people are suggesting.....they are saying if he comes clean now, he should get 6 months, same as everyone else. Sorry, that ship sailed.

Just confessing to what has already been proven should not change his sentence.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

He was caught once? I'm going to wager you haven't taken the time to educate yourself on the amount of info easily available. Read the Reasoned Decision and see if you still think he was caught only once.

Lance was charged of indescretions far worse than Millar or any other. He had the opportunity to fight it knowing full well the consequences of not doing so. That's why he has a lifetime ban and the others who cooperated, like LA had the chance to, do not.

The position you're presenting is typical of Lance apologists who try to guide the topic off LA and onto other things as some sort of justifications that he doesn't deserve to be vilified in such a manner. It's an uninformed argument at best.

Frankly I don't see why he should be afforded any reduction in penalty. If he cared about the sport he'd share what he knows to improve things. But as most know, his primary concern is himself and assuaging his ego. He had his chance.

Not an apologist. He was not convicted, found guilty of or sanctioned for anything until USADA built their case. That means he has been sanctioned once. Getting caught up in the "he tested positive but bought his way out" is going down the rabbit hole. He was never officially sanctioned for anything.

And please do not lump this in with the "He never tested positive so he is innocent" (oh god am I going to say it!) meme. I think he doped but needs to get the same treatment.

Facts matter. Emotions flavor.

There are many, many people who are very, very angry at LA and think he is disgusting but that does not mean that these "non-factual' factors should come into play.

I don't think anyone (Ulrich, Contador, Levi, VDV) deserves a lifelong ban unless they have been "convicted" several times and continue to violate the same rules (Ricardo Ricco anyone?) Doping and covering it up for years is just not getting caught. Not repeatedly engaging in the same behavior in the face of being caught.

I think the only issue is that Lance wasn't busted *just* for doping. This was an all encompassing investigation into what I think was potentially tampering with witnesses, an leader in a drug culture ring, and potentially being the pusher in moving the drugs. The riders union/lawyers would have been up in arms if they busted him for life simply for having an abnormal doping numbers. So, in that instance I disagree with you in that this is just an normal run of the mill doping violation. Now does it look like because it was Lance he was prosecuted without the kids gloves, maybe but when the chips were on the table, Lance ran like a scared chicken.

What I hate to see is Lance getting to ride within an year if he cooperates, only because he had his chance and failed. Like I said earlier, it's like Lance wants a do over because the first time didn't go his way. Wants to confess, good on him, but I'd hope they atleast stick to a 2 year ban at min. if he talks.

---

------------------
@brooksdoughtie
USAT-L2,Y&J; USAC-L2
http://www.aomultisport.com

I would generally agree that he shouldn't get to compete this coming season at the very least, however, if Lance tells all then USADA should nail the UCI (assuming that Lance has proof that they helped cover up a test or two for him, I think we all think that he must have proof of this).

And again going on that previous assumption if this all unfolds then surely the stupidest thing Pat McQuaid ever did was to say this: "Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling. He deserves to be forgotten."

Go ahead, poke the bear... nothing bad can possibly happen.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

You keep ignoring or glossing over the fact that LA's actions were far worse than any of the others. He DID orchestrate a team wide, systematic doping program and he DID un mercilessly shred anyone who spoke against him. Whether you want to believe it or not, those are facts, which matter, right?

Further, if he had the chance to dispute the charges, chose not to and accepted the consequences that he knew would occur, what's the issue? Your argument that he doesn't deserve it even thou he chose not to act certainly sounds like an apologist to me.

He also was caught a number of times and bragged about buying his way out, which has been well documented. Never being officially sanctioned doesn't remove his culpability for said actions.

Have you read the Reasoned Decision?

Explain how USADA can do that.

---

_________________________________________________
CAMPAGNOLO GRAN FONDO NEW YORK

Yeah, they probably can't. Surely someone can, but I'll be honest I don't know who polices them.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Try no one.

Cycling could be banned by the OC - if they would want that.
WADA could leave cycling.

But that's it. UCI is currently bound to Swiss law.

---

_________________________________________________
CAMPAGNOLO GRAN FONDO NEW YORK

then we're all set - the swiss have a long and proud tradition of taking the moral high ground.

-mike

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

Once LA comes clean, if he does, and becomes completely outspoken against doping, which he will because he'll have to, I expect you will have the same attitude towards him you have had in your posts about Rick Crawford. Since you obviously don't have a personal agenda regarding LA. Just doping in general.


The problem with Lance is that he has spent years being completely outspoken against doping already so if he does it again, no one will believe him. You can only fool people so long and most are tired of his act and will never believe that anything he says is anything but more self-serving BS.

And you are colorblind?

---

_________________________________________________
CAMPAGNOLO GRAN FONDO NEW YORK

very well stated. I have always said that if he was clean he beat a bunch of dopers and if he doped he beat a bunch of dopers-all using the same dope. BUT what he has done for cycling is quite incredible.

+1

---

_________________________________________________
CAMPAGNOLO GRAN FONDO NEW YORK

are you lactose intolerant?

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

ha, ha :)

this ignores the facts. A rider convicted for a single act gets 2 years, a second offense nets say 8 years, and the 3rd is generally a lifetime. So, you say "he was only sanctioned once". Except his conviction was for a career full of offenses. You have at least 2, and probably 3 blood doping offenses in just his blood profile year. Then you talk about a minimum of dozens of offenses of him doping that the teammates testified to. Then you talk about the procurement and distribution of PEDs. Those pieces right there show continued violation of the same rules. He was caught.

The douchebag should remain out of sport. He has caused too much damage to the sport and caused a lot individuals pain. Why the hell does he deserve to compete again? Go away Lance....most of the world has already decided you have no place in sport.

If this is even considered, it will be a sad depiction of society's appetite for supporting losers.

---

________________
Adrian in Vancouver

"He DID orchestrate a team wide, systematic doping program and he DID un mercilessly shred anyone who spoke against him."

I'm not sure that this is completely true nor was it an isolated occurrence in cycling. There are plenty of guys who rode with LA who have come out and stated that they knew nothing of the team doping. Chris Horner for example. So it wasn't "team wide". "Inner circle" type of stuff, yes but not this iron fisted "if you want to ride for me you have to dope whether you want to or not" stuff. And most of the guys involved had already doped or continued doping after they left the team. These were hard men used to fighting for every square inch of real estate in a peloton full of hard men (yes I know that sounds painful). To try and portray this as LA pushing scared puppies around by threatening to drown them is ludicrous.

And my understanding of most of the doping in cycling is that it is usually always (except maybe until recently) a team wide or inner cycle type of thing. And I'm sure there are plenty examples of team members, leaders or not, supplying PEDs to other willing riders on the team. After all, LA visited all the same doctors as the other guys (Ferrari, etc.).

So, I'm really not sure that what LA did was technically "more" than what many others did. Just better and more sophisticated. And I have read the Reasoned Decision (80% anyway, I got kinda bored towards the end, maybe the "more" is at the end?).

As for shredding people, it usually takes two. One to threaten shredding and one to allow the shredding to happen (in the non-violent context of course). This whole idea of LA as this evil omnipotent operator in the world of cycling is a bit overblown (too many other big egos for that to happen). Could he have had guys fired from USPS? Sure. But could he have called EVERY pro team owner and had 3, 6, a dozen riders blacklisted from pro cycling for life for "daring" to defy him. Unlikely. He had a lot of money and could sue people but that happens with a lot of people who have a lot of money. If sued, you either respond or don't. Your choice. As far as I know, he didn't have a goon squad breaking legs (thus ruining their careers) to prevent people from speaking out. Intimidation is just that intimidation. I've been intimidated in the past and my livelihood depended on how I responded. People are not powerless.

Again, I am not defending LA (he deserves to get his) but I do think it's important to try and divorce the anger that everyone feels generally about doping in sport from LA the cyclist and the man because I think much of the anger directed at LA is displaced. Is he a dick? Don't know, never met him. Was he an evil, omnipotent puppet master who ruled ALL of the cycling world including who did and didn't get to race and who controlled the press, the governing bodies and doping agencies for over a decade? Uh, ha, ha, ha, ha (evil laugh). He wishes.

In the context of the history of doping in cycling, his actions were really no different than other dopers/teams. I liken it to a criminal who breaks into a pawn shop and steals $100k worth of diamonds vs.a "cat burgler" who steals $100k of crown jewels from the royal residence.. Both criminals, one just gets more press coverage. Both should get the same sentence.

The "other stuff" (witness tampering etc.) are criminal charges and if substantiated, he should be fully prosecuted. But he hasn't, yet. But these shouldn't be considered in the context of a doping ban.

I do think the lifetime ban is a bit much. However, after reflecting on this a bit more I think that Tygart is either a zealot or a genius for imposing a lifetime ban. A zealot if he only wanted to bring down LA or a genius if he is using LA to bring down the bigger fish of the UCI and, as others have intimated, the IOC. Perhaps, he knew that LA would be under pressure from those agencies to not contest the charges but at the same time is too competitive to not be allow to race EVER AGAIN so the lifetime ban puts the screws on. This is my theory. But I kinda like it. I'm hoping it's the genius version that plays out.

I think he'll be racing again soon after he spills the beans. Which I certainly hope he does. Soon. I enjoy seeing corrupt officials busted even more than dopers.

Not sure if anyone mentioned this but confession equals book which equal book tour and movie rights.....$$$$ in his future is not going to be a problem....Being ignored instead of revered on the street will be the egommaniacs biggest issue. then again,,,,,why do I even care?

Actually if they left him off for his info on bigger fish, it'll atleast fall in line with how they went about busting Lance (gave all the other riders either "delayed" sanctions or let them "retire"). This whole episode just feels dirty and wrong. I was mad at how the other riders who talked seemed to get little to no penalty and off with Lance's head. I don't want to see him race, that's really all I know of right now. I just feel like he brings a cloud of suspicion/dirtyness. He probaly only really brings it to the fore front, where in our sport, doping is still very relatively low priority.

---

------------------
@brooksdoughtie
USAT-L2,Y&J; USAC-L2
http://www.aomultisport.com

I'm guessing $'s aren't a problem, even with the pending lawsuits against him. I keep thinking back to Pete Rose who thought he would get back into baseball if he confessed. That never happened. Given his age I don't think he will dominate any sport he might choose (without doping that is). IMHO he would be best served to walk away, shut up and enjoy the millions.

So I guess your answer is no, you didn't read the Reasoned Decision. Because if you had, you'd realize how many inaccuracies there are in your comments. I'm not trying to be a jerk but you don't even have a grasp of the basics and are making naive guesses.