The Evidence

[LauraLyn]

LauraLyn,

I think we are very much on the same page about most of this. The only thing that I would say we disagree about is doing anything that might deter contribution from the clinic's favorite contributor. If he wishes to remain anonymous, then I would respect that

Understood. And my sincere apologies to you and your favorite contributor.

Indeed. I don't think we disagree. RaceRadio did not state he was concerned to remain anonymous and it just simply is not the case that he is. We certainly agree that all contributions are welcome and no one should be deterred from contributing.

[I hope we can also agree that contributors should not be derided or accused of things that simply are without foundation.]

There are many questions here asked about persons and institutions. No one ever before suggested that any question asked about a person here was not a fair question. I did not ask the question. And again, no one, including RaceRadio or yourself objected to the question being posed or responded to, until after the response had been given.

And once more. The response is public knowledge, easily had.

Please keep in mind that RaceRadio had contributed a tease asking people to guess about some unidentified person. A respondent, legitimately, asked that we guess about RaceRadio's identity. RaceRadio did not object to either guessing game, rather he seemed to encourage it.

May I add as well, for clarity, that I never contradicted RaceRadio. He did contradict me and I respect that, and appreciate it. I will try to learn from it. (Although it could be helpful not to have to guess at meanings all the time.)

 

[silverrocket]

Race radio tweeted "All I wanna do is have some fun"

I guess we know who was a better witness than Hincapie now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5ouOa9k0gE

The American public has largely ignored or remained indifferent to the Armstrong/USADA "issue", but a witness against LA that is also a celebrity? And a celebrity that is also a cancer survivor? The popular press will grab hold and shake until there is nothing left of LA but an empty husk.

 

[MarkvW]

Understood. And my sincere apologies to you and your favorite contributor.

Indeed. I don't think we disagree. RaceRadio did not state he was concerned to remain anonymous and it just simply is not the case that he is. We certainly agree that all contributions are welcome and no one should be deterred from contributing.

[I hope we can also agree that contributors should not be derided or accused of things that simply are without foundation.]

There are many questions here asked about persons and institutions. No one ever before suggested that any question asked about a person here was not a fair question. I did not ask the question. And again, no one, including RaceRadio or yourself objected to the question being posed or responded to, until after the response had been given.

And once more. The response is public knowledge, easily had.

May I add as well, for clarity, that I never contradicted RaceRadio. He did contradict me and I respect that, and appreciate it. I will try to learn from it. (Although it could be helpful not to have to guess at meanings all the time.)

Fyi: Against forum policies to inquire regards poster identities. People have been suspended for it.

 

[LauraLyn]

Fyi: Against forum policies to inquire regards poster identities. People have been suspended for it.

Thank you. Please post to the one who made the inquiry.

 

[python]

Fyi: Against forum policies to inquire regards poster identities. People have been suspended for it.

i have nailed his hyperbolic and taunt-prone posting manners many posts ago...something i thought was obvious. that we now have so many posters up in arms against LauraLyn because he (i am sure he is not she) opposed the clinic's fave , is amusing.

 

[MarkvW]

Thank you. Please post to the one who made the inquiry.

Apologies for sending the message. Consider it withdrawn!

 

[DomesticDomestique]

[I hope we can also agree that contributors should not be derided or accused of things that simply are without foundation.]

Agreed. I apologize for calling you a fanboy intern.

Fyi: Against forum policies to inquire regards poster identities. People have been suspended for it.

Thanks for adding this to the discussion. I did not know this explicitly but thought it was bad form. If people wanted to be known, they could post under their real name or be obvious as to who they are, such as elizab and texpat.

The American public has largely ignored or remained indifferent to the Armstrong/USADA "issue", but a witness against LA that is also a celebrity? And a celebrity that is also a cancer survivor? The popular press will grab hold and shake until there is nothing left of LA but an empty husk.

I sure hope that is the case. And I sure hope the press gets a hold of this info soon.

 

[hiero2]

I've seen this thread posted on FB as a place to go to check the Evidence.

Perhaps it would be good to return it to its original purpose and remove the comments and speculation? Doesn't a thread exits for comments, etc already?

Carols - I agree that this thread has degenerated. However, it is a good thread on its own, imo. However, again, I still believe, as I did when it was 1st suggested, that having an Evidence ONLY thread is definitely worthwhile. I chapeau'd RR for starting it, and BotanyBay for suggesting it be evidence only.

So - I am going to message the Mod Squad (MODS, ARE YOU LISTENING? sotto voce), separately, actually, to request that we open a thread for the evidence links only. I will take on the work of transferring past posts from this thread to that thread when they qualify. Then the new thread should be closed, and it will take a direct request to a mod to post links to evidence.

Trying to herd the bunch of cats in this thread will be pointless I think. At least 3 requests to keep the thread evidence only have been posted. They aren't listening. I want to hear what they have to say, mostly, but it would be nice to have the "reference shelf".

 

[MarkvW]

i have nailed his hyperbolic and taunt-prone posting manners many posts ago...something i thought was obvious. that we now have so many posters up in arms against LauraLyn because he (i am sure he is not she) opposed the clinic's fave , is amusing.

I was just trying to be polite to a new poster. Silly me. Ignore time now.

 

[LauraLyn]

Carols - I agree that this thread has degenerated. However, it is a good thread on its own, imo. However, again, I still believe, as I did when it was 1st suggested, that having an Evidence ONLY thread is definitely worthwhile. I chapeau'd RR for starting it, and BotanyBay for suggesting it be evidence only.

So - I am going to message the Mod Squad (MODS, ARE YOU LISTENING? sotto voce), separately, actually, to request that we open a thread for the evidence links only. I will take on the work of transferring past posts from this thread to that thread when they qualify. Then the new thread should be closed, and it will take a direct request to a mod to post links to evidence.

Trying to herd the bunch of cats in this thread will be pointless I think. At least 3 requests to keep the thread evidence only have been posted. They aren't listening. I want to hear what they have to say, mostly, but it would be nice to have the "reference shelf".

This seems like a good suggestion.

In response to Carols request to have the thread deal only with evidence and not with speculation, I asked what evidence might there be that is not speculative.

Evidence and speculation usually go together in a court room or arbitration room. Outside of a court room or arbitration room I do not see where there can be a sincere talk of "the evidence coming out".

I think we need to be clearer about what we mean when we speak of evidence.

Because "motives" have been questioned, and insinuated (along with personal attacks) let me try to be clear: Much of the public is being led to believe by Lance & Co. (including UCI) that there is no evidence or that the evidence is weak. BBC and others (no names) promise evidence. But this is not realistic. The only possibility for evidence to be presented in this case (of 6 persons) is if someone chooses for arbitration. And only if that person chooses for a public arbitration will we see the evidence.

So please inform me where this is incorrect. And perhaps provide, if you think it is the case, an example of evidence regarding the USADA case against Lance Armstrong.

The important thing is that USADA's decision regarding Lance Armstrong is principally not based on evidence, but on the fact that Lance Armstrong did not contest the charges in arbitration. This is a correct decision by USADA and it does not need to be supported further by a presentation of the evidence to the public. This is how justice works, in America and generally in the world.

Guessing about secret witnesses, be it George Hincapie or Lance's gardner, or mom, or ex or whatever, has little to do with a real discussion on evidence. Especially considering that in this USADA case there will be no public witnesses against Lance (though there may be against one or other person currently charged).

This is a game that was started by De Telegraaf/Telesport. If you read the paper you will know that it heavily supports Lance & Co. Few seem to have ever questioned the sources for this listing of names or even their real correctness: and we see both supporters of Lance as well as those who want the truth often assuming that this list is correct. Again, we need to be careful in a discussion of evidence, and guessing has little to do with it.

I don't believe the guessing game endeared this thread to Facebook. But I also do not believe that this thread needs to function for another purpose.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

i have nailed his hyperbolic and taunt-prone posting manners many posts ago...something i thought was obvious. that we now have so many posters up in arms against LauraLyn because he (i am sure he is not she) opposed the clinic's fave , is amusing.

Off topic but I get a strong vibe of a he and not a she as well.

 

[hiero2]

This seems like a good suggestion.

In response to Carols request to have the thread deal only with evidence and not with speculation, I asked what evidence might there be that is not speculative.

Evidence and speculation usually go together in a court room or arbitration room. Outside of a court room or arbitration room I do not see where there can be a sincere talk of "the evidence coming out".

I think we need to be clearer about what we mean when we speak of evidence.

Because "motives" have been questioned, and insinuated (along with personal attacks) let me try to be clear: Much of the public is being led to believe by Lance & Co. (including UCI) that there is no evidence or that the evidence is weak. BBC and others (no names) promise evidence. But this is not realistic. The only possibility for evidence to be presented in this case (of 6 persons) is if someone chooses for arbitration. And only if that person chooses for a public arbitration will we see the evidence.

So please inform me where this is incorrect. And perhaps provide, if you think it is the case, an example of evidence regarding the USADA case against Lance Armstrong.

The important thing is that USADA's decision regarding Lance Armstrong is principally not based on evidence, but on the fact that Lance Armstrong did not contest the charges in arbitration. This is a correct decision by USADA and it does not need to be supported further by a presentation of the evidence to the public. This is how justice works, in America and generally in the world.

Guessing about secret witnesses, be it George Hincapie or Lance's gardner, or mom, or ex or whatever, has little to do with a real discussion on evidence. Especially considering that in this USADA case there will be no public witnesses against Lance (though there may be against one or other person currently charged).

This is a game that was started by De Telegraaf/Telesport. If you read the paper you will know that it heavily supports Lance & Co. Few seem to have ever questioned the sources for this listing of names or even their real correctness: and we see both supporters of Lance as well as those who want the truth often assuming that this list is correct. Again, we need to be careful in a discussion of evidence, and guessing has little to do with it.

I don't believe the guessing game endeared this thread to Facebook. But I also do not believe that this thread needs to function for another purpose.

Lauralyn - it is more than a good suggestion, and it was not my suggestion. It was BotanyBays, and he deserves the credit. That was way back on page one. If you actually read the thread, you will find several links posted in the first few pages, after which the thread degenerated into a comment thread. On page 2, I think, you will find a mod has given the go-ahead to BB's suggestion to make the thread links only. You will also find a few comments from RR and perhaps others telling us evidence will be forthcoming as events unfold. However, thank you for the compliment. Please actually read the thread.

 

[zigmeister]

Your insults of others for making "idiotic" and "ridiculous" statements about hCG are even more distasteful when you personally make such a basic error as to say hCG is not a chemical. Consider yourself "indulged" with that fact.

That was a typo, settle down beavis. It doesnt possess nor have the same affects as the original writer and quote says. It is not an anabolic agent of any sort. It takes the place of LH to signal the testicles to produce testosterone in men.

 

[LauraLyn]

Lauralyn - it is more than a good suggestion, and it was not my suggestion. It was BotanyBays, and he deserves the credit. That was way back on page one. If you actually read the thread, you will find several links posted in the first few pages, after which the thread degenerated into a comment thread. On page 2, I think, you will find a mod has given the go-ahead to BB's suggestion to make the thread links only. You will also find a few comments from RR and perhaps others telling us evidence will be forthcoming as events unfold. However, thank you for the compliment. Please actually read the thread.

Thank you. I did follow the thread from the beginning. There is a great deal more discussion than there are links. And I do not see any links to evidence.

People may say that evidence will be forthcoming. But then we are condemned to speculating (worse, guessing) until the evidence comes out. And as I have said, without a court case or arbitration case no evidence can be presented, publicly or privately.

Whether the the intention be to help one another understand this case and the events around it or to help the public more clearly understand this case, the reality of it and the importance of it, then we do need to be clearer about our use of what we mean by evidence.

Surely guessing at names, be it by the Telegraaf or here, does not constitute evidence in any shape or form.

 

[Ferminal]

Umm, "The Evidence".

 

[LauraLyn]

i have nailed his hyperbolic and taunt-prone posting manners many posts ago...something i thought was obvious. that we now have so many posters up in arms against LauraLyn because he (i am sure he is not she) opposed the clinic's fave , is amusing.

With regard to the manner of the discourse, this frankly appears more in the style of Lance Armstrong than USADA.

If the intention was to insult, the intention has been achieved.

 

[Merckx index]

Yes, the evidence.

I just read Chris Keyes' review of Tyler's book. It blew me away. Keyes starts by thinking--as I did--that based on the blurbs coming out, the book was no big deal, just a rehash of his testimony on 60 minutes. But he says he quickly finds it is far more than that.

The Secret Race isn’t just a game changer for the Lance Armstrong myth. It’s the game ender. No one can read this book with an open mind and still credibly believe that Armstrong didn’t dope. It’s impossible. That doesn’t change the fact that he survived cancer and helped millions of people through Livestrong, but the myth of the clean-racing hero who came back from the dead is, well, dead.

But what about the fact that Tyler is a lying doper? This is what really got my attention:

What ultimately makes the book so damning, however, is that it doesn’t require readers to put their full faith in Hamilton’s word. In the book’s preface, which details its genesis, Coyle not so subtly addresses Armstrong’s supporters by pointing out that, while the story is told through Hamilton, nine former Postal teammates agreed to cooperate with him on The Secret Race, verifying and corroborating Hamilton’s account. Nine teammates. That fact is the first punch thrown at Armstrong’s supporters—and it might be the most damaging one. Next Wednesday, when The Secret Race comes out, backers will probably make the familiar claim that Hamilton is a disgruntled, bitter ex-rival who got popped for doping and is now looking to cash in. But that doesn’t explain why nine former teammates agreed to cooperate.

Wow. Now suddenly it doesn't seem so urgent that USADA get the evidence out. This book, it seems, is going to do some of that heavy lifting for it. I assume none of these nine is named, but we all know who most if not all of them are, and apparently some of the names appear in the book, even if not attached to Tyler's damaging words.

And not just the doping, and the better program (Tyler says LA repeated the name Michele more than he did Kik), but also the evidence of protection. Not only the assertion that he tested positive for EPO at the TdS, but some other mind-blowing observations:

I remember Lance phoning Hein Verbruggen from the team bus … and I was struck by the casual tone of the conversation. Lance was talking to the president of the UCI, the leader of the sport. But he may as well have been talking to a business partner, a friend.”

Next week should be very interesting in the blogosphere.

 

[Velodude]

This seems like a good suggestion.

In response to Carols request to have the thread deal only with evidence and not with speculation, I asked what evidence might there be that is not speculative.

Evidence and speculation usually go together in a court room or arbitration room. Outside of a court room or arbitration room I do not see where there can be a sincere talk of "the evidence coming out".

I think we need to be clearer about what we mean when we speak of evidence.

Because "motives" have been questioned, and insinuated (along with personal attacks) let me try to be clear: Much of the public is being led to believe by Lance & Co. (including UCI) that there is no evidence or that the evidence is weak. BBC and others (no names) promise evidence. But this is not realistic. The only possibility for evidence to be presented in this case (of 6 persons) is if someone chooses for arbitration. And only if that person chooses for a public arbitration will we see the evidence.

So please inform me where this is incorrect. And perhaps provide, if you think it is the case, an example of evidence regarding the USADA case against Lance Armstrong.

The important thing is that USADA's decision regarding Lance Armstrong is principally not based on evidence, but on the fact that Lance Armstrong did not contest the charges in arbitration. This is a correct decision by USADA and it does not need to be supported further by a presentation of the evidence to the public. This is how justice works, in America and generally in the world.

Guessing about secret witnesses, be it George Hincapie or Lance's gardner, or mom, or ex or whatever, has little to do with a real discussion on evidence. Especially considering that in this USADA case there will be no public witnesses against Lance (though there may be against one or other person currently charged).

This is a game that was started by De Telegraaf/Telesport. If you read the paper you will know that it heavily supports Lance & Co. Few seem to have ever questioned the sources for this listing of names or even their real correctness: and we see both supporters of Lance as well as those who want the truth often assuming that this list is correct. Again, we need to be careful in a discussion of evidence, and guessing has little to do with it.

I don't believe the guessing game endeared this thread to Facebook. But I also do not believe that this thread needs to function for another purpose.

USADA evidence does exist of sufficient merit to be adjudged by a panel that Armstrong & others have a case to answer before USADA served their charging letters.

The difference now relating to that evidence is by the course that Armstrong chose that evidence will not be tested in the AAA tribunal.

But expect Armstrong to produce his rebuttals in the court of public opinion.

 

[mastersracer]

Yes, the evidence.

I just read Chris Keyes' review of Tyler's book. It blew me away. Keyes starts by thinking--as I did--that based on the blurbs coming out, the book was no big deal, just a rehash of his testimony on 60 minutes. But he says he quickly finds it is far more than that.



But what about the fact that Tyler is a lying doper? This is what really got my attention:



Wow. Now suddenly it doesn't seem so urgent that USADA get the evidence out. This book, it seems, is going to do some of that heavy lifting for it. I assume none of these nine is named, but we all know who most if not all of them are, and apparently some of the names appear in the book, even if not attached to Tyler's damaging words.

And not just the doping, and the better program (Tyler says LA repeated the name Michele more than he did Kik), but also the evidence of protection. Not only the assertion that he tested positive for EPO at the TdS, but some other mind-blowing observations:



Next week should be very interesting in the blogosphere.

People who are as emotionally invested in an idea or person as Armstrong supporters are unlikely to be swayed by forthcoming evidence. My colleagues did some brain imaging experiments involving disconfirming political information (negative information about a favored candidate) and found supporters' brains literally turn off rational processes as a response. Essentially, their brains did not allow disconfirming evidence to interact with prior beliefs. It's pretty depressing in terms of implications for rationality, but I think it is the likely scenario with Armstrong supporters, who largely aren't cycling fans first and are deeply invested in Armstrong mainly through Livestrong.

 

[Merckx index]

People who are as emotionally invested in an idea or person as Armstrong supporters are unlikely to be swayed by forthcoming evidence. My colleagues did some brain imaging experiments involving disconfirming political information (negative information about a favored candidate) and found supporters' brains literally turn off rational processes as a response. Essentially, their brains did not allow disconfirming evidence to interact with prior beliefs. It's pretty depressing in terms of implications for rationality, but I think it is the likely scenario with Armstrong supporters, who largely aren't cycling fans first and are deeply invested in Armstrong mainly through Livestrong.

I’m well aware of that work, have written articles about it, and have posted about it in the politics thread here at CN. There is some of that at play here, yes, but not all supporters are like that. As RR has pointed out, there has recently been a large change in LA’s favorability ratings. You just don’t see changes of this kind, this quickly, in political affiliations. For one specific candidate, sometimes, a Richard Nixon, e.g., but not for an entire party. The reputations of political parties have a much more complex web of factors supporting them, and are not as vulnerable to facts as individuals are.

Moreover, whether every last person changes his mind about LA really doesn’t matter. What matters, at least to me, is that USADA’s decision is recognized as official by all relevant sporting bodies. That a day comes when no journalist or sportswriter would dream of writing a column saying that LA never tested positive, or that they all did it, or that his cancer work is all that really matters. When no one will regard him as a 7 time TDF champion any more than anyone regards Marian Jones as a multiple gold medal winner. Facts can and do win out in arguments like these.

 

[Page Mill Masochist]

Next week should be very interesting in the blogosphere.

The only thing that matters is the truth. The blogosphere can't change the facts. The facts are working against Lance. It's like gravity.

Lance might win his PR days here and there. Fading star sportswriters like Sally Jenkins and Rick Reilly and paid liars like Phil Liggett will give their one last best effort to prop up the Armstrong myth. They are like priests wanting to burn Galileo.

Step back and look at the trend line of the last two years. It's astonishing. The truth is winning. Ignore the blogosphere.

 

[dolophonic]

Off topic but I get a strong vibe of a he and not a she as well.

Man you got a great user name..

 

[hiero2]

Who is Powers Endurance Sports?

Dave Powers. So? Ok - I went to RR twitter, and scroll down to find a pic posted that shows Dave Powers and 2 others - so I get indirect confirmation that this might be so.

RR has given many of us the impression that he is an "insider". Some people here seem to know his ID, and they seem to agree. Ok - so he is one of our "experts". JV has posted here as well, and quite a few others who are insiders in one manner or another.

You have come here as an unknown, and posted in language that seems to indicate to us that you have inside knowledge. Ok, but I think you need to prove your palmares a little before you start acting like an arbiter. I, at least, would be more inclined to take you seriously. If you have no particular industry insider quals, then our experiences here of your history will be your proof.

Now, as to evidence - as Carol, and I, have noted, this thread has degenerated into a conversation, not a repository. I have no problem with a conversation - it has been fun. But I agree that evidence is not someone's opinion, and we are not talking about old evidence here. This thread is about USADA vs LA evidence, and perhaps also revelations of what Novitsky gathered as evidence. In reality, it has hardly been restricted to that.

You have said the USADA evidence will never be forthcoming, yet the USADA has publicly stated that the evidence will be revealed in good time.

So, what I am trying to say is: you have entered the discussion without much introduction. Your posts have had a condescending air - or what could be the attitude of someone who "knows" because they are an insider. While I have enjoyed some of your humor, I am also put off because you say things that have been contradicted previously by multiple posts, and you do not offer us any palmares or sources for why we should believe you.

I am not the person who will discourage newcomers simply because they are newcomers. No. But when someone steps into a group, and begins making statements of such a strong nature? That creates questions in my mind.

 

[Carols]

Carols - I agree that this thread has degenerated. However, it is a good thread on its own, imo. However, again, I still believe, as I did when it was 1st suggested, that having an Evidence ONLY thread is definitely worthwhile. I chapeau'd RR for starting it, and BotanyBay for suggesting it be evidence only.

So - I am going to message the Mod Squad (MODS, ARE YOU LISTENING? sotto voce), separately, actually, to request that we open a thread for the evidence links only. I will take on the work of transferring past posts from this thread to that thread when they qualify. Then the new thread should be closed, and it will take a direct request to a mod to post links to evidence.

Trying to herd the bunch of cats in this thread will be pointless I think. At least 3 requests to keep the thread evidence only have been posted. They aren't listening. I want to hear what they have to say, mostly, but it would be nice to have the "reference shelf".

Perhaps we can make a 'Lance Armstrong Links Only' thread so we have 1 place to go as a repository. Will that work for everyone?

 

[hiero2]

Perhaps we can make a 'Lance Armstrong Links Only' thread so we have 1 place to go as a repository. Will that work for everyone?

Personally, my preference would be, and this is what I was thinking, to return to RR's original intent, as seconded by BB, and confirmed by Palmerq (mod) - a repository of evidence or reports of evidence in publicly available documents, pertaining primarily to USADA vs Lance Armstrong, but including good reporting of other Lance Armstrong evidence as may be brought forth. Example: post #14, where TubularBills brings in test results and conclusions from another thread in the forum.

It seems to me that the first links in this thread contained old evidence, but still valid, I think. Subsequent posts will hopefully contain what the USADA releases as evidence. Given that this forum is not a court, I think evidence can include any publicly available documentation or journalistic reporting. Therefore, such items as Hamilton's book (and reviews), and Outside's new Mike Anderson article would qualify. They are first person accounts, and thus would count, to some degree, as evidence even in court.

Oh - and one other thought - the threads should be relabelled to "The Evidence - the links" and "The Evidence - the conversation" or something along those lines. If that is in line with what you were thinking?