Another story making the case = Armstrong is clean.

[antoine]

court vs. truth

Just because something does not hold up in court does not make it untrue. For example, illegally obtained evidence cannot be used against a suspect, even if the evidence is real. If I remember correctly, Armstrong let the testers know which samples were his based on the knowledge or agreement that it would be used for informational purposes only (ie would not be used for sanctions).

 

[byu123]

Just because something does not hold up in court does not make it untrue. For example, illegally obtained evidence cannot be used against a suspect, even if the evidence is real. If I remember correctly, Armstrong let the testers know which samples were his based on the knowledge or agreement that it would be used for informational purposes only (ie would not be used for sanctions).

Yea . . . how stupid would you have to be to 1) know you doped in 1999, 2) had gotten away with it until 2005, 3) someone comes and asks to re-examine the samples years later according to updated protocols, and 4) knowing you doped and have tried to keep it quiet and have succeeded for the last 6 years . . . you consent, 5) " . . . . sure go ahead and test those samples which were taken from me when I know I had just used EPO, which was missed then but would be caught be testing protocols today . . . go ahead test those samples . . . for whatever reason . . . ." ?????????

DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE TO YOU???? Call Armstrong all the names in teh book but he is not a blithering idiot. Only a blithering idiot would have given consent knowing he had doped. Thus . . . the samples legitimately having EPO in them is completely illogical to boot.

What makes much more sense is that the substance in the vials tested by Ashenden in 2005 was not the unaltered identical substance that was in the vials immediately after Armstrong gave the samples in 1999 (altered, switched, degraded, who knows . . . which is why you test according to standards). That is what makes common sense. In addition to the utter lack of standards, common sense also dictates that the Ashenden findings were bogus. Think about it.

 

[titan_90]

Most of the Lance haters here love to dance and yell around the story that some bias French journalist using sleight of hand, obtained some six year old samples (which may or may not have been Armstrongs), declared them to be Armstrongs, and through no clearly established chain of custody had them examined by a bias hired legal gun, according to no accepted standards for testing, which reached the unsupported conclusion that A) these samples have EPO, B) they are Armstrongs from 6 years ago, and C) they show that Armstrong doped in 1999 (See Ashenden). This is nothing more than a flimsy unsupported string of suspect facts cobbled together in a desperate attempt to malign Armstrong. Its laughable that they cling so desperately to this bogus and contrived chain of events to arrive at the convenient conclusion . . . ahhhh! . . . . Armstrong doped in 1999! Sure a few of the naive who are not paying attention may be decieved by such BS but anyone with a brain and an ability to think and understand how such delicate biological testing should be done to be creidible sees it for what it is . . . a bogus witch hunt.

See link below for an example of how it should be done . . . i.e. testing years old samples of a rider, resulting in a finding of a violation, and further resulting in expulsion from the Tour. http://www.velonews.com/article/94103/dekker-positive-for-epo

Some relevant exceprts

"Under the World Anti-Doping Code, drug testers have the option of storing and re-examining old samples, as long as there is a sufficient quantity to allow a follow-up - or B sample - test."

"The WADA code provides for an eight-year statute of limitations on earlier doping violations."

"Cycling's international governing body, the UCI, said in a statement issued Wednesday that it had "instructed (Monaco's) Cycling Federation, to which Mr Dekker is affiliated, to open disciplinary proceedings on this matter."

"According to a panel of scientific experts . . ."

Notice the stark difference from this legitimate finding from the farce they attempt to pull on Armstrong . . . .

1) The test was performed "Under the World Anti-Doping Code" . . . the bogus Ashenden test was performed according to no code whatsoever.

2) They assured that there was a "B sample" to confirm the "adverse finding" and thus making it a "violation" if the "B sample" also tested positive . . . no such "B sample" validation was done by Ashenden. Moreover, the chain of custody of the supposed single sample is fatally flawed.

3) There is an eight year statue of limintations for testing. The 1999 supposed samples of Armstrong were tested in 2005, within the 8 year limitation period. YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF . . . WHY DID THEY NOT PROCEED IN THE SAME FASHION AS THIS RECENT CASE???? The answer: because the contrived sleight of hand by French journalists conspiring with a bias hired legal gun to produce a finding based on no standard . . . charade . . . wouldn't have worked if it were actually performed according to an accepted "code" or "standard." The farce that it was would have been exposed.

4) There was no "scientific panel of experts" to test the Armstrong samples . . . there was a gaggle of French journalists and a bias hired legal gun using sleight of hand and deception. Big difference . . . .

This story is an example of professional work conducted according to scientific standards resulting in a positive finding ending in sanction based on years old samples. The whole French journalist conspiring with a bias Ashenden charade was a bogus and ultimately failed attempt to wrongly malign Armstrong because they are bitter that he is just . . . so damn good.

Dude, can you please stop posting this BS.

I am tired of seeing Armstrong this and Armstrong that in the F**king thread titles

 

[workingclasshero]

Yea . . . how stupid would you have to be to 1) know you doped in 1999, 2) had gotten away with it until 2005, 3) someone comes and asks to re-examine the samples years later according to updated protocols, and 4) knowing you doped and have tried to keep it quiet and have succeeded for the last 6 years . . . you consent, 5) " . . . . sure go ahead and test those samples which were taken from me when I know I had just used EPO, which was missed then but would be caught be testing protocols today . . . go ahead test those samples . . . for whatever reason . . . ." ?????????

DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE TO YOU???? Call Armstrong all the names in teh book but he is not a blithering idiot. Only a blithering idiot would have given consent knowing he had doped. Thus . . . the samples legitimately having EPO in them is completely illogical to boot.

What makes much more sense is that the substance in the vials tested by Ashenden in 2005 was not the unaltered identical substance that was in the vials immediately after Armstrong gave the samples in 1999 (altered, switched, degraded, who knows . . . which is why you test according to standards). That is what makes common sense. In addition to the utter lack of standards, common sense also dictates that the Ashenden findings were bogus. Think about it.

what a fooking thick child you are.

it is all explained very well in from lance to landis. please read this book.

then try to defend the sport of cycling's cancer stain #1. or alternatively pull your co.ck out of lance's ar.se

 

[Anonymous]

This story is an example of professional work conducted according to scientific standards resulting in a positive finding ending in sanction based on years old samples. The whole French journalist conspiring with a bias Ashenden charade was a bogus and ultimately failed attempt to wrongly malign Armstrong because they are bitter that he is just . . . so damn good.

I have to agree that most of your post is about protocols that are in place now that were not in place then.

If they had been in place there'd be no problem in accepting the finding.

However, it is clear they did not have procedures in place to make the samples secure beyond 3 years.

Still, it's ancient history. The important question ? is he clean now?

If people can't accept that he at least might be, with all the scrutiny and so much to lose, then they can't believe any possible result in the entire race and they should take up watching pro wrestling.

 

[byu123]

what a fooking thick child you are.

it is all explained very well in from lance to landis. please read this book.

then try to defend the sport of cycling's cancer stain #1. or alternatively pull your co.ck out of lance's ar.se

Oh . . . you mean this sloppily cobbled together piece of propaganda

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3DHCCKTUM7XKI/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

Good Read, but Falls Short of It's Hyped Intentions, June 2, 2008
By Tduff "TD"

There are numerous camps within the cycling community these days:

A. Those who love Lance and believe everything he did not enhanced by substances

B. those who are are skeptical that his accomplishments were achieved honestly, but have yet to fully accept either argument at face value

C. those who passionately hate Armstrong and believe anything that his name is connected to must be tainted.

I fall somewhere in the middle of group B, while Walsh has become a hero for those who belong in group C. With this being his first book about Armstrong that is available in the U.S., Walsh had the opportunity to fully present the case that Lance Armstrong doped. In that case, he failed. For many that have never read any other books on the subject of performance enhancing drugs in the sport of cycling, this book might make a convincing argument, but to those who have read numerous accounts about the subject, this is not convincing.

One problem lies with the fact that Walsh obtains his information, not from straightforward sources, for the most part, but from suspiciously obtained text messages, 2nd hand sources, and taped telephone conversations. All of this, and the best that Walsh can give the reader is a couple of disgruntled employees, one ex-champion who has famously feuded with Armstrong for years, and one really angry wife of a former teammate.

Perhaps the largest problem lies with Walsh himself. Over the years, Walsh worked closely with former riders such as Sean Kelly and Stephen Roche. By the time Walsh's positive biography about the former was written, Kelly was no stranger to rumors of performance enhancing drugs, and had failed drug tests.

The connection Walsh has with Roche is even stranger. When Stephen Roche was publicly accused of using drugs years after he retired, Walsh quickly wrote a condemning piece in a British paper. This problem goes to the center of Walsh's predicament. It had been long rumored that Roche had used drugs during his career, and Walsh never took the time to investigate it. 15 years later, Roche is accused and Walsh condemns him before any actual evidence about the case came out.

This example shows why Walsh is not pure either. First of all, Roche's name had been brought up for years in connection to his days with the Carrera cycling team. From the time of his retirement in 1993 until 2005, Walsh never accused Roche of anything. It is not like Roche wasn't worth the time or effort, as he was one of only three riders in history to win the cycling triple crown of the Giro, Tour, and World Championship in the same year. Was he not worth Walsh's effort? Secondly, Walsh was so quick to finally condemn Roche that he forgot to look at the facts of the actual accusations made in 2005, which haven't held up. So, Walsh ignores it while it is not out in the open, and then when someone makes an accusation, Walsh is quick to condemn without researching the actual accusations being made.

Walsh should have taken a couple of lessons on investigative reporting from Matt Rendell, whose biography of Marco Pantani leaves no room for intepretation. Where Rendell risked quite a bit to make sure that his case was indestructable, Walsh seems to feel the need to sensationalize.

 

[DJ Sprtsch]

Maybe because Roche was a nice guy who trained harder and smarter and was able to focus on more than one race. While Lance is Lance.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Walsh should have taken a couple of lessons on investigative reporting from Matt Rendell, whose biography of Marco Pantani leaves no room for intepretation. Where Rendell risked quite a bit to make sure that his case was indestructable, Walsh seems to feel the need to sensationalize.

...As I have suggested before I think you should read Matt Rendells book.

 

[Publicus]

Yea . . . how stupid would you have to be to 1) know you doped in 1999, 2) had gotten away with it until 2005, 3) someone comes and asks to re-examine the samples years later according to updated protocols, and 4) knowing you doped and have tried to keep it quiet and have succeeded for the last 6 years . . . you consent, 5) " . . . . sure go ahead and test those samples which were taken from me when I know I had just used EPO, which was missed then but would be caught be testing protocols today . . . go ahead test those samples . . . for whatever reason . . . ." ?????????

DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE TO YOU???? Call Armstrong all the names in teh book but he is not a blithering idiot. Only a blithering idiot would have given consent knowing he had doped. Thus . . . the samples legitimately having EPO in them is completely illogical to boot.

What makes much more sense is that the substance in the vials tested by Ashenden in 2005 was not the unaltered identical substance that was in the vials immediately after Armstrong gave the samples in 1999 (altered, switched, degraded, who knows . . . which is why you test according to standards). That is what makes common sense. In addition to the utter lack of standards, common sense also dictates that the Ashenden findings were bogus. Think about it.

I hate to wade back into this nonsense, but just wanted to correct one thing: my understanding is that Armstrong was not contacted about retesting his 1999 samples. He was only contacted about releasing the test results from that year--which were all negative. The L'Equipe reporter then used them to determine which, if any, of the 13 positive tests were Armstrong.

Ok, you can go back to your regularly scheduled program.

 

[antoine]

Byu

Regarding lance's stupidity, cause he knew (probably was told by one of his lawyers) that it couldn't hold up in court, based on the conditions for him agreeing to the test, and that if he said no, he was more or less implicating himself. Have you heard lance's statements on the samples? They're all along the lines of "a judge declared the finding invalid", not "the science was wrong". Sounds like lawyer-speak to me. "Thus . . . the samples legitimately having EPO in them is completely illogical to boot." I guess there can be a logical explanation if you actually look for one. Which, in a way, is the problem with the whole "lance never doped" argument. You can't logically prove it, period. All you can do is attack the arguments that he did (and there are quite a few), and I still haven't seen anyone do that using actual logic. Maybe you should take a few days, read the Ashenden interview on NYVelocity, and come up with a point by point rebuttal to his arguments.

"What makes much more sense is that the substance in the vials tested by Ashenden in 2005 was not the unaltered identical substance that was in the vials immediately after Armstrong gave the samples in 1999"

How does that make more sense? Do we know what the substance in the vials in 1999 was? I doubt it, since they didn't have an EPO test back then. Also, how does something degrade into EPO? Can you find any science to back that up? And Ashenden addresses the accusations that the EPO was put in the sample after it was taken from lance.

 

[franciep10]

BYU I don't think I've responded to one of your posts yet, now i know why you have annoyed me so much your nonstop discussion of your hero LA, and I don't even hate the guy I just don't like him, instead of coming on this forum and trying to learn about cycling you have alienated yourself from most people on this forum with your obvious obsession with LA. And if you think that LA was and is clean and everybody else that was ever on a podium with has been connected to doping and he beat them all clean, Then frankly you're a moron.
I plead with you try to discuss something else, instead of attempting to say that LA is clean. I admire the guys racing style, his perseverance and I acknowledge that he is the greatest tour rider of all time, but he did it using enhancers. Get over it.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Well, I for one am not responding.

Just to say to those who can't resist, the days are going to get shorter and the nights longer, as more and more "irrational" individuals appear from the coffins, last seen above ground, in July 2005.

Life is too short to become this inane.

When the Tour finally gets underway, stick to the stage and relevant threads.
If they get ambushed with more collected cyberspace masturbation over the sainted one, take a vacation from this place.

Find a refuge from the lunatic assylum. They still exist.

Oh......and don't forget. We all have that lovely, ignore poster list.

 

[byu123]

"lance never doped" argument. You can't logically prove it, period.

Your right you can't prove a negative.

The "[you] never [beat your wife] argument. You can't logically prove it, period."

Most bogus consipracy theories are based on the same flawed reasoning . . . .

You can't prove the moon landing wasn't faked . . . .

You can't prove that the man on the grassy knoll didn't kill Kennedy . . . .

You can't prove that the Israelis weren't remote piloting the planes on 9-11 . . .

blah blah blah . . .

Means nothing . . . common logical fallacy.

 

[Anonymous]

There are numerous camps within the cycling community these days:

A. Those who love Lance and believe everything he did not enhanced by substances

B. those who are are skeptical that his accomplishments were achieved honestly, but have yet to fully accept either argument at face value

C. those who passionately hate Armstrong and believe anything that his name is connected to must be tainted.

I fall somewhere in the middle of group B,

<sniff><sniff>....my boy is growin' up........<sniff>

 

[workingclasshero]

Oh . . . you mean this sloppily cobbled together piece of propaganda

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3DHCCKTUM7XKI/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

oh dear

you keep on keeping on kid

jesus christ. what an example of the american attitude you make your country proud

 

[Anonymous]

what a fooking thick child you are.

it is all explained very well in from lance to landis. please read this book.

then try to defend the sport of cycling's cancer stain #1. or alternatively pull your co.ck out of lance's ar.se

Ahh... looks like we have a new contender for the coveted "Most Personally Offensive" poster title.

Who in the anti lance crowd wants to claim this guy as their own?

You have copies of that book you trying to get rid of or something? You make repeated reverences to it like it's religious text.

It's nice the guy got around to publishing one of his lance bashing books in English. He's one of a few professional Lance haters. Obvious bias and poorly sourced, no smoking gun, popular in France I'm sure.

It's like writing books on UFOs. You can always find someone willing to swear up and down they were probed.

Focus.. focus people, on what is happening now and what can be done about it.

 

[Anonymous]

oh dear

you keep on keeping on kid

jesus christ. what an example of the american attitude you make your country proud

Ah yes, xenophobia rears its head in the reverse direction. I guess irony is banned in your country?

 

[byu123]

I plead with you try to discuss something else, instead of attempting to say that LA is clean.

Examine the quantity of posts here amounting to assumptions without questioning group think that Armstrong is a doper. Of the aggregate of the posts here on the issue of Armstrong and doping, I am certain 90% plus are of the tone " . . . oh sure Armstrong doped . . . only an total idiot can't see this . . . ."

I am simply responding to this false assumption. The volume of my posts in support of Armstrong pale in comparison to those that condemn him without support.

The "Nike commercial makes me sick . . . Armstrong is a doping pig" thread with "cancer victims are pathetic" posts therein produced this thread for example.

I'll make you and everyone else a deal. I won't start any threads on the topic and wont even author posts within a thread on the topic if I see the 90% "drop it" as well. I don't think they can. They are 10x more committed to the premise he doped than I am to the premise that it hasn't been proven.

Which brings me to a final note . . . I DID MISPEAK when I said Armstrong is "clean." I don't know if he is "clean" or not. I stand corrected on that point. I just don't find any credible evidence to refute the presumption that he didn't dope established by the hundreds of negative tests. I should have said, as I have said before, . . . . "there is no evidence he doped."

What there is are the hundreds of negative tests.

 

[Anonymous]

oh god not another thread..

all that information proves is that the whole thing was handled badly..
it neither proves lance was clean, nor doped..

we will probably never know the truth

 

[workingclasshero]

Ah yes, xenophobia rears its head in the reverse direction. I guess irony is banned in your country?

i can't see any wrong in questioning the yank attitude to the truth. the rest of the world has followed the war on terror you see


edit: however, i do allow people to wind me up when they so blatantly are knownothing fuc.kwits commenting on people and things they clearly lack knowledge of.

so i think i'll put that ignore button to use

edit 2: this cracked me up. entering byu's profile to see if i could find the ignore button, there is a box that says "byu123 has not made any friends yet"

 

[antoine]

"Your right you can't prove a negative.

The "[you] never [beat your wife] argument. You can't logically prove it, period.""


I can prove I've never beaten my wife: never been married.

 

[franciep10]

Examine the quantity of posts here amounting to assumptions without questioning group think that Armstrong is a doper. Of the aggregate of the posts here on the issue of Armstrong and doping, I am certain 90% plus are of the tone " . . . oh sure Armstrong doped . . . only an total idiot can't see this . . . ."

I am simply responding to this false assumption. The volume of my posts in support of Armstrong pale in comparison to those that condemn him without support.

The "Nike commercial makes me sick . . . Armstrong is a doping pig" thread with "cancer victims are pathetic" posts therein produced this thread for example.

I'll make you and everyone else a deal. I won't start any threads on the topic and wont even author posts within a thread on the topic if I see the 90% "drop it" as well. I don't think they can. They are 10x more committed to the premise he doped than I am to the premise that it hasn't been proven.

Which brings me to a final note . . . I DID MISPEAK when I said Armstrong is "clean." I don't know if he is "clean" or not. I stand corrected on that point. I just don't find any credible evidence to refute the presumption that he didn't dope established by the hundreds of negative tests. I should have said, as I have said before, . . . . "there is no evidence he doped."

What there is are the hundreds of negative tests.

Fine if you stop I will personally stop unless LA actually does something, i.e. win a stage in the tour. As for the others I can't speak for them, and sometimes i agree the haters do go overboard sometimes, but constantly creating thread after thread doesn't help things

 

[Anonymous]

i can't see any wrong in questioning the yank attitude to the truth. the rest of the world has followed the war on terror you see


edit: however, i do allow people to wind me up when they so blatantly are knownothing fuc.kwits commenting on people and things they clearly lack knowledge of.

so i think i'll put that ignore button to use

edit 2: this cracked me up. entering byu's profile to see if i could find the ignore button, there is a box that says "byu123 has not made any friends yet"

We are not all the same. Some of us realize that their is much to be learned from people everywhere, and have visited many of those places to do just that. I guess I am touchy because in reality, I have a lot of friends and I wouldn't put any in the ugly American category.

No more flames from me, I can see that you overstated a bit.....and if you have ever read any of my posts, you will know that I might have edged towards that a time or two.

 

[Publicus]

Which brings me to a final note . . . I DID MISPEAK when I said Armstrong is "clean." I don't know if he is "clean" or not. I stand corrected on that point. I just don't find any credible evidence to refute the presumption that he didn't dope established by the hundreds of negative tests. I should have said, as I have said before, . . . . "there is no evidence he doped."

What there is are the hundreds of negative tests.

Actually there is circumstantial evidence that he did dope: the 1999 sample re-test. The evidence was obtained in connection with research (and not determining sanctions), so it is, inconclusive, at best, whether his 1999 samples would have resulted in sanctions if the tests were conducted in compliance with the policies and procedures used in sanctions-related testing.

Post 2000 it is clear that you have the circumstantial evidence of his negative tests, but that's really all it is at this point. Circumstantial evidence.

 

[mikkemus23]

Hello!
New member here.

Have been reading at the forum for a couple of weeks now, and it sure is a lot about doping. But that is understandable given the times - riders get caught all the time...and even those who dont get caught dope. So why should we believe in one who was caught thru new testing, but not according to protocol or whatever, and who was beating the dopers quite easily for 7 consecutive years? A rider with no GT palmares until 99...I know I dont. Thats all from me on his case.

One last thing - this "FBI" guy...I really thought he was on Lances payroll after two days reading his post...seriously. Must have lazy days these FBI guys, guy is posting like crazy