25 August 2012

Lance Armstrong


I have thoughts on Lance Armstrong's situation.  In short, I don't think he's guilty.  One, he's been tested more than any other athlete on the planet!  Two, I think there is some jealousy and envy at work here.  Three, he simply worked and trained harder than his competitors.

Lance Armstrong has been poked, prodded, sampled, and tested more than ANY other athlete on the planet!  He's been tested what, 500 times or thereabouts?  If he'd been guilty of any doping or use of performance enhancing drugs (hereafter PEDs), wouldn't he have been caught at least once in all those tests?  Especially if those tests are done at random (i.e. he doesn't know where or when they'll be), how can he evade a positive result?  How could he always have someone else around to pee in the bottle for him?  How could he do so if the tests are observed, like my urinalysis tests were observed while I was in the US Navy?  Sorry, but there's a reason Lance Armstrong passed the hundreds of drug tests he's taken over the years: he's not guilty-duh!

Secondly, I think that there's a lot of jealousy and envy at work here.  Nowadays, instead of admiring, respecting, and studying successful people, we vilify them; we say that they MUST have cheated to get where they were; they must have stolen from someone; they must have screwed someone over.

It's rather telling that, when Mr. Armstrong was winning his first Tour de France victories, the French were the first to raise the specter of PED use; it was the French who first went after Lance Armstrong.  Why wouldn't they?  First of all, cycling is not 'our' sport; it's seen as a European sport.  Secondly, Armstrong and other Americans are seen as interlopers by the Europeans.  Thirdly, from the French perspective, here's a Yankee SOB who not only crashed 'their' party; he made them look bad.  Lance Armstrong kicked their asses in THEIR sport!  You think that won't incite some jealousy from the socialist minded French?  Come on!

Finally, Lance Armstrong succeeded because he flat out worked HARDER than his competitors did; it's as simple as that.  I read an article years ago detailing how Armstrong would train in the mountains.  He'd find the steepest mountain he could, then he'd climb it three or four times; he'd even do this on cold, rainy days!  That's right; even when it was 40-45 degrees F outside (that's 4-7 degrees C), he'd be charging a gnarly mountain three or four times during a training session.  On days when his competitors (and indeed most sane people) would be curled up by the fireplace nursing a cup of hot chocolate, Armstrong would be charging the mountains; he'd be out training for the Tour.  Is it any wonder Lance Armstrong kicked the tails of his competition?  Is it any wonder he laid the groundwork to his seven victories during the mountain stages?

Yesterday, I was listening to the pundits on sports radio.  They were saying that, because Lance Armstrong elected to not fight the USADA (US Anti Doping Agency), he is guilty; in effect, the one pundit said that he effectively pleaded no contest; to them, that was a tacit admission of guilt.  I don't think so.  Mr. Armstrong said that, after all the BS for the better part of a decade, he's had enough.  I can understand that.

I remember how, back in the late 1990s, I was falsely accused of stalking, harassment, DV, etc.  My psychobitch told so many lies that I could have easily nailed her for false swearing, if not outright perjury.  However, I didn't do so for a couple of reasons.  One, I had vengeance on my mind.  Two, I just wanted to get on with my life.  I wanted the nightmares to end; I wanted to have a good night's sleep again.  I remember how, when that whole mess was going on, crying out to God; God, please give me my life back!  My prayers were answered, so I thought it was best to let things go at that point.  Ergo, I can understand Mr. Armstrong's decision to stop fighting; at a certain point, why bother?

Also, the USADA, though non-profit, is a non-governmental organization.  It received almost nine million dollars from the US Federal Government.  It also almost three and a half million dollars from the US Olympic Committee, to whom it is contracted testing of PEDs.  You can view the USADA's 2011 annual report here; go to page 45, and you'll see the aforementioned numbers.  Why is that relevant?  I'm glad you asked, because I'm about to tell you-ha!

What this means is that, in effect, Lance Armstrong would be taking on the government, which has almost limitless resources.  In our adversarial legal system, only the rich can really afford justice, and have the resources to counter those of the government.  If he'd beaten this charge, the USADA would have come back with another one.  They could have and would have kept coming back, because this is not a criminal matter; since it's a civil matter, the standard of proof isn't as high.  IOW, it would be easier for the USADA to win, and harder for an athlete (like Lance Armstrong) to beat the system.  That's another reason I can't blame him fro throwing in the towel.

In closing, I don't think Lance Armstrong is guilty.  I don't think his decision to not fight the USADA is a tacit admission of guilt, either; after fighting these rumors and charges for over a decade, Lance Armstrong had had enough.  The man who fought so hard to beat cancer had had enough; the man who'd fought these doping allegations for years had had enough; the man who'd passed HUNDREDS OF DRUG TESTS had had enough.  You're telling me he wouldn't have been caught at least ONCE?  Come on!  Lance Armstrong will always be King of the Tour de France.  Until next time...



Axe Head said...

It sounds to me like he's not guilty. A man not guilty KNOWS he won those TdFs, and it doesn't matter if some mickey-mouse organization agrees. He doens't need their validation. That's a man's man there!

Richard Ford MRI said...

Sorry to be off topic but I cannot use your email link.

I have had to change my domain due to a combination of some anti semite conspiracy nut taking my identity and the SPLC situation.

I will, naturaly retuen the favour.


Formerly Ghost Nation

Anonymous said...

It's not about frenchies, and he was caught before too.


just go through the posts linking to tennis has a steroid problem, Lance just happens to in a sport where people get caught and are punished

I have been going through that blog since a few days ago when Steve wrote a post about it, and then there are blatant ones like this.


don't really care about LA, new to the whole steroids/PEDs business and couldn't stop reading.

concerning LA would be:

Anonymous said...

The mountain could not stop him.
Cancer failed to kill him.
Political correctness shut him in like the big just barked.

Cecil Henry said...

One guy testifies against him--okay maybe envy. Two guys, whose to say??

But TEN other cyclists testify against him. And several other people like his massage therapist and others have testified to seeing the drug use. They just moved on.

Then all his intimidation and threats to other cyclists for speaking out.

To me it looks bad. I think its clear he was cheating--just like almost everyone else. So he was without a doubt the best of the cheaters.

What he did took guts and courage for sure. But he was a cheater too and must be held accountable for that.

Anonymous said...

Aren't drugs that are used medically to treat diseases exempt? Armstrong had testicular cancer that had spread to the brain andit's a miracle he's even alive let alone winning bike races. He could have just listed anything he was taking and it would have been exempt I believe whether it was testosterone or almost anything he'd get a doctor to prescribe. This guy was almost dead from cancer and had to be very weakened from chemo and treatment and I'm sure that aside from steroids or even painkillers or stimulents for medical reasons would have been allowed so there was no reason for him to hide anything.
In fact, there's no reason to even have an anto doping committee and just allow them to take anything they like because many of these drugs may just as well harm performance. Painkillers may get more endurance and I said may, but they could also slow you down. In other sports stimulents may give you more energy but effect coordination. Drugs and even hormones have side effects that may make performance worse so I'm not sure if doping should even be an issue.
And btw, I'm not sure by what standard they hear these cases and it may not even be as high as civil court and may be something like reasonable cause to believe he took drugs and not even the normalcivil preponderance of the evidence. Someone saying they observed him taking something may be nothing since they can't even identify what it was and it may have be a vitamin for all they know.You couldn't even defend yourself against what are just some people's impressions if this is how these cases are adjudicated.

Anonymous said...

Marky were you living with this female? If not then I can't see how it can be a charge of DV.
If you were with her than it would be insane to allege stalking. So basically you couldn't be charged with both. I know that never stopped insane DA's but it doesn't make any legal sense and is just an intimidation tactic and the DA knows some of the charges will have to be dismissed. They likely do this to try to get higher bail to keep you in jail so that they can break you down and get a conviction or plea. Plea bargains count the same as a cconviction for the DA. So when you hear of some DA who claims he has a 95% xonviction rate just remember it's bullshit and was all plea bargains. The 5% he actually tried may have all been lost lol

Anonymous said...

Not the most tested athlete on the planet, has not been tested 500 times, has failed testing before.

For sure jelousy and rivalry may be driving factors and also the french may be piqued that an abressive American dominated their race.

Look a little more in-depth than you have done and im afraid there is only one conclusion to reach. Armstrong Doped end of.

Nolo contendere IS an admission of guilt, no other conclusion can ever be drawn from such a plea.

if Armstrong was innocent he has money and a crack legal team and he would be fighting to clear his name.

Quitting just isn't in his nature. This is the man that famously said;

Pain is temporary. It may last a minute, or an hour, or a day, or a year, but eventually it will subside and something else will take its place. If I quit, however, it lasts forever.

MarkyMark said...


The mistake you're making is the same one I made: focusing on the word, 'domestic', and the definition thereof. Domestic can be defined as 'of or pertaining to the home'; this, of course, would imply LIVING with the person.

However, that's not how NJ law works. Domestic violence covers like a dozen crimes from harassment (which is a disorderly persons offense in NJ) to murder. Crimes in between fall under the DV statutes as well; stalking is included on the list of DV crimes.

Also, WRT NJ DV law, you do NOT have to live with the person to be guilty of DV; all that's necessary is for some sort of dating or acquaintance relationship to exist, nothing more; if she knows you and has spent time with you, she can charge you with a DV offense. That's an eye opener for most people.

In closing, the mistake you made is the same many people make: to wit, thinking that DV covers married or live-in couples; you're thinking that it pertains to the home, because of the word 'domestic'. Sorry, but that's not how it is. If she knows you and you two have spent time together, then you can be charged with and found guilty of DV.


MarkyMark said...


I made my comments based on a couple of ESPN radio shows devoted to Lance Armstrong. ESPN is considered an authority on sports. Are you saying that THEIR information isn't reliable?


Anonymous said...

What I didn't like was the way the USADA could go after someone based on someone else's verbal testimony. If that's so, what's the point of the drug testing to begin with? If USADA doesn't get the drug test result they want, they'll intimidate someone into saying what they want. What a kangaroo court that is.

Anonymous said...

Marky, I'm well aware how the DV laws work and how you don't have to be living with someone etc
But how can someone be accused of stalking his own gf? That's irrational and we're living in some Alice in Wonderland system of law where the law is whatever some psycho DA says it is.
I looked at the NJ stalking statute and it's the same as everywhere else. Stalking basically means that you're repeatedly shadowing someone with the intent to kill or cause Serious bodily injury when you see an opportunity.Like a Mafia hitman watching someone he's going to hit.
None of these arrests you hear about for Stalking meet the statutory requirement so basically these men are being harassed. It would be like charging someone with aggravated assault because they accidently lightly brushed by you.

MarkyMark said...


The NJ stalking statute is actually pretty fair. She TRIED to charge me with that, but the only one the cops would put down on the paperwork was harassment. In NJ, harassment isn't even a misdemeanor; it's a petty disorderly persons offense as is disturbing the peace.

To clear something up, this chick was NEVER my GF-thank goodness! We went out a couple of times; it didn't work out; that was that, basically. What's strange is that, after blowing me off, the chick would follow ME everywhere! She'd show up at my hang outs; because these were public places that we'd both go to. She'd follow me home from work. She'd drive by my house. IOW, she accused me of doing to her what she was doing to me! I was like WTF? You stand me up the last time I showed up at your place, making it known that you don't want me; then, you start following me everywhere?! She was one sick, twisted bitch.

Having said that, not all stalking laws are equal. I researched this thoroughly. I wanted to know what I was up against, and what my options were. I also wanted to get an idea what kind of person would do something like this.

Anyway, MI's stalking law is pretty severe; all that's necessary to be guilty of MI's stalking law is 'to appear within sight of the individual'. Let that sink in for a moment. That means a chick could stalk you, then accuse you of doing it to her! After all, you ARE appearing within sight of her.

For example, let's say you go to the mall to do some Xmas shopping, clothes shopping, whatever. She follows you there. As you're going about your business, she sees you; well, since you appeared with in her sight, she can accuse YOU of following her! IOW, not all stalking laws are the same, and it would behoove you to read and understand the one in your state.

The one in NJ though is pretty fair. Not only does there have to be proof you actually did it; intent has to be proven too. IOW, it's not enough to be guilty of the deed itself; it has to be proven you were DELIBERATELY TRYING to commit the crime. That changes everything, because it makes it harder for a frivolous charge to stick.

But yeah, DV law isn't what you think it is. All that's necessary is for a dating relationship to exist. Where the law is murky is that it doesn't make clear how MUCH of a dating relationship needs to exist before the DV laws would apply. It's not in the language of the law, and court cases hadn't addressed this question when I was undergoing my nightmare back in the late 1990s. That may have changed since then, but I don't know. All I know is that I got my life back, and that was all I cared about.

BTW, one of the guys I grew up with had a pyscho chick doing the same thing to him; he had his own Fatal Attraction going on. He ended up killing himself. Though I obviously didn't go that far, I sure as hell THOUGHT about it! I can understand why a guy could and would get to that point.


MarkyMark said...


It's early in the morning, and I'm not thinking too clearly. What I MEANT to say above was that my psycho bitch would show up at public places we'd both hang out at. Because they were public places; because these were places we'd BOTH go to (we both participate in the same sporting activity); I couldn't do SQUAT about her antics-nothing! Though she had similar facilities closer to her place, I couldn't do anything because she was just going to a public place where she had as much right to be as I did. It was most frustrating. It WAS some "Alice in Wonderland" thing too...


Anonymous said...

Marky, I do have a degree in law although I've never been in practise and have been involved in other businesses.
Letmejust say this;in order to be convicted under a statute the DAis required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (since this is criminal) EVERY element of the alleged crime +intent. I looked at that MI statute 750.411h and being in the sight of someone on its own means nothing and is simply one of the elements.
What's messed up about the way these statutes(MI) are written is that they rely apon how someone "felt" without having to al least minimally show that there was some reason for how the person felt. For example, a girl says she's afraid of a guy near her and the cops arrive and the guy is armed with some deadly weapon. In itself this may mean nothing but at least it's something and may show that he had the capability of killing or causing severe harm. A female merely claiming she's "afraid" of some guy should mean nothing and for all we know she may be insane. So there should never be any arrest made based on some she said/he said situation.If a female wants to make a complaint then she must file it with the court clerk or cops who send it to the court clerk and the accused must appear in court. Since this is a citizen complain it is encumbent upon her to prove her case without the assistance of the local prosecutor. This would be unfair to the defendant.We're living in a police state and one which is biased against men so all of the normal rules and procedures fly out the window and in effect we're living in a lawless society where everyone from the cops to the judges are just doing whatever that like and twisting statutes to fit the alleged "crime"
Let me do a little guessing here and correct me if I'm wrong. You were likely arrested and charged with stalking AND harassment so that a judge couldplace bail on you and I'll bet he also included as condition of bail that you stay x number of feet away from her. When the county DA reviewed the charges he realised that he could never get an indictment and that the whole thing was bullshit so he dismissed the stalking charge. But the bail and conditions and the harassment charge were still in effect. Harassment is not an indictable offence so it was sent back to the municipal court in the jurisdiction where it occurred. Now you're in a court where you only have a judge deciding the verdict and a cursory type trial not much different than defending a speeding ticket.You may be in a worse position than for a more serious crime because no indictment is required to put you on trial and there is no jury to decide the case.Many of these Municipal judges allow testimony and/or hearsay that would immediately be objected to in a jury trial in a Superior Court.
And although you may believe that harassment is like disorderly conduct and is minor, a Municipal court judge can still sentence you to jail for up to 6 months (perhaps even up to a year for multiple counts or if you had a previous conviction for something) so I wouldn't take it lightly.
I assume that your charges were dismissed in Municipal court.

MarkyMark said...


Your guess was partially correct. The police filled out the paperwork, which included the charges. However, this was a citizen complaint. The cops, when filling out the paperwork, just put harassment down, since the stalking charges could not be proven; she had no witnesses or other evidence-just her word.

A judge did visit her at the police station that night, but it was only to file a temporary restraining order against me; this was the same judge who decided whether or not to make the TRO permanent, which he did. That SOB cut off my lawyer in mid-sentence as he argued a substantive point WRT the order! He wouldn't even let my lawyer make an argument for subject matter jurisdiction-that whole question of whether or not a dating relationship existed.

Yes, the case was handled in a municipal court. I wouldn't have been that bad off had the charge stuck. It didn't, but I'll get to that in a moment.

The harassment statute is hard to prove in NJ; it all comes back to having to prove INTENT. For example, while going through case law, my attorney found a case where the defendant had peered through the windows of the person pressing the charges! Even so, he didn't meet the intent requirement, so the charge didn't stick. Since what I was accused of was less than that (in terms of severity), my attorney didn't think the charge would stick in my case, either.

As for whether or not I would have gone to jail, my attorney thought not. One, that's a worst case scenario. Two, that's usually handed out to more habitual offenders. Three, I'd never been in trouble with the law. My attorney thought that, if anything, I might get a fine, but that it would have been below the maximum.

Two, the judge at municipal court, unlike the SOB in family court (the one who decided my restraining order), was very fair. He would constantly remind defendants of their rights and stuff like that. I wouldn't have minded having him hear my case, but it didn't get that far.

It didn't get that far because the first time we showed up, the bitch was late. At that time, she reinstated the charges. We showed up a second time for that, and she never showed! I was all ready to go, and I was eager to see my attorney rip Psychobitch a new one; alas, she disappointed us and didn't show. At that point, the case was dismissed for good, and that was that.

So, how come you don't practice law? I seriously thought about law school; I researched it and everything; I was what they call a '0L'. However, based on my research, it was too much of a gamble to go. Even 10 years ago, law was overcrowded; unless one attended a T14 school or was on law review at any school outside the T14, you weren't getting a job-end of story. I didn't want to take on $100k or more of debt for an uncertain payoff. What's your story? I'd LOVE to hear it... :)


Anonymous said...

OK I got the picture now and all I can say is that you were lucky. If the cops had been on one of their DV or stalking kicks at the time they may have charged you with stalking, even though the charge was inappropriate, based on what the bitch claimed,and my worst case scenario would have occurred.
You know that you may be able to study as an external student where you may not have to put in much class time and can do most of the course work on your own. Just take exams, hand in papers etc
As a mature student you may be accepted these days even though you had no pre law at Uni; or if you can just pass the entrance exam studying on your own or with some help from a tutor.You should check with the Unis in NJ.
You were in the navy so I guess that you know something about marine matters and you can specialise in that along the shore or further south and combine that with writing marine insurance and related areas.
Money?Just get it from Obama :) I'd hurry because I don't think he'll be around in a few months.
You really should look into trying to get some FREE money or grants so that you can study without having to spend your own money.See if there is anything for mature over 50 students, or veterans or any other thing you may think of.Do anything you can and don't worry about things. When these student loans can't be paid the government may have to bail them out just like AIG or declare an amnesty.In this world the timid and honest people end up being screwed. OK I'm getting too cynical now but that's the way things look to me.
Look at immigration. The honest people who spent the fees, applied and did the paperwork and waited for a resident visa, sometimes years,get skipped over by illegals when an amnesty is declared.Now, what does that say about the law, politics and fair play?
I don't believe in religions but you may want to take the advice of Jesus "Do Not Worry.
read that part.

Anonymous said...


A European said...

Finally you "USA no.1" Americans thought that with Armstrong you had something to put yourselves on a superior footing vs the Europeans. Trust me, the vast majority of Europeans are not jealous of Americans. On the contrary, many Europeans just roll their eyes when another burp is rising to the surface in Yankee land. Especially now that Armstrong has admitted to using PED's.

MarkyMark said...


What's especially DAMNING about cycling and European cyclists is that, after stripping Armstrong of his seven Tour titles, the UCI couldn't award the second or third place finishers the win. Why? Because THEY were cheating too; they too were using PEDs! Only a handful of cyclists in the Tour were clean.