Doping inspector backs Armstrong

[Sprocket01]

Damn straight. An 8 YO's conspiracy theory is emminently hateable.

I'll agree that you don't have to be a completely unreasonable hater to be an Armstrong critic. Most are not. But then there is the hardcore where its more to do with personal issues they have, rather than the subject matter.

 

[Anonymous]

I think we can all agree to use the term 'all agree' about something that there is a consensus about, such as Armstrong is one of the all time great tour riders. We don't blithely assert it about strongly disputed subjects such as the cortisoid issue. Can we agree about this?

I am sure that everyone will agree that Armstrong is the most successful doper in one race ever. Clearly, reasonable people will agree with this.

I think we can also agree that your mother banning you from responding to me is unfair and capricious. It is clear that you need better role models, surely even you can see that?

 

[scribe]

I admit, I hate conspiracy theories. The comical conspiracy of the French spiking the 1999 samples is one of the more absurd.

Armstrong told Emma that she now had enough to bring him down. He knew that the TUE was a lie

Armstrong was in the wrong here. She couldn't really bring him down in spite of trying.

 

[workingclasshero]

Armstrong was in the wrong here. She couldn't really bring him down in spite of trying.

that actually made me laugh

 

[scribe]

Damn straight. An 8 YO's conspiracy theory is emminently hateable.
I think we all agree on this...

Agreed.

I can only agree if that 8 yo is belgian.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

I think we can all agree that cheating is cheating, and that Armstrong doesn't deserve any of his podium spots from any of his tours. Surely you have to agree with that.

I just cannot agree because I do not know if he cheated throughout. If we are going with the premise, he was too good to be real, then where does that stop.

Let's start with the 2000 TdF - Armstrong is removed because everyone in Europe and most of the real cyclists in the US know he used PEDs - so that means Ulrich must be the winner- wasn't there actual DNA evidence tying him to Operation Puerto (besides, he was really good and, as has been mentioned here a number of times if you are really good you must be cheating); if Ulrich is also a cheater, then the win must be given to Beloki - of course he started with Eskaltel then moved to Festina and was riding for ONCE (and we know what what you have to do one these teams) besides (even though cleared by the Spanish authorities) he was implicated in Operation Puerto with Ulrich; so the winner is Christophe Moreau (a little problem with his riding for Festina and confessing to EPO use); I would like to see the win go to someone in the top five finishers so that leaves us with Heras - but he road with LA and must have been a user (besides he had a positive test after leaving USPS). Behind these guys we have Virenque and Botero who are likely not to fair well in the court of public opinion either.

With no clear winner for 2000, we have to determine who gets the 2001 TdF: Ulrich (see above); Beloki (see above); Andrei Kivilev (Kazakhstan - do we need to know more); Igor González de Galdeano (the French found that he was a cheater) >> again, no one in the top five to choose from (especially if we have to pass a trial in the court of public opinion).

Moving on to the 2002 TdF: Beloki (above); Raimondas Rumšas (of course he did get convicted by the French for importing growth hormone during the Tour) and he was convicted of EPO use in 2003); Botero (above); Igor González de Galdeano (above) >> no one in the top five to take the trophy.

In 2003 I am sure we will have someone we can give the trophy to since we have determined LA cheated during this Tour: Ulrich (yes always second but we know why); Vinokourov (I do not think I have to detail this one); Tyler Hamilton (ditto with Vino); I guess we could give this one to Haimar Zubeldia if he was not riding for Radio Shack this year.

Turning to the 2004 TdF: Kloden - T-Mobile, Astana, Radio Shack - no, he will not pass the people's court; perhaps we should give it to Basso - of course he was suspended and admitted he "attempted" to dope (just had not); I guess then we should give it to Ulrich - after all since he did not finish second this time he might have been riding clean (but that would be a double standard and since the board here is of the opinion cheated once, cheated forever, he is out of the competition); José Azevedo is the obvious choice - but didn't he start with ONCe and then move to USPS, wait newsbreak - disqualified as he currently is a manager with Radio Shack.

This leaves us with the 2005 TdF: Basso (above); Ulrich (above); interesting, here we find Mancebo - it was good but then there was that link to Operation Puerto (besides he is now riding for Rock Racing and that can only mean one thing); We find Vino in fifth riding for T-Mobile.

I guess this means that no one can be considered as Tour winner from 2000 to 2005 and it is clearly Armstrong's fault - he must have doped and that meant that everyone else was doping to keep up in each and every Tour.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

I can only agree if that 8 yo is belgian.

Only if interviewed by Bob Roll

 

[Hugh Januss]

I guess this means that no one can be considered as Tour winner from 2000 to 2005 and it is clearly Armstrong's fault - he must have doped and that meant that everyone else was doping to keep up in each and every Tour.

I think we can all agree that at least CentralCaliBike is beginning to see the extent of the problem here.

 

[Mellow Velo]

I think we can all agree that at least CentralCaliBike is beginning to see the extent of the problem here.

I concur.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

I think we can all agree that at least CentralCaliBike is beginning to see the extent of the problem here.

Or, I understand what some are stating - my position is that I do not know if LA used PEDs from 2000 to 2005 - I also do not believe anyone else on this board can state their opinion is based on anything more than an educated guess (which is still a guess).

I guess with my background I still believe that you cannot take something away from someone without and hearing - sometimes this means the guilty go free - sometimes it means the guilty get caught - sometimes it means the innocent are vindicated and sometimes it means the innocent are still considered suspect but are not found guilty.

If you do not have a objective set of rules, and a hearing based upon those rules, you end up with anarchy where public opinion is the only requirement for punishment - something the French are well aware of from the time of the first French revolution. We had the same situation in the US in San Francisco with the vigilante era > the results of subjective hearings and public opinion is that the truly innocent can easily be found guilty and what they worked for taken from them without any truly objective standard.

 

[Digger]

I think we can all agree that at least CentralCaliBike is beginning to see the extent of the problem here.

It only took him a few days to see the light.
Of course he left out a few things. Virenque admitted to doping. Kloden's name is on files that he blood doped in 2006 at Freiburg.
Jeff D'Hondt has said how he doped Ullrich from the start, not just in 2006.
So Lance beat all these doped riders by, on average, five minutes a tour, and was clean himself. Imagine if they were all clean, knowing the enormous benefits of blood doping, he'd have finished a stage ahead of the rest. He's be cycling up the Champs Elysees on the Saturday, while the rest would be doing the final TT.
But hey, he's never been convicted. The French are out to get him. He revolutionised training, had the best equipment (it must've been a rocket he cycled for seven years) and the best team.
Do people think other riders sat on their a** and never trained? Going to the Alps to train was there long before Lance.

 

[Digger]

Or, I understand what some are stating - my position is that I do not know if LA used PEDs from 2000 to 2005 - I also do not believe anyone else on this board can state their opinion is based on anything more than an educated guess (which is still a guess).
I guess with my background I still believe that you cannot take something away from someone without and hearing - sometimes this means the guilty go free - sometimes it means the guilty get caught - sometimes it means the innocent are vindicated and sometimes it means the innocent are still considered suspect but are not found guilty.

If you do not have a objective set of rules, and a hearing based upon those rules, you end up with anarchy where public opinion is the only requirement for punishment - something the French are well aware of from the time of the first French revolution. We had the same situation in the US in San Francisco with the vigilante era > the results of subjective hearings and public opinion is that the truly innocent can easily be found guilty and what they worked for taken from them without any truly objective standard.

It's an educated guess if you haven't followed the sport for longer than Lance's era, or have read about the doping problem, or have read about cycling in general, or know about the mountain of evidence against him.
To someone like you, yes it is an educated guess. To the rest of us, it's beyond doubt, as the good scientist Michael Ashenden has stated.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

It's an educated guess if you haven't followed the sport for longer than Lance's era, or have read about the doping problem, or have read about cycling in general, or know about the mountain of evidence against him.
To someone like you, yes it is an educated guess. To the rest of us, it's beyond doubt, as the good scientist Michael Ashenden has stated.

I watched Hinault's last win, and have been watching as much as was available ever since. I certainly enjoyed watching Lance ride, but I also really enjoyed watching Pantani and Beloki - even the Schlecks brothers. of course, I am much more entertained with the climbers than the TT specialists or sprinters.

If it was beyond a doubt for the UCI, they would have banned LA (or at least initiated proceedings against him).

 

[Anonymous]

I am sure that every reasonable person will submit that Armstrong beating proven dopers is more that just suspicious, its downright unbelievable considering the enormous advantages of doping. In his prime, Armstrong would surely have been climbing with Ricco, and well, sometimes 1+1= doper.

 

[Hugh Januss]

If it was beyond a doubt for the UCI, they would have banned LA (or at least initiated proceedings against him).

Unless of course the UCI realizes that busting the #1 draw to the sport of all but dedicated cycling fans would be very bad for business.

 

[Race Radio]

I just cannot agree because I do not know if he cheated throughout. If we are going with the premise, he was too good to be real, then where does that stop.

Let's start with the 2000 TdF - Armstrong is removed because everyone in Europe and most of the real cyclists in the US know he used PEDs - so that means Ulrich must be the winner- wasn't there actual DNA evidence tying him to Operation Puerto (besides, he was really good and, as has been mentioned here a number of times if you are really good you must be cheating); if Ulrich is also a cheater, then the win must be given to Beloki - of course he started with Eskaltel then moved to Festina and was riding for ONCE (and we know what what you have to do one these teams) besides (even though cleared by the Spanish authorities) he was implicated in Operation Puerto with Ulrich; so the winner is Christophe Moreau (a little problem with his riding for Festina and confessing to EPO use); I would like to see the win go to someone in the top five finishers so that leaves us with Heras - but he road with LA and must have been a user (besides he had a positive test after leaving USPS). Behind these guys we have Virenque and Botero who are likely not to fair well in the court of public opinion either.

With no clear winner for 2000, we have to determine who gets the 2001 TdF: Ulrich (see above); Beloki (see above); Andrei Kivilev (Kazakhstan - do we need to know more); Igor González de Galdeano (the French found that he was a cheater) >> again, no one in the top five to choose from (especially if we have to pass a trial in the court of public opinion).

Moving on to the 2002 TdF: Beloki (above); Raimondas Rumšas (of course he did get convicted by the French for importing growth hormone during the Tour) and he was convicted of EPO use in 2003); Botero (above); Igor González de Galdeano (above) >> no one in the top five to take the trophy.

In 2003 I am sure we will have someone we can give the trophy to since we have determined LA cheated during this Tour: Ulrich (yes always second but we know why); Vinokourov (I do not think I have to detail this one); Tyler Hamilton (ditto with Vino); I guess we could give this one to Haimar Zubeldia if he was not riding for Radio Shack this year.

Turning to the 2004 TdF: Kloden - T-Mobile, Astana, Radio Shack - no, he will not pass the people's court; perhaps we should give it to Basso - of course he was suspended and admitted he "attempted" to dope (just had not); I guess then we should give it to Ulrich - after all since he did not finish second this time he might have been riding clean (but that would be a double standard and since the board here is of the opinion cheated once, cheated forever, he is out of the competition); José Azevedo is the obvious choice - but didn't he start with ONCe and then move to USPS, wait newsbreak - disqualified as he currently is a manager with Radio Shack.

This leaves us with the 2005 TdF: Basso (above); Ulrich (above); interesting, here we find Mancebo - it was good but then there was that link to Operation Puerto (besides he is now riding for Rock Racing and that can only mean one thing); We find Vino in fifth riding for T-Mobile.

I guess this means that no one can be considered as Tour winner from 2000 to 2005 and it is clearly Armstrong's fault - he must have doped and that meant that everyone else was doping to keep up in each and every Tour.

The ease at which you dismiss Armstrong's competitors as dopers, despite few testing positive, is impressive. For some reason you apply this level of proof selectively. I think we can all agree this is myopic.

 

[Digger]

I watched Hinault's last win, and have been watching as much as was available ever since. I certainly enjoyed watching Lance ride, but I also really enjoyed watching Pantani and Beloki - even the Schlecks brothers. of course, I am much more entertained with the climbers than the TT specialists or sprinters.

If it was beyond a doubt for the UCI, they would have banned LA (or at least initiated proceedings against him).

Well I don't enjoy watching dopers. You do.

The UCI have no motivation to ban him. He is a money making machine for them. The biggest drug scandals in the sport have been police raids.
Do you think it was ethical for them to accept money from Lance?

Next what you make of Hein Verburggen and what he said to **** Pound? That in order to entertain the fans, the riders need to be doped.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

The ease at which you dismiss Armstrong's competitors as dopers, despite few testing positive, is impressive. For some reason you apply this level of proof selectively. I think we can all agree this is myopic.

I did not dismiss them as dopers - you did, and I was using the logic you follow to show the absurdity of removing a trophy from the winner without due process - just to hand it over to others you also feel are proven dopers (at least in some cases there were either admissions or positive tests).

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Well I don't enjoy watching dopers. You do.

The UCI have no motivation to ban him. He is a money making machine for them. The biggest drug scandals in the sport have been police raids.
Do you think it was ethical for them to accept money from Lance?

Next what you make of Hein Verburggen and what he said to **** Pound? That in order to entertain the fans, the riders need to be doped.

I enjoy watching riders - I have watched amateur racers and found they can provide just as much enjoyment at times as the pros (or course perhaps they were doping also since I enjoyed watching them).

 

[Digger]

I did not dismiss them as dopers - you did, and I was using the logic you follow to show the absurdity of removing a trophy from the winner without due process - just to hand it over to others you also feel are proven dopers (at least in some cases there were either admissions or positive tests).

Acording to your 'logic', Valverde didn't dope, and nor did Frank Schleck. Why? Because of course they haven't been sanctioned by the UCI. Fox guarding the hen house ring a bell?

 

[Digger]

I enjoy watching riders - I have watched amateur racers and found they can provide just as much enjoyment at times as the pros (or course perhaps they were doping also since I enjoyed watching them).

"The UCI have no motivation to ban him. He is a money making machine for them. The biggest drug scandals in the sport have been police raids.
Do you think it was ethical for them to accept money from Lance?

Next what you make of Hein Verburggen and what he said to **** Pound? That in order to entertain the fans, the riders need to be doped."

Maybe you should address the above.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

To make it clear (before I leave town for some training and a ride or two): I am willing to consider that LA used EPO based on the positive tests that have been published from the 1999 (I have felt that way ever since I heard about the test results). I am not willing to make the statement he cheated at every Tour unless, and until, there is an admission or test results proving it happened. That does not mean LA did not dope for each and every Tour ride (and I am not stating that either), just that I cannot make the claim that he did.

 

[Race Radio]

I did not dismiss them as dopers - you did, and I was using the logic you follow to show the absurdity of removing a trophy from the winner without due process - just to hand it over to others you also feel are proven dopers (at least in some cases there were either admissions or positive tests).

Please show me the post were I espouse this logic?

As I have written many times, I understand why riders dope. I have many good friends who chose to go down that path. If you read my posts my disdain is directed towards riders who invent unbelievable conspiracy theories to cover up the obvious and the clueless groupies that suspend rational thought in order to not question their hero.

 

[RTMcFadden]

Please show me the post were I espouse this logic?

As I have written many times, I understand why riders dope. I have many good friends who chose to go down that path. If you read my posts my disdain is directed towards riders who invent unbelievable conspiracy theories to cover up the obvious and the clueless groupies that suspend rational thought in order to not question their hero.

And yet you continue to give me crap about LA, when my hero is Barry Scheck.

 

[Race Radio]

And yet you continue to give me crap about LA, when my hero is Barry Scheck.

Why is it I do not find that surprising?