FootballNews

Chade wrote:

DOC wrote:

Chade wrote:
You're still seriously trying to dispute this?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/ind ... -the-years

as i said, innuendo, allegations, purgery, etc etc, landis? haha he fought the system, lost, then admitted to it, any lawyer would have his testimony thrown out

I'm not disputing it, I just want a clear EPO or doping test thats positive from lance

And you should get this because?

I'll be nice; as I've said, off the top of my head, he's tested positive 3 times:
- 1999, used a back-dated doctor's certificate as an excuse (a 2005 test of a sample from the same year also tested positive for EPO)
- 2003ish using his 2001/2001 samples for EPO using the off-model test that wasn't approved by UCI (for political reasons; and with Pat McQuaid's response to the current situation, you can see how they're taking it)
- Switzerland, where he paid the UCI $100,000 not to be charged

adam wrote:good move...

Lance Armstrong Foundation drops disgraced cyclist’s name, will now only be known as Livestrong Foundation
The move represents yet another step by the organization to separate itself from its founder, who has been accused in a scathing report by the United States Anti-Doping Agency of running the most sophisticated doping scheme in sports history.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-tea ... z2CFdR7gFU

God is an Englishman wrote:

Chade wrote:And you should get this because?

I'll be nice; as I've said, off the top of my head, he's tested positive 3 times:
- 1999, used a back-dated doctor's certificate as an excuse (a 2005 test of a sample from the same year also tested positive for EPO)
- 2003ish using his 2001/2001 samples for EPO using the off-model test that wasn't approved by UCI (for political reasons; and with Pat McQuaid's response to the current situation, you can see how they're taking it)
- Switzerland, where he paid the UCI $100,000 not to be charged

99 - testimony of a disgraced doctor
03 - using an unapproved test
any documentation on the 3rd one?

DAM wrote:

adam wrote:good move...

Lance Armstrong Foundation drops disgraced cyclist’s name, will now only be known as Livestrong Foundation
The move represents yet another step by the organization to separate itself from its founder, who has been accused in a scathing report by the United States Anti-Doping Agency of running the most sophisticated doping scheme in sports history.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-tea ... z2CFdR7gFU

too late, everyone knows Lance armstrong and livestrong go hand in hand!

Chade wrote:

DAM wrote:

Chade wrote:
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-tea ... z2CFdR7gFU

too late, everyone knows Lance armstrong and livestrong go hand in hand!

....and....?

There was a few questions the other day as to where the actual money has gone. There's apparently actually 2 corporations - a for-profit, and a not-for-profit. As a total, there's been around $500 million donated. They're able to directly account for $20 million passed onto cancer research, and are trying to claim the rest was for "raising awareness"...

DOC wrote:adam that article says accused, not proven, contradicting yourself

looking back, Cadel Evans says he probably ought to have been suspicious of Lance Armstrong's performances. Things have changed since then, though, the BMC rider said, with a major “change in mentality in cycling.” The 2011 Tour de France winner is looking forward to a Tour in 2013 with a course which will favour him.

“I always said that not only was he the best Tour rider but he also had the best Tour team in history,” Evans told the Australian Weekend Financial Review. “But the fact that all of the riders in that team performed at such a high level during the crucial moments was always, well . . .”

He added that,“He went out there and won seven Tours and...with hindsight, they are not his any more. But now they are no one’s.”

DAM wrote:

Chade wrote:....and....?

There was a few questions the other day as to where the actual money has gone. There's apparently actually 2 corporations - a for-profit, and a not-for-profit. As a total, there's been around $500 million donated. They're able to directly account for $20 million passed onto cancer research, and are trying to claim the rest was for "raising awareness"...

Prove it, better still are U accusing Lance of swindling money, now?

adam wrote:

looking back, Cadel Evans says he probably ought to have been suspicious of Lance Armstrong's performances. Things have changed since then, though, the BMC rider said, with a major “change in mentality in cycling.” The 2011 Tour de France winner is looking forward to a Tour in 2013 with a course which will favour him.

“I always said that not only was he the best Tour rider but he also had the best Tour team in history,” Evans told the Australian Weekend Financial Review. “But the fact that all of the riders in that team performed at such a high level during the crucial moments was always, well . . .”

He added that,“He went out there and won seven Tours and...with hindsight, they are not his any more. But now they are no one’s.”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/evans-o ... ongs-tours

DAM wrote:11 pages, yet NO Positive test results............

DOC wrote:its all speculation and innuendo still

Chade wrote:

DOC wrote:its all speculation and innuendo still

LOL

DOC wrote:

Chade wrote:

DOC wrote:its all speculation and innuendo still

LOL

it is, as mentioned the majority of those testifying have lied before about doping or have been implicated, found guilty and punished, or offered massively reduced out of competition bans to testify, any ambulance chasing lawyer would have it thrown out

if someone said to me: "you've been implicated for doping and we really want armstrong too, therefore you can testify and get 6 months or stay silent and cop 2 years plus, irrespective of if you have or if lance has" i would spill the beans, whether they were the truth or not

landis lied to a grand jury and fought it all the way, then admitted to it, then started after lance

Chade wrote:
Who are you trying to convince?!

DOC wrote:

Chade wrote:
Who are you trying to convince?!

you obviously

adam wrote:Cyclists describe doping culture within U.S. Postal team during Armstrong’s record run

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/cycl ... al-/nS8Zs/

very long... but must read article...

Of the 11 former Armstrong teammates who gave affidavits, five said they either witnessed Armstrong doping or received banned drugs from him.

DOC wrote:

adam wrote:Cyclists describe doping culture within U.S. Postal team during Armstrong’s record run

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/cycl ... al-/nS8Zs/

very long... but must read article...

Of the 11 former Armstrong teammates who gave affidavits, five said they either witnessed Armstrong doping or received banned drugs from him.

same said team mates who have lied about doping? or accepted reduced bans? as mentioned i would have said it too, hincapie was one of those given reduced bans

stopped reading after that

Chade wrote:

DOC wrote:

Chade wrote:
Who are you trying to convince?!

you obviously

Are you actually reading the articles that adam is posting, or are you just doing the three monkeys routine - see/hear/speak no evil?

They're describing in a fair bit of depth the lengths that Armstrong went to, and no, they're not based on just Tyler Hamilton and Flloyd Landis' confessions...

Pierre Bordry, former head of the French national doping agency, the AFLD, says that then President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, forced him out of his post in 2010 at the request of Lance Armstrong. Speaking to French news magazine Le Nouvel Observateur, Bordry is now calling for a parliamentary inquiry into the politicians, doctors, businessmen and sport officials whom he says protected Armstrong.

The magazine also says that the UCI’s insistence that it should take responsibility for drug-testing at the 2009 Tour de France, relegating the AFLD to the role of spectator, was directly motivated by a desire to protect Armstrong in what would be his comeback in the race he won seven times between 1999 and 2005.

The claim that Sarkozy, acting at the request of Armstrong following a July 2010 dinner at the Elysée Palace, was behind Bordry’s departure from the AFLD – he left after the sports ministry slashed its budget – is not a new one, but the four-page article in the current edition of the weekly magazine headlined ‘Qui a couvert Lance Armstrong?’ (Who protected Lance Armstrong) goes into greater detail than has previously been the case.

Bordry, now aged 72, resigned from his position in September 2010 and while he gave no specific reasons for his departure at the time, during his five year tenure he regularly criticised the government for cuts to the agency’s funding and also clashed swords with Armstrong on numerous occasions after his return to the sport in 2009.

The Nouvel Observateur says that it was a self-projected aura of invincibility from Armstrong that led to his fall, starting with his decision to make his comeback in what the magazine described as a “Tour too much.”

It points out that Armstrong had powerful allies who had a vested interest in maintaining that he had won those seven Tour de France titles clean, starting with Sarkozy who saw him as an invaluable ambassador for tourism, down to race organisers ASO, keen to protect the image of what the article describes as its “cash cow,” as well as governing body the UCI.

However, Michel Rieu, a close ally of Bordry’s at the AFLD, where he is scientific advisor, told the magazine of Armstrong’s emergence from retirement: “This time, we were waiting to catch him out since we’d had very strong suspicions for a long time.”

In 2009, Bordry had warned Armstrong that the AFLD might seek to prevent him from taking part in his comeback Tour de France due to the Texan’s lack of co-operation with its officials during a random test conducted while he was training.

The AFLD was powerless to prevent the apparent warnings that Armstrong is said to have received during the run-up to the race and during the three weeks of the Tour itself, where he finished third behind Astana team mate Alberto Contador and Saxo Bank’s Andy Schleck.

The launch of a federal investigation in the United States regarding the alleged misuse of public funds at Armstrong’s former US Postal team, however, gave the AFLD the opportunity to co-operate with law enforcement officials on the other side of the Atlantic as well as the United States Anti-Doping Agency, which would continue to pursue him after the federal inquiry was shelved earlier this year.

By then, Bordry had long departed the AFLD, his fate said to have been sealed at a dinner attended by Armstrong at the Elysée Palace in July 2010, hosted by Sarkozy who had made little secret of his admiration for the cyclist.

“Armstrong told me about it himself,” Bordry explained to the Nouvel Observateur, saying “he boasted in front of me of having called for my head from the President. I asked for a denial from the Elysée, even a private one, but never received a reply. I was shocked.”

Instead, two months later, Bordry was told that the AFLD’s budget was being slashed by half, with the article clearly. Demoralised, he resigned, and the clear implication is that the cut in funding was authorised by Sarkozy in compliance with Armstrong’s wish that Bordry be removed.

Armstrong himself greeted news of Bordry’s departure from the agency in September 2010 with a three-word message on Twitter that read “Au Revoir Pierre.”

What the Texan didn’t realise was that despite cutting off its head, the AFLD would continue to play a role in the case being built against him, including providing evidence regarding his blood values at the 2009 Tour to US investigators.

While the UCI has so far refused to acknowledge that Armstrong doped following his comeback, by upholding USADA’s reasoned decision in full without challenging findings related to that period means that indirectly, it has vindicated Bordry and the AFLD’s persistence.

This latest bit of bad news for the disgraced cyclist comes courtesy of Selena Roberts, the former Sports Illustrated scribe best known for breaking the Alex Rodriguez-tested-positve-for-steriods story during her tenure at SI. These days, Roberts plies her wares in the digital realm as the founder of Roopstigo, where she recently published “Inside Livestrong: The Line Between Cause and Cult” and provided this little nugget:

In 2006, after internal legwork, the IRS reviewed the foundation in what Livestrong officials called a normal examination. In recent weeks, agents have been reassessing the non-profit, according to two people with knowledge of the review process. Livestrong officials at the Austin headquarters say that neither the Internal Revenue Service nor the Texas Attorney General has contacted them. While it is unclear what operations at Livestrong may have piqued the interest of agents, issues have emerged that resound with charity watchdog groups.

Livestrong — like its founder — is no stranger to scrutiny. It was previously featured in this 2011 Outside Magainze exposé authored by Bill Gifford , in which Gifford alleged no illegal activities at Livestrong, but rather set out to correct common misconceptions about the Foundation, including where the majority of the money it raises is spent (to increase cancer awareness, not to fund cancer research) and differentiating between Livestrong.org (the Foundation’s site) and Livestrong.com (a for-profit site that received a license to use the Livestrong name from the Foundation in exchange for stock.)

If Roberts’ sources are to be believed, however, any renewed interest by the IRS could present a serious challenge to the future of Livestrong. For example, Armstrong has apparently being accused of leveraging the Foundation’s donors for political influence, which if true, would run afoul of the rules governing Livestrong’s tax-exempt status:

In October, Betsy Andreu and Kathy LeMond described to Roopstigo a 2008 email Armstrong had sent to Sen. John Kerry that threatened to use the Livestrong database against the Democratic Party if then-presidential hopeful Barack Obama did not attend the cyclist’s cancer summit. Although there is no evidence that Armstrong acted on the ultimatum—Obama was in Germany and did not attend the event—it is against 501(c)(3) regulations for a tax exempt organization to wield political influence either for or against political candidates.

Roberts’ report also echoes a concern surrounding the blurry line between Armstrong-the-individual and Armstrong-the-Livestrong-fundraiser that was discussed at length in Gifford’s Outside column. My guess is that if the below is true, the IRS would be very interested in determining where exactly Lance ends and Livestrong begins:

Also, last month, anecdotes surfaced of Armstrong receiving six-figure daily fees for ride-with-Lance-type benefits. One 2005 event was in Canada for the British Columbia Cancer Foundation’s Tour of Courage. And in Norway, the newspaper VG reported a disagreement over whether $400,000 went to Livestrong or Armstrong for a 2009 visit to Oslo. When it was established that the appearance deal was to pay Armstrong, and not Livestrong directly, cyclist Dag Erik Peterson said he still thought the money was for the charity, saying that he saw Armstrong riding in Livestrong cycling gear and “mixed his roles. That’s not fair.”

This is the sort of thing that drives philanthropy experts crazy, because it becomes unclear whether Livestrong is acting in the best interest of its charitable mission, or in the best interest of Lance Armstrong:

Daniel Borochoff, president of the non-profit philanthropy watchdog group, Charity Watch, says Armstrong “was acting as a related party, you can’t hide that fact.” Borochoff suggested the fees received by Armstrong should have been reported to the charity’s board. They were not.

At this point, the IRS has not confirmed whether an investigation of Livestrong is ongoing. But if it is, it would just make for just another chapter in the continuing saga of Lance Armstrong.

The Team GB Olympic time trial gold medallist, speaking in January's issue of GQ magazine, said: 'In some ways I think the scandal enhances what I did.
'His success was built on lies. I look at him now and I think to myself, "He didn't win those Tours fairly, so maybe this superhuman cycling legend was never as good a rider as me.'
'That makes me feel proud that my victories aren't built on sand.'
Wiggins himself has grown impatient with having to defend himself - as well as his sport - because of the likes of Armstrong tainting cycling with doping offences.
The Team Sky star added: 'It's like I'm having to atone for the sins of another.'

AUSTRALIA'S Olympic boss John Coates is hopeful that the International Olympic Committee's executive board will be able to strip disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong of his bronze medal from the Sydney Games when it meets in Lausanne next week.

Coates, a member of the IOC executive board, said Armstrong's case would be on the agenda, but the board would have to work around its eight-year statute of limitations on redistributing Olympic medals.

"I would hope we can deal with it because the evidence (against Armstrong) is overwhelming," Coates said.

He said he hoped the IOC's lawyers would be able to use the same approach that allowed the US Anti-Doping Agency and UCI to ban Armstrong from cycling for life, backdated to August 1998, and strip him of his seven Tour de France titles.

"USADA and the UCI went outside the eight-year limit on the basis that the statute doesn't apply if you have broken the law, so I imagine our lawyers will see if that also applies with us," Coates said.