Eki frustrated by AC's comments

[Eva Maria]

We're going to agree to disagree about L'Equipe. The Di Lucca case came out July 22nd, not before the tour.

I'm not believing any lier in this case, I'm just choosing not to believe a story without a source.

Like I said in my previous post, there are ways to protect the source yet inform the reader that they exist. You see the phrases all the time. "sources who do not wish to be named" and that sort of thing are common.
There are a lot of people that thing that's bad, that reporters shouldn't even write it if the source isn't willing to be on record.

You take another step toward gossip when you don't even bother to mention sources anywhere in your reporting.

If you find out who said these things about Alberto and being stranded before the TT feel free to tell us. But don't fault people for wanting to hold what they read to some kind of standard.

Ridiculous. This is bike racing, not Watergate. While L'Equipe was off on the timing the important part of the story, that more positives were coming shortly, was correct. I heard about the TT story from people that were at the stage is good enough for me. The story has now been reported in most countries in Europe, with no dispute from the Hog or Armstrong.

You are free to split hairs but it just makes you look foolish. You want a "Standard" but believe every BS tweet and press release from Armstrong like it is fact? What you really want is that the myth is not questioned.

 

[gree0232]

L'Equipe is not a tabloid, it is the most well respect sports newspaper in the world....that is not only my view but the view of Frank DeFord, former editor of Sports Illustrated. Often in journalism protecting your sources is as important as naming them, your protest is nothing more then a straw man.

The 5-7 more sanctions have come out, Di Lucca was one of them. Their list of foul ups is not long, but the list of Armstrong lies is. That you are more willing to believe a consistent liar shows that the truth is not your concern, but the perpetuation of the Armstrong myth is.

L'Equip may not be a tabloid, bt neither is it the 'most respected sports newspaper in the world.' For the record, DiLuca's positive was released during the tour, not before it.

The truth of the matter is that any relationship has at least two sides, and when I see general denegration of one side or the other I see people who are deliberately avoiding key elements of the issue.

L'Equip benefits from relationships between French ministeries and agencies that many French people find maddening. The French establishment has a long history of aristotcratic tendancies, one of which is the reliance on relationship patronage. The American version is called the 'Good old boy network.'

The best demonstration of this problem was Pound's constant public comments about cycling while he was chairman. Doping cases announced within hours and well before the athlete is notified? The source, almost every time? L'Equip. The 'source' for most accusations regarding Lance? L'Equip. Does anyone ever wonder why soccer, which has as many blood bags in Operation Puerto as cycling does didn't get any bad press? Interestingly enough, while cycling had issues with the IOC, soccer did not, and all of the sudden cycling has the 'biggest' doping problem in the world? Interesting.

Of note, the anti-doping campaign seems to be going much better by following the rules laid out by the UCI, instead of the sensationalized 'leaks' and the resulting damage to the entire sport that ensued. Wouldn't you agree?

The problem is that this relationship patronage gives you access to information, but that access comes with a price. That price is that you also become privy to, party of, and agent to, the often petty fuedalistic agenda of those who have deigned to give you 'access'.

Again, the best example I can think of is that, if you read L'Equip, you would think that Lance was universally hated in France. He is not, far from it. He may be brash, but he is certainly less brash than the badger and the French love the Hinault!

What is clear is that Armstrong clearly irked the entrenched sports establishment in France. The resulting rumor and insinuation campaign, where L'Equip was a willing agent, makes it rather difficult to present L'Equip as a neutral and prestigious news organization or to take everything they say at face value. Of course, that is often why nameless agtens with the French sporting body use L'Equip and other news sources, to further their own agenda from anonimity.

Lance Armstrong is far from the perfect human being, but he is an athlete and a cancer survivor, not the Pope. There are certainly things that Lance can and should be constructively criticized for, but I think there is far more to criticize in the retention of aristocratic influences by the French political elite than there is in parsing Armstrong's honor.

Whatis clear though, Twitter and other instant news sources will definitely be giving L'Equip and other news agencies a run for their money.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So you are saying L'Equipe is a rag..... thats interesting as it had 'Chapeau Lance' on its cover at the weekend.

 

[Eva Maria]

Doping cases announced within hours and well before the athlete is notified? The source, almost every time? L'Equip.

Do you have an example of this?

 

[ThisFrenchGuy]

What does the French political elite have to do with it?

L'Equipe is not a tabloid but it has its faults, all the more since they have a somewhat monopoly on sports reporting in France (That may also be the case for the GDS in Italy) but this whole "the French are out to get me, why are they so unfair? =(" is kinda ridiculous.

What was the beginning on this argument again about newspapers, a translation?

And sources can be anonymous. For a journalist to be able to protect its sources is a very important point, and that means sometimes keeping them confidential. I agree that sport is not the garvest of issues, especially the drama surrounding Astana this year, but still media covering it are no less entitled to it. Up to you to decide whether or not it's enough in that case. But I seriously fail to see the supposed increased credibility of a twitter on the subject.

As for the anti-doping policies, it seems to me it's mostly the police and governements that must be complimented than the UCI.

 

[poupou]

L'Equip benefits from relationships between French ministeries and agencies that many French people find maddening. The French establishment has a long history of aristotcratic tendancies, one of which is the reliance on relationship patronage. The American version is called the 'Good old boy network.'

There are so many that as French involved in sport for years I know no one of them. If you were a reader of L'Equipe you could see that on some subjects, there is sometime 2 different reporters for the same stories with different opinions.

Football is the mainstream of L'Equipe. Despite TDF and a lot of races in France, cycling comes after tennis, rugby.

 

[poupou]

Of note, the anti-doping campaign seems to be going much better by following the rules laid out by the UCI, instead of the sensationalized 'leaks' and the resulting damage to the entire sport that ensued. Wouldn't you agree?

No. Better to have independent anti-doping entity of UCI, they interest is not to catch dopers but to be seen clean!

 

[poupou]

Again, the best example I can think of is that, if you read L'Equip, you would think that Lance was universally hated in France. He is not, far from it. He may be brash, but he is certainly less brash than the badger and the French love the Hinault!

What is clear is that Armstrong clearly irked the entrenched sports establishment in France. The resulting rumor and insinuation campaign, where L'Equip was a willing agent, makes it rather difficult to present L'Equip as a neutral and prestigious news organization or to take everything they say at face value. Of course, that is often why nameless agtens with the French sporting body use L'Equip and other news sources, to further their own agenda from anonimity.

Lance Armstrong is far from the perfect human being, but he is an athlete and a cancer survivor, not the Pope. There are certainly things that Lance can and should be constructively criticized for, but I think there is far more to criticize in the retention of aristocratic influences by the French political elite than there is in parsing Armstrong's honor.

Whatis clear though, Twitter and other instant news sources will definitely be giving L'Equip and other news agencies a run for their money.

The problem of Lance withn the French began in 1999 with his "cream". He was caught making a stupid lie, so he boycotted the press.

To be a cancer survivor gives more responsabilities by promoting it.

 

[gree0232]

Do you have an example of this?

Yeah, Floyd Landis.

Lance's 1999 EPO 'positive', that an independant Dutch investigation slammed WADA, not Lance, for.

Lance's 1999 'positive' for cortisone, which was slightly elevated, but within allowable limits and the result of treatment for a saddle sore (which you do tend to get when you ride in the rain). So sayth the ASO, and UCI during the race no less!

Tyler Hamilton, Rumndus Rumsas, Ivan Basso, Jan Ullrich, Iban Mayo ....

The most recent example? Showergate, where an completely superfluous memorandum requesting permission from the UCI for something they didn't need permission for was leaked to, you guessed it, L'Equip.

Like I said, when I see such generalized comments as, "Lance is a liar," with no specificity coupled with "L'Equip is the greatest sporting news source in the world," I see the cherry picking of facts.

Since 1999, Lance has been repeatedly accussed of doping, he been probbed, tested, investigated and brought several of these cases to court where EVERY SINGLE TIME, Lance has emerged vindicated.

If after ten years you cannot convict someone of somthing, and WADA wound up deeply embarassing itself relating to the 1999 EPO 'positive', then a guy is innocent.

Lance may not be a nice guy, but I get a little tired of the 'Where there is smoke there is fire' mentality that the French establishment absolutely loves and has long exploited. Why do you think the head of Formula One, during the middle of a dispute regarding the future of that sport, had pictures released of him with prostitutes in Nazi garb suddenly splashed into the International Press?

Nothing going on there, someone was clearly doing something regarding just their personal 'integrity'.

Lance may very well have lied on occassion, but certainly not because L'Equip is the standard for journalistic integrity and excellence. However, in L'Equip's defense, they do give you a good snap shot into the often shadowy world of sports ministries.

You just need to be aware that there is a LOT of politics involved in agencies like the IOC, UCI, ASO, etc. Each of thos organizations has agendas and leaders with strong egos. If you think things are clean and professional, please look at the fight between the UCI and ASO regarding the Pro-Tour.

Then ask Team Uni-bet if they would like to ride next year's tour ....

 

[No_Balls]

Contador proved that cyling is not a team sport. Not only did contador win without a team , he won with a team that was doing everything they could to sabotage him. Contador is a genuine talent who does not need to rely on a team or so-called tactics or peloton politics. Armstrong only won in the past because of his bullying politics and weasal tactics. I would love to see armstrong retroactively lose his 7 tour wins because of the slimey way he won.

Would be pretty intresting seeing uniball drive in a team having that that kind of support twitter released upon Contador, wouldnt it?

"You should drive for the domestique Lance. You are spoiling the team-plan."

Lance: "But my legs is pretty good. Maybe i could attack?"

"No, just wait. Stick to team-plan. You are a bad teammate. What did i tell you last weekend? Havent you learn?"

 

[Eva Maria]

Yeah, Floyd Landis.

Nope, Floyd's postive was announced by his team Phonak

Lance's 1999 EPO 'positive', that an independant Dutch investigation slammed WADA, not Lance, for.

Wrong again. Lance himself gave the UCi permission to release Lance's forms to L'Equipe.

Lance's 1999 'positive' for cortisone, which was slightly elevated, but within allowable limits and the result of treatment for a saddle sore (which you do tend to get when you ride in the rain).

You mean when Armstrong and company invented a backdated TUE? Something that is no longer allowed.

Tyler Hamilton, Rumndus Rumsas, Ivan Basso, Jan Ullrich, Iban Mayo ....

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, and Wrong

The most recent example? Showergate, where an completely superfluous memorandum requesting permission from the UCI for something they didn't need permission for was leaked to, you guessed it, L'Equip.

Wrong again. The public conflict over the test was initiated by Lance, he complained via Twitter about the test minutes after the tester left.

Since 1999, Lance has been repeatedly accussed of doping, he been probbed, tested, investigated and brought several of these cases to court where EVERY SINGLE TIME, Lance has emerged vindicated.

What court has decided that Lance is not a doper? The reality is any rational person would look at the evidence and say "He is a doper"

If after ten years you cannot convict someone of somthing, and WADA wound up deeply embarassing itself relating to the 1999 EPO 'positive', then a guy is innocent.

Most observers saw the UCI cover up as another example of the UCI corruption. Here is Michael Ashenden's view http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Ashenden is one of developer of the EPO test and is on the UCI's Biopassport team. Another of the UCI Biopassport review team, Robin Parisotto, also says that Armstrong dope. He said "To deny would be to lie"

 

[gree0232]

Nope, Floyd's postive was announced by his team Phonak


Wrong again. Lance himself gave the UCi permission to release Lance's forms to L'Equipe.

You mean when Armstrong and company invented a backdated TUE? Something that is no longer allowed.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, and Wrong

Wrong again. The public conflict over the test was initiated by Lance, he complained via Twitter about the test minutes after the tester left.



What court has decided that Lance is not a doper? The reality is any rational person would look at the evidence and say "He is a doper"


Most observers saw the UCI cover up as another example of the UCI corruption. Here is Michael Ashenden's view http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Ashenden is one of developer of the EPO test and is on the UCI's Biopassport team. Another of the UCI Biopassport review team, Robin Parisotto, also says that Armstrong dope. He said "To deny would be to lie"

Let's be very clear, things are not wrong just because you say so.

This is exatly what I am talking about. Just a quick google search and, "The French sports daily L'Equip is quoting a French police official claiming ..."

There are literally hundreds of sources that begin with the same approximation. Interesting that none of the sources lists the unnamed police official as Team Phonak.

What does Lance's release forms have to do with what LNDD did with that tests? How does Lance's release form mean that an indpendant investigation in WADA conduct AFTER they had those release form, a report that strongly condemned their actions, influence the situation?

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-169017227.html

That is just one of literally hundreds of sources that would have allowed you to get the facts on this case instead of, quite routine for Lance Haters, saying, "He tested positive in 1999!"

Clearly he did not.

The Twitter comment was that they took a lot of samples including a hair sample, and ended with basically, "No worries!" Clearly that broke shower gate?

I find it very interesting that Lance Haters blast Lance Armstrong for twittering, but don't seem to actually read the twitter comments.

This is just one more case of someone jumping on a band wagon because it is easier to go with the flow and to read sensationalised headlines rather than seek out information.

So tell me, what makes Lance such a bad guy?

Won the Tour seven times?

Survived Cancer?

Twittered repeatedly that AC was the strongest bike rider in the world? (I guess those twitter remarks can be ignored).

Been accussed of doping and taking the time to exonerate himself? God, what an ***!

Nobody said doing what was right was easy, just that it was necessary.

 

[Anonymous]

Nope, Floyd's postive was announced by his team Phonak


Wrong again. Lance himself gave the UCi permission to release Lance's forms to L'Equipe.

You mean when Armstrong and company invented a backdated TUE? Something that is no longer allowed.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, and Wrong

Wrong again. The public conflict over the test was initiated by Lance, he complained via Twitter about the test minutes after the tester left.



What court has decided that Lance is not a doper? The reality is any rational person would look at the evidence and say "He is a doper"


Most observers saw the UCI cover up as another example of the UCI corruption. Here is Michael Ashenden's view http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Ashenden is one of developer of the EPO test and is on the UCI's Biopassport team. Another of the UCI Biopassport review team, Robin Parisotto, also says that Armstrong dope. He said "To deny would be to lie"

Since you are pretty deep in the "Lance doped" conspiracy theory can you also let the group know once and for all if Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone?

 

[BikeCentric]

It is very very rare to be claiming teammates are you rivals on a grand tour team.

Yes but Astana this year was the first time in quite a while that one team had a number of legitimate TDF GC contenders on it. La Vie Claire in '86 was the last one I can think of that was this strong for the GC with mutliple riders.

 

[ThisFrenchGuy]

Yes but Astana this year was the first time in quite a while that one team had a number of legitimate TDF GC contenders on it. La Vie Claire in '86 was the last one I can think of that was this strong for the GC with mutliple riders.

Telekom in 97? Agreed Ullrich was maybe not seen as a contender at the beginning of the race, but it didn't take long.
I asked in another thread if someone had recollections about the reporting at the time.

 

[Anonymous]

Let's be very clear, things are not wrong just because you say so.

This is exatly what I am talking about. Just a quick google search and, "The French sports daily L'Equip is quoting a French police official claiming ..."

There are literally hundreds of sources that begin with the same approximation. Interesting that none of the sources lists the unnamed police official as Team Phonak.

What does Lance's release forms have to do with what LNDD did with that tests? How does Lance's release form mean that an indpendant investigation in WADA conduct AFTER they had those release form, a report that strongly condemned their actions, influence the situation?

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-169017227.html

That is just one of literally hundreds of sources that would have allowed you to get the facts on this case instead of, quite routine for Lance Haters, saying, "He tested positive in 1999!"

Clearly he did not.

The Twitter comment was that they took a lot of samples including a hair sample, and ended with basically, "No worries!" Clearly that broke shower gate?

I find it very interesting that Lance Haters blast Lance Armstrong for twittering, but don't seem to actually read the twitter comments.

This is just one more case of someone jumping on a band wagon because it is easier to go with the flow and to read sensationalised headlines rather than seek out information.

So tell me, what makes Lance such a bad guy?

Won the Tour seven times?

Survived Cancer?

Twittered repeatedly that AC was the strongest bike rider in the world? (I guess those twitter remarks can be ignored).

Been accussed of doping and taking the time to exonerate himself? God, what an ***!

Nobody said doing what was right was easy, just that it was necessary.

Lets be clear, he knows much more about the issues you raise than do you.

And try as you might, there was synthetic EPO (note that the synthetic part is important) in 6 of the urine samples in enough concentration to warrant a positive. (don't make me explain to you why there couldn't be a doping violation. The fanboy line of "then why wasn't he suspended" is always used in total denial of the reality of the facts.) 2 of the others have synthetic EPO in them, and the report you quote doesn't say that isn't true. If you actually read the report, you will see that you are again inflating the reality to appear to have a "truth" that isn't supported by the facts.

Really, I will just end it here because, like most of your kind, you know enough to force someone who knows what they are talking about to spend hours refuting your ignorance. I just don't have the desire to do it for the 100th time.

 

[BikeCentric]

Nice comments! I’m in my mid 20's and and take no offence at all.

I don’t understand why Berto's intellect is such a hot topic, if he’s not the sharpest tool in the box so what? What great cyclists have been towers of intelligence? Fignon got his nickname because he wore glasses not because he possessed degrees in advanced calculus. Lance, judging by his awful books is not that bright but is certainly good as a business man and at choosing the people who advise him.

The best amateur and pro cyclists I know personally are sometimes not very bright at all but make good decisions during races and training, something that I believe Berto has done during this whole season with a possible tiny error. I, however, make stupid decision after stupid decision and rarely get accused of being a dumb person.

LOL, good post! I also am considered "smart" off the bike yet often make the same mistakes in races. Bike racing smarts/instincts and real-world intellect do not go hand-in-hand in my opinion.

 

[BikeCentric]

I'm not making excuses for Alberto, but I don't jump to the conclusion that because of Stage 17 for instance, or just because he got rattled by the press, he's dimwitted. Heck, Carlos Sastre (age 34) snapped back at the media during this Tour and he hardly ever speaks. I wouldn't call Sastre an idiot because of it. He was in a pretty negative situation and lashed out, probably justified (ref my points in the Hall of Fame thread on him).

And of course let's not forget Cadel Evans last year - under a lot of pressure, physically injured, hanging on to Yellow by a thread, and he made an *** of himself in front of the media as well.

 

[Eva Maria]

Let's be very clear, things are not wrong just because you say so.

This is exatly what I am talking about. Just a quick google search and, "The French sports daily L'Equip is quoting a French police official claiming ..."

There are literally hundreds of sources that begin with the same approximation. Interesting that none of the sources lists the unnamed police official as Team Phonak.

If you were able to find one of those "hundreds of sources" that proved me wrong I am sure you would post it, but you can't

The fact is the Landis news did not come from l'Equipe.
-Landis dropped out of a series of post Tour Crit's that he was paid $120,000 each for. This raised questions of why
-The head of the UCI says there has been a high profile postive, pressed on who it was he said "The worst possible"
-Phonak announces Floyd is positive.

What does Lance's release forms have to do with what LNDD did with that tests? How does Lance's release form mean that an indpendant investigation in WADA conduct AFTER they had those release form, a report that strongly condemned their actions, influence the situation?

The group of anonymous test results were released as part of the French version of the freedom of information act. LNDD is government funded. Since there was no way attach the results to any one rider the reported needed copies of Armstrong's forms....which he authorized the release of. The UCI report does not even attempt to explain the positives. That is why is was called “so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical.”

That is just one of literally hundreds of sources that would have allowed you to get the facts on this case instead of, quite routine for Lance Haters, saying, "He tested positive in 1999!"

Clearly he did not.

Clearly he did. Please read this interview. Tell us why Ashenden is wrong
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

 

[Anonymous]

Lets be clear, he knows much more about the issues you raise than do you.

And try as you might, there was synthetic EPO (note that the synthetic part is important) in 6 of the urine samples in enough concentration to warrant a positive. (don't make me explain to you why there couldn't be a doping violation. The fanboy line of "then why wasn't he suspended" is always used in total denial of the reality of the facts.) 2 of the others have synthetic EPO in them, and the report you quote doesn't say that isn't true. If you actually read the report, you will see that you are again inflating the reality to appear to have a "truth" that isn't supported by the facts.

Really, I will just end it here because, like most of your kind, you know enough to force someone who knows what they are talking about to spend hours refuting your ignorance. I just don't have the desire to do it for the 100th time.

The world of pro cycling, while small, is not tiny. Let's just say that everything you allege is 100% true. Every drug lab, WADA, USADA, UCI, USA Cycling, countless teamates, press and people in the know are all conspiring in the cover-up. Ok, I'll go along. But then consider how bad many in the press, especially at L'Equipe, want to break the news to the world that LA is nothing more than a total fraud and not to mention the risk to his foundation efforts, future political aspirations etc, etc, etc. I find it hard to believe that you actually think what you have are the "facts". I think you like to be provocative.

It's truly is a good thing there is at least a minimal burden of proof in professional cycling otherwise there would be no cycling to argue about.

 

[Eva Maria]

The world of pro cycling, while small, is not tiny. Let's just say that everything you allege is 100% true. Every drug lab, WADA, USADA, UCI, USA Cycling, countless teamates, press and people in the know are all conspiring in the cover-up. Ok, I'll go along. But then consider how bad many in the press, especially at L'Equipe, want to break the news to the world that LA is nothing more than a total fraud and not to mention the risk to his foundation efforts, future political aspirations etc, etc, etc. I find it hard to believe that you actually think what you have are the "facts". I think you like to be provocative.

It's truly is a good thing there is at least a minimal burden of proof in professional cycling otherwise there would be no cycling to argue about.

USDA and WADA only had jurisdiction during the last 7 months of Armstrongs career. USA Cycling only tested him 1-2 times per year, if that.

There is really only one governing body to point the finger at, the UCI. Considering they took a $500,000 "Donation" soon after his cortisone positive many would be right to question them.

 

[Anonymous]

USDA and WADA only had jurisdiction during the last 7 months of Armstrongs career. USA Cycling only tested him 1-2 times per year, if that.

There is really only one governing body to point the finger at, the UCI. Considering they took a $500,000 "Donation" soon after his cortisone positive many would be right to question them.

I'll restate. The conspiracy would be overarching. Please address why it is none of these "facts" stick. Is LA really that clever and are you saying that something this big could bought and paid for with $500k?

I'm not buying what you are selling. Sorry.

 

[gree0232]

If you were able to find one of those "hundreds of sources" that proved me wrong I am sure you would post it, but you can't

The fact is the Landis news did not come from l'Equipe.
-Landis dropped out of a series of post Tour Crit's that he was paid $120,000 each for. This raised questions of why
-The head of the UCI says there has been a high profile postive, pressed on who it was he said "The worst possible"
-Phonak announces Floyd is positive.


The group of anonymous test results were released as part of the French version of the freedom of information act. LNDD is government funded. Since there was no way attach the results to any one rider the reported needed copies of Armstrong's forms....which he authorized the release of. The UCI report does not even attempt to explain the positives. That is why is was called “so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical.”



Clearly he did. Please read this interview. Tell us why Ashenden is wrong
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Yeah, the French Sports Ministry NEVER talks to ASO.

Read the INDEPENDANT Dutch report and then get back to me.

You are cherry picking results, avoiding anything that is critical of those accusing Lance and doing after the fact searching to justify your opinions.

One interview does not equate to 'proof'. When an indpendant body comes in and says and independant commission should look into this for disciplinary actions .... Yeah, I would bet that LNDD would want to counter such a report. Interesting that they have not invited such a comission in to take a look.

Interesting that one man, one rider, seems to have more fire power than WADA, ASO, the IOC, and various other sports ministeries.

And somehow this one man, never convicted of anything, is the center of a vast conspiracy of himself and Johan Brunyeel. Scintilating.

Did you hear the one about Neil Armstrong, Lance's 'Real' father, faking the moon landing with one Mr. Aldrin, then CEO of the Landis Construction Company? How do you think Lance met Floyd!

In all fits! The diabolical ability to fool the entire world was actually taught when Neil fooled the entire world! Did I mention that Neil fathered Lance with a martian and dumped Lance on his "mother's" door step in a basket?

Up next, how Chuck Norris got Lance into cycling.

There are two sides to this issue, but the fact of the matter is that Lance was never convicted of anything -- and plenty of people have tried.

I also think it is telling that not one of the riders whose contracts are held by Johan are fighting the move to team radio shack. And if grave injustices were witnessed, and thus expected on the other end of this transfer, you'd expect to see at least one screaming about the move.

Curious. The Dark side must be very powerful with Darth Armstrong.

 

[Eva Maria]

Yeah, the French Sports Ministry NEVER talks to ASO.

Read the INDEPENDANT Dutch report and then get back to me.

You may want to actually read the Vrijman's report, it is far from independent. Vrijman NEVER even attempts to address how EPO got in Armstrong samples, He instead spends most of the report trying to settle political beefs for the UCI. Considering Vrijman's past helping dopers escape sanction (Krabbe) his "Independence" has been questioned from day one.

You are cherry picking results, avoiding anything that is critical of those accusing Lance and doing after the fact searching to justify your opinions.

One interview does not equate to 'proof'.

So far you have only tossed out the UCI's report. The interview is with one of the foremost experts in the sport and it completely debunks the Vrijiman report. That you are not even able to contradict any of Ashenden's points only reinforces the weakness of your argument.

In all fits! The diabolical ability to fool the entire world was actually taught when Neil fooled the entire world! Did I mention that Neil fathered Lance with a martian and dumped Lance on his "mother's" door step in a basket?

Up next, how Chuck Norris got Lance into cycling.

The $500,000 "donation' is a fact. It has been called a conflict of interest by two of the UCI board of directors. The only conspiracy I see is the "Vast French Conspiracy" that you and your friends used to explain all of Lance's positives, dumped bags of Actovigen, etc.

I also think it is telling that not one of the riders whose contracts are held by Johan are fighting the move to team radio shack. And if grave injustices were witnessed, and thus expected on the other end of this transfer, you'd expect to see at least one screaming about the move.
.

Sergio Paulinho and Benjamin Noval have both supported Contador's version of events and are both leaving the team. Noval said Armstrong tired to destabilize the team. http://www.lne.es/deportes/2009/07/28/noval-crei-triunfo-contador/787981.html

 

[Eva Maria]

I'll restate. The conspiracy would be overarching. Please address why it is none of these "facts" stick. Is LA really that clever and are you saying that something this big could bought and paid for with $500k?

I'm not buying what you are selling. Sorry.

It would not have to be overreaching, It could be as small as advanced warning of OOC testing, something that Manzano has said that both USPS and Kelme had. Silvia Schnek, UCI board member, confirmed this.

The reality is the UCI is incompetent. There unwillingness to even address the issue until WADA came on the scene helped more then any testing hurt.