[R] Adopted Cousin of Other MLS Teams' News Thread

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/1...-alexander-in-negotiations-to-purchase-dynamo

The possible important parts for us still:

 

Rather eventful final 10 minutes at RFK. A made PK which had to be retaken and was missed, 3 red cards, and a fight between 2 DCU players.

 

DCU implosion.

Somewhere, Michael Mejido is smiling.

 

Ref Jason Anno gives new meaning to "Play to the whistle" in NY vs. Portland.

 

Revolution's Zak Boggs awarded Fulbright Scholarship, retires from pro soccer

Not a great loss, talent-wise, for MLS or the Revs. But that's not really the point. I'm just happy for Boggs (what is it with Boston teams and guys named Boggs?). This seems like the obvious best choice for him. Good luck.

 

Makes even more sense when you read his injury history. I hope he does really well on the other side of the pond (and will bet he shows up in a Sunday league there somewhere)

 

Diamonds on the soles of his boots?

 

He's from my hometown. I've played against him a few times. Always seemed like a good guy.

 

Juan Toja just signed with MLS, will NE pass on him?
http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/artic...ar-toja-signs-mls-deal-be-assigned-allocation

 

They have space available if they like him, but if they don't want him I'm sure they'll trade and get something useful. That's why I love the allocation process within the league, it creates value out of nothing. Keller complained to Garber about it, but I think it's a great thing.

San Jose should have the room, too, if they like him. Could see him being the final piece of the puzzle for them. And Chivas of course. Personally I'm glad to see him back in the fold.

 

I understand allocation in regards to something like returning Nats, but why the hell is this guy subject to allocation? I would think a team would have worked to sign him, not just that he is bored so he looks to MLS like an old lover he can be FWB with or something, so then the league basically puts him up for grabs or something.

 

Good for him. Go conquer the world, kid.

 

I gave up trying to figure out MLS rules years ago. It's easier on the liver I tell you.

 

Any international player who left the league for a fee and then returns to the league is subject to the Allocation process, provided his original team has already spent their portion of the transfer money.

 

Anyone else wondering whether the current Lance Armstrong news will affect SKC's stadium if the Livestrong brand goes belly up?

 

I think it will depend on whether the UCI decides to strip the Tour titles or not. As I understand it, USADA doesn't have the jurisdiction to make the call on the titles. Just the ban.

 

The day after the news broke, LiveStrong had a 30% increase in donations over the previous day. (I'll admit that doesn't mean much.) The word from the fans of Lance the Cancer Survivor seems to be "Well, he's done so much to fight cancer, what's it really mean that he may have cheated?"


http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto...nished-armstrong-is-still-an-inspiration.html

 

Isn't the whole sport of cycling rife with doping? Wasn't Armstrong tested regularly at the time and he's now being retroactively punished?

 

Just to reemphasize this whole point (and especially the bolded part).... How many times has Lance said something like, "I've never failed a test, and I've been tested more than anyone else. EVER." vs. "I've never doped."

There's obviously a strong difference, and my understanding is that WADA didn't develop a reliable test for EPO and blood doping until the year 2000, so it's entirely plausible that Lance was doing things that there was no test for. If there's no test for them, are they illegal?

In some ways, it's the same thing as back when Mark McGwire (sp?) admitted he was using that andro creme stuff. It was a PED, but it wasn't against baseball's rules yet. Obviously, later he admitted to using a whole bunch of other stuff too, but that was the first big controversy.

 

To me this whole Lance Armstrong thing boils down to this:

The guy tested negative over 500 times, but the USADA has 10 guys who say they saw him blood doping.

So therefore, he's guilty.

But if there was even 1 POSITIVE blood test but 10 guys who would testify that they were with him every hour of every day for all those years and never once saw him do anything ilegal, what would the result be?

In the first case, the USADA is saying that blood tests don't matter because they have witnesses.

But in the second case the USADA would say "witnesses don't matter matter; blood testing trumps witness testimony"

Is this really how justice works?

And remember, the USADA is a fully-funded agency of the Federal Government.

The WADA has cleared the guy. The US Justice Dept. took a long look at the whole thing, including these "witnesses" and decided earlier this year that there was no case they dared take to a judge.

Only this one bunch of unelected bureaucrats looking to hang some horns on their wall decided to declare him guilty.

It's a horrible sham and the game is rigged against him and he has no legal recourse and he really had no alternative except to say what he said.

Look at how they screwed Alberto Contador of SPain who won the Tour in 2010: he tested positive for a non-therapeutic level of clenbuterol which, the CAS agreed, was more than likely from some meat he had eaten (just like the Mexico soccer team).

They then said that they were banning him for a year because there was no good reason not to, and added ANOTHER year because the Prime Minister of Spain told reporters he thought the entire process was a joke.

Armstrong wasn't about to submit himself to those clowns.

The UCI has yet to say whether they will accept the USADA findings and strip Armstrong of his titles, but they are empahtically making the point that the USADA cannot strip anyone of a TdF title.

Because, oddly, the TdF is not subject to review by pisspot agencies of the US Government.

 

I'm wondering too, if maybe the Armstrong camp hasn't had some behind the scenes conversation with the UCI about it, and felt confident enough that the tour titles wouldn't be stripped? That to me is really THE IMPORTANT THING in all of this. Will the titles be vacated? That's the black mark, or the Scarlet Letter "C" if you will.

There's really no doubt in my mind that Lance was doing things that were across the line, or right at the line. It's the culture of the sport (unfortunately). It's clear that the vast majority of the peloton in those years was also doing it. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

So.....how about that MLS action? Montero stays on fire and Seattle crushes Chivas on the road 6-2. Kicking myself for releasing him off my fantasy team right before he got hot.