hfer07 said:
Oh god!! A lawyer explaining “cycling” to a “cycling community” with “judicial terminology” this is a new one!!!
I’m going to opine on your “lengthy and rather shallow commentaries” so we can be clear:
You raise doubts on AC due to the OP –which nobody objects those at all- but you refuse/omit to accept that doubts can be raised towards LA when he decided to work with the dirtiest doctor called Michele Ferrari, tested positive for Corticoids back in 99, and refuse to get the final & convincing answer to the 99 EPO samples by simply avoiding their re-testing and continuing his blame to the ADFL- and yes-he’s a TDF winner never been busted, but neither Riis, Ullrich, Pantani,Indurain were---fast forward to his comeback- you haven’t mentioned yet the famous 4 tests disappearing from his controls back in march, the “infamous 20 minute-Shower while being tested” and nevertheless the hour delay from the start line by LA, Alberto & the Astana team- well explained here in CN and around the media…
Bottom line: Both are “DIRTY” So YES- in cycling world- “guilty by association” does apply
You praise the LA victim argument, but the entire world knows who’s been crying on Twitter every time things don’t go his way- which I find very shameful for a “cancer foundation chairman” and a person 10 years older than AC to complain in such immature way.
At least Alberto called for a conference press to make his remarks official and bear responsability for them
Finally:
Based on your argument of “LA being innocent since any real evidence hasn’t been found” can I ask you this:
Do you think OJ Simpson was Innocent too-since the evidence found wasn’t enough to convict him?
Really? So Lance Armstrong and Alberto Contador are both GUILTY by assosiation? The UCI will shortly be banning them for two years because they are GUILTY? Of course not, because that is not GUILT, it is innuendo.
Thankfully, the UCI and WADA have started announcing positive tests rather than speculation ala **** Pound. Not only is it more professional, it seems to be having a better effect at cleaning up the peloton. In short, jurisprudence, properly applied, works a lot better than innuendo and conspiracy theories at getting to the bottom of a problem.
When rumors come out, we as individuals have a choice as to whether we continue to spread those rumors or not. We as individuals have a choice to look at facts and try to encompass the entire situation, or cherry pick facts to support our own pre-disposition.
When I see things like 'OJ' & murder thrown about by the very same people who are claiming that judicial standards don't matter, not only do I see hypocrisy, I see proof of exactly what I am saying.
Do I think OJ is guilty? Who cares. He was aquitted by a jury of his peers for a criminal - not civil - act.
Interestingly enough, OJ was convicted the second time he went to court. My opinion had nothing to do with that conviction.
How many times has Lance been to court? Been targeted and investigated? Probed by idependant bodies? And nothing has resulted in a conviction. Nothing. That is after a decade of trying, and that is as strong a proof of innocence as our system allows.
What hoop can Lance jump through to be a good guy again? You think this same process isn't going to happen to Alberto? That simmering questions regarding Operation Puerto aren't going to come up? Is anyone really surprised that Greg LeMond is asking questions about yet another Tour Champ? The Astana van was searched because of Lance, and not Contador's Landis like performance in the mountains?
Lance is bad guy though. OK. I still don't see how a rider who rode with Tyler Hamilton, Levi Leipheimer, Roberto Heras, etc., guys that are clearly at the top of the game and think that there would be no way to manage a relationship with Alberto? Why not? The reason is because it takes two.
I will tell you what, I have not won a Grand Tour, but I have returned home from combat. I would imagine that winning not just a Grand Tour, but THE Grand Tour, must be a similar and perhaps more powerful feeling. That moment when I returned home, the first thing on my mind was not to criticise one of my fellow soldiers. That someone would launch into criticism, at a time like that, tells me something about the person making the criticism.
A simple question, even Lance is the BIGGEST dork in the world, why is Alberto ripping into him when he beat him!?! Why?
Alberto's words are about Alberto and a lack of confidence in his abilities. Lance is not the first strong team mate to be criticized by AC, nor indeed is the Tour the first GT that has ended with criticism rather than celebration from AC.
All the conspiracy theories in the world don't change that. One way or another, Alberto is going to have to deal with that confidence issue.
And just in case, I thought it would be relevant to reveal why AC really hates Lance. You see, Alberto is actually the illicit love child of Miguel Indurain and a young Sheryl Crow. Lance Armstrong actually met Sheryl when she accompanied Mig over to the Ride for the Roses, where Lance was introduced to and began an affair with Sheryl. Not only did this break up a young Alberto's family, but when Lance dumped Sheryl, Alberto's mum, it devestated Alberto who vowed revenge.
So, clearly, its no wonder Alberto hates Lance
Since proof doens't matter, and conspiracy lay at teh heart of the 'real' issue here, I figured we should get the 'facts' out.
