Jaksche says 2009 Tour winner will be a doper

[Cobblestones]

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

Thanks man.

Nah, it's just some dude who got his magic underwear in a twist about Armstrong.

 

[Anonymous]

nah, it's just some dude who got his magic underwear in a twist about armstrong.

lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[byu123]

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

Thanks man.

Getting a little sensitive aren't we . . . . I feel so chastened! What ever am I going to do? I'm happy your friends (gee "thanks man") are here for you to sooth your troubled psyche.

 

[byu123]

Nah, it's just some dude who got his magic underwear in a twist about Armstrong.

Ahhh . . . we finally arrive at the last bastion of one who has no argument whatsover . . . ad homenim attacks.

"Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Psst! One small note . . . I'm not a Mormon. About half the football players at BYU aren't. But I get the message . . . in additional to being wrong your also bigoted (two traits that often go together) and so "low brow" in your intellect you would bring (attempt to bring here since I'm not Mormon) personal religous insults to a debate about cycling.

This is good . . . your adroit intellect on display for all to see. Keep it up your making my case better than I ever could.

Surrender and capitulation comes in all forms.

 

[Anonymous]

Getting a little sensitive aren't we . . . . I feel so chastened! What ever am I going to do? I'm happy your friends (gee "thanks man") are here for you to sooth your troubled psyche.

If "sensitive" means "bemused" then yes. I'm not sure, why not Google it and get the Wiki definition and post it. Then you can tell us you are a trained, educated, experienced linguist.

 

[biker jk]

If "sensitive" means "bemused" then yes. I'm not sure, why not Google it and get the Wiki definition and post it. Then you can tell us you are a trained, educated, experienced linguist.

A cunning linguist I'm sure.

 

[Anonymous]

A cunning linguist I'm sure.

Who performs cunning stunts.

Nice Deep Purple reference btw.

 

[BikeCentric]

Ahhh . . . we finally arrive at the last bastion of one who has no argument whatsover . . . ad homenim attacks.

"Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Psst! One small note . . . I'm not a Mormon. About half the football players at BYU aren't. But I get the message . . . in additional to being wrong your also bigoted (two traits that often go together) and so "low brow" in your intellect you would bring (attempt to bring here since I'm not Mormon) personal religous insults to a debate about cycling.

This is good . . . your adroit intellect on display for all to see. Keep it up your making my case better than I ever could.

Surrender and capitulation comes in all forms.

So you've now declared victory after neglecting to address any of TFF's points and crying about how numerous posters are mocking you? Hint: when everyone thinks you're an idiot, it's likely to be you that is the problem and not them.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

thank you for the link.
i see now who the "others" he's talked about (sort of, these translated pages are wearing me out)

I see your point that if human plasma becomes a prosecution Kohl will have played a part.

Can you imagine though, as a cyclist, being seen anywhere near a place called "Human Plazma"?

Instead of a charity ride we should organize rides to raise money to hire private investigators to send to France and go all sherlock Holmes on their asses.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/jun06/armstrongstatement3

Emma O'Reily is covered there and the seven and a half million dollar lawsuit..... that he....... won!

 

[BroDeal]

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/jun06/armstrongstatement3

Emma O'Reily is covered there and the seven and a half million dollar lawsuit..... that he....... won!

It does not refute anything. It is all PR spin. He also never won the SCA arbitration. It was a settlement, and his argument was that the contract did not prevent him from doping to win.

 

[Franklin]

Ahhh . . . we finally arrive at the last bastion of one who has no argument whatsover . . . ad homenim attacks.

My god.. I don't care if you are a lawyer, FBI agent or not. But you are a sad sad person. You start to troll the "haters"... and now you are crying "FOUL"

Thoughtforfood warned you it would get ugly... and look at it, you made a complete and utter fool out of yourself. Congratulations

 

[rhubroma]

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.

But come one BroDeal, everything you just wrote I'm not willing to believe because I have no critical judgment and rather like to believe in the cancer survivor, all American boy from Texas fairy tail who went in there and showed those sniving French how it's down in their race. Gee wizz there Bro, you almost had me fooled for a second though! But I'm smarter than you, now, that's for sure.

PS: I also beleive that Saddam Hussein was the new Hitler and that we need ed to save the universe from his menace by going to war against him, and that oil had nothing to do with it. Nothing. That was just a lie by cynical perverts who watch public TV, read the New Yorker and don't watch FoxNews, my bible on all political matters and foreign policy.

 

[rhubroma]

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!

So I guess you believed OJ too was innocent, huh, and not that his team of expert and sly lawyers worked the judge over with their subtle arguments and juridical technicalities? At a high price of course.

 

[Mellow Velo]

I come here to sate a casual interest in cycling.

Really? I would never have guessed.
A less than casual interest in deniability, though.
Easy to see where you are coming from.

An enjoyable 15 minutes or so of reading the multiple pages, which actually contain a lot of info.

Thanks for contributing to this fascinating debate.
Most verbal punchbags aren't usually so durable.

 

[rhubroma]

It does not refute anything. It is all PR spin. He also never won the SCA arbitration. It was a settlement, and his argument was that the contract did not prevent him from doping to win.

PR is a modern and hypocritical euphemism for PROPAGANDA. And of course the spin doctors (managers, lawyers, media) use it to manipulate those without critical thinking skills, that is just about all the masses, which is why in this corporate and mass media driven day and age all we get are myths and fairy tails and not truth and reality. Because their propaganda passes the facts off for fantasy and fantasy for the facts. Plain and simple.

 

[Anonymous]

It does not refute anything. It is all PR spin. He also never won the SCA arbitration. It was a settlement, and his argument was that the contract did not prevent him from doping to win.

"vindicated and awarded $2,500,000 in punitive/extra-contractual damages in addition to the $5,000,000 he was owed"

I call that winning.

 

[Anonymous]

"vindicated and awarded $2,500,000 in punitive/extra-contractual damages in addition to the $5,000,000 he was owed"

I call that winning.

So what, you called Simeoni "Simoni" and Ricco "Kohl"

 

[issoisso]

I try not to get involved in this type of argument, but this is just too much to take.

Yes, he won. There is no case whatsoever for anyone to possibly argue otherwise. They can try, but it's useless, he won the case, simple as. The fact that this particular case was settled out of court is a mere formality.

Give up trying to argue otherwise.


HOWEVER....the case was NEVER EVER about doping.

Armstrong's PR team tried to spin it as if it was proven he never doped or similar, and those who believe everything Armstrong spouts without question believed it (I'm not singling anyone out, there are also many who do the opposite: refuse to believe anything Armstrong says no matter how sound it is. Both sides are equally ***).

Not at all. That case was NEVER about doping at all. It was never a part of the equation anywhere except in the grossly inaccurate crap that certain media printed.

So it's pointless to bring it up in the manner in which it was here in this topic. Pointless.

 

[BikeCentric]

I try not to get involved in this type of argument, but this is just too much to take.

Yes, he won. There is no case whatsoever for anyone to possibly argue otherwise. They can try, but it's useless, he won the case, simple as. The fact that this particular case was settled out of court is a mere formality.

Give up trying to argue otherwise.


HOWEVER....the case was NEVER EVER about doping.

Armstrong's PR team tried to spin it as if it was proven he never doped or similar, and those who believe everything Armstrong spouts without question believed it (I'm not singling anyone out, there are also many who do the opposite: refuse to believe anything Armstrong says no matter how sound it is. Both sides are equally ***).

Not at all. That case was NEVER about doping at all. It was never a part of the equation anywhere except in the grossly inaccurate crap that certain media printed.

So it's pointless to bring it up in the manner in which it was here in this topic. Pointless.

I thought the point of the case was that SCA wanted to refuse paying Armstrong for winning Le Tour because they thought it likely he doped in order to win and that is why they tried to prove that he doped (circumstantially). But they dropped the case and settled after the judge made it clear that the contract they signed with LA made it clear that they had to pay up whether or not he doped.

If you know otherwise can you please enlighten us?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

HOWEVER....the case was NEVER EVER about doping.

While I agree with most of what you have said - was the case started because SCA refused to pay up because they believed that LA had doped and therefore violated the contract they had?

 

[issoisso]

It was, as said, about sponsorship.
They didn't want to pay Armstrong for the five wins, as was widely reported.

It was "a matter of Texas contract law". Those are the words of Tim herman, Lance's legal counsel in january, before the hearings.

And indeed it was.
They tried to get out from paying the bonus by trying to prove Lance was doping, but in the end it didn't matter, because due to the way the contract was worded, Lance could've disrespected all the race's rules and it wouldn't have mattered. It was not written into the contract that he had to obey any of the race's rules. If Lance himself had admitted to doping...it still wouldn't have mattered as long as he was officially in the UCI's books as the winner of the race.

As long as he was officially the winner of the race, he would get the bonus. And as such, they settled.

As Betsy Andreu put it: "it wouldn't have mattered. The contract was poorly worded by the insurers, and as such lance's legal basis was solid."

Immediately after they won, Tim herman's speech did a 180 and it suddenly "became" a doping issue. "Lance was exonerated", etc. etc.

It was never about doping simply because doping was irrelevant to the paying of the bonus, as BikeCentric said. As such, it can't possibly be brought up in a discussion of whether Lance doped, I feel.

 

[Sheltowee]

I know things about Jorg that no one knows. Unfortunately can't print them here. Very intelligent guy. Wasted his time cycling. Should have been a doctor or an eye specialist like his father. He is talented at everything he does. Financially astute as well. Has loads of money. But a little hint at what I do know. Before he confessed he went and saw someone at the UCI and told them his story. He was told in no uncertain terms not to tell his story and was threatened if he did he would never ride again. It came true - he never rode again. That also happened to another cyclist from the Puerto affair. He never rode again either. Jorg is doing is very well for himself and we don't need to worry about him. Doing much better than some cyclists who haven't confessed or recently made comebacks.

I think you're full of crap. You've got no more inside dope on Jorg than Walter Mitty does. What's the operation like there in the fantasy land bunker, Trashman?

 

[Escarabajo]

It was important news in 2007.

No news today. Unless you think his opinion is news.

More important when Manzano said it first. 2004. If you read Manzano interview he was even more detail about the doping practices. At one point the Director of the Tour de France was so shock that he retired Kelme's invitation from the Tour. Jean Marie Leblanc even said that even if 50% of what he said was true it was too much anyway.

Old news? It is sad but that indicates that things have not changed from Manzano to JJ to Kohl. Only the doping practices. The Omerta is still "Intact".
Thanks.

 

[BikeCentric]

It was, as said, about sponsorship.
They didn't want to pay Armstrong for the five wins, as was widely reported.

It was "a matter of Texas contract law". Those are the words of Tim herman, Lance's legal counsel in january, before the hearings.

And indeed it was.
They tried to get out from paying the bonus by trying to prove Lance was doping, but in the end it didn't matter, because due to the way the contract was worded, Lance could've disrespected all the race's rules and it wouldn't have mattered. It was not written into the contract that he had to obey any of the race's rules. If Lance himself had admitted to doping...it still wouldn't have mattered as long as he was officially in the UCI's books as the winner of the race.

As long as he was officially the winner of the race, he would get the bonus. And as such, they settled.

As Betsy Andreu put it: "it wouldn't have mattered. The contract was poorly worded by the insurers, and as such lance's legal basis was solid."

Immediately after they won, Tim herman's speech did a 180 and it suddenly "became" a doping issue. "Lance was exonerated", etc. etc.

It was never about doping simply because doping was irrelevant to the paying of the bonus, as BikeCentric said. As such, it can't possibly be brought up in a discussion of whether Lance doped, I feel.

Oh okay, so all the circumstantial evidence and testimony that was unearthed in that case "can't possibly be brought up." Too bad it already has been huh?