Yeah, this is absolute bs in my opinion. I thought the same thing as the thread starter when I first read the story and I think that there is more to this than meets the eye because they really seemed to go out of their to hang this guy.
Yeah, this is absolute bs in my opinion. I thought the same thing as the thread starter when I first read the story and I think that there is more to this than meets the eye because they really seemed to go out of their to hang this guy.
Greg LeMond might rise back to the top as the Greatest American cyclist ever after this....he always was in my mind.
Lance should still fight the charges, his name and reputation should matter more than anything else.
Do not let success go to your head and do not let failure get to your heart.
It is being fought outside of the US.
I read that to fight it, USADA has evidence that they would produce in any hearing and obviously its just damage limitation on Armstrongs behalf. Just say "enough is enough, I dont have theenergy for this any more"
Now if it were myself and im sure everyone else too, that if I was clean and always had be id be revving and chomping at the bit to clear my name but Lance doesnt want this evidence brought to the publics attention because right now, naive people are feeling sorry for him.
I dont give a fuck either way what he does, people deal with whats brought up in their own life however they will.
If you are going to go bankrupt in a legal fight why fight? If your name is so combined into your ego that you feel you have to fight; that to me is a poor perspective prior to the choice of whether to fight or not.
I see your point too but the word naive could be construed as an attack on those here who are simply on side with the law that you should be innocent until proven guilty.
It will all come out if he is guilty, even out of a court.
Thing is if they do speak out publicly, he can do them for slander as well and could probably recoup more outlay, so he could be just seeing if they will play all their cards at onceI dont know, but its good to look at stuff from both sides.
From everything I've read, Armstrong passed every drug test administered to him. What sort of evidence would the USADA have, other than the cyclists that didn't win the Tour de France saying... "Oh, he has to be doping. No one can be that good."?
So I guess in this case... "naive people"... by your definition, would be those people that need concrete evidence of wrongdoing before convicting or condemning an athlete of doping.
here's a great article i read in the washington post about lance and the doping charges:
Lance Armstrong doping campaign exposes USADA’s hypocrisy - The Washington Post
I think a lot of you are being niave. He quit fighting the charges because he knew they had him.
Well USADA has released a 200 page report describing Armstrong as " a serial cheat...who led the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping program that sport has ever seen". Eleven of his former US team mates have testified against him and it was Lance and not them who tarnished reputations and intimidated witnesses to hide the truth.
I read some articles from the links provided in this thread.
Ten "team mates," numerous doctors, journalists that were friends with him and people that worked for him all said he was doping. Now surely he must have been an unbelievable scumbag for that many close aides to lie about him.
Barry Bonds never failed a drug test apparantly (I don't even know who that is) and there is ZERO evidence Margarito ever fought a single bout with loaded gloves.
3-Time SADDO PREDICTION COMP CHAMPION.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks