Landis letter re drug use in cycling

[BroDeal]

And for the record, as the basher again go emotional, I don't care one wit whether Lance doped or not. I will call him a doper when he is convicted.

If that were true then every single post that you have ever made on this site would not be filled with complaints and crying about people hating Armstrong. You would not be denying that he is a doper right now.

Fact is that there was articial EPO found in six of his urine samples. It does not matter whether he was ever sanctioned for it. He is a doper. From Flandis we now know why he has never been convicted. He was paying off the UCI.

 

[Laszlo]

this is LA all over - he just says "prove it", "I've never tested positive", etc...

as for coroborations, I'm sure O'Reilly, Mr n Mrs Andreu and a few others may well be in the spotlight again...

as if they have any more credibility than what they had

 

[gree0232]

That is not true - if the likelihood is high enough, he probably did it. People build their case by arguing for it. I can argue that Oswald killed Kennedy, that CO2 is causing global warming and that Armstrong doped. You may not like it, but there is nothing inherently wrong with stating an opinion about these things.



That is absolutely true. don't make the mistake of confusing this with a formal conviction though. A conviction in one's mind just isn't the same.



There is nothing here that prevents anyone from arguing that Armstrong is a doper. I'm convinced he is a doper. Face it - he used EPO and yes, he should be suspended for that. It's not up to me to do that, but I hope it will happen.

You basically make two points: that some members use strong language and that what we regard as true or not true must be based on whether he has been convicted. The first point doesn't have anything to do with what Armstrong shot in his arm, and is irrelevant. The second point makes no sense - our personal opinions can exist regardless of formal convictions.

If you want to convince others that Armstrong should not be called a doper, you will have to do it the hard way - by arguing based on the facts, and not try to refuse other people's right to speak their mind and be convinced by what they see.

Look, to be clear, you can think whatever you want.

IF you want the WORLD to conclude LA, or anyone else, is a doper you have to prove it.

Everything I have ever seen thrown at Armstrong has fallen apart on cros examination. All of it.

So when I see Lance bashers say - "Face the truth kiddo!" - or, "The system is broken because Lance still rides!" Then you miss the point.

Lance is special case, like burr in the britiches of many fans, but if we took those same salacious accussations and apply them to Cadel Evans, Fabian Cancellera, the Shleck Borthers, ANYONE who is successful - how is that helpful?

Well, you think he's doped. Great.

He is STILL not a doper until you can prove it. However much that gets someone panties in a bunch, THAT is how the system works and MUST work.

 

[Jonathan]

Yes it does. If you bring the entire system to bear and cannot produce anough evidence for a conviction -- you lose. If you get enough to secure a conviction -- you win. THAT is how the system works.

Having read many messages yesterday and today, I cannot think of a single member who seemed convinced that there is enough evidence on the table that Armstrong will be suspended, convicted, penalized, found guilty by a court of law, or any of those things.

Many people know that he stuck a needle in his arm, so he would race harder, however. Regardless of conviction, Armstrong doped.

 

[Laszlo]

I think you miss how a FORUM works. This isn't a court room, so how this SYSTEM works and how the court system works are two different things. You come in here preaching like you are Mr Legal Eagle to all of us, never realizing that you are not in a court room. You are posting on a FORUM. If you don't like how we roll here, there are other places for you to go.

so, this is a place for hyeneas to gather ? I prefer rational dialogue, not mindless vitriol.

 

[VeloCity]

Haven't read through the entire thread so apologies if this has already been mentioned, but might be worth pointing out that this is not the first time Landis has told someone that Armstrong was doping:

http://www.orangecoastmagazine.com/article.aspx?id=156

"So I don’t tell them that Floyd once offhandedly told me over burritos at a Chipotle near his home, “Just so you know, Marty, Lance doped.” Or that Floyd said it casually, as if it was common insider knowledge."

That was written shortly after Landis' Tour positive. Interesting, too, to read Dugard's blog today:

http://www.martindugard.com/blog/2010/5/21/flogging-floyd.html

"I thought I'd wade into the Floyd Landis controversy just a bit. These claims he's making about other top cyclists aren't new. Back when he asked me to write his book (I backed out), he spoke about them offhandedly, as if it was common knowledge, even as he denied that he'd ever done such a thing."

 

[BYOP88]

so, this is a place for hyeneas to gather ? I prefer rational dialogue, not mindless vitriol.

Then you should head to the Shack forum

 

[Anonymous]

Look, to be clear, you can think whatever you want.

IF you want the WORLD to conclude LA, or anyone else, is a doper you have to prove it.

Everything I have ever seen thrown at Armstrong has fallen apart on cros examination. All of it.

So when I see Lance bashers say - "Face the truth kiddo!" - or, "The system is broken because Lance still rides!" Then you miss the point.

Lance is special case, like burr in the britiches of many fans, but if we took those same salacious accussations and apply them to Cadel Evans, Fabian Cancellera, the Shleck Borthers, ANYONE who is successful - how is that helpful?

Well, you think he's doped. Great.

He is STILL not a doper until you can prove it. However much that gets someone panties in a bunch, THAT is how the system works and MUST work.

Really, well do tell. I am fairly certain that you do not know the facts of the cases in which Mr Armstrong was involved. The reason those cases were decided the way they were had nothing to do with refutation of testimony by anyone. You FAIL.

 

[Barrus]

Despite everyone "denying" all accusations, has anyone made comments to the effect that
"I have never doped
I have never witnessed a team mate dope,
I have never sought or been offered advice on how to dope from team mates or team staff,
I have never offered advice on how to dope nor medication to team mates
if any team mate or team trainer or DS had offered advice or medication or i had witnessed the administration of a doping programme i would have reported it to the relevant administrative organisation and doping organisation."

if that statement was true for any of those involved i would have expected them to be saying it, trashing Landis is not any sort of denial.

I thought Riis said something to that effect in a phone call with sporza today, or is he not in the Giro, at least somebody from BMC said this today in the live coverage of the stage of today, he categorically denied any involvement of any of the former Phonak people and contemplated going to trial

 

[Anonymous]

so, this is a place for hyeneas to gather ? I prefer rational dialogue, not mindless vitriol.

Really, could have fooled me.

 

[gree0232]

If that were true then every single post that you have ever made on this site would not be filled with compaints about people hating Armstrong.

Fact is that there was articial EPO found in six of his urine samples. It does not matter whether he was ever sanctioned for it. He is a doper. From Flandis we now know why he has never been convicted. He was paying off the UCI.

Yeah, and there was also an independant Dutch investigation that pretty much evisercated that entire process.

Here it is for you.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/dutch-report-clears-armstrong/2006/06/01/1148956427078.html

http://www.tdfblog.com/2006/06/thoughts_on_the.html

62.50.72.82/imgArchive/Homepage/Rapport%20HR%20zonder.pdf

Now, why would I take one side and simply ignore the other side if the issue is about EVIDENCE?

Why is it OK for Lance Bashers to universally condem Lance, but then take issue when someone says, "Stop the pointless bashing!"

If you only want to look at one side of an issue? Your choice.

If you want to focus only on Landis accussations against Lance and ignore everything else and its implication? Your choice.

If you want to put a finger in my chest and demand I simply take you position? Expect a finger right back.

The system MUST use evidence, ALL of it, in reaching conclusions.

 

[gree0232]

Really, well do tell. I am fairly certain that you do not know the facts of the cases in which Mr Armstrong was involved. The reason those cases were decided the way they were had nothing to do with refutation of testimony by anyone. You FAIL.

Agh, great evidence, please see post above. I have tried to keep an open mind with Lance, and have looked at both sides using the standard to form my conclusion.

The proof must be 50.1%.

And trust me, despite your, "Anyone who disagree with my opinion of Lance is simply uniformed or stupid," attitude, I assure you I have done my homework. And, why is this attitide acceptable? I have always said that Lance may very well be doped, and for some reason the possibility of the opposite is apostatsy? Why? If that is the case, than this is not about evidence - and th system simply cannot, will not, and should not adjust to accomodate emotive accussations.

The systems that looked into Lance's activity and concluded there was not enough information or evidence available to convict Lance - even with 6 apparent positive tests. That standard shuold have sunk him, it didn't. That says something - just maybe no what you want it to.

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah, and there was also an independant Dutch investigation that pretty much evisercated that entire process.

Here it is for you.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/dutch-report-clears-armstrong/2006/06/01/1148956427078.html

http://www.tdfblog.com/2006/06/thoughts_on_the.html

62.50.72.82/imgArchive/Homepage/Rapport%20HR%20zonder.pdf

Now, why would I take one side and simply ignore the other side if the issue is about EVIDENCE?

Why is it OK for Lance Bashers to universally condem Lance, but then take issue when someone says, "Stop the pointless bashing!"

If you only want to look at one side of an issue? Your choice.

If you want to focus only on Landis accussations against Lance and ignore everything else and its implication? Your choice.

If you want to put a finger in my chest and demand I simply take you position? Expect a finger right back.

The system MUST use evidence, ALL of it, in reaching conclusions.

So you never make decisions about anything until there has been evidence in a court of law presented, cross examined, and a decision rendered. You are a hypocrite who cannot accept the reality of what is staring you in the face. It is called denial. This isn't a court of law.

 

[Archibald]

Now, why would I take one side and simply ignore the other side if the issue is about EVIDENCE?

If you only want to look at one side of an issue? Your choice.

I've seen both sides - read lance books and also read the non-lance books. The more I see, the more I don't believe armstrong...

I've had a good look around Dallas and I'm not looking at the book depository any more, but at the grassy knoll...

 

[Anonymous]

Agh, great evidence, please see post above. I have tried to keep an open mind with Lance, and have looked at both sides using the standard to form my conclusion.

The proof must be 50.1%.

And trust me, despite your, "Anyone who disagree with my opinion of Lance is simply uniformed or stupid," attitude, I assure you I have done my homework. And, why is this attitide acceptable? I have always said that Lance may very well be doped, and for some reason the possibility of the opposite is apostatsy? Why? If that is the case, than this is not about evidence - and th system simply cannot, will not, and should not adjust to accomodate emotive accussations.

The systems that looked into Lance's activity and concluded there was not enough information or evidence available to convict Lance - even with 6 apparent positive tests. That standard shuold have sunk him, it didn't. That says something - just maybe no what you want it to.

Really, you said ALL of the testimony. Now, what was the decision of the court in the SCA case, and show me where any of the testimony was used to render the verdict. Get your mom to check your homework. You are obviously not really putting in much effort.

 

[BroDeal]

Yeah, and there was also an independant Dutch investigation that pretty much evisercated that entire process.

There was not independent investigation. There was a whitewash paid for by the UCI, the same organization that accepts bribes from Armstrong.

The investigation never explained how artificial EPO was found in Armstrong's urine. It merely asserted that the positives coud not be used to sanction Armstrong.

The developer of the EPO test has categorically stated that there is no doubt that Armstrong was using EPO. I'll take the word of a scientist over a lawyer who specializes in defending dopers any day of the week.

 

[gree0232]

So you never make decisions about anything until there has been evidence in a court of law presented, cross examined, and a decision rendered. You are a hypocrite who cannot accept the reality of what is staring you in the face. It is called denial. This isn't a court of law.

Great, now we are into personal attacks - but we cannot figure out why someof us have a problem with rabid accssations without proof.

Looking at things with an eye toward how they WILL play in court is possible. An accussation with evidence, and this is a no brainer, will get absolutely no where in court.

And if your ego is so fragile that you cannot take someone disagreeing with you, then trust me - that is a personal problem.

 

[Jonathan]

so, this is a place for hyeneas to gather ? I prefer rational dialogue, not mindless vitriol.

Actually, this forum is very rational. The convincing arguments that Armstrong doped are exactly that.

An old pattern is repeating itself. The loop argument is basically this:

1. Anyone who has not been found formally guilty of doping must be presumed innocent.

2. Therefore, Armstrong is assumed not to have doped.

3. Which means that statements that he did dope cannot be true.

4. Because they are not true, there is no evidence against Armstrong.

5. Since there is no evidence, he has never doped.

Which brings you back to step 2. Step 1 is only needed to spin the loop into motion. Note that this loop conveniently assumes many people guilty of lying - Landis, Betsy Andreu, Frankie Andreu, Emma O'Reilly, Greg Lemond, etc. Since lying is wrong and these people should also be presumed innocent, there is a small logical problem here - I suppose the solution is to stop thinking at all. Perhaps this is what Radioshack would wants us to do.

The error, ofcourse, is in the extrapolation of step 1 into reality - 'if he's assumed innocent, we have to regard him never doping as historical truth'. But we cannot know what really happened until we've deduced it. By now, this deduction has gone on long enough to draw some conclusions. And these conclusions are pretty obvious.

 

[lancaster]

I thought Riis said something to that effect in a phone call with sporza today, or is he not in the Giro, at least somebody from BMC said this today in the live coverage of the stage of today, he categorically denied any involvement of any of the former Phonak people and contemplated going to trial

i didn't know this and i welcome any genuine denials,
LA, GH, JB, DZ certainly haven't made full denials and i find it genuinely amazing this wasn't the first comment from everyone (whether true or not)

 

[fuggles]

Update at TeamRS has gone up:

http://www.livestrong.com/teamradioshack/news/

 

[Archibald]

Actually, this forum is very rational. The convincing arguments that Armstrong doped are exactly that.

An old pattern is repeating itself. The loop argument is basically this:

1. Anyone who has not been found formally guilty of doping must be presumed innocent.

2. Therefore, Armstrong is assumed not to have doped.

3. Which means that statements that he did dope cannot be true.

4. Because they are not true, there is no evidence against Armstrong.

5. Since there is no evidence, he has never doped.

Which brings you back to step 2. Step 1 is only needed to spin the loop into motion. Note that this loop conveniently assumes many people guilty of lying - Landis, Betsy Andreu, Frankie Andreu, Emma O'Reilly, Greg Lemond, etc. Since lying is wrong and these people should also be presumed innocent, there is a small logical problem here - I suppose the solution is to stop thinking at all. Perhaps this is what Radioshack would wants us to do.

The error, ofcourse, is in the extrapolation of step 1 into reality - 'if he's assumed innocent, we have to regard him never doping as historical truth'. But we cannot know what really happened until we've deduced it. By now, this deduction has gone on long enough to draw some conclusions. And these conclusions are pretty obvious.

well put...

 

[Anonymous]

There was not independent investigation. There was a whitewash paid for by the UCI, the same organization that accepts bribes from Armstrong.

The investigation never explained how artificial EPO was found in Armstrong's urine. It merely asserted that the positives coud not be used to sanction Armstrong.

The developer of the EPO test has categorically stated that there is no doubt that Armstrong was using EPO. I'll take the word of a scientist over a lawyer who specializes in defending dopers any day of the week.

EXACTLY. There was NEVER a finding that the samples didn't contain EPO. But Johnnie Cochran did his homework, so you have to be wrong...he knows the facts of all of the cases involving Armstrong, and every time someone has testified, they have been completely refuted on cross....

The reason his bullsh!t is objectionable is that he is dishonest about his motives for posting, yet he says he is unbiased. Anything he says is clouded by denial and dishonesty. I am putting him on ignore.

 

[buckwheat]

so, this is a place for hyeneas to gather ? I prefer rational dialogue, not mindless vitriol.

My not so bright brother. You're going to find out all about what evidence is and witness statements are in fact evidence.

Is Hincapie going to lie to the Feds?

Tyler?

I'll bet Zabriskie and Vaughters won't. Once they fold the rest of that house of cards is going to collapse.

All of these USPS guys are going to give statements or face the consequences.

 

[gree0232]

There was not independent investigation. There was a whitewash paid for by the UCI, the same organization that accepts bribes from Armstrong.

The investigation never explained how artificial EPO was found in Armstrong's urine. It merely asserted that the positives coud not be used to sanction Armstrong.

The developer of the EPO test has categorically stated that there is no doubt that Armstrong was using EPO. I'll take the word of a scientist over a lawyer who specializes in defending dopers any day of the week.

Proof please.

We may as well say Lance Armstrong faked the moon landing because that would have as much credibility and accussing the entire IOC, UCI, and the European legal system of systemic fraud simply to protect Lance - who we are all sure will be convicted anyway.

And please bear in mind it was WADA and **** Pound who refused to cooperate and kept the issue from going any further. So apparently Lance's accussers are doing him favors now?

Again, suspicion without proof is .... nothing. It sure as hell is not proof of doping.

The same thing applies to Floyd - the subject of the thread. It is an accussation - against a hell of a lot more than Lance.

And, as I have been saying, the rabid desire to 'get' Lance has overshadowed everything that came out of Floyd's mouth.

 

[Jonathan]

Great, now we are into personal attacks - but we cannot figure out why someof us have a problem with rabid accssations without proof.

Looking at things with an eye toward how they WILL play in court is possible. An accussation with evidence, and this is a no brainer, will get absolutely no where in court.

And if your ego is so fragile that you cannot take someone disagreeing with you, then trust me - that is a personal problem.

Ofcourse you can try to judge how well the evidence can hold up in a court of law, but I would advise to also look at exactly what laws Armstrong may have broken.

Otherwise, do you want evidence or proof? It is very difficult to prove anything - there is always an alternative explanation for any observation. If you're looking for evidence against Armstrong, however, well, many on this forum will be happy to provide it. You don't have to be convinced, ofcourse, that's always a personal matter. But there really is a bagload of evidence against Armstrong.