Texas: Clements now Armstrong - What gives?
 

I am shocked that Armstrong has had his titles pulled without proof. In fact, over 500 test proved no dope. Who is behind this vendetta?

Second question, why Texas all stars? Both were never proven guilty but someone has a vendetta against them anyway.

Third, the party who said they pulled his titles what authority do they have?

Re: Texas: Clements now Armstrong - What gives?
 

Any time we have overwhelming proof of doping, our mandate is to initiate the case through the process and see it to conclusion as was done in this case," said USADA chief executive Travis Tygart, who couched the investigation as a battle against a "win-at-all-cost culture."

What overwhelming proof are they referring to? I understood every test came back negative.

The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency erased 14 years of Lance Armstrong's career Friday — including his record seven Tour de France titles — and banned him for life from the sport that made him a hero to millions of cancer survivors after concluding he used banned substances.

USADA said it expected cycling's governing body to take similar action, but the International Cycling Union was measured in its response, saying it first wanted a full explanation on why Armstrong should relinquish Tour titles he won from 1999 through 2005.

Re: Texas: Clements now Armstrong - What gives?
 

Armstrong simply gave up fighting.

Re: Texas: Clements now Armstrong - What gives?
 

Apparently, his frozen B samples are routinely testing positive for EPOs. From my understanding, his argument against those is largely about statutes of limitations and the fact that they don't have the A samples to also test (since they were used up). Also some of the people who were now set to testify against him were credible witnesses who had no incentive to lie and who really had to be forced to.

Re: Texas: Clements now Armstrong - What gives?
 

Nope. This is simply not in his character.
It is a testament to his fighting spirit
that this didn't happen years ago.

Ps, when asked directly,
before he switched to "no comment," anyway,
his reply to "have you ever?" was always
"it isn't that simple," and I have to admit
that his rationale there has some merit.
"Legal performance enhancing" this year =
"Banned" next year, or even next race...
the bike world is a total zoo in this area.

Re: Texas: Clements now Armstrong - What gives?
 

Yes that brings some questions as well.

But why the vendetta?

Re: Texas: Clements now Armstrong - What gives?
 

I had not heard any had tested positive.

Re: Texas: Clements now Armstrong - What gives?
 

He said he was tired of fighting this. And he had better things to do with his life. Such as his work in fighting cancer.

Re: Texas: Clements now Armstrong - What gives?
 

Well, that might be true.
Well, because he was dirty as sin.
Now, this is a poor characterization, at best;
you cannot be competitive in biking without
pushing every envelope, and Armstrong is
famous for this, even boasts of being the reason
for some (otherwise nonsensical) bans.

I'd say that if there is a vendetta, it has
to do with his nationality, and his attitude
toward the...BIRCC, or whatever, which
has always been antagonistic and uncooperative.
Sort of another poor characterization, as these guys
are rabid.

Re: Texas: Clements now Armstrong - What gives?
 

Some tests were positive and some tests were negative. Using that agency's administrative standards and definitions, they were never able to completely "convict" or "exonnerate" him.

Like Clements and Bonds-- Armstrong is not squeaky clean. I wanted to believe he was, but when he gave up, that sealed it for me and yes, I feel let down by his actions.