Debating the True Believers *if you must

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 14, 2011
9
0
8,530
500 tests

I wonder if the 500 tests include pre-tests or masking experiments with Dr Ferrari?

Our Tuesday night ride bike shop posted a facebook 'what do you think about the Armstrong ban' and the response was very Pro-Lance. I just rolled my eyes and remembered the 'don't argue with fools' rule.
 

the big ring

BANNED
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
Agravaine said:
I wonder if the 500 tests include pre-tests or masking experiments with Dr Ferrari?

Our Tuesday night ride bike shop posted a facebook 'what do you think about the Armstrong ban' and the response was very Pro-Lance. I just rolled my eyes and remembered the 'don't argue with fools' rule.

Local cycling forum is the same. Difficult to sit there on your hands and say nada, but I stopped posting in that thread... One guy posted FREE MARION JONES which was helpful for my morale if not my sense of humour. Great video of her spouting the LA line long before he did: unfair, witch-hunt, no failed tests.
 
Agravaine said:
I wonder if the 500 tests include pre-tests or masking experiments with Dr Ferrari?

Our Tuesday night ride bike shop posted a facebook 'what do you think about the Armstrong ban' and the response was very Pro-Lance. I just rolled my eyes and remembered the 'don't argue with fools' rule.

I was discussing the GOP presidential ticket the other day with a friend, and he shared this gem: Arguing with Republicans is like playing chess with a pigeon. It doesn't matter if you're a grand master, it'll still knock over the pieces and **** all over the board.

Seems applicable here, too. ;)
 
Jul 19, 2010
347
0
0
Merckx index said:
2) Point out the parallels with Jerry Sandusky

I think this will be ineffective. The pro-Lance people are convinced that the anti-Lance people are hating nutjobs; they will find in the comparison to the Sandusky case an implicit comparison between blood doping and child molestation which they will take as a confirmation of nuttiness (since the two are not at all comparable).

The parallels with Barry Bonds or Peter Rose (to pick a few) are much clearer, although what is different is that it was widely known that Bonds and Rose were a******s, and it is somehow not so widely known about Armstrong (to some extent Rose supporters were and are like Armstrong supporters, although without the self-righteousness about cancer).
 
Jul 19, 2010
347
0
0
nighttrain said:
Aye, one would be hard pressed to find a Lance fanboy at this point. That doper was long overdue and justice will finally be served. I suspect that "the clinic" will die off now the magnificent battle fought and beast slain.

Meanwhile, the Premier League and NFL fans could give a rats **** that their athletes are juiced to the gills.

If you go to a non-cycling sports site, you will find that the true believers outnumber the enlightened 2-1.
 
sure!

sure lance is innocent

just lost 7 tour wins and he just stands back............done fighting

if he had been robbed of those victories why is his legal team so quiet?

not at all like lance

no contest v overwhelming evidence
 
ebandit said:
sure lance is innocent

just lost 7 tour wins and he just stands back............done fighting

if he had been robbed of those victories why is his legal team so quiet?

not at all like lance

no contest v overwhelming evidence

Yes. USADA were able not only to convince 10 people to lie about Armstrong, they also convinced WADA. To pull off their conspiracy with government funding they were able to hold this all together and not have a single weak link. impressive. All this without police powers!

Of course with a conspiracy of this magnitude USADA and WADA risk having their operations shutdown. The 10 witnesses who lied risk perjury and other such repercussions.

That's mighty impressive charade from USADA!

Questions remains why? Why bring down Armstrong when he's innocent? What do they have to gain?
 
I like to ask people what they're left with if cancer is not to be referenced in any way. Whether they'd agree about his generally known character traits. Anything nice he ever did or said that was not coming from behind the cancer shield. The list gets short, really short. No other athlete has this. Mike Tyson is a lovable guy in comparison.
 
thehog said:
Yes. USADA were able not only to convince 10 people to lie about Armstrong, they also convinced WADA. To pull off their conspiracy with government funding they were able to hold this all together and not have a single weak link. impressive. All this without police powers!

Of course with a conspiracy of this magnitude USADA and WADA risk having their operations shutdown. The 10 witnesses who lied risk perjury and other such repercussions.

That's mighty impressive charade from USADA!

Questions remains why? Why bring down Armstrong when he's innocent? What do they have to gain?

Anytime anyone suggests that the USADA's investigation is a witch hunt, and singles out Tygart specifically - I'm always left to wonder a couple things. What would Tygart's motive be? Why would he pursue this with such determination if no evidence existed? To make a name for himself? Whoever thinks that an American trying to take down an American champion who also happens to be adored by millions of cancer patients and advocates will become MORE popular has got an odd take on how to succesfully climb a social ladder.
 
Oct 26, 2009
654
0
0
armchairclimber said:

This is the best part of it and this is what you should be telling every "True Believer":

"The problem is, if you choose to believe Armstrong, that it's a witch-hunt, then you are also a conspiracy theorist, because the only way you can explain all the witnesses who are willing to testify is to say that they are part of a massive conspiracy against him".
 
May 5, 2009
696
1
0
Merckx index said:
I've noticed that several posters here have expressed frustration in trying to persuade the Armstrong Army that LA deserves to be sanctioned. The simplest way to avoid this frustration, of course, is simply not to engage, but for those who want to, anyway, here are a few suggestions. Maybe others have some more.


1) Show some empathy. Chances are that you, like most LA critics, were once a big fan of his. Chances are you were thrilled and inspired by his victory in the 1999 TDF. Point that out. Explain that no, you didn’t suddenly become jealous of his success. Your interest in the sport, maybe kindled by LA himself, led you to listen to others more knowledgeable about it than you, including people with inside information. You began to hear stories about LA doping, from people who had no obvious ax to grind, no particular reason to lie about what they were claiming. These stories are what gradually changed your mind, sometimes despite enormous resistance to giving up the fairytale aspects of the comeback. Though you wanted to believe in him, your intelligence and open-mindedness demanded that you accept the evidence that he was not clean.

One of the most credible and powerful types of argument in any debate, IMO, is from someone who was once on the other side. Many people once believed LA was clean and honest, who have since changed their minds. Is there anyone who once believed LA doped and lied about it, who has since come to believe he is clean and honest? Hello?

2) Point out the parallels with Jerry Sandusky (I did that on this forum a couple of months ago, and received a warning for my trouble. Since then, though, many others have pointed out the same thing, including at least one mod. So apparently it’s now safe to express that point here now). ALL the evidence against Sandusky was witness testimony, by people who had much to gain by lying (book deals, civil suits). So the case against LA, which is based primarily on witness testimony, but does include other types of evidence (positive if not official tests; blood values; and more), is probably actually stronger than the case against Sandusky. If you took away the witness testimony, there would be absolutely nothing against Sandusky. If you took away the witness testimony against LA, there would still be a great deal of evidence against him.

You could also point out that Sandusky apparently got away with his predator life for at least thirty years, before the law finally caught up to him. Why? Because his victims were afraid to come forward, or weren’t believed when they did. Sound familiar? Suggest that anyone who thinks Sandusky is guilty and LA isn’t simply is not being rational or consistent.

3) One of the most effective ways to argue with someone is to take their side of the case, and show that it leads to problems. Grant the LA supporters their premise that all the former teammates testifying against him are lying—about Lance doping. They are not lying, however, about their own doping, because no one in his right mind who didn’t dope would tell USADA investigators that he did dope, right? So we have the following situation. Clean Lance was surrounded by teammates who doped. Did he know this? If he did, and didn’t tell anyone, he was surely guilty of cheating, because he himself would be the first to admit that his team was a key factor in winning all those Tours. This would also be inconsistent with the strong, outspoken stance he had against doping, including warning UCI officials about possible use of artificial oxygen vector use, and donating money for a Sysmex machine. Pretty sleazy of a guy doing that to overlook doping by his own teammates, no?

OTOH, if he didn’t know his teammates were doping, why not? LA is known to be a very hands-on guy, obsessed with details, and certainly very careful about picking his teammates. Would men he picked to ride in front of him really be able to dope without his knowing about it? And would his judge of character be so flawed that so many of his hand-picked lieutenants would turn around and lie about him to just to get a better deal from USADA? Seriously?

4) Some of the LA supporters, or people claiming to be neutral on this issue, will acknowledge that he doped, but argue that “they all did it”. This argument, too, can be turned against itself. If they all did it, all adhering to the code of omerta, then they must have felt there was nothing really wrong about doping, right? It was just another form of preparation, like training rides, or wind tunnel tests. But if something is approved, there are no limits to it. There are no rules against how many hours or miles you can ride to train, of course, or where you can ride, or what kind of equipment you can use during training. In the same way, if doping was generally approved by the peloton, it would be ridiculous to think there were any unwritten rules against how much or how well you could dope. Like every other form of preparation, the idea was to find ways of doing it better than everyone else. Any rider accepting omerta would also accept this principle.

So the “everyone did it” defense strongly implies a culture in which finding a better program or a better substance than everyone else was tacitly approved. It essentially guaranteed that doping would not level the playing field, but would incite riders to find new ways to make it less level.

Absolutely fantastic, brilliant, I am speechless! congrats!
 
It is amazing how many idiots there are on facebook supporting lance with the never failed a test bs - without being bothered to read any of the research out there - so frustrating and annoying
 
Jul 30, 2012
79
0
0
thehog said:
Anytime anyone suggests that the USADA's investigation is a witch hunt, and singles out Tygart specifically - I'm always left to wonder a couple things. What would Tygart's motive be? Why would he pursue this with such determination if no evidence existed? To make a name for himself? Whoever thinks that an American trying to take down an American champion who also happens to be adored by millions of cancer patients and advocates will become MORE popular has got an odd take on how to succesfully climb a social ladder.

It seems that there is a lot of anti-government sentiment backing the pro-Lance reaction to USADA's pursuit. This genesis of this is the belief that the government hates successful people and that government bureacracts want to rain on the parade of anyone who is exceptional. While it is true that USADA is not a government agency, the fact that it receives government funding and pursues enforcement actions is enough for most people in the pro-Lance camp to conflate the two.

I also get a strong sense from people that they believe that the rules were such that if you passed a drug test you could not be later punished. It is a bit like a guy who dives in soccer or cons the referee into calling a foul in basketball. A lot of people do not regard either as cheating. if the referee calls the foul, it is a foul regardless of whether or not there was any actual contact. Some people seem to feel as though the drug test is akin to a referee's decision. The result it ordains is final regardless of whether it is correct or not. This is not the case with anti-doping codes; they allow for retrospective analysis. Nevertheless, people are used to the rules of sport being enforced on the spot and anything else seems alien and unfair to them.
 
Mar 16, 2009
19,482
2
0
WTF:eek: What heck is this all about. Did I miss something somewhere:confused: Googles were no help

"Why is no one investigating the USADA? Seriously it is spending $9 million of our tax dollars a year on chasing around a retired athlete to what end? How does this 'clean up' the sport? Investigating decade old competitions is a stupid waste of money. And while we're asking questions why the heck is the USADA headed up by a convicted sex offender? Isn't this organization supposed to be protecting our children? I don't see how a convicted sex offender investigating decade old races is helping anything? Why are our elected officials financing this useless organization with $9 million during a recession?"
 
Jul 30, 2012
79
0
0
krebs303 said:
WTF:eek: What heck is this all about. Did I miss something somewhere:confused: Googles were no help

"Why is no one investigating the USADA? Seriously it is spending $9 million of our tax dollars a year on chasing around a retired athlete to what end? How does this 'clean up' the sport? Investigating decade old competitions is a stupid waste of money. And while we're asking questions why the heck is the USADA headed up by a convicted sex offender? Isn't this organization supposed to be protecting our children? I don't see how a convicted sex offender investigating decade old races is helping anything? Why are our elected officials financing this useless organization with $9 million during a recession?"

I presume this is the ironic answer to your question:

Earlier in the day, the former champion went on the attack against one of the review board members, Minneapolis attorney Clark Griffith, using his Twitter account to note that Mr Griffith was charged in a misdemeanour case of indecent exposure earlier this year.
'Wow. @usantidoping can pick em. Here's... 1 of 3 Review Board members studying my case,' Armstrong tweeted, linking to a news story about Mr Griffith.
A 24-year-old student reported Mr Griffith unzipped his pants in front of her on a St Paul street.
Mr Griffith entered an Alford plea on June 13. Under the plea, Griffith did not admit doing anything wrong but acknowledged prosecutors have enough evidence for a jury to convict him.
Sentencing is scheduled for July 26. Mr Griffith insists he is innocent and entered the plea to avoid a trial that would embarrass his family.
Mr Griffith said Mr Armstrong's tweet was 'an effort to get away from the issues that will be dealt with by an arbitration panel. By smearing me, that does nothing. I'm innocent of that.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-agency-files-charges-him.html#ixzz24mrIGpxK
 
Jul 18, 2011
36
0
0
Lance Armstrong, you have ruined cycling for me. UCI and especially Pat McQuaid, you continue to ruin cycling for me for the foreseeable future, because you are not doing ANYTHING to sanction Lance Armstrong.

Lance I gave you the benefit of the doubt all these years. Lance, by not contesting the charges, you are admitting your guilt. You have doped and lied to cover up it up. Your numerous wins are meaningless and yet you continue to profit by cheating the system. You are completely responsible for ruining numerous lives and no amount of charity work will absolve you until you confess the truth.

Unfortunately for me, and countless other fans, we'll be questioning from now on if a rider won clean, even if they tested positive. You just ruined it. There goes cycling and your legacy, if you ever cared.
 
Mar 16, 2009
19,482
2
0
KayLow said:
I presume this is the ironic answer to your question:

Earlier in the day, the former champion went on the attack against one of the review board members, Minneapolis attorney Clark Griffith, using his Twitter account to note that Mr Griffith was charged in a misdemeanour case of indecent exposure earlier this year.
'Wow. @usantidoping can pick em. Here's... 1 of 3 Review Board members studying my case,' Armstrong tweeted, linking to a news story about Mr Griffith.
A 24-year-old student reported Mr Griffith unzipped his pants in front of her on a St Paul street.
Mr Griffith entered an Alford plea on June 13. Under the plea, Griffith did not admit doing anything wrong but acknowledged prosecutors have enough evidence for a jury to convict him.
Sentencing is scheduled for July 26. Mr Griffith insists he is innocent and entered the plea to avoid a trial that would embarrass his family.
Mr Griffith said Mr Armstrong's tweet was 'an effort to get away from the issues that will be dealt with by an arbitration panel. By smearing me, that does nothing. I'm innocent of that.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-agency-files-charges-him.html#ixzz24mrIGpxK

OK thanks..................................
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
It's hopeless. I had lunch with an educated friend today and he stands by Lance, at least to the point that if everyone doped, why single out him...
 
sorry if this has already been posted, but -- once again -- i think good old **** pound says it best:

As for Armstrong's fans, Pound said, "A lot of people bought into the image and to see that crumbling away over the last two or three years, and now smashed into pieces, it's unsettling [for them]. They feel badly for him, about him and about themselves for having bought it."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/pound-calls-for-truth-and-reconciliation-for-cycling

we really just need to have pity for the chamois munchers.
 
cineteq said:
I love the answer for this one :D
Dear ****meister, LA did a lot of good by curing cancer. Shouldn’t that count for something?

Is directed at me? Can't tell with the ****meister blanked out.

Is that like D*&%cinetag? Without the filtering?

Anyway, maybe if you actually read anything I have typed, I think most guys doped, including Lance.

But the entire "due process" of the situation and pathetic attempt at legal procedures the USADA tried to implement was half-hearted and obviously biased.

Now, they refuse to release all of their evidence against him? Why? It's over right? That is what everybody thinks. If that is the case, turn all of your evidence over to whomever wants it so they can pursue Lance and company if they please.

Is the reason they aren't releasing anything is it because it will be the same song and dance from Frankie, Betsy, Tyler and Floyd? Surely it is. There is nothing new they have that anybody else had.

If so, they would need to have the smoking gun. Which they don't. It really is that simple.

So, they play their games with the predicted outcome (see my other posts where I predicted this outcome months ago was going to be Lance getting his wins taken away and bans for life no matter what the process was.)

I personally don't care about Lance. I don't look "up" to people as heros. I look to myself for answers using my own little noggin' and intelligence to make my own decisions in an unbiased manner based on logic and reason, not emotions as most.

So...whatever you may think. The process, USADA, UCI and just name the group involved in cycling, are all self-serving, self-righteous and egotistical...like most humans.
 
ziggy?

zigmeister said:
Is directed at me? Can't tell with the ****meister blanked out.

Is that like D*&%cinetag? Without the filtering?

Anyway, maybe if you actually read anything I have typed, I think most guys doped, including Lance.

But the entire "due process" of the situation and pathetic attempt at legal procedures the USADA tried to implement was half-hearted and obviously biased.

Now, they refuse to release all of their evidence against him? Why? It's over right? That is what everybody thinks. If that is the case, turn all of your evidence over to whomever wants it so they can pursue Lance and company if they please.

Is the reason they aren't releasing anything is it because it will be the same song and dance from Frankie, Betsy, Tyler and Floyd? Surely it is. There is nothing new they have that anybody else had.

If so, they would need to have the smoking gun. Which they don't. It really is that simple.

So, they play their games with the predicted outcome (see my other posts where I predicted this outcome months ago was going to be Lance getting his wins taken away and bans for life no matter what the process was.)

I personally don't care about Lance. I don't look "up" to people as heros. I look to myself for answers using my own little noggin' and intelligence to make my own decisions in an unbiased manner based on logic and reason, not emotions as most.

So...whatever you may think. The process, USADA, UCI and just name the group involved in cycling, are all self-serving, self-righteous and egotistical...like most humans.

ziggy for not caring your doing a lot of.............

look lance is guilty................simples!

reply when innocence can be proven

it's like the man says rob a bank............your a bank robber..........just 'cos
it was last week and your now retired your still guilty
just 'cos you helped an old lady across the road after robbing the bank ...
...........a goodly act........... your still a bank robber

the whole due process argument was just legal spin..........thrown out by federal court
 

TRENDING THREADS