Author Topic: Lance Armstrong  (Read 721 times)

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22408
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #15 on: August 25, 2012, 06:35:10 AM »
When you figure in the costs of the attorneys to fight a federal agency it gets to be staggering and goes beyond dignity.

The USADA is on nothing more than a witch hunt fueled by people who have axes to grind.  

Exactly.   Lance could have continued to fight the arbitration hearings, but he would bankrupt himself. 
-=Most Wanted=-

FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline Golfer

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6314
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #16 on: August 25, 2012, 07:07:28 AM »
Well not so much when he's stripped of his titles. And if he was doping himself ti the eyeballs in order to win, which is a fair bet, then whomever is next in line from all those races (that isn't drugged up as well) deserves the title :old:

Well all the runners up except for I think it was 2004 have been caught doping.

This is a personal thing between Armstrong and Tygart (USADA) as much as anything else.  There are quite a few people who are starting to founder and it seems there's certainly circumstantial evidence but we'll see how it all shakes out.

For me?  The man won seven Tours.

Offline Wolfala

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4875
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #17 on: August 25, 2012, 07:39:01 AM »
We're missing 1 huge gaping problem. He rode or USPS. He took federal money. If he lied to the grand jury about anything that happened while under USPS: mail fraud - federal prison.


the best cure for "wife ack" is to deploy chaff:    $...$$....$....$$$.....$ .....$$$.....$ ....$$

Offline jeep00

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 924
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #18 on: August 25, 2012, 08:32:29 AM »
He divorced his wife for Cheryl Crow, then married and divorced her too. Neither of them have made any claims either, and if anyone is going to come forward with proof or even viable accusations you would think they would be the ones to do it. But not even they make the claim.

Bob

Offline jeep00

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 924
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #19 on: August 25, 2012, 08:33:46 AM »
Holy multi post
« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 10:20:17 AM by jeep00 »

Offline jeep00

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 924
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #20 on: August 25, 2012, 08:34:47 AM »
Phone related multi post.  :noid
« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 10:21:23 AM by jeep00 »

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #21 on: August 25, 2012, 09:02:56 AM »
We're missing 1 huge gaping problem. He rode or USPS. He took federal money. If he lied to the grand jury about anything that happened while under USPS: mail fraud - federal prison.

That holds "zero" credibility without seeing his contract.  This was sponsorship/advertisement money and he was not a federal employee unless it was so stated, which I highly doubt he would agree to.  Further, this has nothing to do with "mail fraud".  It is not even in the same ball park.
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline Wolfala

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4875
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #22 on: August 25, 2012, 10:48:47 AM »
That holds "zero" credibility without seeing his contract.  This was sponsorship/advertisement money and he was not a federal employee unless it was so stated, which I highly doubt he would agree to.  Further, this has nothing to do with "mail fraud".  It is not even in the same ball park.


That may be but the bottom line is Lance pissed off so many people over the years now they are out to get him.


the best cure for "wife ack" is to deploy chaff:    $...$$....$....$$$.....$ .....$$$.....$ ....$$

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #23 on: August 25, 2012, 08:27:44 PM »

That may be but the bottom line is Lance pissed off so many people over the years now they are out to get him.

And therein lies the issue.  Not facts or actual true positives, axes that are in need of being ground and an unrestrained attempt to make Armstrong pay for perceived wrongs.

I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline Wolfala

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4875
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #24 on: August 25, 2012, 08:40:25 PM »
Precisely


the best cure for "wife ack" is to deploy chaff:    $...$$....$....$$$.....$ .....$$$.....$ ....$$

Offline Delirium

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7276
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #25 on: August 25, 2012, 09:01:59 PM »
I can't see how someone gets tired of fighting for their dignity.

Agreed... I feel strongly we haven't heard the end of this. I'm not going to prosecute Armstrong here, but certainly more worthy evidence will come to light eventually.
Delirium
80th "Headhunters"
Retired AH Trainer (but still teach the P38 selectively)

I found an air leak in my inflatable sheep and plugged the hole! Honest!

Offline FiLtH

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6448
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #26 on: August 26, 2012, 01:06:09 AM »
  Frankly I dont GAS, but say they do take the victories from him if they find him guilty, and hand them to the next in line. Im sure the new winner will feel a little less excited about it by now. Besides, if there was any doubt whatsoever, no true competitor would except the titles.

~AoM~

Offline Noir

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5964
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #27 on: August 26, 2012, 04:26:30 AM »
'He's my 7 times winner forever' Keep dreaming. It's obvious he always cheated, only the precise how needs to be discovered. Some people with the same level of performance just died on the road from the over doping (Marco Pantani just to name one).

Saying that even if he was doped he's still was the winner is not a good thing for young athletes that could be tempted, and kill themselves in the process. To bad if its hurts your little hearts but the man has to be put away before he runs for the white house  :lol
now posting as SirNuke

Offline NOT

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 788
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #28 on: August 26, 2012, 11:52:13 AM »
Guilt is to be proven, NOT innocence. All tests say he is clean, until they find proof that he is guilty, he is innocent. This concept of "He is guilty because I say so" mentality is really getting old.





NOT



AKNOT

Offline eagl

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6769
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #29 on: August 26, 2012, 11:41:17 PM »
I'm just sad he died before he was able to go back to the moon.  And if he WAS doing steroids it was because of the bone loss from his space journeys.
Everyone I know, goes away, in the end.