The Armitstead doping thread.

[burning]

Re: Re:

Lance, who has exponentially more protection than Lizzie, still got into some trouble by a positive test.

When?

I think it was in 1999 Tour de Suisse.

 

[GJB123]

Make that the 1999 TdF prologue with the backdated TUE.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Lance, who has exponentially more protection than Lizzie, still got into some trouble by a positive test.

When?

I think it was in 1999 Tour de Suisse.

LA rode the 1999 Tour de Suisse? He rode the Dauphiné that year, IIRC. I know, I know, facts, damn them and all that...

Even if LA had popped at positive at the 1999 TdS, what would that prove? This was before he was the chosen one, before he got his protected status (if you believe the protected one exist). The same would hold true for his minor difficulty in the 1999 TdF.

So, let me ask the question again: when did LA fail a test (thus proving that even the protected (if you believe they exist) have to take a fall now and then)?

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Lance, who has exponentially more protection than Lizzie, still got into some trouble by a positive test.

When?

I think it was in 1999 Tour de Suisse.

LA rode the 1999 Tour de Suisse? He rode the Dauphiné that year, IIRC. I know, I know, facts, damn them and all that...

Even if LA had popped at positive at the 1999 TdS, what would that prove? This was before he was the chosen one, before he got his protected status. The same would hold true for his minor difficulty in the 1999 TdF.

So, let me ask the question again: when did LA fail a test (thus proving that even the protected (if you believe they exist) have to take a fall now and then?

It was rumoured to be the 2001 TdS that Armstrong tested positive for EPO. Now considered that he was just boasting about the amount of control he had. Hopefully we'll find out more with the upcoming hearing....

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

It was rumoured to be the 2001 TdS that Armstrong tested positive for EPO.

Rumours? We're now citing rumours as facts? Really? We're in the twilight zone now, let's all just make up whatever kind of nonsense we want in order to support the most feeble of arguments.

I know what happened in the LA (the other one) case: a unicorn did it.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

It was rumoured to be the 2001 TdS that Armstrong tested positive for EPO.

Rumours? We're now citing rumours as facts? Really? We're in the twilight zone now, let's all just make up whatever kind of nonsense we want in order to support the most feeble of arguments.

I know what happened in the LA (the other one) case: a unicorn did it.

Huh?

I'm just pointing out what Landis and Hamilton stated. Armstrong told them he tested positive at the 2001. That much is a fact. Yes, a fact.

And Hamilton countered Armstrong’s claim of having never failed a drug test, saying that Armstrong told him in a relaxed, “off the cuff” manner that Armstrong had failed a test at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland.

“People took care of it,” Hamilton said. “I don’t know all the exact details but Lance’s people and people from the other side, people I believe from the governing body of the sport, figured out a way for it to go away. I was told this (by) Lance.”

 

[gooner]

IIRC, it was borderline near to being a positive, not quite over the threshold for one. I think the Dauphine too in 2002.

 

[thehog]

Re:

IIRC, it was borderline near to being a positive, not quite over the threshold for one. I think the Dauphine too in 2002.

Yes, so said Saugy and the UCI

 

[BullsFan22]

Re: Re:

It was rumoured to be the 2001 TdS that Armstrong tested positive for EPO.

Rumours? We're now citing rumours as facts? Really? We're in the twilight zone now, let's all just make up whatever kind of nonsense we want in order to support the most feeble of arguments.

I know what happened in the LA (the other one) case: a unicorn did it.

Not many believed that Juan Pelota was doping either, people were ridiculed even if they suggested the possibility. I don't think we can consider 'rumors' as simply rumors in his case anymore.

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

IIRC, it was borderline near to being a positive, not quite over the threshold for one. I think the Dauphine too in 2002.

Yes, so said Saugy and the UCI

True, that was it.

 

[AlbineVespuzzio]

Re: Re:

Why are you pretending I did not make a point?

What are you talking about now? You needed the role of CAS explained to you. I explained it. You suggest the rules are unclear without indicating whether you have read them or not or where the lack of clarity is. Now you say you made a point? Bully for you, I say, bully for you. Pat yourself on the back and raise a glass of sherry, why don't you?

You suggest the rules are unclear

Nope, I didn't. I asked if they are clear, as other people see them. My assumption is that they are.

You needed the role of CAS explained

Nope, that is of no interest to me.

Now you say you made a point

Yes. I'll do it again, for your benefit

Why would the UKAD be confused about the rules of what constitutes a no-show or not? It's their rules. It makes no sense. The alternative would be them engaging in persecuting athletes, lying in their reports, just for the fun of it. That also makes no sense.

Is there a plausible explanation in the CAS end for the confusion about the rules? Yes, there is. Is there benefit in helping out an athlete in trouble, by twisting the rules a little bit, making a no-show into a no-no-show? Yes, there is: the athlete will be thankful, her federation too, so will her team, and her country's Olympic association, as she is a potential gold medalist. Being that country GB which is gaining an overwhelming amount of power in the world of sport, that explanation becomes more and more plausible.

Explanation that makes no sense vs Explanation with plausibility. Who wins?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

I don't think we can consider 'rumors' as simply rumors in his case anymore.

Cue

 

[climb4fun]

Is it worse to be thought of as "doper" or a buffoon? Either tell the story or go away. How bad can it be that her "family" won't understand her "coming clean"?

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

It was rumoured to be the 2001 TdS that Armstrong tested positive for EPO.

Rumours? We're now citing rumours as facts? Really? We're in the twilight zone now, let's all just make up whatever kind of nonsense we want in order to support the most feeble of arguments.

I know what happened in the LA (the other one) case: a unicorn did it.

Not many believed that Juan Pelota was doping either, people were ridiculed even if they suggested the possibility. I don't think we can consider 'rumors' as simply rumors in his case anymore.

Considering both Landis and Hamiton spoke to a grand jury and provided testimony, they most likely stated the 2001 TDS story. Thus it's not a rumour but fact. Whether Armstrong actually did test positive is another story.

What we do know was Armstrong was fully aware at the time of flying too close to the sun, so there must have been some form of collusion and corroboration.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Why would the UKAD be confused about the rules of what constitutes a no-show or not? It's their rules. It makes no sense.

Rules are open to interpretation. I read them this way, you read them that. UKAD read it that they had followed the rules. CAS said they hadn't.

The alternative would be them engaging in persecuting athletes, lying in their reports, just for the fun of it. That also makes no sense.

Some do argue that UKAD are sometimes a bit cavalier in the way they treat athletes. And maybe they could and should have shown more understanding here, took a closer look at the first fail when LA offered her explanation. But that does not mean that they actively seek to persecute athletes. It could just mean they mess up.

Is there a plausible explanation in the CAS end for the confusion about the rules? Yes, there is.

Correct. The explanation being that CAS is a court of appeal. If you reject CAS's right to overturn decisions of lower courts (here, UKAD) then you are denying athletes the right of appeal to an independent court. Do you think athletes should be denied the right of appeal to an independent court?

Is there benefit in helping out an athlete in trouble, by twisting the rules a little bit, making a no-show into a no-no-show? Yes, there is: the athlete will be thankful, her federation too, so will her team, and her country's Olympic association, as she is a potential gold medalist. Being that country GB which is gaining an overwhelming amount of power in the world of sport, that explanation becomes more and more plausible.

So CAS here is acting like the Godfather, doing Bonasera a favour? Someday, and that day may never come, CAS will call upon UKAD to do a service for them? Except...well CAS is just an appeals court. What favour can you imagine - and you have demonstrated that you have a colourful imagination, so don't fail me here, please - UKAD being asked to do for CAS?

Explanation that makes no sense vs Explanation with plausibility. Who wins?

You're not looking for an explanation that makes sense - court of appeal overturns decision of lower court, as happens all the time in the real world - in favour of a convoluted conspiracy that feeds your need to believe that everyone is working together and everything is corrupted.

 

[sniper]

Re:

I haven't read through all of the new pages since my last visit to this topic (with laryngitis and all), but are we any wiser on cataclysmic family emergency prevented her from updating ADAMS properly for the third strike. I appreciate that privacy is involved but if for example it was the "mere" death of the family dog or cat, I have a harder time reconciling that with not updating your ADAMS when you are already on two strikes and possibly losing your livelihood, passion and career. It would have been so much better if had come out straight away with a real tear jerker that was proven correct than this whole privacy and silence thing.

relevant issue.

i havent been following the case closely, so bear with me and correct me if i'm getting things wrong.

So LA's narrative is that she missed a test on the 9th June because she couldn't find time to send a text to update her whereabouts due to a family crisis.

Now, as it happens, LA has been deleting a whole bunch of tweets from the period at issue. In fact, all her tweets from 7th June to 17th June are gone.
An obvious and plausible first guess is she deleted them because they don't fit her narrative.

Now, as it happens, somebody made a screenshot of a tweet of hers from the 8th of June.
Here it is:
https://twitter.com/alivenetworkltd/status/740892765253406720\
Of course, as i said, the original tweet is gone from LA's twitter feed.

So to get this clear, she says she did not have time to do whereabouts updates for the 9th because of some family crisis. But that tweet there has her late afternoon the 8th sorting out the band for her wedding and having enough time to tweet to the company she selected the band through, to compliment them.
So the obvious question: instead of tweeting crap why wasn't she getting her whereabouts up to date?
And why did she delete all those tweets from the period at issue?

 

[GJB123]

Is it worse to be thought of as "doper" or a buffoon? Either tell the story or go away. How bad can it be that her "family" won't understand her "coming clean"?

Exactemundo.

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

I haven't read through all of the new pages since my last visit to this topic (with laryngitis and all), but are we any wiser on cataclysmic family emergency prevented her from updating ADAMS properly for the third strike. I appreciate that privacy is involved but if for example it was the "mere" death of the family dog or cat, I have a harder time reconciling that with not updating your ADAMS when you are already on two strikes and possibly losing your livelihood, passion and career. It would have been so much better if had come out straight away with a real tear jerker that was proven correct than this whole privacy and silence thing.

relevant issue.

i havent been following the case closely, so bear with me and correct me if i'm getting things wrong.

So LA's narrative is that she missed a test on the 9th June because she couldn't find time to send a text to update her whereabouts due to a family crisis.

Now, as it happens, LA has been deleting a whole bunch of tweets from the period at issue, i.e. all her tweets from 7th June to 17th June are gone.
An obvious and plausible first guess is she deleted them because they don't fit her narrative.

However, as it happens, somebody made a screenshot of a tweet of hers from the 8th of June.
Here it is:
https://twitter.com/alivenetworkltd/status/740892765253406720\
Of course, as i said, the original tweet is gone from LA's twitter feed.

So to get this clear, she says she did not have time to do whereabouts updates for the 9th because of some family crisis. But that tweet there has her late afternoon the 8th sorting out the band for her wedding and having enough time to tweet to the company she selected the band through, to compliment them.
So the obvious question: instead of tweeting crap why wasn't she getting her whereabouts up to date ?

Nice find, but al lot can happen in day (or night that is). If the family emergency happened overnight and it is a true emergency of some proportion (ie. parent(s) or sibling(s) suddenly being hospitalized) I can imagine you might forget all about the ADAMS-thingy (although I also think that top athletes are notoriously egocentric, so I have some issues reconciling those two), but then why not tell what the issue was (unless off course your father was wheeled off to the hospital wearing a rubber nurse's costume with a large d!ldo up his ass, in which case you are forgiven for not spilling the beans ).

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Considering both Landis and Hamiton spoke to a grand jury and provided testimony, they most likely stated the 2001 TDS story. Thus it's not a rumour but fact. Whether Armstrong actually did test positive is another story.

Where to begin? Let's start with lying to a grand jury. Marion Jones.

Next, the TdS story. Landis and Hamilton contest they were told a story by LA. That's the first part. I actually think we can all agree that LA told the two of them that story (or two different stories, I forget at this stage, it was all so long ago). We can say that that is not a rumour.

But does that establish the facts of the story they claim to have been told? No, of course it doesn't. Especially when so many of us are only too willing to acknowledge that LA was probly bragging, that LA gilded the lilly, that LA wanted Landis and Hamilton to believe he had more pull than he really did. So the facts of the story, they have not been established. In fact, given everything we know, particularly what we know about the workings of the EPO test in 2001, LA's story looks more and more like a story.

Now, back to basics: this case was cited to demonstrate that even the protected ones (if you believe they exist) can and do fail tests, that protection doesn't mean you are protected. But if there was no fail, it proves nothing, correct?

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

I haven't read through all of the new pages since my last visit to this topic (with laryngitis and all), but are we any wiser on cataclysmic family emergency prevented her from updating ADAMS properly for the third strike. I appreciate that privacy is involved but if for example it was the "mere" death of the family dog or cat, I have a harder time reconciling that with not updating your ADAMS when you are already on two strikes and possibly losing your livelihood, passion and career. It would have been so much better if had come out straight away with a real tear jerker that was proven correct than this whole privacy and silence thing.

relevant issue.

i havent been following the case closely, so bear with me and correct me if i'm getting things wrong.

So LA's narrative is that she missed a test on the 9th June because she couldn't find time to send a text to update her whereabouts due to a family crisis.

Now, as it happens, LA has been deleting a whole bunch of tweets from the period at issue. In fact, all her tweets from 7th June to 17th June are gone.
An obvious and plausible first guess is she deleted them because they don't fit her narrative.

Now, as it happens, somebody made a screenshot of a tweet of hers from the 8th of June.
Here it is:
https://twitter.com/alivenetworkltd/status/740892765253406720\
Of course, as i said, the original tweet is gone from LA's twitter feed.

So to get this clear, she says she did not have time to do whereabouts updates for the 9th because of some family crisis. But that tweet there has her late afternoon the 8th sorting out the band for her wedding and having enough time to tweet to the company she selected the band through, to compliment them.
So the obvious question: instead of tweeting crap why wasn't she getting her whereabouts up to date?
And why did she delete all those tweets from the period at issue?

A faimly emergency indeed! If it was Mick Hucknell, then understandable but it wasn't :lol:

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

why not tell what the issue was (unless off course your father was wheeled off to the hospital wearing a rubber nurse's costume with a large d!ldo up his ***, in which case you are forgiven for not spilling the beans ).

Humourous as that was meant to be, it perfectly explains her right not to explain. We do not have the right to know everything that happens in an athlete's life. They have the right to a personal life, they have a right to (some) privacy.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

I haven't read through all of the new pages since my last visit to this topic (with laryngitis and all), but are we any wiser on cataclysmic family emergency prevented her from updating ADAMS properly for the third strike. I appreciate that privacy is involved but if for example it was the "mere" death of the family dog or cat, I have a harder time reconciling that with not updating your ADAMS when you are already on two strikes and possibly losing your livelihood, passion and career. It would have been so much better if had come out straight away with a real tear jerker that was proven correct than this whole privacy and silence thing.

relevant issue.

i havent been following the case closely, so bear with me and correct me if i'm getting things wrong.

So LA's narrative is that she missed a test on the 9th June because she couldn't find time to send a text to update her whereabouts due to a family crisis.

Now, as it happens, LA has been deleting a whole bunch of tweets from the period at issue, i.e. all her tweets from 7th June to 17th June are gone.
An obvious and plausible first guess is she deleted them because they don't fit her narrative.

However, as it happens, somebody made a screenshot of a tweet of hers from the 8th of June.
Here it is:
https://twitter.com/alivenetworkltd/status/740892765253406720\
Of course, as i said, the original tweet is gone from LA's twitter feed.

So to get this clear, she says she did not have time to do whereabouts updates for the 9th because of some family crisis. But that tweet there has her late afternoon the 8th sorting out the band for her wedding and having enough time to tweet to the company she selected the band through, to compliment them.
So the obvious question: instead of tweeting crap why wasn't she getting her whereabouts up to date ?

Nice find, but al lot can happen in day (or night that is). If the family emergency happened overnight and it is a true emergency of some proportion (ie. parent(s) or sibling(s) suddenly being hospitalized) I can imagine you might forget all about the ADAMS-thingy (although I also think that top athletes are notoriously egocentric, so I have some issues reconciling those two), but then why not tell what the issue was (unless off course your father was wheeled off to the hospital wearing a rubber nurse's costume with a large d!ldo up his ***, in which case you are forgiven for not spilling the beans ).

And just as importantly: why did she delete all tweets between the 7th and the 17th of June?
There is one very plausible answer to that: they make a mockery of her narrative of not having had time due to a family crisis.

 

[sniper]

ow, and from the 17th on her twitter feed is again full of the joys of spring.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Considering both Landis and Hamiton spoke to a grand jury and provided testimony, they most likely stated the 2001 TDS story. Thus it's not a rumour but fact. Whether Armstrong actually did test positive is another story.

Where to begin? Let's start with lying to a grand jury. Marion Jones.

Next, the TdS story. Landis and Hamilton contest they were told a story by LA. That's the first part. I actually think we can all agree that LA told the two of them that story (or two different stories, I forget at this stage, it was all so long ago). We can say that that is not a rumour.

But does that establish the facts of the story they claim to have been told? No, of course it doesn't. Especially when so many of us are only too willing to acknowledge that LA was probly bragging, that LA gilded the lilly, that LA wanted Landis and Hamilton to believe he had more pull than he really did. So the facts of the story, they have not been established. In fact, given everything we know, particularly what we know about the workings of the EPO test in 2001, LA's story looks more and more like a story.

Now, back to basics: this case was cited to demonstrate that even the protected ones (if you believe they exist) can and do fail tests, that protection doesn't mean you are protected. But if there was no fail, it proves nothing, correct?

Where to begin? Perhaps with the facts, Jones never lied to a Grand Jury, it was to Federal Authorties during the BALCO Investgation.

If you're going to go swinging your fists about at least get the facts correct, lol! :lol:

The AP interview, Jones recounted the moment on Nov. 4, 2003 when she lied to federal authorities about whether she had taken performance-enhancing drugs.

Shown a vial by investigating agent Jeff Novitzky, she realized it held a designer steroid called “the clear” that she had taken before the 2000 Sydney Olympics.

She denied it.

“I made a decision that took less than 45, 30 seconds,” she told the AP, “to lie, to lie to them. And that was my crime.”

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

why not tell what the issue was (unless off course your father was wheeled off to the hospital wearing a rubber nurse's costume with a large d!ldo up his ***, in which case you are forgiven for not spilling the beans ).

Humourous as that was meant to be, it perfectly explains her right not to explain. We do not have the right to know everything that happens in an athlete's life. They have the right to a personal life, they have a right to (some) privacy.

Sure, and I have stated a such above. That privilege does however come at a price, the price being her credibility. What she should then not do is cry us a river that is so unfair that people don't believe her and that she will be forever tarnished etc., etc. I am supposed to believe her and take her word for it. This is after all cycling and doping we are talking about. The choice is hers.