LeMond and Trek Settle

[Ferminal]

Yes Mama. Thats a great point. These ball hating, internet heros can't even grasp the simple facts that there is a french conspiracy out to get Lance, I've seen France on my tv and all the cheese eating surender monkeys were yelling "we hate lance" and "we love hairy armpits" and stuff like that.

Greg clearly doped cos lance didnt and greg thinks lance doped and lance didnt so therefore greg must have doped. I think we can all agree on that.

Keep it up.

 

[ChrisE]

Not knowing the samples?

Somebody obviously knew whose they were at some point in time or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Man, I didn't know this thread was rolling like this. Pass the popcorn.

 

[Digger]

Somebody obviously knew whose they were at some point in time or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Man, I didn't know this thread was rolling like this. Pass the popcorn.

Yes the UCI...not the lab technicians. So we have the UCI and the lab in on a conspiracy to spike Lance's samples. Sorted.

 

[ChrisE]

Yes the UCI...not the lab technicians. So we have the UCI and the lab in on a conspiracy to spike Lance's samples. Sorted.

How do you know who knew what? All we know is this ended up in a newspaper. I get it......extrapolation of the "we just know" theorem from the GL thread.

The fact is that the results of these tests were not to be known, but they were. There was a thread awhile back where zealots were even saying LA should be banned because of these results, which is ludicrous when taken in context of what the tests were for and the lack of protocal for an accused rider. I don't care to go into this too much because I got put in time out last time this discussion happened and it's old news.

Note somebody upthread stated personal opinion can be separated from the argument, or something to that effect. I think this whole 99 sample thing is a bunch of BS due to how it happened, but I still think LA doped in 99. That may not make sense to some people.

 

[Digger]

How do you know who knew what? All we know is this ended up in a newspaper. I get it......extrapolation of the "we just know" theorem from the GL thread. The fact is that the results of these tests were not to be known, but they were. There was a thread awhile back where zealots were even saying LA should be banned because of these results, which is ludicrous when taken in context of what the tests were for and the lack of protocal for an accused rider. I don't care to go into this too much because I got put in time out last time this discussion happened and it's old news.

Note somebody upthread stated personal opinion can be separated from the argument, or something to that effect. I think this whole 99 sample thing is a bunch of BS due to how it happened, but I still think LA doped in 99. That may not make sense to some people.

And this thing 'all we know is' may apply to you, but if you actually knew the details of the case....Lance gave permission to said journalist to access the information through the UCI. Or are you disputing this now? Are you one of these people who questions whether it is night or day, because darkness isn't really proof?

The fact is that EPO is in those samples. Lance accepts this. He reckons they were spiked or are not his. If he accepts it, maybe you should.

 

[ChrisE]

And this thing 'all we know is' may apply to you, but if you actually knew the details of the case....Lance gave permission to said journalist to access the information through the UCI. Or are you disputing this now? Are you one of these people who questions whether it is night or day, because darkness isn't really proof?

The fact is that EPO is in those samples. Lance accepts this. He reckons they were spiked or are not his. If he accepts it, maybe you should.

Ok. Please show me where I posted there was no EPO in those samples. Good luck. I will ignore your stupid a$$ metaphor because I am trying to turn over a new leaf.

I doubt if it was framed to LA like "some samples came back positive for EPO during study of the new test. Can we get your permission to see if they are yours?". I'm sure if he would have said no then none of this would come to light, right? lol. Even so, what he allowed is irrelevant IMO.

I am all for retro-testing, under published guidelines were there is transparency. That didn't happen here.

 

[BroDeal]

Note somebody upthread stated personal opinion can be separated from the argument, or something to that effect. I think this whole 99 sample thing is a bunch of BS due to how it happened, but I still think LA doped in 99. That may not make sense to some people.

The old immaculate doping argument, where someone claims that they believe Armstrong doped so they do not lose credibility, but dismisses any and all evidence that he doped. We understand.

 

[ChrisE]

The old immaculate doping argument, where someone claims that they believe Armstrong doped so they do not lose credibility, but dismisses any and all evidence that he doped. We understand.

Dismiss all evidence? I think you project too much.

I dismiss the way the 99 samples were handled, ie how this all came about. C'mon Bro, I really can't type any slower than this.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Dismiss all evidence? I think you project too much.

I dismiss the way the 99 samples were handled, ie how this all came about. C'mon Bro, I really can't type any slower than this.

Dude I'm old and my eyesight is failing, I can't always make out all the hairs you split.

 

[buckwheat]

Dismiss all evidence? I think you project too much.

I dismiss the way the 99 samples were handled, ie how this all came about. C'mon Bro, I really can't type any slower than this.

"Who's on first?"

"What's the guy's name on second?"


You do realize that was a joke, comedy?

 

[VeloCity]

Dismiss all evidence? I think you project too much.

I dismiss the way the 99 samples were handled, ie how this all came about.

It's the rest of the evidence that gives the '99 sample results substantial credibility.

 

[ChrisE]

Do any of you think LA should be sanctioned from the 99 samples?

If so, I assume all these little pesky rules that are followed on realtime sample collection/testing/protocal/recourse/suspension etc. are just window dressing and should be abolished?

After all, if you're not doing anything wrong what do you have to worry about, right?

 

[B.Rasmussen]

Do any of you think LA should be sanctioned from the 99 samples?

If so, I assume all these little pesky rules that are followed on realtime sample collection/testing/protocal/recourse/suspension etc. are just window dressing and should be abolished?

After all, if you're not doing anything wrong what do you have to worry about, right?

No he shouldn't be sanctioned. That doesn't mean he is innocent though.

 

[Digger]

Ok. Please show me where I posted there was no EPO in those samples. Good luck. I will ignore your stupid a$$ metaphor because I am trying to turn over a new leaf.

I doubt if it was framed to LA like "some samples came back positive for EPO during study of the new test. Can we get your permission to see if they are yours?". I'm sure if he would have said no then none of this would come to light, right? lol. Even so, what he allowed is irrelevant IMO.

I am all for retro-testing, under published guidelines were there is transparency. That didn't happen here.

The question that's being asked, not to you in fairness, is, did Lance dope? Now, EPO exists in those samples. I think you accept this. Your problem is the fact that it wasn't official. Granted, it was for research purposes. But for me, we can't just ignore the EPO presence. And yes I honestly think you're splitting hairs here and your argument is becoming more and more tenuous. I even get the impression you don't even believe what you're saying - just trying to be obtuse.

 

[Digger]

Okay Chris E...Your argument is that the guidelines were not followed. They were for research purposes so no Lance could not be sanctioned. I accept this.
Now would you accept that the samples were not spiked, were lance's samples?

 

[ChrisE]

The question that's being asked, not to you in fairness, is, did Lance dope? Now, EPO exists in those samples. I think you accept this. Your problem is the fact that it wasn't official. Granted, it was for research purposes. But for me, we can't just ignore the EPO presence. And yes I honestly think you're splitting hairs here and your argument is becoming more and more tenuous. I even get the impression you don't even believe what you're saying - just trying to be obtuse.

I will edit this out since I see your reply.

 

[ChrisE]

Okay Chris E...Your argument is that the guidelines were not followed. They were for research purposes so no Lance could not be sanctioned. I accept this.
Now would you accept that the samples were not spiked, were lance's samples?

I tend to believe Ashendon's argument about the results he reviewed. I think the samples being spiked and thus producing those results is not credible.

 

[Race Radio]

Do any of you think LA should be sanctioned from the 99 samples?

If so, I assume all these little pesky rules that are followed on realtime sample collection/testing/protocal/recourse/suspension etc. are just window dressing and should be abolished?

After all, if you're not doing anything wrong what do you have to worry about, right?

Marion Jones, Basso, Valverde, Leogrande, etc. were sanctioned with much less evidence. The problem is jurisdiction. Because they are from 99 the UCI is in charge.....good luck with that.

 

[patricknd]

Marion Jones, Basso, Valverde, Leogrande, etc. were sanctioned with much less evidence. The problem is jurisdiction. Because they are from 99 the UCI is in charge.....good luck with that.

but given the circumstances of the testing should he be sanctioned? and what are the reasons for your decision?

 

[ChrisE]

Marion Jones, Basso, Valverde, Leogrande, etc. were sanctioned with much less evidence. The problem is jurisdiction. Because they are from 99 the UCI is in charge.....good luck with that.

Whether there is more proof than the 99 samples is debatable and not worth getting into. They each have their own circumstances.

Just curious - Does the UCI have established procedures now for retro-testing?

 

[VeloCity]

Do any of you think LA should be sanctioned from the 99 samples?

If so, I assume all these little pesky rules that are followed on realtime sample collection/testing/protocal/recourse/suspension etc. are just window dressing and should be abolished?

After all, if you're not doing anything wrong what do you have to worry about, right?

Personally, I go with occum's razor: the most reasonable and rational explanation as to why EPO was found in Armstrong's '99 samples is because, like most of the riders of that time, Armstrong was using EPO, and until someone can definitively show that the samples were mishandled or tampered with, everything else is just speculation and conjecture. I don't care if they can or can't be used for sanctioning purposes; the only thing I care about is knowing whether or not a rider is a doper. From that perspective, the '99 samples may not be enough in and of themselves, but they are one more (and imo pretty substantial) addition to the pile of evidence that Armstrong was doping during his Tour wins.

 

[pmcg76]

Personally, I go with occum's razor: the most reasonable and rational explanation as to why EPO was found in Armstrong's '99 samples is because, like most of the riders of that time, Armstrong was using EPO, and until someone can definitively show that the samples were mishandled or tampered with, everything else is just speculation and conjecture. I don't care if they can or can't be used for sanctioning purposes; the only thing I care about is knowing whether or not a rider is a doper. From that perspective, the '99 samples may not be enough in and of themselves, but they are one more (and imo pretty substantial) addition to the pile of evidence that Armstrong was doping during his Tour wins.

Everyone on here seems ok with assuming Jan Ullrich doped and the link, his name appeared in a file, thats all the evidence there is of his doping. Anyone out there believe Ullrich wasnt doping?

 

[pmcg76]

Whether there is more proof than the 99 samples is debatable and not worth getting into. They each have their own circumstances.

Just curious - Does the UCI have established procedures now for retro-testing?

Did you miss that the AFLD offered to retest those 99 samples with the latest technology earlier this year but Armstorng refused to allow this to happen.

 

[ChrisE]

Did you miss that the AFLD offered to retest those 99 samples with the latest technology earlier this year but Armstorng refused to allow this to happen.

Yeah, I remember that. What is your point?

 

[Digger]

Yeah, I remember that. What is your point?

Clearly he (Lance) knows full well that the first set of retro tests are accurate and the second set would also show EPO...which I know you're not disputing to be fair.