In response to:

The Crucifixion of Lance Armstrong

Readmikedrinksam Wrote: Sep 12, 2012 6:58 AM
I agree that USADA should be regulated and much more accountable for the taxpayer money they use. I don't agree that Armstrong didn't get a fair shake. They offered him the opportunity to enter arbitration. I refused. That's on him. He cheated... plain and simple. Him saying he didn't use PEDs is about as accurate a statement as Slick Willie's "I did not have sex with that woman".
Jeff_Georgia Wrote: Sep 12, 2012 4:09 PM
Why does such a gov agency even exist? Where in the Constitution is it justified?
Blair43 Wrote: Sep 12, 2012 9:54 AM
The arbitration they invited wasn't arbitration, it was a blackmailing. The only thing Armstrong would get to "arbitrate" was his own guilt, which has never been proven. The only evidence against Armstrong is hearsay from other cyclists who themselves were convicted of doping based on _failed_ drug screens and whom Armstrong beat time and time again. In legal parlance, these are called "unreliable witnesses" - similar to having a Mob boss' hitman testify against the boss himself.

One thing to note, however - the USADA doesn't have jurisdiction to revoke Armstrong's Tour De France wins. Only the International Cycling Agency does since it manages that race. The USADA is on a vendetta, pure and simple.
Black and White Brian Wrote: Sep 12, 2012 8:18 AM
You, of course, were there -- and saw all of that.
Happy Jake Wrote: Sep 12, 2012 7:22 AM
Prove it. That's the argument that's being made here. Armstrong should not be forced to prove his innocense, the USADA - being a government agency - ought to be required to prove his guilt. Other than his word, how else is Lance Armstrong supposed to counter allegations of cheating if no evidence other than hearsay is offered? He may have chosen not to go through arbitration because the deck is so stacked against him that he would lose regardless of his innocense or guilt. Or because it would cost him more than he could afford to spend - he's a cyclist, not a starting pitcher for the Yankees - especially since his competitive days are over.
Happy Jake Wrote: Sep 12, 2012 7:30 AM
If he was drugged or he evaded tests, they should have punished him when the tests were administered, not 10 years after the fact.

And even if he DID "cheat", cycling is the dirtiest sport on the planet, and it has been for over 100 years. Racing cyclists routinely used stimulants in the 1880s (yes, I said the EIGHTEEN eighties). And the history of doping in the Tour de France is exactly as old as the Tour itself. So the worst possible thing that Armstrong did was cheat to beat a bunch of other cheaters.
hboring Wrote: Sep 12, 2012 11:42 PM
Why do people assume Armstrong cheated if he never failed a drug test? If he was the winner you know he was tested at the time. If he didn't fail he didn't cheat. Period.
Lance Armstrong, one of the greatest endurance athletes of modern times, who won the grueling Tour de France bicycle race a record seven consecutive times from 1995 to 2005, has been stripped of all awards and prizes he won during his storied cycling career. The reason for these harsh sanctions against Armstrong was a finding by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) that the athlete had used illicit, performance-enhancing drugs during his cycling career. Yet, because of its status as unaccountable regulatory power, the USADA never had to prove its case against Armstrong.

Armstrong's unprecedented fall from grace has precipitated...