Why? And "because Lance says so" isn't a valid argument, neither is "they have too much evidence" 
snoopcester Send a noteboard - 28/08/2012 05:55:24 PM
snoopcester Send a noteboard - 28/08/2012 05:55:24 PM
I'd like to see an actual reasoned argument why the internationally recognised process of arbitration, which operated worldwide without wide spread cries of bias, is fixed against Armstrong.
To correct your most noticeable errors -
a) there is a right of appeal in the process.
b) The UCI can take this to CAS if it wants - the agreements it has signed with WADA do however place this in the USADA's jurisdiction. (I'd also question why the UCI is seen as such a unbiased, upstanding body - the President is banned from the Olympics and the organisation has accepted large sums of money from Armstrong in the past in, allegedly, exchange for overlooking failed tests by him. the UCI is many things, a credible anti-doping body is not one of them http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/08/the-myth-of-the-uci-it-is-time-for-a-change/ )
Sorry, I'm not actually be able to pick clear points out of this. I get that it contains the unproven bias claims and accusation I have a "personal vendetta against armstrong" but I've got no idea where you are going with this.
Can you perhaps list your points for me?
whether or not he failed 100 tests, you'd think that would be the kind of thing that got reported in all these stories about him since he walked away from arbitration. yes, arbitration, not an actual trial with a chance of appeal. also, the UCI has not actually stripped armstrong of any wins yet, they seem to believe that he has not tested positive for any banned drugs, or are at least willing to hear the actual evidence provided to them.
To correct your most noticeable errors -
a) there is a right of appeal in the process.
b) The UCI can take this to CAS if it wants - the agreements it has signed with WADA do however place this in the USADA's jurisdiction. (I'd also question why the UCI is seen as such a unbiased, upstanding body - the President is banned from the Olympics and the organisation has accepted large sums of money from Armstrong in the past in, allegedly, exchange for overlooking failed tests by him. the UCI is many things, a credible anti-doping body is not one of them http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/08/the-myth-of-the-uci-it-is-time-for-a-change/ )
look, i know you seem to have a personal vendetta against armstrong for some reason, whatever that may be. i know i have my own share of athletes i just can't stand to see succeed. but the fact still remains that the USADA is the only one seemingly concerned with this case, everyone else who has any influence seems to be on armstrong's side. if we took the lot of them to arbitration with USADA maybe there would be a fair hearing. as it is, the USADA will win arbitration no matter what the facts are so he is simply walking away from the process because he knows he will lose either way.
Sorry, I'm not actually be able to pick clear points out of this. I get that it contains the unproven bias claims and accusation I have a "personal vendetta against armstrong" but I've got no idea where you are going with this.
Can you perhaps list your points for me?
*MySmiley*
Robert Graves "There is no money in poetry, but then there is no poetry in money, either."
Henning Mankell "We must defend the open society, because if we start locking our doors, if we let fear decide, the person who committed the act of terror will win"
Robert Graves "There is no money in poetry, but then there is no poetry in money, either."
Henning Mankell "We must defend the open society, because if we start locking our doors, if we let fear decide, the person who committed the act of terror will win"
Lance Armstrong - drugs cheat.
- 24/08/2012 10:51:35 AM
1455 Views
Delighted
- 24/08/2012 12:21:12 PM
723 Views
Re: Delighted
- 24/08/2012 12:36:20 PM
984 Views
you think the case against Contador is fishy but you cheerlead the witch hunt of Armstong?
- 25/08/2012 04:11:23 AM
747 Views
*NM*
Eh, I suspect the prevailing national narratives are going to vary some
- 24/08/2012 02:01:52 PM
874 Views
Sad thing is I wondered who would be awarded the victory now his have been stripped...
- 24/08/2012 05:31:20 PM
729 Views
And this is why I have a hard time blaming Armstrong.
- 24/08/2012 06:16:14 PM
777 Views
Hopefully they will leave the 1st places empty
- 24/08/2012 11:44:49 PM
681 Views
That is one of things I find suspicious about the denials.
- 26/08/2012 03:01:30 AM
769 Views
Or... maybe he has better things to do with his life than fight an endless witch hunt. *NM*
- 24/08/2012 06:15:42 PM
360 Views
Nah, the bully just ran into something that wouldn't back down and has gone crying. *NM*
- 24/08/2012 11:51:50 PM
362 Views
Haters gotta hate. Its not like he's gonna get a fair hearing. *NM*
- 24/08/2012 10:25:18 PM
357 Views
Yeah, they were going to use evidence and everything against him and not cower before his bullying
- 25/08/2012 12:01:44 AM
662 Views
Your reaction seems kinda over the top and spiteful, what's up with that?
- 25/08/2012 01:15:12 AM
883 Views
Pleasure at seeing someone who has bullied and blustered for so long faced with justice.
- 25/08/2012 10:11:15 AM
756 Views
You are a very small-minded person.
- 25/08/2012 04:26:46 PM
773 Views
And you are a very annoying person.
- 25/08/2012 06:06:50 PM
770 Views
I don't think 'nemesis' is a term that should be used regarding sporting events
- 25/08/2012 07:51:35 PM
827 Views
As Legolas said, I think it is apprioriate
- 26/08/2012 05:36:08 PM
642 Views
I'm really not in a position to judge, though obviously I'm inclined to disagree
- 26/08/2012 05:41:49 PM
712 Views
*NM*
i've got ten RAFOlk who testify they saw you punch babies, you should be stripped of posting here
- 25/08/2012 04:09:53 PM
705 Views
+1 - Anyone that thinks this isn't a sham/witch hunt is a moron. *NM*
- 25/08/2012 04:23:55 PM
363 Views
You're not stupid, so I'm going to assume you know why your post is nonsense.
- 26/08/2012 05:37:49 PM
632 Views
he will lose in arbitration, whether or not he is innocent. that's the point
- 28/08/2012 03:55:38 PM
794 Views
Why? And "because Lance says so" isn't a valid argument, neither is "they have too much evidence"
- 28/08/2012 05:55:24 PM
806 Views
- 28/08/2012 05:55:24 PM
806 Views
a 58-2 record in arbitration suggests something is not quite right, imho
- 29/08/2012 04:02:59 PM
884 Views
Yes - clearly the USADA are far too conservative in their approach and should bring more charges
- 29/08/2012 04:38:34 PM
940 Views
but he was the guy who had cancer
- 26/08/2012 12:26:34 AM
693 Views
I refer you to the Goldman dilema
- 26/08/2012 05:41:26 PM
590 Views
but that's just dumb *NM*
- 26/08/2012 10:23:34 PM
457 Views
I'd guess it is a sign of the drive to win needed to be a top sportsperson
- 26/08/2012 10:51:20 PM
659 Views