Doping inspector backs Armstrong

[Digger]

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

The Lance fans are making a transition: from never doped, never tested positive, never sanctioned, to where we are now, which is that he probably doped in 1999, but didn't for the rest of his wins, and certainly ain't doping now.
This will soon become, I don't care if he doped, he did what the rest did, look at the amount he does for cancer.
When it is pointed out that he gains from 'cancer awarenes', the fans will say he is entitled to earn money in this way. I often wonder if he is in his mansion laughing his a** off at naivety and cluenessness of his fans.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

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.

I would not object to a call for change in the governing body - if LA gave the body over $500K it should not be a mark against him necessarily - it might be time to make a rule that the UCI cannot accept funding from riders or teams unless it is imposed in a tax type of method where no one can put in more or less than a given amount (perhaps percentage of their team salary - something they may have already instituted to some extent).

 

[Digger]

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.

CentralCaliBike, you have hit the jackpot.

 

[Sprocket01]

The Lance fans are making a transition: from never doped, never tested positive, never sanctioned, to where we are now, which is that he probably doped in 1999, but didn't for the rest of his wins, and certainly ain't doping now.

Personally I always thought that. I can't understand why people who know about the sport are so down on Armstrong because of this, given EPO was standard protocal for GC before the test. Yes the ignorant public wouldn't understand this and would think he didn't deserve to win and all the rest of it, which is why he could never admit it, but those who understand the sport should know better.

To be fair I think most cycling fans do understand this. Most of them just don't post in the clinic.

 

[scribe]

The Lance fans are making a transition: from never doped, never tested positive, never sanctioned, to where we are now, which is that he probably doped in 1999, but didn't for the rest of his wins, and certainly ain't doping now.
This will soon become, I don't care if he doped, he did what the rest did, look at the amount he does for cancer.
When it is pointed out that he gains from 'cancer awarenes', the fans will say he is entitled to earn money in this way. I often wonder if he is in his mansion laughing his a** off at naivety and cluenessness of his fans.

OK. Your turn to answer a question. Who exactly are all these Lance fans?

 

[Hugh Januss]

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.

Well there we go. Sprocket01 "doesn't think it's very credible" that certainly changes my mind, I will rest easy now.
Now would you mind looking into the Kennedy assassination(s) and the missing WMDs in Iraq?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

CentralCaliBike, you have hit the jackpot.

Funny - I work with due process on a daily basis, deciding whether to prosecute a case and take their liberty away. I have gone to court with video taped confessions, eyewitnesses, DNA, and the murder weapon in the possession of the defendant; at trial I expect to hear someone tell me and the jury that there is no crime, or if there was a crime it was not committed by the defendant, if it was committed it self defense, if not self defense it the defendant was insane >>> this is an everyday experience for me. What I have found is that the jury generally gets it correct (from my point of view I suppose), but it always takes hard evidence to get the conviction.

Of course it might be nice to say - I have the confession, I got the weapon from the defendant, I have his DNA - so why bother with the trial. The trial is there to protect the defendant and society from someone deciding who they want to be guilty and who they do not.

 

[red_flanders]

I would not object to a call for change in the governing body - if LA gave the body over $500K it should not be a mark against him necessarily - it might be time to make a rule that the UCI cannot accept funding from riders or teams unless it is imposed in a tax type of method where no one can put in more or less than a given amount (perhaps percentage of their team salary - something they may have already instituted to some extent).

Not that you care, but you've lost any credibility with me at this point.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

my position is that I do not know if LA used PEDs from 2000 to 2005

A wise strategic retreat to firmer ground.....any minute now peace will break out (hopefully).

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

Hmm.....so you acknowledge that, although unlikely, there might have been malicious tampering with the samples..... but you don't acknowledge that the UCI staff might be covering something up or mistaken? The problem with playing devil's advocate is that people tend to notice the devil, not the advocate.

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).

Sadly, there's a good chance some of them were. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/comardo-accepts-two-year-suspension-for-doping. That's why I have a problem with riders who have reasonably been shown to have abused PEDs, but escaped sanction on a technicality, continuing to be hailed as heroes in the mainstream press. It sends the message to ambitious teenagers that PEDs are what it takes to be competitive in cycling, and if you play your cards right there wont be consequences. So I'm ok with the court of public opinion on this forum; the only adverse consequence it could possibly have is to detract from the hero status. Consequences such as sanctions do require a formal process, but that isn't what this is about.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Not that you care, but you've lost any credibility with me at this point.

Apparently you do not see the difference between doing something that is legal and not hiding it and bribery. Of course his giving money could effect the UCI - but there could be other reasons for it as well, such as a PR moment.

 

[Race Radio]

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

Are you referring to me? You must have missed/ignored what I have posted on Valverde, Hamilton, Landis, Dekker, and the UCI.

Isn't it time to go write your blog Eben?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

Conspiracy theory?
This is from Lance himself:
"I have donated money to the UCI over the years to increase [drug controls]."


PS It has been confirmed that Frank Vandenbroucke is dead.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

A wise strategic retreat to firmer ground.....any minute now peace will break out (hopefully).



Hmm.....so you acknowledge that, although unlikely, there might have been malicious tampering with the samples..... but you don't acknowledge that the UCI staff might be covering something up or mistaken? The problem with playing devil's advocate is that people tend to notice the devil, not the advocate.



Sadly, there's a good chance some of them were. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/comardo-accepts-two-year-suspension-for-doping. That's why I have a problem with riders who have reasonably been shown to have abused PEDs, but escaped sanction on a technicality, continuing to be hailed as heroes in the mainstream press. It sends the message to ambitious teenagers that PEDs are what it takes to be competitive in cycling, and if you play your cards right there wont be consequences. So I'm ok with the court of public opinion on this forum; the only adverse consequence it could possibly have is to detract from the hero status. Consequences such as sanctions do require a formal process, but that isn't what this is about.

Actually, I have never stated that the UCI is not covering something up. They are just as capable of human behavior as anyone else, including scientists at a doping lab (which I am not accusing them of doing).

 

[Race Radio]

Apparently you do not see the difference between doing something that is legal and not hiding it and bribery. Of course his giving money could effect the UCI - but there could be other reasons for it as well, such as a PR moment.

If it was a PR moment why did he, and the UCI, hide it's existence for 5 years? Why did he lie about what the money was for? Why is the only reason it became public is when a UCI board member questioned the conflict of interest?

 

[pmcg76]

Funny - I work with due process on a daily basis, deciding whether to prosecute a case and take their liberty away. I have gone to court with video taped confessions, eyewitnesses, DNA, and the murder weapon in the possession of the defendant; at trial I expect to hear someone tell me and the jury that there is no crime, or if there was a crime it was not committed by the defendant, if it was committed it self defense, if not self defense it the defendant was insane >>> this is an everyday experience for me. What I have found is that the jury generally gets it correct (from my point of view I suppose), but it always takes hard evidence to get the conviction.

Of course it might be nice to say - I have the confession, I got the weapon from the defendant, I have his DNA - so why bother with the trial. The trial is there to protect the defendant and society from someone deciding who they want to be guilty and who they do not.

Here we go with 'official law' route. We are not in court, this is the court of public opinion, we cannot convict anyone except in our minds and rants. People are talking about Vino not being allowed to start the Tour next year. Why not, he served his suspension.

After the revelations in regards to EPO in Lances samples after the 05 Tour, the Tour organisers where not exactly happy with Lance. It would have been interesting if Lance had not retired that year, would he have been welocme at the 06 Tour. I am not so sure. What we do know is that was all forgotten this year and he was welcomed back without any problems. Why not welcome back Rasmussen, never officially caught, Basso, never officially caught, to me they are in the exact same position as Lance was in 05 yet they served suspensions.

 

[scribe]

Funny - I work with due process on a daily basis, deciding whether to prosecute a case and take their liberty away. I have gone to court with video taped confessions, eyewitnesses, DNA, and the murder weapon in the possession of the defendant; at trial I expect to hear someone tell me and the jury that there is no crime, or if there was a crime it was not committed by the defendant, if it was committed it self defense, if not self defense it the defendant was insane >>> this is an everyday experience for me. What I have found is that the jury generally gets it correct (from my point of view I suppose), but it always takes hard evidence to get the conviction.

Of course it might be nice to say - I have the confession, I got the weapon from the defendant, I have his DNA - so why bother with the trial. The trial is there to protect the defendant and society from someone deciding who they want to be guilty and who they do not.

This might come as a shocker to some around here. But I am amazed to read case files or watch a show regarding a homicide, etc. and how often people are willing to put someone in jail on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

One such case in the Binghamton, NY area. Big media circus for that area with two trials that just finished up this summer. Guy's estranged wife (dating multiple new guys) disappears on the evening of Sept 11, 2001. No body. No weapon. No witnesses to the murder. No physical evidence on the defendant. No confession. Some very minor blood (hers) in the family's garage of questionable age. And a distant neighbor who claims to have seen the woman with another man the following morning after the prosecutors claimed the murder to have taken place. And a rock solid testimony by the defendant under cross examination during the trial. They convicted the husband not once, but twice after a mistrial on the first conviction.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

That's why I have a problem with riders who have reasonably been shown to have abused PEDs, but escaped sanction on a technicality, continuing to be hailed as heroes in the mainstream press. It sends the message to ambitious teenagers that PEDs are what it takes to be competitive in cycling, and if you play your cards right there wont be consequences. So I'm ok with the court of public opinion on this forum; the only adverse consequence it could possibly have is to detract from the hero status. Consequences such as sanctions do require a formal process, but that isn't what this is about.

I have no problem with the court of public opinion making it known that winning by cheating takes away from the since of history and achievement. I certainly would not object to someone stating "I personally believe rider X cheated because he ....". But, for me, I want to see the dirty test, admission, or legal process before stating conclusively a rider used PEDs.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

This might come as a shocker to some around here. But I am amazed to read case files or watch a show regarding a homicide, etc. and how often people are willing to put someone in jail on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

One such case in the Binghamton, NY area. Big media circus for that area with two trials that just finished up this summer. Guy's estranged wife (dating multiple new guys) disappears on the evening of Sept 11, 2001. No body. No weapon. No witnesses to the murder. No physical evidence on the defendant. No confession. Some very minor blood (hers) in the family's garage of questionable age. And a distant neighbor who claims to have seen the woman with another man the following morning after the prosecutors claimed the murder to have taken place. And a rock solid testimony by the defendant under cross examination during the trial. They convicted the husband not once, but twice after a mistrial on the first conviction.

I often read cases in the news and I know the evidence that was presented - it may be shocking to some, but the news is a business (perhaps some would equate it to the UCI) and they are focused on selling papers - controversy sells and often the news fails to give you the whole picture.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Funny - I work with due process on a daily basis, deciding whether to prosecute a case and take their liberty away. I have gone to court with video taped confessions, eyewitnesses, DNA, and the murder weapon in the possession of the defendant; at trial I expect to hear someone tell me and the jury that there is no crime, or if there was a crime it was not committed by the defendant, if it was committed it self defense, if not self defense it the defendant was insane >>> this is an everyday experience for me. What I have found is that the jury generally gets it correct (from my point of view I suppose), but it always takes hard evidence to get the conviction.

Of course it might be nice to say - I have the confession, I got the weapon from the defendant, I have his DNA - so why bother with the trial. The trial is there to protect the defendant and society from someone deciding who they want to be guilty and who they do not.

While it nice to see you are diligent in your work - how would you feel if there was NO trial?

And then you found out the Judge or Jury had received a 'donation' from the accused?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

This might come as a shocker to some around here. But I am amazed to read case files or watch a show regarding a homicide, etc. and how often people are willing to put someone in jail on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

One such case in the Binghamton, NY area. Big media circus for that area with two trials that just finished up this summer. Guy's estranged wife (dating multiple new guys) disappears on the evening of Sept 11, 2001. No body. No weapon. No witnesses to the murder. No physical evidence on the defendant. No confession. Some very minor blood (hers) in the family's garage of questionable age. And a distant neighbor who claims to have seen the woman with another man the following morning after the prosecutors claimed the murder to have taken place. And a rock solid testimony by the defendant under cross examination during the trial. They convicted the husband not once, but twice after a mistrial on the first conviction.

Circumstantial evidence is fairly useful, it just requires that a review of all the evidence not leave the juror with a reasonable second option (such as innocence).

 

[scribe]

Circumstantial evidence is fairly useful, it just requires that a review of all the evidence not leave the juror with a reasonable second option (such as innocence).

The jurors later quoted to the press that they could not arrive at another killer after reviewing all the evidence.

Again. No body, no weapon, very little in the way of evidence. She might be in Asia living a different life for what anybody knows. He is sitting in jail, maybe the killer of his wife, maybe not.

 

[buckwheat]

Pharmstrong!

The guy's just about as corrupt as one can get without committing a violent crime.

 

[Sprocket01]

Conspiracy theory?
This is from Lance himself:
"I have donated money to the UCI over the years to increase [drug controls]."

Yes I know, but it's a conspiracy theory that this avoided him being found guilty of doping. It was a PR move to show he is against drugs. It seems unlikely, looking at it logically, that it wouldn't leak out when the scientists and others were ordered not to find him positive of anything. It's just too whacky for me.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Here we go with 'official law' route. We are not in court, this is the court of public opinion, we cannot convict anyone except in our minds and rants. People are talking about Vino not being allowed to start the Tour next year. Why not, he served his suspension.

After the revelations in regards to EPO in Lances samples after the 05 Tour, the Tour organisers where not exactly happy with Lance. It would have been interesting if Lance had not retired that year, would he have been welocme at the 06 Tour. I am not so sure. What we do know is that was all forgotten this year and he was welcomed back without any problems. Why not welcome back Rasmussen, never officially caught, Basso, never officially caught, to me they are in the exact same position as Lance was in 05 yet they served suspensions.

Bingo! - if the conspiracy about spiked samples is to be believed then 'they' made one serious error in not revealing it during the 2005 Tour.

Imagine if news broke about the 6 EPO samples during the Tour - LA would have suffered the same fate as Pantani or Ulrich or Rasmussen and been thrown off the Tour.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Actually, I have never stated that the UCI is not covering something up. They are just as capable of human behavior as anyone else, including scientists at a doping lab (which I am not accusing them of doing).

Read it again slowly. I said you acknowledged the possibility of 'human behavior' in one situation and not the other. I didn't say you claimed the UCI is not covering something up.