• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Jaksche says 2009 Tour winner will be a doper

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
A

Anonymous

Guest
byu123 said:
I'll restate the question with a little more specificity.

If we believe all Joe Papp has to say, SHOULD'NT WE BELIEVE ALL the claims from similarly situated doping "whistleblowers" such as Matt Decanio? http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache..."pascal+richard"+epo&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Should we "Alpe d'Huez"? If Joe Papp is such an ideal voice on doping isn't Matt Decanio just as reliable?

You have all kinds of opinions on Landis who Joe Papp blew the "whistle" on. You malign Landis because Landis hasn't "come clean" and admitted in public he doped as Papp alleges. What about the dopers Decanio blew the whistle on and yet don't come forward admit their doping and even go so far as give up the ill gotten gains they obtained by competing as dopers. Shouldn't the "closet" dopers Decanio fingered also be ostracized and until they do come clean and give up their ill gotten gains, be regarded as totally hypocritical frauds whose opinions and views mean nothing???

I'm just dying to hear you opinion on this one . . . .

And if any part of your real job (not your internet job) involves conveyance of ideas in an intelligible manner, I suggest that you need some help. Maybe University of Phoenix online has a class or two? Either way, will you please explain the concept behind the burden of proof in a civil case? I really am waiting for you to finally enlighten us with your Law School learnin'.
 
Jun 26, 2009
276
1
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
Seriously, did you read that? Talk about supposition. Tell you what, show me where he proves there was an actual problem in the chain of custody. I quote "It is not impossible to conclude that LNDD let the 1999 Tour samples lie about the lab unprotected." and "Unfortunately, there is no absolute proof that the 1999 Tour samples were stored in a warm environment, but there is no proof that the samples were stored correctly either."

There is also no proof that monkeys fly out of peoples butts, but that does not mean they couldn't.

He was one of the lead scientists in the development of the test, that is why he is a expert, and you are only making unsubstantiated claims on a cycling forum. Really, you would use that reasoning in court? Your law school must really need some more funding because the quality of instruction is woefully inadequate.



OK, it is obvious that you did not read the article you posted. So are you saying that now there is not only a French conspiracy against Armstrong, but also an Australian one? See, Coyle was discredited according to the article, and he is the one trying to explain that Armstrong did it all because of a heart the size of a small plane.



Yea, he wants to produce reliable doping tests and do so in a scientifically proper manner. Shoot him!



Yes, they should admit their doping. They won't, though Decanio was spot on about Leogrande.

I am sure that this obvious Google-a-thon you did to produce this incredibly uninformed post was fun for you, but you really missed some major points and the holes here are, well, pretty large. Seriously, what do you really do for a living?

"Thoughtforfood" what is the purpose for having an athelete who is to be tested for PEDs giving an "A" and a "B" sample? As the cycling neophyte no-nothing here "school me" on the purpose of 2 samples as opposed to just 1.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
byu123 said:
"Thoughtforfood" what is the purpose for having an athelete who is to be tested for PEDs giving an "A" and a "B" sample? As the cycling neophyte no-nothing here "school me" on the purpose of 2 samples as opposed to just 1.

You are not even adept at "leading questions."

Um, I have never stated that the samples belonging to Lance Armstrong that contained synthetic EPO could be used to hand down a doping violation. I have never said that there could be a criminal trial involving those samples. I have merely stated that Mr Armstrong sued the hell out of people until those samples surfaced. Now, he runs from it because obviously, if they are introduced in any civil action instigated by him, he will lose.

You have produced nothing, let me say again, n o t h i n g, that calls into question the real chain of custody that clearly exists for those samples. Those samples were never tested for the purpose of producing a doping violation for EPO. They were blind tested as the chain of custody shows (your article is full of supposition, but that is about it) and later linked to Mr Armstrong by way of his approving a release of information by the UCI that contained his 1999 control numbers.

We can go at this all day again if you want, because I will do just what I did the other day, prove that you are just making things up. You came to this subject a day late and a dollar short. I would suggest quitting while you are behind, but your kind never does. Sooner or later I will just get bored because you are not even making it hard.

Still friends?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ludwig said:
Maybe we should keep a running count of the dumb things you say on this thread that you will eventually take back. CERA=a new form of EPO. So nobody would take CERA--wait wasn't that the drug of choice as recently as a year ago?

Give me a break dude. If they make a test for a form of EPO the doping docs just come up with a new undectectable form. And so the cycle goes on...=advantage doperz. Pro cycling is about money and doping to win is what makes that money.

As for Kohl, he gave up his manager. He gave up his supplier. He gave up other athletes that were on the scene? What more do you want from him? And why aren't you more critical of those athletes like Ricco who don't give up anybody yet easily get new contracts?

Yes, I know what CERA is and since I do know what it is I didn't see the need to draw a distinction as it is detectable too. It's a pharmasudical product, not something doping docs came up with. You can't get away with EPO or CERA.

He named his manager as a being in on it but I don't know of any evidence. His manager is the supplier isn't he?
I don't know of "other athletes that were in on the scene" that he has any evidence on, or even named. I've tried to read all I can find that he's said, even though some of it he has claimed he didn't actually say.

I've not heard what evidence he even has against his manager other than making the accusation.

EPO/CERA is history.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,654
2
0
Visit site
BigBoat said:
Why do people watch movies like The Godfather... Shows like Dog the Bounty Hunter, Cops, etc... Its for fun bro...Take it easy, take a deeep breath (I bet you really can get a good one), count to 10...Exhale bro..There you go.

So you watch cycling for fun??? But then you bag all the riders continually. That's intersting if you call that fun.:rolleyes:
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,654
2
0
Visit site
pmcg76 said:
What about the cheats who are never caught, claim they are clean and are very successful, yet dont admit to anything. Are they somehow better than guys like Kohl or Jaksche. The problem in cycling has always been guys like Paul Kimmage, Giles Delion and now people like Kohl and Jaksche are constantly dismissed as bitter cranks but when they are proved right so often, how can you dismiss them. What about Bjarne Riis, what is your opinion on him?

There is still a big doping problem in pro cycling, I believe things are improving but have a long way to go. Cycling has been one of my sports for over 20 years, if I gave up on cycling I would have to give up on all sports for they all have their problems. Cycling is still entertaining despite the problems.

I am not dissmissing them. I am saying that what they say has a lot less credibility due to their profound lying. So do you really think the top 50 riders in the peleton are cheats? Yes their would be a group of cheats in their but people have said all of the top 50 are cheats and i think it's wrong to condemn a rider unless the proof is substantial. People always jump to conclusions when a doping controversy has been made public. Bjarne Riis has made many mistakes obviously and has continually lied to people (e.g in movie Overcoming). I use to hold him in high credibility but i now hold him in less credibility due to his profound lying.
 
Jun 26, 2009
276
1
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
You are not even adept at "leading questions." . . . Still friends?

I come here to sate a casual interest in cycling not to give lessons on the law. But I'll make a minor deviation here for my "friend."

A leading question is a question that "may often be answerable with a yes or no (though not all yes-no questions are leading), while non-leading questions are open-ended." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_question

The simple question I asked . . .

"What is the purpose of obtaining an A and a B sample when testing athletes for PEDs?" . . . is errr . . . ahem . . . not a "leading question" but an "open ended one."

Almost any question in the form "What is the purpose of [fill in the blank]?" is open ended in nature.

And no I'm not concerned about your opinion of my aptitude in legal matters . . . but the amusement I get from reading your assessment of such is mildly amusing. It is quite a "little thing" what opinion an anonymous blogger has on such matters.

"Small minds are much distressed by little things. Great minds see them all but are not upset by them."

Francois de La Rochefoucauld
French author & moralist (1613 - 1680) http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/29088.html

As one "friend" to another, I am still interested in the answer to the question however . . . .

We do apparently agree on this though . . .

Thoughtforfood said:
I have never stated that the samples belonging to Lance Armstrong [proved or amounted to] a doping violation.?

See as "friends" we can find common ground.
 
auscyclefan94 said:
I am not dissmissing them. I am saying that what they say has a lot less credibility due to their profound lying. So do you really think the top 50 riders in the peleton are cheats? Yes their would be a group of cheats in their but people have said all of the top 50 are cheats and i think it's wrong to condemn a rider unless the proof is substantial. People always jump to conclusions when a doping controversy has been made public. Bjarne Riis has made many mistakes obviously and has continually lied to people (e.g in movie Overcoming). I use to hold him in high credibility but i now hold him in less credibility due to his profound lying.

I actually dont think the Top 50 are all doped, not quite at the level of BigBoat and a few others just yet. My own attitude since 98 has been never to put my total faith in anybody, I dont like this attitude of crucifying guys when they test positive because we dont know who else is still getting away with it.

If guys like Jaksche & Kohl speak out, I give it credibility because they have nothing to gain anymore and what they say reflects what has been going on over the last 20 years, who cares if they lied whilst competing, so do a lot of pros, yes the situation is improving but there is still a long way to go. Its the guys who get busted and then say I am innocent, I wasnt going to take it. etc that annoy me.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,654
2
0
Visit site
pmcg76 said:
I actually dont think the Top 50 are all doped, not quite at the level of BigBoat and a few others just yet. My own attitude since 98 has been never to put my total faith in anybody, I dont like this attitude of crucifying guys when they test positive because we dont know who else is still getting away with it.

If guys like Jaksche & Kohl speak out, I give it credibility because they have nothing to gain anymore and what they say reflects what has been going on over the last 20 years, who cares if they lied whilst competing, so do a lot of pros, yes the situation is improving but there is still a long way to go. Its the guys who get busted and then say I am innocent, I wasnt going to take it. etc that annoy me.

I agree with most of what your saying but you have to be also cautious to believe what these liars say!!!:cool:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
byu123 said:
A leading question is a question that "may often be answerable with a yes or no (though not all yes-no questions are leading), while non-leading questions are open-ended." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_question

The simple question I asked . . .

"What is the purpose of obtaining an A and a B sample when testing athletes for PEDs?" . . . is errr . . . ahem . . . not a "leading question" but an "open ended one."

Almost any question in the form "What is the purpose of [fill in the blank]?" is open ended in nature.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Leading+question

"A question which puts into the witness' mouth the words to be echoed back"

Now, here is your question "Thoughtforfood" what is the purpose for having an athelete who is to be tested for PEDs giving an "A" and a "B" sample? As the cycling neophyte no-nothing here "school me" on the purpose of 2 samples as opposed to just 1."

Hint, you were seeking a specific answer to echo back as proof that Lance didn't dope.

Dang you are a bad Googler and understander of law and legal terms...but please, use Wiki instead of a legal definition. I guess you really are not capable of thinking outside of whatever the first search item comes up in your Google-a-thon: http://www.google.com/search?q=Lead...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

byu123 said:
And no I'm not concerned about your opinion of my aptitude in legal matters . . . but the amusement I get from reading your assessment of such is mildly amusing. It is quite a "little thing" what opinion an anonymous blogger has on such matters.

You are not and never have been an attorney.....unless you were the most incompetent one to have ever practiced.

byu123 said:
"Small minds are much distressed by little things. Great minds see them all but are not upset by them."

Francois de La Rochefoucauld
French author & moralist (1613 - 1680) http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/29088.html

"Liars on the internet can claim to be anything, but it is by their posts that you can garner the true character of their intellect"

Thoughtforfood

byu123 said:
As one "friend" to another, I am still interested in the answer to the question however . . . .

We do apparently agree on this though, I'm a tool

Since you like to alter posts, yes, you are.



byu123 said:
See as "friends" we can find common ground.

Yes, we both know you are not and never have been an attorney or associated with the FBI.
 
byu123 said:
I come here to sate a casual interest in cycling not to give lessons on the law. But I'll make a minor deviation here for my "friend."

This is very simple BYU, your assertation is that Lance never tested positive according to the rules, spot on, lets forget the 99 cortisone incident.

Bjarne Riis, 96 Tour winner never tested positive but finally admitted to taking EPO in 2007 I think.

Marco Pantani never tested positive but failed a haematocrit test, according to your strict legal criteria, not a positive test although its pretty evident he was jacked.

Lances 99 retests cannot produce a sanction because the relevant criteria were not followed. I have read the UCI report and it explains that protocols were not followed. Fine but nowhere in the report does it say there is no way there could have been EPO in the samples, just they wouldnt accept it as a way to sanction a rider. I am ok with that because the whole testing system would be pointless otherwise.

Fact is, EPO was found in those samples which were identified as belonging to Lance. Whether a rider tested positive or not is not the only way most cycling fans rely on for proof of doping these days sadly as they have proved so ineffectual for years now. In the court of cycling, there is EPO in those sample, guilty as charged.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
I too don't think all the top 50 are doped, in fact there is only one poster on this forum who thinks everyone is "jacked' up. (and even he mentioned on another thread that there may be some clean riders)

However you will find that the vast majority agree that there still appears to be widespread doping continuing. To exactly what degree is speculation.

Reading the full text of Kohls interview however I was struck with the precautions that he had started to undertake to avoid being caught - buying a centrifuge to be shared amongst a small group under the direction of his personal manager and how little he 'used' during the Tour.

It would appear the test are having an impact and that he dopers are worried about the tests - and of course he did ultimatley get caught!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
byu,

Seriously, quit while you are behind. You don't even make this hard, honestly, you don't.

Just because you can type something into Google, does not make you an expert. I mean, you don't even bother to tackle the really serious proof that you are just making it up as you go along. You just move on to the next Google session hoping that somehow you will hit on something to give you legitimacy. I have seen it many times in people such as yourself. You just don't know when to quit, and I will continue because with each successive post I only expose more clearly what you are and the lack of depth of your understanding of anything you post.

For the good of your psyche, just stop because this could get really ugly.
 
Jun 26, 2009
276
1
0
Visit site
pmcg76 said:
This is very simple BYU, your assertation is that Lance never tested positive according to the rules, spot on . . . Lances 99 retests cannot produce a sanction because the relevant criteria were not followed. I have read the UCI report and it explains that protocols were not followed. Fine but nowhere in the report does it say there is no way there could have been EPO in the samples, just they wouldnt accept it as a way to sanction a rider.

This is precisely my point and all I have ever asserted on this issue. The cobbled together case that . . . "Lance Armstrong doped" . . . is based on sleight of hand by French journalists; 6 year old bodily substance samples, which may or may not have been altered or degraded and may or may not be Armstrong's; which were analyzed by a person with a bias and an agenda, according to standards and protocols accepted and followed by no one, to produce a sheet of paper that says "there's EPO here in these samples" here in 2005 and . . . "Voila!" . . . Armstrong doped in the 1999 TDF.

This is a far cry from any sort of proof that when Armstrong rode those stages in 1999 he had banned EPO in his system. Pure and simple.

"Foodforthought" you going to make it "ugly" for me? Go for it . . . display for all of us your high brow intellect in the process. The amusement meter may edge even a little higher. Now I'm really scared . . . "Foodforthought" is going to make things "ugly" for me . . . OH NO!
 
byu123 said:
This is precisely my point and all I have ever asserted on this issue. The cobbled together case that . . . "Lance Armstrong doped" . . . is based on sleight of hand by French journalists; 6 year old bodily substance samples, which may or may not have been altered or degraded and may or may not be Armstrong's; which were analyzed by a person with a bias and an agenda, according to standards and protocols accepted and followed by no one, to produce a sheet of paper that says "there's EPO here in these samples" here in 2005 and . . . "Voila!" . . . Armstrong doped in the 1999 TDF.

This is a far cry from any sort of proof that when Armstrong rode those stages in 1999 he had banned EPO in his system. Pure and simple.

"Foodforthought" you going to make it "ugly" for me? Go for it . . . display for all of us your high brow intellect in the process. The amusement meter may edge even a little higher. Now I'm really scared . . . "Foodforthought" is going to make things "ugly" for me . . . OH NO!

Here, I will give you another chance to refute the case around the 1999 samples. Try not to blow it off with some handwaving about being a big bad FBI agent this time.

Let's review, for fun's sake, some of the circumstantial evidence that surrounds those 1999 positives.

1) The samples were tested anonymously. The lab had no knowledge of who each sample belonged to. I will defer to Ashenden on the validity of the testing procedure.

2) The identity of the samples' owners was only known by the UCI. The lab had no access to the doping forms then and they still do not.

3) Armstrong's samples were identified a long time after the testing was completed by a journalist who obtained Armstrong's doping forms from the UCI with Armstrong's permission.

4) Six of the positive samples turned out to be Armstrong's.

5) The pattern of the tested samples matches what would be expected as a rider injects EPO and the over the course of a few days it becomes harder to detect.

6) Armstrong was recently offered the chance to have the samples retested, including a DNA test to show that they were really his. He refused.

7) Postal's soigneur Emma O'Reilly was asked by Armstrong to dispose of syringes and other doping paraphernalia before the 1999 TdF. She also delivered drugs to Armstrong.

8) O'Reilly helped Armstrong cover up injection marks with make-up.

9) Another Postal soigneur, Ron Jongen, listened to Johan Bruyneel talking on the eve of the 1999 TdF about how all the riders' hematocrits were just under the 50% limit.

9) The chance of a person in the general population being at or near a 50% hematocrit is roughly 2%. Trained endurance athletes have an even smaller chance of being at 50%. Take 2/100 and raise it to the ninth power. The chance of nine riders having Hcts near 50% is close to the chance of winning the lottery.

10) On team Motorola, Armstrong encouraged his teammates to use EPO. He entered into an agreement with the other riders that all riders on the 1995 TdF squad would use EPO.

11) Armstrong encouraged members of Postal, like Andreu and Vaughters, to dope. He told his teammates that it was normal and everyone else was doing it.

12) When Armstrong joined Postal, he brought on board Johan Bruyneel, a man who was nicknamed the Hog because of the vast quantities of drugs he consumed while on team ONCE.

13) Team ONCE had a teamwide doping program since before 1998.

14) Dr. Prentice Steffan, who had refused to help Tyler Hamilton and Marty Jemisen dope, was removed from Team Postal.

15) Bruyneel brought doctors from Team Once to replace Steffan.

16) Armstrong had a long term relationship with Dr. Ferrari, an expert in the use of EPO.

17) Armstrong kept his relationship secret. It was only discovered when an Italian police investigation of Ferrari revealed that Armstrong was periodically travelling to Italy to see Dr. Ferrari.

18) When the rider Simeoni testified that Dr. Ferrari had helped him dope, Armstrong maintained the peloton's policy of omerta by punishing Simeoni during a race.

19) After he prevented Simeoni from being included in a break, Armstrong was seen to make a "zip the lips" gesture to other riders. Armstrong's teammates spit on Simeoni as he rolled past.

20) In a phone call to Greg Lemond about the revelations that he had been seeing Dr. Ferrari, Armstrong said that using EPO was no big deal and everyone did it.

21) In the 1999 TdF, Armstrong told Christophe Bassons, who was revealed to be the one clean athlete on Team Festina and had been speaking out about doping, to stop talking about doping. He encouraged Bassons to leave the sport.

22) As a way to explain his sudden rise, Armstrong constructed and maintained a lie that he had lost large amounts of weight. This was shown to be untrue during the SCA case.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
byu123 said:
This is precisely my point and all I have ever asserted on this issue. The cobbled together case that . . . "Lance Armstrong doped" . . . is based on sleight of hand by French journalists; 6 year old bodily substance samples, which may or may not have been altered or degraded and may or may not be Armstrong's; which were analyzed by a person with a bias and an agenda, according to standards and protocols accepted and followed by no one, to produce a sheet of paper that says "there's EPO here in these samples" here in 2005 and . . . "Voila!" . . . Armstrong doped in the 1999 TDF.

This is a far cry from any sort of proof that when Armstrong rode those stages in 1999 he had banned EPO in his system. Pure and simple.

"Foodforthought" you going to make it "ugly" for me? Go for it . . . display for all of us your high brow intellect in the process. The amusement meter may edge even a little higher. Now I'm really scared . . . "Foodforthought" is going to make things "ugly" for me . . . OH NO!

Again, show us the flaws in the chain of custody that render the samples "questionable" as to whom they belong. Google the heck out of evidence that shows the tests did not in fact contain synthetic EPO (hint Mr Legal Eagle, the "synthetic" part is significant), prove Ashenden had an actual "agenda" (because your Google finds did nothing of the sort, in fact, one countered your point that it is talent alone, but hey, who's counting?) and prove this statement "which were analyzed by a person with a bias and an agenda, according to standards and protocols accepted and followed by no one."

Then, tell us the meaning of "preponderance of the evidence" and what a "leading" question in real legal terms and not from Wiki. And above all, please keep posting because now I am having fun now.

So, really, BYU must give away honorary degrees for "special" people.....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bro, this guy hasn't typed the word "Vrijman" yet, so how credible could any of his doping apology be?
 
Jun 29, 2009
127
0
0
Visit site
jackhammer111 said:
He named his manager as a being in on it but I don't know of any evidence. His manager is the supplier isn't he?
I don't know of "other athletes that were in on the scene" that he has any evidence on, or even named. I've tried to read all I can find that he's said, even though some of it he has claimed he didn't actually say.

I've not heard what evidence he even has against his manager other than making the accusation.

EPO/CERA is history.



hello,

here is a link with some information that could answers some of your questions:
http://www.welt.de/sport/article3513296/War-Humanplasma-im-Doping-allen-weit-voraus.html

Bernhard Kohl was not the only athlete to accuse his manager, Stephan Matschiner, of providing him with doping products: triathlete Lisa Huetthaler also made the same accusations and this lead to Stefan Matschiner being taken into custody in Vienna.

According to the reports in the press it looks as if Matschiner then admitted to this and even cooperated with the police.

Ultimately, i think Kohl and Matschiner played a part (how big a part, i don't know) in enabling Vienna's prosecutors to re-open the investigations against the laboratory HumanPlasma. These investigations had been dropped in early 2009 due to a lack of evidence.

If we consider HumanPlasma to be equivalent to the structure run by Dr. Fuentes, then Bernhard Kohl's contribution to the fight against organised doping may prove to be as significant as that by Jesus Manzano. But we don't know yet.
 
Mar 19, 2009
832
0
0
Visit site
_nm___ said:
hello,

here is a link with some information that could answers some of your questions:
http://www.welt.de/sport/article3513296/War-Humanplasma-im-Doping-allen-weit-voraus.html

Bernhard Kohl was not the only athlete to accuse his manager, Stephan Matschiner, of providing him with doping products: triathlete Lisa Huetthaler also made the same accusations and this lead to Stefan Matschiner being taken into custody in Vienna.

According to the reports in the press it looks as if Matschiner then admitted to this and even cooperated with the police.

Ultimately, i think Kohl and Matschiner played a part (how big a part, i don't know) in enabling Vienna's prosecutors to re-open the investigations against the laboratory HumanPlasma. These investigations had been dropped in early 2009 due to a lack of evidence.

If we consider HumanPlasma to be equivalent to the structure run by Dr. Fuentes, then Bernhard Kohl's contribution to the fight against organised doping may prove to be as significant as that by Jesus Manzano. But we don't know yet.

It's interesting that in a new interview Kohl says that Operacion Puerto taught Matschiner that such large doping networks are dangerous. It's a very good interview.

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nzz.ch%2Fnachrichten%2Fsport%2Faktuell%2Fund_man_hat_bald_die_erste_spritze_in_der_hand_1.2829403.html&sl=auto&tl=en&history_state0=
 
Jun 26, 2009
276
1
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
Again, show us the flaws . . . .

This is were you don't get it. If a detractor (WADA, UCI, ADF, or blogging car salesman for that matter) is going assert a rider doped, the burden is on them to "show us" and to make the case against the accused according to the standard of the industry in which the rider competes.

In the case of cycling it is a strict testing procedure set up that way for a purpose . . . to assure the samples as tested are a genuine reflection of the rider's physiological state when the competition for which he is being tested occurred.

No one has made such a case against Armstrong.

After the fact cobbling together of a conspiracy theory against Armstrong by French journalists, hired gun expert witnesses in an adversarial legal proceeding, self serving statements by caught/admitted dopers, etc. and the like are interesting for the "blogosphere", but don't make the case that Armstrong is anything but clean.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
byu123 said:
This is were you don't get it. If a detractor (WADA, UCI, ADF, or blogging car salesman for that matter) is going assert a rider doped, the burden is on them to "show us" and to make the case against the accused according to the standard of the industry in which the rider competes.

In the case of cycling it is a strict testing procedure set up that way for a purpose. To assure the samples as tested are a genuine reflection of the rider's physiological state when the competition for which he is being tested occurred.

No one has made such a case against Armstrong.

After the fact cobbling together of a conspiracy theory against Armstrong by French journalists, hired gun expert witnesses in an adversarial legal proceeding, self serving statements by caught/admitted dopers, etc. and the like are interesting for the "blogosphere", but don't make the case that Armstrong is anything but clean.

Then twitter Mr Armstrong and tell him that you will represent him in a civil case involving the journalists who have written in a factual manner about those 6 samples that so sully his reputation. It is an easy case if the 6 samples have a flawed chain of custody or if they do not in fact contain synthetic EPO or the samples are not his or if everything is just a great big hoax perpetrated by the French (and now apparently Australians based on our post from the NYT) or if all of those things are true. Tell him to put up or shut up.

I am sure he would love to be represented by someone as legally astute as are you. Its a slam dunk except for the fact that there is synthetic EPO in samples clearly labeled with a control number that corresponds to the numbers provided by the UCI with Mr Armstrong's permission.

I realize that you are a fake lawyer, but why not be a fake scientist and counter, with scientific evidence, the statements by Ashenden that not only was there clearly synthetic EPO in the gel, but that it would be impossible with any method known to man to "spike" his samples. I am sure your PhD in Super Science Knoweverything, and the fact that you actually work for NASA will make it easy for you to use actual science to counter the fact that there was synthetic EPO in Lance's urine samples.

I am waiting with baited breath.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
unsheath said:
haha. Game, set, match.

Great responses TFF but too bad you've wasted all this effort on a dim witted troll.

...thats "dim witted super caliber FBI lawyer scientist troll" to you.......

Thanks man.