Lance Armstrong found guilty of doping

[Robinho]

and what is better for the guys who finished behind Armstrong whilst on drugs to say - "we were beaten by a drug free athlete despite all our efforts", or, "he was on the same or more stuff as us"?

[Lousada]

Absolute rubbish.

I've found you guilty too, but won't show you, or anyone else entitled to, the proof unless you agree to go to court on my terms for years to come. Have fun.

You don't know what you are talking about. First of all, during his competition time Armstrong accepted the Anti-Doping rules, including the way the arbitration works. These rules are the same for every athlete in an Olympic sport by the way, not just cyclists.
Secondly, Armstrong recently sued the Anti-Doping agency claiming he was being hunted down and the process was unfair. The American court rejected his suit and said he was given due process.

[Mark]

He is found guilty. There was no arbitration because Armstrong refused that. He could have challenged the allegations by USADA, but he didn't. That is in effect an acceptance of guilt.

While I think he's guilty as hell - I don't accept this point. He may well have thought, well if I stop fighting, what's the worst that can happen, how can it affect me personally, and he's come to the conclusion - 'hardly at all'.

[Malbec]

While I think he's guilty as hell - I don't accept this point. He may well have thought, well if I stop fighting, what's the worst that can happen, how can it affect me personally, and he's come to the conclusion - 'hardly at all'.

If he had been found formally guilty could his old sponsors have sued him? Presumably being drug free is one of the conditions in major sponsorship deals? Since he's backed out of contesting the charges he hasn't been found formally guilty of anything and this might get him off the hook from such courtcases.

[Mark]

If he had been found formally guilty could his old sponsors have sued him? Presumably being drug free is one of the conditions in major sponsorship deals? Since he's backed out of contesting the charges he hasn't been found formally guilty of anything and this might get him off the hook from such courtcases.

Yeah, possibly he thought he'd lose any forthcoming hearings, so backing out now is the least worst outcome and at least leaves some doubt.

[ioan]

You don't know what you are talking about. First of all, during his competition time Armstrong accepted the Anti-Doping rules, including the way the arbitration works. These rules are the same for every athlete in an Olympic sport by the way, not just cyclists.
Secondly, Armstrong recently sued the Anti-Doping agency claiming he was being hunted down and the process was unfair. The American court rejected his suit and said he was given due process.

Sorry man, you do not know what you are talking. he was not found guilty of anything yet.

[DonJippo]

Sorry man, you do not know what you are talking. he was not found guilty of anything yet.

Yes he was, don't think they give life-time ban for nothing...

[Robinho]

and what is the worth of a lifetime ban for a man who has retired?

[Mark]

and what is the worth of a lifetime ban for a man who has retired?

Nothing, it's entirely symbolic, however he's had a comeback before, and this would stop him returning in any senior events. But at the moment, only in the US. The UCI has yet to announce its position.

[ioan]

Yes he was, don't think they give life-time ban for nothing...

Sure sure, with no proof shown. I call that a witch hunt, you might call it justice though.