Evans trades saddle for fence on LA investigation

[Ninety5rpm]

Here's an experiment for you to do at home. Go on to an internet forum which has nothing to do with cycling. Then simply post that quote by Evans, with no embellishments, and ask people if they agree or disagree with the statement. See what they think.


Why is it, that as soon as anyone sees the word 'Armstrong', be they pro or anti, they jettison all common sense and reason and start dribbling onto their keyboard?

I have no qualm with the reasonableness of the statement taken out of context.

However, it does remind me of something a mobster or politician might say about a colleague who is under investigation.

It's also reminiscent of the types of statements made by Armstrong and The Hog and other cyclists about Hamilton, Landis, Basso, Vino, etc.

 

[Martin318is]

It's also reminiscent of the types of statements made by Armstrong and The Hog and other cyclists about Hamilton, Landis, Basso, Vino, etc.

But isn't that the point? That type of statement is entirely appropriate until the subject of the investigation is actualyl found guilty.

In Evan's case, if all he has is suspicion and no personal evidence of the guilt of the person, what else IS he supposed to say? Yeah, Armstrong is guilty as hell and should be spat on by everbody that sees him? I've seen a lot of third hand evidence on the subject but if asked in the press I wouldn't state categorically that Armstrong is guilty - instead I would present the cases I know of such as the 99 samples and TUE, etc.

Sorry, but from where I sit, the comments by Evans are correct and understandable. He says earlier in the interview that when found guilty, drug cheats should be severely punished. All he is saying in the rest of the piece is that it is inappropriate to punish someone until the investigation is complete. What is incorrect about that?

 

[Martin318is]

**********************************************
NOTE:

The original article on the SMH has been heavily edited in the last hour to remove a lot of the surrounding comments that Evans made and only present the quote that is being discussed in this thread.

**********************************************

 

[Ferminal]

I like the first part, no one is completely innoncent, just varying degrees of innocence!

 

[usedtobefast]

But isn't that the point? That type of statement is entirely appropriate until the subject of the investigation is actualyl found guilty.

In Evan's case, if all he has is suspicion and no personal evidence of the guilt of the person, what else IS he supposed to say? Yeah, Armstrong is guilty as hell and should be spat on by everbody that sees him? I've seen a lot of third hand evidence on the subject but if asked in the press I wouldn't state categorically that Armstrong is guilty - instead I would present the cases I know of such as the 99 samples and TUE, etc.

Sorry, but from where I sit, the comments by Evans are correct and understandable. He says earlier in the interview that when found guilty, drug cheats should be severely punished. All he is saying in the rest of the piece is that it is inappropriate to punish someone until the investigation is complete. What is incorrect about that?

well stated and so much hysteria in attempts to put the cart before the horse
with most doping investigations, not just LA. i have no doubt guys use what they think they can get away with, but until the ppoopp hits the fan, nothing is decided.

 

[Merckx index]

Everyone seems to agree that, lifted out of context, Evans' statement is just good sense. But the context does make a big difference. In cycling, unlike many other endeavors, being investigated and cleared does not mean you are more likely to be innocent (or even more innocent, whatever that means).

Why is someone investigated in the first place? At best, because of major accomplishments, which in other endeavors might not make him more likely to be guilty, but which in cycling certainly does (how many riders who have made the TDF podium in the past 10 years do you think were clean?)

At worst, because of passport irregularities. Even if more targeted testing follows, and hard evidence of doping is not obtained, you can't say that such a rider is more likely to be innocent. The ability of riders to beat tests does not evaporate just because they suddenly come under greater scrutiny. On the contrary, a really good doper usually doesn't make a mistake that would lead to more investigation, and if he does, he is unlikely to make further mistakes that would result in a sanction.

Evans is presumably being diplomatic, and I understand that. He's also appealing to the very fact that, yes, applied to most affairs other than cycling, coming through a serious investigation not guilty probably increases the likelihood that the subject really is not guilty. But he would have to be pretty naive to think that greater attention/testing directed to a rider makes that rider more likely to be innocent if he comes through that investigation unscathed.

 

[D-Queued]

Everyone seems to agree that, lifted out of context, Evans' statement is just good sense. But the context does make a big difference. In cycling, unlike many other endeavors, being investigated and cleared does not mean you are more likely to be innocent (or even more innocent, whatever that means).

...

First, please take caution when suggesting 'Everyone'.

Second, taking something out of context is... out of context. So, yes, I agree that taking it out of context can make a big difference.

Third, there is no context that makes this statement make any sense. The 'out of context' assessments also required an interpretation of what he may have been trying to say, if he actually meant to say anything at all.

Cadel is a a very clear communicator when he wants to be:

Cadel Evans - Don't Touch Me!

Dave.

 

[Martin318is]

see, I don't get that. It appeared to be a very clear comment to me. It was also clear to me that he hasn't spent a long time preparing an answer to the question (like some above claim).

To me the real issue seems to be the headline the article was given as it implies he is supporting Armstrong whereas nothing in his comments suggests that he is anything other than waiting for due process.

 

[auscyclefan94]

But isn't that the point? That type of statement is entirely appropriate until the subject of the investigation is actualyl found guilty.

In Evan's case, if all he has is suspicion and no personal evidence of the guilt of the person, what else IS he supposed to say? Yeah, Armstrong is guilty as hell and should be spat on by everbody that sees him? I've seen a lot of third hand evidence on the subject but if asked in the press I wouldn't state categorically that Armstrong is guilty - instead I would present the cases I know of such as the 99 samples and TUE, etc.

Sorry, but from where I sit, the comments by Evans are correct and understandable. He says earlier in the interview that when found guilty, drug cheats should be severely punished. All he is saying in the rest of the piece is that it is inappropriate to punish someone until the investigation is complete. What is incorrect about that?

Exactly right. He is just making a neutral statement about the situation. What he said was nothing interesting it is really just a merely an observation which is common sense. He kinda said it riddling way.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I thought Evans was making a very logical argument. Look, Armstrong should welcome this investigation if he's clean, because if nothing is found, so much the better for him. If he's cleared, then he comes across even better than if he were not investigated at all.

That's all Cadel's saying, and it makes perfect sense.

 

[TubularBills]

I thought Evans was making a very logical argument. Look, Armstrong should welcome this investigation if he's clean, because if nothing is found, so much the better for him. If he's cleared, then he comes across even better than if he were not investigated at all.

That's all Cadel's saying, and it makes perfect sense.

+1

Indeed and agreed.

then again, he could have just said that... But it is off season and a slow news week... the journalists too, gotta make a dime.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Cadel just read this thread. Here is his reaction...

 

[Benotti69]

Cadel just read this thread. Here is his reaction...

nah he's talking to the director as he just got a part in the new hobbit movie with other auditioning actors

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Everyone seems to agree that, lifted out of context, Evans' statement is just good sense. But the context does make a big difference. In cycling, unlike many other endeavors, being investigated and cleared does not mean you are more likely to be innocent (or even more innocent, whatever that means).

Why is someone investigated in the first place? At best, because of major accomplishments, which in other endeavors might not make him more likely to be guilty, but which in cycling certainly does (how many riders who have made the TDF podium in the past 10 years do you think were clean?)

At worst, because of passport irregularities. Even if more targeted testing follows, and hard evidence of doping is not obtained, you can't say that such a rider is more likely to be innocent. The ability of riders to beat tests does not evaporate just because they suddenly come under greater scrutiny. On the contrary, a really good doper usually doesn't make a mistake that would lead to more investigation, and if he does, he is unlikely to make further mistakes that would result in a sanction.

Evans is presumably being diplomatic, and I understand that. He's also appealing to the very fact that, yes, applied to most affairs other than cycling, coming through a serious investigation not guilty probably increases the likelihood that the subject really is not guilty. But he would have to be pretty naive to think that greater attention/testing directed to a rider makes that rider more likely to be innocent if he comes through that investigation unscathed.

Exactly. Evans is pandering to the ignorant mentality of the majority of cycling fans who don't understand and appreciate the reality of the doping situation in pro cycling, and I find that to be dishonest and distasteful. It's Omerta. Reminds me of the stuff Armstrong would say about Hamilton, Landis and others when they were put under investigation.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Exactly. Evans is pandering to the ignorant mentality of the majority of cycling fans who don't understand and appreciate the reality of the doping situation in pro cycling, and I find that to be dishonest and distasteful. It's Omerta. Reminds me of the stuff Armstrong would say about Hamilton, Landis and others when they were put under investigation.

What a load of ****...

Cadel acutally knows about this thread...check his twitter!

Moose Knuckles sums up the comment the best

I thought Evans was making a very logical argument. Look, Armstrong should welcome this investigation if he's clean, because if nothing is found, so much the better for him. If he's cleared, then he comes across even better than if he were not investigated at all.

That's all Cadel's saying, and it makes perfect sense

(Stuffed up quoting.)

 

[D-Queued]

What a load of ****...

Cadel acutally knows about this thread...check his twitter!

Moose Knuckles xxxx interprets the comment the best

If he is monitoring, then can I suggest that Cadel needs a better publicist.

Dave.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

What a load of ****...

Cadel acutally knows about this thread...check his twitter!

Moose Knuckles sums up the comment the best

I thought Evans was making a very logical argument. Look, Armstrong should welcome this investigation if he's clean, because if nothing is found, so much the better for him. If he's cleared, then he comes across even better than if he were not investigated at all.

That's all Cadel's saying, and it makes perfect sense

(Stuffed up quoting.)

"...if he's clean".

Do you believe that Cadel Evans really believes Lance Armstrong might be clean? Yeah, a clean Armstrong can take 6 minutes out of the likes of Jan Ullrich and Marco Pantani when they are doped to the gills. Please.

Let me put it this way. Either Cadel Evans is dishonest, or he is a moron. I'm pretty sure the latter is not possible.

Of course he doesn't believe Armstrong might be clean. He can't possibly be that stupid and/or ignorant. Therefore, he is being disingenuous, at best. Again, that's pandering to the ignorance of the masses.

 

[auscyclefan94]

"...if he's clean".

Do you believe that Cadel Evans really believes Lance Armstrong might be clean? Yeah, a clean Armstrong can take 6 minutes out of the likes of Jan Ullrich and Marco Pantani when they are doped to the gills. Please.

Let me put it this way. Either Cadel Evans is dishonest, or he is a moron. I'm pretty sure the latter is not possible.

Of course he doesn't believe Armstrong might be clean. He can't possibly be that stupid and/or ignorant. Therefore, he is being disingenuous, at best. Again, that's pandering to the ignorance of the masses.

well he can't go out and say that armstrong is a dirty liar and should rot in hell. All he can say is what he said. If he is proved innocent after this investigation, then people should give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Night Rider]

I thought Evans was making a very logical argument. Look, Armstrong should welcome this investigation if he's clean, because if nothing is found, so much the better for him. If he's cleared, then he comes across even better than if he were not investigated at all.

That's all Cadel's saying, and it makes perfect sense.

I agree. You have to remember the average Australian basically knows three things to do with cycling, Armstrong, Cadel and the Tour de France.

The journalist has simply put a question out there about one of those and Cadel has answered it in what I agree was a pretty sensible way. He hasn’t gone all Eddy Merckx on us and declared Lance must be innocent.

I’m sure Cadel being a reasonably intelligent man will realise by now that the chances of Lance going down for something are pretty high. In his position he can’t exactly come out and say that to a journalist.

 

[Bike Boy]

well he can't go out and say that armstrong is a dirty liar and should rot in hell. All he can say is what he said. If he is proved innocent after this investigation, then people should give him the benefit of the doubt.

I guess that's the difference between Evans, and Armstrong.
Armstrong didn't hold any thing back regarding Simeoni for example.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

well he can't go out and say that armstrong is a dirty liar and should rot in hell. All he can say is what he said. If he is proved innocent after this investigation, then people should give him the benefit of the doubt.

No, he can say less, much less, which would mean more.

 

[Martin318is]

What is it with all these multi-day analysis threads of comments that appear to have been unprepared and not even part of a larger interview?

Its as bad as football (ANY football type - the analogy is the same) where a player makes a split second decision and then the commentators spend the next week going back and forward through the video from every angle to show the other "better" option that the player missed.

The fact remains in this case that Evans gave an entirely reasonable answer to a question that may well have been over the phone for all we know. He could have done an eddy and fully backed Lance, he could have called him a cheat without any actual evidence of his own. Instead he clearly stated the situation and said let the US investigation take care of it.

Just because he didn't satisfy the agenda of some here doesn't make him wrong.

 

[Aguirre]

quite agree with things said in this thread, in fact he is not saying anything different that Millar and others (Basso, Andy, Samu) in Contador's case

of course, we will allways have Madiot, Voeckler and "lovely" Ofredo in the other side of the balance

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Just because he didn't satisfy the agenda of some here doesn't make him wrong.

No one is saying he is wrong.

But anyone who knows better but never-the-less says anything that even implies that Armstrong might have won 7 Tours clean is dishonest.

We feel a little bit overly scrutinised sometimes. Cycling [bosses] are doing the right thing to try to clean up the sport and they're really doing it with transparency, but just because they catch one &#8230]

www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/dont-judge-too-fast-warns-evans-20101123-185oo.html

Cycling bosses are doing the right thing? Please. IF Armstrong finally gets caught it certainly won't be because the cycling bosses are doing anything right! And Evans has to know that or he really is a complete moron. Yet there he is, pandering to the ignorance of the masses... "cycling bosses are doing the right thing to clean up the sport...". Blech!

Just because they catch one ... doesn't mean everyone's a cheat? No... it doesn't mean that. But does Evans really believe anyone in the peloton is truly clean? Of course not. Yet he implies otherwise. Again, dishonest.

 

[Aguirre]

Oh sorry, cadel, are you not aware of social networks?

"What have I done now? I'm not a cycling forum reading guy..."