What constitutes proof that a cyclist/team are doping? - Page 16 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 11-16-12, 00:52
Dr. Maserati Dr. Maserati is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post
Walsh has repeated it several times!! In Video interviews too.

Why dispute it?
Not disputing what Walsh said, but disputing your spin on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post
"lance did" was a direct response to the question as to whether Hincapie would ride again after retirement. Cycling is in the blood. I would be very surprised if Hincapie does not enter some more minor events, just as Lance cannot live without competition.

As for Tygart "understanding" - his ideas of sentence are all over the map.
Which is one of the reasons he is unfit to judge. He just banned a triathlete for 4 years for EPO - where is similar "compassion" there? - Yet Hincapie 6 months for the decade of doping.

He wants to "blame" lance and Bruyneel for the whole affair and pretend the others were "victims" somehow pressured into it, but to do so is rewriting history: it does not stack up (hincapie was doping before armstrong returned from cancer, and continued after he left as did others, this was a career choice). This was never about "clean cycling" for Tygart, it was about "get Armstrong" - that was evident enough for Judge Sparks to remark in his judgement on the questionable motives of the agencies pursuing Armstrong.

Hincapie did not "snitch": granting of immunity preventing his silence, and a gun at his head (presumably the same as leipheimer) forced him into confession to the grand jury, and it was then reasonable for him to suppose that the testimony would come out in public in time, either by leak or court cases, so it was a no brainer for him to confess to Tygart because it was only a matter of time. He was a rat that deserted a sinking ship, so little credit should be given for that.

The time he should have come clean is when the worst of the excesses were being inflicted on emma and betsy, all in the media so he clearly knew, and he knew they were telling the truth! So he should then either have confessed or at least should have left to distance himself from what then took place. That he stayed showed he was neither unknowing or unwilling to form a part of the web of deceit from then on. And he only owned up when there was little other choice.

That does not deserve a massive reduction of sentence in my book!
One last time - George got a reduction because he implicated people.
It is a standard that is used in laws throughout the World.

Your Lance could have got a reduction too if he had co-operated. He didn't.
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 11-16-12, 01:00
mountainrman mountainrman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peterst6906 View Post
I'm not disputing it.

However, your original statement that he has written it in several articles and that is poor journalism is still at issue, particularly as you linked to a different authro's article.

Irrespective, your view that it is poor journalism is your view. No-one else has yet supported that position and simply repeating it many times over isn't going to change anyone's view of that.

However, one thing I am interested in is, why is it poor journalism? As far as I can see, there is nothing particularly wrong with one journalist sticking to his convictions and calling Lance out for cheating when the rest of the media were too scared for whatever reason.

Walsh seems to me, to have shown the best aspects of journalism rather than a poor approach.
I did not suggest that Walsh should change his view.
He should have changed the approach to that interview.

Since Lance would never have stated to Walsh that he doped, Walsh had to use the interview to get what useful background he could, he could have asked about the new faster times of climbing the in history, about Pantani, about watts per Kg, about why Lance thought the tour had "speeded up" if not dope, about Lances attitude to other dopers.

Interviews are a two way thing that needs to do something for lance as well, and he should have respected that. He could have asked about other interesting topics to do with that tour, tour preparation and so on, and written good articles on those without being a fan with typewriter. Which would have kept the door open.

Like Kimmage stating that Lance was "cancer" - which was a crass thing to say - and probably did more to get sympathetic response for Lance than it ever did to get fans to question, Walsh should have not have deliberately alienated his quarry.

Just like "Doorstepping on camera" may make good television. It never makes for good investigative journalism. Neither does telling Lance "you are a doper, and thats all I will ask you"

Sure - Walsh did manage to open a number of doors, and well done to the man. But alienating Lance by that attitude to a one on one interview was not helpful, and that almost certainly never achieved anything for the investigation.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 11-16-12, 01:07
Dr. Maserati Dr. Maserati is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post
I did not suggest that Walsh should change his view.
He should have changed the approach to that interview.

Since Lance would never have stated to Walsh that he doped, Walsh had to use the interview to get what useful background he could, he could have asked about the new faster times of climbing the in history, about Pantani, about watts per Kg, about why Lance thought the tour had "speeded up" if not dope, about Lances attitude to other dopers.

Interviews are a two way thing that needs to do something for lance as well, and he should have respected that. He could have asked about other interesting topics to do with that tour, tour preparation and so on, and written good articles on those without being a fan with typewriter. Which would have kept the door open.

Like Kimmage stating that Lance was "cancer" - which was a crass thing to say - and probably did more to get sympathetic response for Lance than it ever did to get fans to question, Walsh should have not have deliberately alienated his quarry.

Just like "Doorstepping on camera" may make good television. It never makes for good investigative journalism. Neither does telling Lance "you are a doper, and thats all I will ask you"

Sure - Walsh did manage to open a number of doors, and well done to the man. But alienating Lance by that attitude to a one on one interview was not helpful, and that almost certainly never achieved anything for the investigation.
So, Walsh should have played nice........... am, why?
Maybe ask Lance what his favorite color is and then slip in a did you take much EPO this morning?
If you checked the detail of the piece you quoted - it says that Walsh let them know that inviting him for a one-on-one was not going to stop him asking the questions that needed asking.

Kimmage was correct to call Lance a cancer. He was, and now he has been removed.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 11-16-12, 01:13
peterst6906 peterst6906 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 671
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post
I did not suggest that Walsh should change his view.
He should have changed the approach to that interview.
To get the background on Lance's doping as you suggested, he would have had to raise questions about Lance's practices, movements, programs, etc.

Do you really think the outcome would have been any different? Lance would have known exactly what he was up to and the outcome would have been exactly the same.

Walsh showed a lot more ethics in declaring up front exaclty what he was interested in. If Lance wasn't doping, there should have been no reason to become upset and he could have put all of Walsh's concerns to rest at the time.
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 11-16-12, 22:09
mountainrman mountainrman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebandit View Post
no! it is yourself picking nits

you quote 'big george and levi have escaped scot free'

i reply the obvious 'they are banned / lost results'

and you started picking detail..............but it's just 6 months?

get real............big george is retired + cyclists that play ball deserve lighter

sentences

lance has been proven by evidence that indeed he was 'the cancer in

cycling' i would have been proud to come up with that quote and would

glady repeat it to lance personally
It is a shame that the clinic either does not understand or does not support equitable justice, without which cycling will go from bad to worse - if that is possible.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 11-16-12, 22:15
Dr. Maserati Dr. Maserati is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post
It is a shame that the clinic either does not understand or does not support equitable justice, without which cycling will go from bad to worse - if that is possible.
You are the only one struggling here.
In every proper justice system there are higher penalties for those that break the rules more (or more rules) - which is what LA did.
And there is also a system of relief for those that co-operate.

Cycling is in a mess because the UCI did not apply the rules that were available to them.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 11-16-12, 22:21
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 5,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post
It is a shame that the clinic either does not understand or does not support equitable justice, without which cycling will go from bad to worse - if that is possible.
We understand a fanboy when we see one though
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 11-16-12, 22:24
D-Queued D-Queued is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,404
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post
It is a shame that the clinic either does not understand or does not support equitable justice, without which cycling will go from bad to worse - if that is possible.
Nobody speaks for 'the clinic'. We all speak for ourselves.

On this subject, however, there is plenty of precedence elsewhere.

Personally, I think that doping in professional sport is fundamentally criminal fraud. I am probably not alone. So if you want to talk about equitable justice, then there should be treble damages applied to every fraudulent win.

The rider, the team, and fellow teammates should all be jointly and severally liable.

If you are looking for equitable justice, then let's consider other justice systems.

Witness testimony is valuable and witnesses should be respected, witness protection should be honored, and protection from self-incrimination should be considered.

Do you oppose or support initiatives like witness protection, protection from self-incrimination and whistleblower protection like the Federal Whistleblower Act?

We don't have to debate these things. Just looking for your general sentiment.

Dave.
__________________

Lance says he will cooperate with Landis Investigation


"I've done too many good things for too many people"
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 11-17-12, 16:23
Ryo Hazuki's Avatar
Ryo Hazuki Ryo Hazuki is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 14,692
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebandit View Post
the shame is that your posts are so economical with the truth

any good points raised in your posts are likely to be dismissed through

incredibility

again the forum is the platform for you to express your thoughts but please

stick to the facts
if people would do that here, there would be no more clinic left
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 02-28-13, 11:19
thehog thehog is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,437
Default

Re: the Sky thread;

That there is a difference between real world legal proof, and argumentative proof?

Why is it that some believe speculation, suspicion shouldn't be discussed? Is that censorship?

Suspicion plays a very important role in determining ultimate guilt. It's the gestation and should not be suppressed.

Why are so many here refusing to talking about Sky and Lienders? Like we need a positive test before discussion can even begin.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:05.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.