Doping inspector backs Armstrong

[pmcg76]

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.

Try this for size, somebody metioned Neil Stephens. You probably dont know him but he was part of the Festina team in 1998. He never admitted to doping, never tested positive and was never convicted or even tried for doping, the only evidence against him is that the soigneur at the centre of the scandal said everyone doped at Festina other than Bassons. Voet was caught with a carload of drugs bound for Festina at the Tour. According to your logic and legal process, Stephens is innocent of doping. I think 99.9% of people on here would agree that he more than likely doped. What do you think. For me there is just as much evidence against Lance as there is against Stephens.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

i reached the same point way before you, 177 posts earlier in fact.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=97177&postcount=421
too much legal posturing and a heavy overdose of escapism into legal phraseology ('due process', 'beyond reasonable doubt' etc) the moment hard questions are asked. all in a place that has no need for this close minded approach. I’d think opposite if he had an open legal mind he’d grab an opportunity to think aloud, weigh in on the presented evidence etc. very little of that but a lot of posturing.

I really don’t understand why he’s even continuing to engage in the thread. am i wrong getting a feeling he enjoys playing with those he's considering not his intellectual equals?

Not intellectually inferior - but it has been a slow weekend and I did enjoy the process - I just am not ready to roll over and state that there is irrefutable evidence on doping on the part of LA from 2000 to the present. He may have, he may not have, and as many have pointed out, the tests are not up to the current procedures.

 

[red_flanders]

"I can think of lots of reasons why you would want to pay the organization policing you money. The bigger question, to me, is what does it say about an organization that would accept it."

Obviously you are seeking to excuse Armstrong and blame the UCI. Both are clearly slime. There is no valid reason for an active rider to secretly pay the organization that "polices" riders half a million dollars. It's as blatantly filthy as can be, both on the part of the UCI and Armstrong.

You cannot criticize the UCI for accepting a bribe while trying to suggest that it wasn't a bribe. Simply cannot work that way. If the payment was legit (no reason imaginable) than there is no problem that the UCI would accept it. If it's a bribe (obvious) than they are equally disgusting participants.

You're not even bothering to make sense anymore. Ruse exposed. Welcome to SprocketLand.

 

[python]

Not intellectually inferior - but it has been a slow weekend and I did enjoy the process - I just am not ready to roll over and state that there is irrefutable evidence on doping on the part of LA from 2000 to the present. He may have, he may not have, and as many have pointed out, the tests are not up to the current procedures.

you had plenty of opportunity to discuss the evidence and weigh in yet you've chosen to hide behind the same tired legal phraseology. btw, beyond reasonable doubt standard you repeat so much does not apply to sporting law. i'm surprised you did not mention it or don't know it. and it appears you have no knowledge of testing procedures therefore your referral to "many pointed out" is a striking example of inadmissible hearsay when arguing a point. you gave TFF a long lesson on that and i suggest you ought to learn it yourself first.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

I really don’t understand why he’s even continuing to engage in the thread. am i wrong getting a feeling he enjoys playing with those he's considering not his intellectual equals?

Perhaps CCB sees it as a teaching (or evangelical) role......once we have all been converted to the belief that by far the best way of establishing truth in any situation is the legal way..... we can then renounce any methods of separating what we think from what we know, which we have gained from our own education (formal or otherwise).....then we can all sing in CCB's enlightened choir.

Haaaalleluja, Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

Edit:

I just am not ready to roll over and state that there is irrefutable evidence on doping on the part of LA from 2000 to the present.

Who want's you to state that?

Most of the recent responses to you are really just requests for you to stop telling others how and what to think..... about a topic that they have looked into in more detail than you have. You may not be trying to tell others how and what to think - but that is the message that's coming across. A number of posters have tried politely but unsuccessfully to get you to see this; I hope you get it this time.....so we can stop banging on about it.

 

[Rupert]

Hearsay

"a striking example of inadmissible hearsay when arguing a point..."

Inadmissable where? In the court of blah, blah, blah? I think you've been watching too many law & order episodes... If "hearsay" was "inadmissable" this forum would be out of business.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Perhaps CCB sees it as a teaching (or evangelical) role......once we have all been converted to the belief that by far the best way of establishing truth in any situation is the legal way..... we can then renounce any methods of separating what we think from what we know, which we have gained from our own education (formal or otherwise).....then we can all sing in CCB's enlightened choir.

Haaaalleluja, Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

I probably will not have access to this board for a couple of days but will be check in when I get back to town to see how many have joined the congregation

 

[Race Radio]

I probably will not have access to this board for a couple of days but will be check in when I get back to town to see how many have joined the congregation

whats up? Mid terms?

Don't worry. The first year of Law School is the hardest, it gets easier after that.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

I probably will not have access to this board for a couple of days but will be check in when I get back to town to see how many have joined the congregation

Nice comeback Did you notice I edited that post - care to respond to the other part of it?

 

[Runitout]

[edited for irrelevance]

 

[CentralCaliBike]

whats up? Mid terms?

Don't worry. The first year of Law School is the hardest, it gets easier after that.

Training - I am taking a class on teaching adult learners (clearly, I some help in the field ).

Law school was 18 years ago.

 

[Race Radio]

Training - I am taking a class on teaching adult learners (clearly, I need work in this area ).

Law school was 18 years ago.

None of us are adults, but it will give you some good practice.

 

[scribe]

500K for a piece of analytical equipment, that's some special machine. Do you remember what they said it was, or can you point me in the direction of the info. I'd like to take a look at that.

Good luck getting sources for some of the things presented as fact around here.

Also, I'd like to know if that is considered a tax deductible donation. Certainly helps to significantly boost one's purchasing power.

 

[Race Radio]

Good luck getting sources for some of the things presented as fact around here.

Also, I'd like to know if that is considered a tax deductible donation. Certainly helps to significantly boost one's purchasing power.

Doesn't anyone know how to use Google?

Verbruggen said wonderboy had bought them many cool things, including a Sysmex blood testing machine

 

[buckwheat]

I'd have to look into that one further as I never much bothered with any of that. I always that it was generally accepted and convicted on the basis that he was an accessory to those murders. If so, of course he shouldn't be loose to do that to someone else.

I came in late. I hope you're not a lawyer. At any rate, you can do all the checking you want. The FACT is, there was no direct physical evidence tying Manson to the Tate-LaBianca murders. You do also realize that most murderers are paroled eventually? There's mountains of evidence against Armstrong leaving no doubt he's a fraud.

Armstrong? He just might have doped his way through his entire career. Maybe everyone since Lemond and before Lemond has cheated their way to victory.

Why do the Armstrong apologists always try to incriminate others to excuse the behavior of their boy?

 

[scribe]

Doesn't anyone know how to use Google?

Verbruggen said wonderboy had bought them many cool things, including a Sysmex blood testing machine

Just googled it........and surprise! Several posts from this forum come up and nothing in the designated news tab.

 

[Race Radio]

Just googled it........and surprise! Several posts from this forum come up and nothing in the designated news tab.

second on Google
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2005/tour05/news/?id=jul05/jul01news2

One of the last things he did was to pay for the UCI's new Sysmex blood testing machine,

Also this gem of a quote

Verbruggen noted, also taking offense to any suggestion that the UCI would turn a blind eye if Armstrong ever tested positive. When a journalist asked him about this yesterday, Verbruggen told AD that he responded, "'Get the hell out of here, idiot!', I told him. Luckily I could restrain myself a bit, otherwise I would really let fly. I'm not good with such people. This initiative deserves nothing but praise and respect."

Never question the myth.

 

[scribe]

Why do the Armstrong apologists always try to incriminate others to excuse the behavior of their boy?

YOu are gonna have to catch up buckwheat. In this forum, everyone is under intense suspicion of cheating. No one gets a free pass.

 

[scribe]

second on Google
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2005/tour05/news/?id=jul05/jul01news2


Also this gem of a quote



Never question the myth.

That article doesn't tie the machine in with '99 500k donation. Doesn't even mention any specific donation. How did you come up with that connection by suggesting the machine didn't exist in '99?

 

[Runitout]

http://www.playthegame.org/uploads/media/Michael_Ashenden-Can_curruption_derail_the_testing_syst.pdf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2005/sep/16/cycling.cycling

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0714/p20s01-wogi.html

 

[Race Radio]

That article doesn't tie the machine in with '99 500k donation. Doesn't even mention any specific donation. How did you come up with that connection by suggesting the machine didn't exist in '99?

What am I, your research department?

When the UCI/Armstrong went public they tried to downplay the donation, making the timing and amount as vague as possible. This article was one of many at the time in which the "Donation" was discussed.

Later that year Silvia Schneck, UCI Board Member, head of the ethics committee, went public with the amount, $500,000. She said that it was a conflict of interest and that Armstrong received preferential treatment.

Here is the Machine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sysmex_XE-2100
Introduced in 2003 and cost over $100,000

Even Armstrong realized the conflict, he lied about it

Q. Okay. How much did you give?
A. I think 25,000.
Q. You say you think. Do you –
A. Yeah, I say I think because I'm not 100 percent sure.
Q. Would it be within a range of that, though, if you're -- I
mean, it wouldn't be like --
A. Well, it wouldn't be --
Q. -- 200,000 --
A. No.
Q. -- or 150,000?
A. No.
Q. I mean, it could be 30 or 40, or it could be 20, is what I'm
asking.
A. It could be. I don't think it's that. But I think it's no more
than 30.
Q. Okay. Do you know what UCI did with the money?
A. I don't know.
Q. Okay. Like they didn't buy some specific equipment
or something with it that you're aware of? It wasn't
earmarked --
A. Which part of I don't know do you not understand?
Q. You have no idea who you called, and just -- you just
sent a check for $25,000 to the UCI. You can't
remember why you did it, or who you talked to, or
what it was for.
A. You asked me again what have they done with the
money, and I said I don't know.

 

[scribe]

What am I, your research department?

Just source your claims. It only serves to support your position.

 

[scribe]

Later that year Silvia Schneck, UCI Board Member, head of the ethics committee, went public with the amount, $500,000. She said that it was a conflict of interest and that Armstrong received preferential treatment.

The Ashedon powerpoint presentation points to a velonews article in which Silvia Schneck makes note of the donation. I can't find the article in velonews for additional information and the connection to claim that the money from that particular donation was to be earmarked for specific machinery or even detail on preferential treatment.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The Ashedon powerpoint presentation points to a velonews article in which Silvia Schneck makes note of the donation. I can't find the article in velonews for additional information and the connection to claim that the money from that particular donation was to be earmarked for specific machinery or even detail on preferential treatment.

Here is the Schenk interview from Velonews.
http://velonews.com/article/8889

Eurosport.com also reports that when questioned about the amounts of money involved there followed “(Laughter) It was a fair amount. It wasn't... It wasn't a small amount of money". http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=3088

"Hein Verbruggen, confirmed that Armstrong sponsors UCI anti-doping investigations. One of the last things he did was to pay for the UCI's new Sysmex blood testing machine."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-puts-extra-money-into-anti-doping

 

[CentralCaliBike]

The FACT is, there was no direct physical evidence tying Manson to the Tate-LaBianca murders. You do also realize that most murderers are paroled eventually?

In California. You cannot convict someone on the testimony of co-defendants alone - also, I have not seen a murder defendant released on first degree murder charges in the counties that I have worked in in the last 17 years and I have been to quite a few hearings.

Note: querky keyboards are painful.