Doping inspector backs Armstrong

[Race Radio]

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.

And the dumping of Actovigen, Insulin, 160 syringes, etc......this was just littering?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Please show me the post were I espouse this logic?

I will let the court of public opinion answer that one (of course I really do not expect much from the anti-LA crowd but I might get some votes from the neutral types out there).

 

[Digger]

And the dumping of Actovigen, Insulin, 160 syringes, etc......this was just littering?

I think we can all agree the French put that stuff there. Come on RR, open your mind!!!

 

[Race Radio]

I will let the court of public opinion answer that one (of course I really do not expect much from the anti-LA crowd but I might get some votes from the neutral types out there).

As expected, nothing.

You may need to start up a sockpuppet for this.

 

[scribe]

I will let the court of public opinion answer that one (of course I really do not expect much from the anti-LA crowd but I might get some votes from the neutral types out there).

He is generally fixated on Lance and Bruyneel. So I cannot say he does it with most other riders.

 

[Digger]

He is generally fixated on Lance and Bruyneel. So I cannot say he does it with most other riders.

Name one rider who has benefitted more from doping than Lance.

 

[scribe]

Name one rider who has benefitted more from doping than Lance.

You got me there. What's the answer?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Name one rider who has benefitted more from doping than Lance.

Oh, don't mind Scribe he just gets bored and has to type something from time to time. On the whole he is on target about as often as a broken clock.

 

[scribe]

As expected, nothing.

You may need to start up a sockpuppet for this.

It was the same thing when he posted here as a woman. Pretty much left the other riders and cycling governing bodies harmless.

 

[Digger]

It was the same thing when he posted here as a woman. Pretty much left the other riders and cycling governing bodies harmless.

You'd imagine that would suit you, if it was true (it isn't), because your knowledge doesn't stretch beyond lance anyway. So naming any other rider would have you in trouble straight away.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

He is generally fixated on Lance and Bruyneel. So I cannot say he does it with most other riders.

I was looking at the logic he used to proclaim LA dirty for each and every year - my thought is that the same logic should be applied to the other riders, if applied they would also be declared dirty and therefore taking a win from LA would result in no winner at all.

The thing is, RR could be correct about LA - the logic very well might apply to the top 50 + riders as well, but it is not a absolute - over even beyond a reasonable doubt at this point without further evidence.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I will let the court of public opinion answer that one (of course I really do not expect much from the anti-LA crowd but I might get some votes from the neutral types out there).

What about justice?

If LA doped in 1999 (Corticoids)- and there had been the will of the UCI to pursue the matter then he would have been sittting out the 2000 & 2001 TdF.

Why try and sway the 'neutrals'?
This is an Internet forum - not a Court of Law - you may have your opinions but not the right to dictate how anyone forms their opinion.

I have enough faith in people to try and present factual or accurate information and let them make up their own minds on the matter.

I read a post on this forum of how lawyers operate in a case:
If the Facts are on your side, bang on the Facts
if the Law is on your side, bang on the Law
If neither the facts or the law are on your side, bang on the table.

 

[Digger]

I was looking at the logic he used to proclaim LA dirty for each and every year - my thought is that the same logic should be applied to the other riders, if applied they would also be declared dirty and therefore taking a win from LA would result in no winner at all.

The thing is, RR could be correct about LA - the logic very well might apply to the top 50 + riders as well, but it is not a absolute - over even beyond a reasonable doubt at this point without further evidence.

Quite a statement for someone like yourself to make, considering you don't know a fraction of the evidence there is to know. Something you admit yourself.
Answer me...why motivation would the uci have to ban Lance?
Secondly, was it ethical for them to accept money from Lance?

 

[scribe]

And now the end of the discussion, like all others before it. When all else deadlocks and fails to persuade as a convincing argument, it is time to throw out the corruption card as reasoning why Lance was never sanctioned.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

I read a post on this forum of how lawyers operate in a case:
If the Facts are on your side, bang on the Facts
if the Law is on your side, bang on the Law
If neither the facts or the law are on your side, bang on the table.

Actually, it is argue not bang, until you get to the table.

Not looking to dictate - I do not figure I will sway anyone to a neutral position of suggesting there be due process before the removal of a Tour victory - I just am voicing my opinion that it is the only objective method of seeking justice. I think we are fortunate, however, that the UCI (as much as I am not a fan) has decided on requiring this basic procedure for seeking justice.

 

[Hugh Januss]

And now the end of the discussion, like all others before it. When all else deadlocks and fails to persuade as a convincing argument, it is time to throw out the corruption card as reasoning why Lance was never sanctioned.

Well I'll bite then, why did Lance say he didn't have a TUE until he really needed to show one. Why was the one he showed dated before the time he was saying he didn't have one?

 

[scribe]

Well I'll bite then, why did Lance say he didn't have a TUE until he really needed to show one. Why was the one he showed dated before the time he was saying he didn't have one?

We've went through this already. It's time to close this out with the corruption discussion.

 

[Anonymous]

I was looking at the logic he used to proclaim LA dirty for each and every year - my thought is that the same logic should be applied to the other riders, if applied they would also be declared dirty and therefore taking a win from LA would result in no winner at all.

The thing is, RR could be correct about LA - the logic very well might apply to the top 50 + riders as well, but it is not a absolute - over even beyond a reasonable doubt at this point without further evidence.

That is a legal response; however, as I try to point out about this subject, none of us is a court of law. I apply the burden of proof that if there is lots of smoke, there is almost certainly a fire. From a behavioral standpoint, his chasing down of Simeoni and his reaction to Bassons are as good as reading it in a book from my experience. Innocent people who are concerned with anti-doping do not do the things Mr Armstrong has done in terms of his reaction to others who threatened his veil of innocence. Guilty people generally act guilty for a reason, and when they do it time after time, stepping back and declaring a spade to be a spade is just expressing honest opinion. None of us has a real agenda here considering none of us have anything to gain from his exposure other than saying to ourselves "I freaking KNEW IT!!!"

As I have stated before, I have worked for many years with people who were active drug addicts. Mr Armstrong and dopers like Hamilton and FLandis act in CLASSICALLY telling ways when it comes to observing the signs of denial and cover up of activities. A duck actually does quack like a duck, and the usage of performance enhancing drugs is STRIKINGLY similar to the usage of recreational drugs when it comes to concealing behavior.

When I add my experience with that to the other things involved with Mr Armstrong, there is no question in my mind that Mr Armstrong has used performance enhancing drugs throughout his career including transfusing packed cells in this past Tour de France. And there is nothing any of you will say to change that.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And now the end of the discussion, like all others before it. When all else deadlocks and fails to persuade as a convincing argument, it is time to throw out the corruption card as reasoning why Lance was never sanctioned.

When it is the same institution that is meant to be sanctioning someone - and it is shown they accepted money from them it is very pertinent.

Schneck says the figure could be as high $500,000.
Verbruggen admitted it was large.
Armstrong said it "wasn't insignificant"

The only dispute is how much.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Actually, it is argue not bang, until you get to the table.

Not looking to dictate - I do not figure I will sway anyone to a neutral position of suggesting there be due process before the removal of a Tour victory - I just am voicing my opinion that it is the only objective method of seeking justice. I think we are fortunate, however, that the UCI (as much as I am not a fan) has decided on requiring this basic procedure for seeking justice.

Nobody is saying there shouldn't be due process, but it's a damn shame when due process can be corrupted.

 

[scribe]

$500k was a solid investment by Lance. How much do you think Lance has earned in his career as a result of 7 certified tour wins?

 

[Digger]

Actually, it is argue not bang, until you get to the table.

Not looking to dictate - I do not figure I will sway anyone to a neutral position of suggesting there be due process before the removal of a Tour victory - I just am voicing my opinion that it is the only objective method of seeking justice. I think we are fortunate, however, that the UCI (as much as I am not a fan) has decided on requiring this basic procedure for seeking justice.

Yes the UCI are doing a fine job. Valverde is riding. Schleck got no ban. Alberto's DNA has never been cross checked. They won't retest the 2008 Giro samples. The head of the UCI has promised us that Alberto will never be caught doping. They accepted half a million dollars from Lance. They are continuously fighting with the one agency who seem to be catching the dopers.
Fortunate and UCI in the one sentence. Cursed more like.

 

[Hugh Januss]

We've went through this already. It's time to close this out with the corruption discussion.

Move along folks, nothing to see here.

 

[scribe]

Move along folks, nothing to see here.

I know. I feel like a disinterested and distant Willy Wonka talking, as I post. (the Gene Wilder one)

 

[Sprocket01]

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

Yes I agree, but the conspiracy theory is he paid them off. Looking at it seriously I don't think that is very credible - it would have leaked out in some way. Too many people would have to be involved - when the scientists were ordered not to give him a positive test some of them would just say no and resign. It's just not how it works.

I like your sense of decency and fair play.