Lance Armstrong

Aragorn wrote:Suggesting he was a villain, which he never was...

people Magazine wrote:As for first meeting Armstrong she said: "He had just finished up his chemotherapy. He was bald and cute." But once they were married she surrendered her job and her dog, as well as her independence, said Richard, who admitted also to being blinded by the huge diamond ring Armstrong gave her when they got engaged.

August 20, 2012: Judge Sparks wrote: The court "cannot interfere" in the case.

"The Court finds they are best resolved through the well-established system of international arbitration, by those with expertise in the field, rather than by the unilateral edict of a single nation's courts," said Sparks, before admitting there may be a basis for some of Armstrong's concerns.

"USADA's conduct raises serious questions about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping, or if it is acting according to less noble motives."

By Alex Bath for CNN wrote:"Lance has passed nearly 500 tests over 20 years of competition," declared spokesman Mark Fabiani in response to allegations from disgraced former teammate Tyler Hamilton -- who has admitted taking performance-enhancing drugs during his career...

The USADA alleges that Armstrong took steroids throughout his career, and says it has testimony from former teammates to support the charges. The organization has refused to reveal who has provided the evidence.

"A significant number of Armstrong's former teammates, in return for immunity or preferential treatment from USADA, have testified about doping activities that they participated in or witnessed," Flax told CNN.

"Some of them, like Floyd Landis, are people who have made public accusations in the past...

Landis, a rider with the USPS team from 2002 to 2004, has publicly claimed that he saw Armstrong using blood transfusions to increase the level of oxygen-carrying red blood cells in his system, as well as taking the blood-boosting drug EPO.

In 2006, Landis became the first person other than Armstrong to win the Tour, but was stripped of the title for failing a drugs test. The disgraced cyclist has even gone as far as accusing Armstrong and Bruyneel of paying the International Cycling Union (UCI) to cover up a positive test in 2002.

Armstrong dismissed the charges, and accused his former colleague of threatening riders with drug allegations...

What is Armstrong's defense?

The main thrust of Armstrong's defense is that he is the victim of a witch hunt by the USADA.

"Though USADA claims it has collected at least 10 witnesses to these events, it refuses to name a single one or even to identify what they will say," argues Armstrong's legal team, in a response to the charges published on the cyclist's website.

"USADA also claims that Mr. Armstrong committed doping violations for years, but cannot produce a single positive test result to corroborate this claim.

"Curiously, in the face of an alleged conspiracy involving four separate teams of cyclists over two decades, USADA has decided to charge only a single rider: Lance Armstrong."

Armstrong has also made his feelings clear about the USADA's offers of immunity to his his former colleagues.

"So let me get this straight... come in and tell them exactly what they wanted to hear and you get complete immunity AND anonymity? I never got that offer. This isn't about Tygart wanting to clean up cycling; rather it's just a plain ol' selective prosecution that reeks of vendetta," Armstrong declared on his Twitter account...

Aardvark wrote:I believe he admitted to doping and that's why.

Aardvark wrote:

Aragorn wrote:Suggesting he was a villain, which he never was...

You do know when he had cancer his wife helped him through it right? He divorced her the moment he was fully recovered. Carma's a bitch ain't it?

Aardvark wrote:There was a big scandal at the time about it and given the apologetic attitude we tend to give most celebrities over time I'm less likely to believe a People article.

Aardvark wrote:One is People Magazine, the other CNN. I'll believe CNN.

Aardvark wrote:Members of my family followed the stories, they were fans of the man, I got the story from them. I'm inclined to believe them because, as I said, as a culture we tend to look kindly on celebrities and forgive them more then we would others.

Mel Gibson's a racist, we've pretty well established that, but no he was just drunk, let's give him work.

Micheal Jackson was a suspected pedophile, the second he was dead? "Those charges were always bogus I never believed them for a second."

We're still giving Tom Cruise work and we know he's no longer playing with a full deck.

So no I wouldn't put it past them to change little facts, politicians do it all the time. As far as the doping charges, he wouldn't be the first athlete to make it past drug screenings only to be discovered at a later date, we had that whole Baseball scandal what 6-10 years ago? When the charges were brought up he didn't deny them, that's why the titles were stripped from him, if the man isn't willing to fight for himself why do you care?

Aardvark wrote:I never said CNN is the only source I'll accept, I said I don't accept celebrity gossip columns as fact.

He's famous, every famous figure has to constantly defend themselves from bogus accusations it's part of the life. If I had won that many Tour de France titles legitimately you can bet your ass I'd defend my legitimacy to the grave so the very fact that he won't deny the charges is fishy.

And giving people immunity so they can testify against someone else is the very definition of our courts. I don't like it but many times it's the only way to get the real person you're after, so the deal doesn't bother me.

I don't know if he's guilty or innocent, that's why I'm waiting for more evidence to come up. I've always hated it when people come jumping in to someone's defense or condemnation without waiting for any evidence to come to light. You literally don't know the man, you have no idea what he might or might not do.