8 Things On Lance Armstrong From The "Other Side Of The Grass"

[Big GMaC]

"Armstrong: filled with self righteous, counterfeit rage on behalf of the "noble cause" he purports to have come back for and those whom the professes to care about, but both of which he is brazenly willing to co-opt for advantage in a personal feud, with a hateful, public verbal assault on the very worth of another human being."

That pretty much sums up my personal feelings about the man.

Sorry for the double post, I just hadn't got that far through the article

 

[karlboss]

I'll have to read up on my armstrong doping stories, I was just assumed he was on the juice and not caught. I never really tried to argue the other side, could make life interesting.
He always seems to be in court arguing he didn't dope, or someone claiming he is, is that all realted to lemond and trek, or are there other cases I should read?

 

[Big GMaC]

I'll have to read up on my armstrong doping stories, I was just assumed he was on the juice and not caught. I never really tried to argue the other side, could make life interesting.
He always seems to be in court arguing he didn't dope, or someone claiming he is, is that all realted to lemond and trek, or are there other cases I should read?

this is pretty much the best summary I have read

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16226502/Lance-Armstrong-Doping-History

 

[Berzin]

Here is the problem with "proof" as we in the Western World see it.

The burden is always to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a tough one, involving eye-witness testimony that must pass the evil vendetta/jealousy/hater rule. That means the person testifying against the defendant must be free of any petty malice against said defendant and must bring forth testimony without the hint of vengeance or opportunity for personal gain.

Then, there is the testing itself, which in this case doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Either there was something wrong with the handling of the samples after the fact (hence the so-called positive results from the 1999 samples can be thrown out the window) or the so-called experts are not expert enough to definitively say one way or another whether there was blood manipulation going on. Suspicion looms, but all of it circumstantial.

This, therefore, leaves the wrongdoer with plenty of wiggle room. As it stands right now there is only suspicion fueled by personal distrust and antipathy on the part of "the haters".

We are human and are not above feelings of personal dislike. But I will tell you what is certainly NOT circumstantial. Armstrong, who had never shown any particular prowess on the pro level as either a climber in the high mountains nor as a TT'ist pre-cancer comes out of nowhere to put the record for consecutive wins in the Tour out of reach.

The mere feat itself is so ridiculous it is beyond human comprehension how anyone thinks he did it clean, given the sheer audacity of the feat itself, the cast of characters he's surrounded himself with in able to do it, and his inability to excel in the two disciplines needed to become a Tour champion (climbing and TT'ing).

We may never know the answer. The people who know seem willing to go to their graves protecting the rule of "omerta" out of blind loyalty, fear of reprisal and loss of future earnings or they themselves are such sleazeballs that integrity to them means not getting caught (Bruyneel, Carmichael, Ferarri).

 

[bianchigirl]

If mountain goat is prepared to argue each one of the 8 points with credible evidence then I'm quite prepared to listen - go ahead, mountain goat, shoot them down. But until someone can refute the compelling evidence from the likes of Ashenden and Andreu then I'm on the sporting fraud side of the fence.

PS the Vrijman report doesn't count - credibility shot down in flames and, besides, it doesn't actually say that the disputed samples weren't Armstrong's - even Armstrong doesn't dispute that they were his.

 

[Race Radio]

If mountain goat is prepared to argue each one of the 8 points with credible evidence then I'm quite prepared to listen - go ahead, mountain goat, shoot them down.

It will never happen.

 

[Max Power]

There maybe two sides to a story - but there is only ever one truth.

True, but people can have a different interpretation of the same set of facts. Some people choose to put the most negative and damning interpretation on these facts, others choose to highlight a more positive outlook. There is no one narrative.

Personally I don't like the incredibly negative and mean spirited approach that some choose to take on this forum.

 

[Race Radio]

True, but people can have a different interpretation of the same set of facts. Some people choose to put the most negative and damning interpretation on these facts, others choose to highlight a more positive outlook. There is no one narrative.

Personally I don't like the incredibly negative and mean spirited approach that some choose to take on this forum.

So true, the posters that toss around the word hater with every post, tell Betsy she should have committed perjury, present zero facts to back up their wild French conspiracy ideas add no value to the board, only negativity.

I think we can all agree that some have the facts on their side and the others are reduced to screaming "hater" "Hatchet job" and "Tabloid" in frustration.

 

[Publicus]

Here is the problem with "proof" as we in the Western World see it.

The burden is always to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a tough one, involving eye-witness testimony that must pass the evil vendetta/jealousy/hater rule. That means the person testifying against the defendant must be free of any petty malice against said defendant and must bring forth testimony without the hint of vengeance or opportunity for personal gain.

Then, there is the testing itself, which in this case doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Either there was something wrong with the handling of the samples after the fact (hence the so-called positive results from the 1999 samples can be thrown out the window) or the so-called experts are not expert enough to definitively say one way or another whether there was blood manipulation going on. Suspicion looms, but all of it circumstantial.

This, therefore, leaves the wrongdoer with plenty of wiggle room. As it stands right now there is only suspicion fueled by personal distrust and antipathy on the part of "the haters".

We are human and are not above feelings of personal dislike. But I will tell you what is certainly NOT circumstantial. Armstrong, who had never shown any particular prowess on the pro level as either a climber in the high mountains nor as a TT'ist pre-cancer comes out of nowhere to put the record for consecutive wins in the Tour out of reach.

The mere feat itself is so ridiculous it is beyond human comprehension how anyone thinks he did it clean, given the sheer audacity of the feat itself, the cast of characters he's surrounded himself with in able to do it, and his inability to excel in the two disciplines needed to become a Tour champion (climbing and TT'ing).

We may never know the answer. The people who know seem willing to go to their graves protecting the rule of "omerta" out of blind loyalty, fear of reprisal and loss of future earnings or they themselves are such sleazeballs that integrity to them means not getting caught (Bruyneel, Carmichael, Ferarri).

Only in a criminal trial. Civil matters are preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). As for the 1999 samples, why do you say there HAS to be something wrong with the handling? It sounds like you've prejudged the situation.

 

[Anonymous]

Ok - this was your first post in that other thread and it was the 3rd post in that thread...........

Dang man, you only had to use one bullet...Bravo!

 

[Escarabajo]

...

Personally I don't like the incredibly negative and mean spirited approach that some choose to take on this forum.

I want a cleaner sport and the Omerta shot down. Is that being negative?

Note I said cleaner not clean.

 

[bianchigirl]

But why does it never happen, RR? After all, you and I are 'haters' because we question the myth, and on good evidence. All we have from the acolyte side is 'loss of upper body weight' 'high cadence style' 'trains better and harder' all of which have been systematically dismantled over the years e.g. the fabled weight loss was less than a kilo, the high cadence style was used by many riders (Gaul & Van Impe spring readily to mind) and what pro doesn't train? But why is someone unable to present credible, compelling evidence to refute the word of Ashenden, Andreu et al?

 

[Digger]

But why does it never happen, RR? After all, you and I are 'haters' because we question the myth, and on good evidence. All we have from the acolyte side is 'loss of upper body weight' 'high cadence style' 'trains better and harder' all of which have been systematically dismantled over the years e.g. the fabled weight loss was less than a kilo, the high cadence style was used by many riders (Gaul & Van Impe spring readily to mind) and what pro doesn't train? But why is someone unable to present credible, compelling evidence to refute the word of Ashenden, Andreu et al?

Not so much as one even remotely plausible excuse as to how EPO appeared in those samples.
But as has been pointed out, the Lance fans have gone through different levels of denial...
He would never put that stuff into his body after chemo
to he used EPO as part of his cancer treatment,
to the French spiked the samples through jealousy
to if he doped, why hasn't he been banned by the UCI
to, he doped, but so did everyone else, he is still a hero
to, he is a selfish pr***, but everyone is at that level of sport,
to, I'm not a fan, but...........

 

[Anonymous]

But why does it never happen, RR? After all, you and I are 'haters' because we question the myth, and on good evidence. All we have from the acolyte side is 'loss of upper body weight' 'high cadence style' 'trains better and harder' all of which have been systematically dismantled over the years e.g. the fabled weight loss was less than a kilo, the high cadence style was used by many riders (Gaul & Van Impe spring readily to mind) and what pro doesn't train? But why is someone unable to present credible, compelling evidence to refute the word of Ashenden, Andreu et al?

Sorry, you forgot "heart the size of a medium sized Minke whale" You are losing your edge BG.

 

[Lifeshape]

Not so much as one even remotely plausible excuse as to how EPO appeared in those samples.
But as has been pointed out, the Lance fans have gone through different levels of denial...
He would never put that stuff into his body after chemo
to he used EPO as part of his cancer treatment,
to the French spiked the samples through jealousy
to if he doped, why hasn't he been banned by the UCI
to, he doped, but so did everyone else, he is still a hero
to, he is a selfish pr***, but everyone is at that level of sport,
to, I'm not a fan, but...........

Okay, so if LA didn't put EPO in his controls, and the controllers didn't put EPO in the controls, who did? This thread is riddled with judicial jargon so someone should be able to provide incontrovertible evidence, right?

 

[Anonymous]

Okay, so if LA didn't put EPO in his controls, and the controllers didn't put EPO in the controls, who did? This thread is riddled with judicial jargon so someone should be able to provide incontrovertible evidence, right?

Lance did put it in there. He shot it up like the good needle freak he is, and out pops (or should I say "streams?") a positive sample. Oh wait, you believe the Nazi frogmen did it...

 

[euphrades]

Okay, so if LA didn't put EPO in his controls, and the controllers didn't put EPO in the controls, who did? This thread is riddled with judicial jargon so someone should be able to provide incontrovertible evidence, right?

It was "F"ing Magic..........


Honestly, I was one that didn't believe he doped or at least wanted to believe....but there is way too much evidence.

 

[Lifeshape]

Lance did put it in there. He shot it up like the good needle freak he is, and out pops (or should I say "streams?") a positive sample. Oh wait, you believe the Nazi frogmen did it...

Nah! Destro from G.I JOE did it when the Cobra Commander told him to.
In all seriousness, I am not saying LA's 6 controls did or did not not contain EPO, that burden rests on other posters, those obviously more qualified (a witness wouldn't hurt either). What I will say, however, is to prosecute, sentence and condemn someone, laws must be applied and executed with incontrovertible facts--not just conjecture. Otherwise, the wrong guy (or gal) gets convicted> case is closed> real offender walks away unscathed.

 

[Digger]

Okay, so if LA didn't put EPO in his controls, and the controllers didn't put EPO in the controls, who did? This thread is riddled with judicial jargon so someone should be able to provide incontrovertible evidence, right?

Course he didn't!!!

 

[Mellow Velo]

Okay, so if LA didn't put EPO in his controls, and the controllers didn't put EPO in the controls, who did?

That's about as close as any Lance fan could hope to get, in producing an counter argument to this damning evidence.
Says it all, for the rational poster.

 

[Race Radio]

Nah! Destro from G.I JOE did it when the Cobra Commander told him to.
In all seriousness, I am not saying LA's 6 controls did or did not not contain EPO, that burden rests on other posters, those obviously more qualified (a witness wouldn't hurt either). What I will say, however, is to prosecute, sentence and condemn someone, laws must be applied and executed with incontrovertible facts--not just conjecture. Otherwise, the wrong guy (or gal) gets convicted> case is closed> real offender walks away unscathed.

Before you go down this road please read this interview. Make sure you also read the follow up questions and answers

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Ashenden knows more then anyone on this board. All of your questions should be answered. If not then please share with us what is missing.

 

[Escarabajo]

Okay, so if LA didn't put EPO in his controls, and the controllers didn't put EPO in the controls, who did? This thread is riddled with judicial jargon so someone should be able to provide incontrovertible evidence, right?

Of course Lance didn't do it, Pedrito did it in the Hotel rooms ...

 

[Anonymous]

Nah! Destro from G.I JOE did it when the Cobra Commander told him to.
In all seriousness, I am not saying LA's 6 controls did or did not not contain EPO, that burden rests on other posters, those obviously more qualified (a witness wouldn't hurt either). What I will say, however, is to prosecute, sentence and condemn someone, laws must be applied and executed with incontrovertible facts--not just conjecture. Otherwise, the wrong guy (or gal) gets convicted> case is closed> real offender walks away unscathed.

I am not a court of law. Also note that if the test had been in place in 1999, the burden of proving anything would have fallen on Mr Armstrong.

 

[BroDeal]

Of course Lance didn't do it, Pedrito did it in the Hotel rooms ...

I think Xenu did it in the library with the needle. Or maybe it was Xenu dressed as Colonel Mustard masquerading as Armstrong, i.e. the dude disguised as a dude playing another dude.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Before you go down this road please read this interview. Make sure you also read the follow up questions and answers

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Ashenden knows more then anyone on this board. All of your questions should be answered. If not then please share with us what is missing.

Read it before. it's a great interview. If lance is going to say that the french are against him and put epo in the sample why not get the controlers from all the tour countries (as many as possible) so their is no bias and eliminates any claim of the sort that LA made. he can't make any excuses then.