• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. 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 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
Visit site
BikeCentric said:
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?

And by that you're trying to "show me" what exactly?
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
Visit site
BikeCentric said:
That your opinion on whether or not this evidence can "be brought up during a discussion of whether Armstrong doped" is irrelevent.

Oh, so you're one of the resident "takes every opinion or factual attempt to inform people as an act of violent aggression" trolls, eh?

Thanks. I can ignore you from now on :)
 
rhubroma said:
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.
You're a teacher by trade, yes? Of your many philosophical posts that often drift off target, this one I think you really got right. It's part of our sound bite society, and ADD thinking in a hyper competitive "me first" and "get rich quick at anyone's expense" world.

issoisso said:
...it still wouldn't have mattered as long as he was officially in the UCI's books as the winner of the race.
That's how I understood it. SCA tried to say he cheated (doped) to win, thus the contract was invalid. But the contract was written that as long as the UCI considered him the winner, that's all that mattered. Had the UCI somehow reversed, and taken away his win (for doping or anything else), then the decision may have been different. Despite all the banter back and forth, that's pretty much what it came down to, and why Lance "won".
 
Sorry I am bit late but I feel the need to express myself:


byu123 said:
Why did Ashenden go out of his way to attack this study which is unrelated to his so called findings on the 1999 samples huh? Its patently obvious . . . because he as you say he clearly "has an agenda" and is thus bias and is therefore not credible on THIS ISSUE. He may be a great scientists but on this issue he has no credibility. . . .
I want to learn something, what is the benefit from Ashenden Agenda? other that going to trial and having everything to loose? I read all your posts and still don't read the answer.

jackhammer111 said:
It was important news in 2007.

No news today. Unless you think his opinion is news.
We have new improved doping practices, so it seems. So we need to learn how to improve our testing. Old news? Yes the Omerta is still "Intact".

jackhammer111 said:
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. :D
You see. You are almost giving up. Just don't put too much heart on the riders and enjoy the races. Otherwise you are going to be disappointed.
 
issoisso said:
Oh, so you're one of the resident "takes every opinion or factual attempt to inform people as an act of violent aggression" trolls, eh?

Thanks. I can ignore you from now on :)

Can you explain to us how your OPINION that very incriminating public evidence (in particular the text message chain between Andreu and Vaughters) that has come to light during this arbitration "cannot be brought up during a discussion of whether or not Armstrong doped" is somehow a "factual attempt to inform people"?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Alpe d'Huez said:
You're a teacher by trade, yes? Of your many philosophical posts that often drift off target, this one I think you really got right. It's part of our sound bite society, and ADD thinking in a hyper competitive "me first" and "get rich quick at anyone's expense" world.


That's how I understood it. SCA tried to say he cheated (doped) to win, thus the contract was invalid. But the contract was written that as long as the UCI considered him the winner, that's all that mattered. Had the UCI somehow reversed, and taken away his win (for doping or anything else), then the decision may have been different. Despite all the banter back and forth, that's pretty much what it came down to, and why Lance "won".

When you have a defense that can win on established contract law why would you want to let anything distract that? It would be stupidly unprofessional of any attorney to do so. Clearly UCI decides who wins. If Lance wins, SCA pays. Simple contract law. It would make no sense to get into arguing contentious points if there is no need to, even if you knew you could win. SCA was making a claim that was beyond the scope of the contract. The contact doesn't say a lot of things that you can't come back later and claim it said.

UCI couldn't take wins away without finding he had doped and there's absolutely no way they could prove that based on retesting those old samples. It's clear they could not make that case in court.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Escarabajo said:
Sorry I am bit late but I feel the need to express myself:

I want to learn something, what is the benefit from Ashenden Agenda? other that going to trial and having everything to loose? I read all your posts and still don't read the answer.

One could observe him in the opposition to Lance in both cases and argue bias if one believes the pro lance scientific arguments in both cases, that being the independent investigation of the 99 samples and Coyles reply to Gore et al. One thing I do believe is that the arguments against the coyle study by Gore et al (Ashenden's name is in there) are not the basic bad math skills arguments that have been made on this forum.

You can disagree with that but it's not unreasonable.

I personaly do believe him to be biased agains Lance based on several things I read.

He admits. " I expect people to challenge my interpretation of the science, and rightly so."

"Comparison of pre vs. post cancer performance. Apparently some readers have objected that my comparison lacked scientific credibility. I accept that criticism as justified."

Then says. "It is a statement of fact that he lost minutes during time trials pre-cancer, and gained minutes post-cancer, compared with his rivals."

He got better, it must be dope. He proved lack of scientific credibility when he said that.

His speculation that Lances VO2 max must have been through the roof in the tours is rubbish. He doesn't have any data nor does anyone else that can establish that. He a scientist, his job isn't to suppose things. It strains his credibility to even hear it from him. You need data on speed power and weight and there isn't any.

Escarabajo said:
You see. You are almost giving up. Just don't put too much heart on the riders and enjoy the races. Otherwise you are going to be disappointed.

I would not be surprised if said Holmsian investigators would find much going on today.

Lance is not doping. Contador is not doping now as evidenced by is almost changing teams. As of about the 25th of June Lance had been tested for the 35th time. He posts his values as the testers release the information.
You can bet he'll be watched every minute of every day in France. I'm actually concerned for his safety there.

Lance has said that one of his big motivations in coming back is so that his kids won't have to grow up believing the trash on the internet about him and I have no doubt he knows what goes on here.

If I'm wrong and he gets caught I'll come back here and call him the most dispicable human being of his era.

You get off easy. If he continues to test clean and wins or does well in the tour you get to write it off as more doping.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
jackhammer111 said:
One could observe him in the opposition to Lance in both cases and argue bias if one believes the pro lance scientific arguments in both cases, that being the independent investigation of the 99 samples and Coyles reply to Gore et al. One thing I do believe is that the arguments against the coyle study by Gore et al (Ashenden's name is in there) are not the basic bad math skills arguments that have been made on this forum.

You can disagree with that but it's not unreasonable.

I personaly do believe him to be biased agains Lance based on several things I read.

He admits. " I expect people to challenge my interpretation of the science, and rightly so."

"Comparison of pre vs. post cancer performance. Apparently some readers have objected that my comparison lacked scientific credibility. I accept that criticism as justified."

Then says. "It is a statement of fact that he lost minutes during time trials pre-cancer, and gained minutes post-cancer, compared with his rivals."

He got better, it must be dope. He proved lack of scientific credibility when he said that.

His speculation that Lances VO2 max must have been through the roof in the tours is rubbish. He doesn't have any data nor does anyone else that can establish that. He a scientist, his job isn't to suppose things. It strains his credibility to even hear it from him. You need data on speed power and weight and there isn't any.



I would not be surprised if said Holmsian investigators would find much going on today.

Lance is not doping. Contador is not doping now as evidenced by is almost changing teams. As of about the 25th of June Lance had been tested for the 35th time. He posts his values as the testers release the information.
You can bet he'll be watched every minute of every day in France. I'm actually concerned for his safety there.

Lance has said that one of his big motivations in coming back is so that his kids won't have to grow up believing the trash on the internet about him and I have no doubt he knows what goes on here.

If I'm wrong and he gets caught I'll come back here and call him the most dispicable human being of his era.

You get off easy. If he continues to test clean and wins or does well in the tour you get to write it off as more doping.

So you say a couple of days ago that you think Lance doped. Now he didn't and a scientist who is merely suggesting what any scientist would regarding his work is now biased because of it. You truly take the cake.

So do you believe he doped or not?
 
Jun 26, 2009
276
1
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
So do you believe he doped or not?

This may come as a shock to my "friend" here but I don't know if he doped or not. If forced to make a conclusion one way or another I would probably say I "believe" he did not but I could certainly be wrong.

The point I have always made here is that until a governing body (UCI, WADA, IOC, etc. . . . NOT a bunch of French journalists and a bias hired legal gun from Australia), using accepted scientific based standards for testing, produces a positive test result for doping . . . you have to give the guy the benefit of the doubt and consider him clean. That is not the same as saying "oh I know Lance would never use dope . . . ." I'm not that naive. Sure its possible he in fact doped, but so far it has not been proven at all and until it is, according to the standards above, I consider the guy clean. I for one believe that if a guy who has won as much as he has and has had the scutiny he has, had doped . . . there would have been at least one positive test conducted according the standards above. I have seen too many times when putative "evidence" of some fact at first glance appear to indicate "A" but when put to the test of further investigation, trial, discovery, cross examination, etc. fell apart and was shown to have not have indicated "A" at all in the end. The seemingly clear first impression that the evidence showed "A" was flat wrong. Thats why you have standards and procedures for something like biological testing.

Take the well known example of the FBI's own lab. In the mid 1990s it got too full of itself ("Oh . . . we're the FBI we can do no wrong . . ."), lets its standard slip, and was found to have reached factually inaccurate results in DNA and other testing. It wasn't that they intentionally did anything wrong, they believed their results to be sound, but at the same time . . . they were lax on the strict standards needed to assure accuracy in such delicate procedures as getting biological testing accurate. (See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84243,00.html) They have since brought in outside auditors and inspectors and become very anal about dotting every "i" and crossing every "t" twice on everything. They are not very fast or efficient but they are doing everything they can to make damn sure they are accurate.

The point is . . . if the FBI lab, not following strict proceedures, can produce wrong results. It is all the more possible that a bunch of French journalists, an LNDD lab rife the a history of mishandling, and a bias scientist testing some 6 year old samples according to no accepted standard . . . "could" . . . get it very wrong. I just don't buy it. These six year old tests with no procedures is right and sufficient to overcome the presumption of being clean established by the hundreds of tests conducted according to the standards of the industry and perfromed contemporaneously with when the samples were taken . . . .

So yes . . . I don't "know" whether he doped or not. I "believe" he did not for the above reasons and consider him clean for the same reasons. While at the same time accepting that its possible that he did in fact dope. The case that he has doped just hasn't been made, not by Ashenden or anyone else.
 
jackhammer111 said:
UCI couldn't take wins away without finding he had doped and there's absolutely no way they could prove that based on retesting those old samples. It's clear they could not make that case in court.

The UCI didn't even have the balls to support the French lab that found 6 of Armstrong's urine samples from the 99 Tour with EPO in them. It is a lame and corrupt institution, which has taken all credibility of it's own efforts to fight doping in the sport. It's just pathetic, so how can we trust them?

Armstrong has used his wealth, power, public persona and the mass media to manipulate reality, and to pass off for the truth, what in fact are lies and a falsification of reality. He's a propaganda expert, who can count on the ignorance of the general public who mostly only know him from those stupid little yellow wristbands to generate public consensus around him. He has used his sly lawyers as a shield and, worse, has even perversely coopted the cancer community, to promote his own base ends. It's just sickening when we see that he has fooled even the likes of you.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
You're a teacher by trade, yes? Of your many philosophical posts that often drift off target, this one I think you really got right. It's part of our sound bite society, and ADD thinking in a hyper competitive "me first" and "get rich quick at anyone's expense" world.

Well I like drifting off target as you say. And I like to exaggerate too. The great 20th century Austrian novelist, Bernhard, once said that only by exaggerating can we come to understand anything.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
rhubroma said:
The UCI didn't even have the balls to support the French lab that found 6 of Armstrong's urine samples from the 99 Tour with EPO in them. It is a lame and corrupt institution, which has taken all credibility of it's own efforts to fight doping in the sport. It's just pathetic, so how can we trust them?

Armstrong has used his wealth, power, public persona and the mass media to manipulate reality, and to pass off for the truth, what in fact are lies and a falsification of reality. He's a propaganda expert, who can count on the ignorance of the general public who mostly only know him from those stupid little yellow wristbands to generate public consensus around him. He has used his sly lawyers as a shield and, worse, has even perversely coopted the cancer community, to promote his own base ends. It's just sickening when we see that he has fooled even the likes of you.

This is a great example of the real problem. It's a human one. Jealousy and envy lead people to opinions that don't need to be supported by fact.

Lance may have done EPO in 99. If so he wasn't unique. Yet he is very unique in the hatred generated toward him.

There is no way to have a reasonable conversation with someone that starts with the supposition that the fix is in.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
byu123 said:
This may come as a shock to my "friend" here but I don't know if he doped or not. If forced to make a conclusion one way or another I would probably say I "believe" he did not but I could certainly be wrong.

The point I have always made here is that until a governing body (UCI, WADA, IOC, etc. . . . NOT a bunch of French journalists and a bias hired legal gun from Australia), using accepted scientific based standards for testing, produces a positive test result for doping . . . you have to give the guy the benefit of the doubt and consider him clean. That is not the same as saying "oh I know Lance would never use dope . . . ." I'm not that naive. Sure its possible he in fact doped, but so far it has not been proven at all and until it is, according to the standards above, I consider the guy clean. I for one believe that if a guy who has won as much as he has and has had the scutiny he has, had doped . . . there would have been at least one positive test conducted according the standards above. I have seen too many times when putative "evidence" of some fact at first glance appear to indicate "A" but when put to the test of further investigation, trial, discovery, cross examination, etc. fell apart and was shown to have not have indicated "A" at all in the end. The seemingly clear first impression that the evidence showed "A" was flat wrong. Thats why you have standards and procedures for something like biological testing.

Take the well known example of the FBI's own lab. In the mid 1990s it got too full of itself ("Oh . . . we're the FBI we can do no wrong . . ."), lets its standard slip, and was found to have reached factually inaccurate results in DNA and other testing. It wasn't that they intentionally did anything wrong, they believed their results to be sound, but at the same time . . . they were lax on the strict standards needed to assure accuracy in such delicate procedures as getting biological testing accurate. (See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84243,00.html) They have since brought in outside auditors and inspectors and become very anal about dotting every "i" and crossing every "t" twice on everything. They are not very fast or efficient but they are doing everything they can to make damn sure they are accurate.

The point is . . . if the FBI lab, not following strict proceedures, can produce wrong results. It is all the more possible that a bunch of French journalists, an LNDD lab rife the a history of mishandling, and a bias scientist testing some 6 year old samples according to no accepted standard . . . "could" . . . get it very wrong. I just don't buy it. These six year old tests with no procedures is right and sufficient to overcome the presumption of being clean established by the hundreds of tests conducted according to the standards of the industry and perfromed contemporaneously with when the samples were taken . . . .

So yes . . . I don't "know" whether he doped or not. I "believe" he did not for the above reasons and consider him clean for the same reasons. While at the same time accepting that its possible that he did in fact dope. The case that he has doped just hasn't been made, not by Ashenden or anyone else.

I wasn't asking you.
 
jackhammer111 said:
This is a great example of the real problem. It's a human one. Jealousy and envy lead people to opinions that don't need to be supported by fact.

Lance may have done EPO in 99. If so he wasn't unique. Yet he is very unique in the hatred generated toward him.

There is no way to have a reasonable conversation with someone that starts with the supposition that the fix is in.

Yaaaaaaaawwwwwn.
 

TRENDING THREADS