The Evidence

Page 21 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 13, 2012
594
0
0
Bushranger said:
You are spot on here. Before the believers can give up their hero the world needs to provide them with a new one. Somehow I don't think it will come from the world of cycling. Who would you have advise the young riders? Who is above all the past rubbish?
Change is always about education. And that simply takes time.

More important than giving young riders new heros would be to teach them to be critical of their heros. I do not mean to be critical in a negative sense. Rather to be critical such that they realize that heros and non-heros are human beings and subject to failure.

Every true hero has weaknesses. Those weaknesses need to be acceptable.
 
Apr 7, 2010
612
0
0
fortunately the younger generation dont seem too interested in lance, most of the zealous pro lancers seem to be in their 40s decked out head to toe in livestrong gear (which the younger people laugh at)
 
Jul 15, 2010
464
0
0
Race Radio said:
Wouldn't it be funny if Hincapie wasn't the best witness USADA had? Yeah, that would be REALLY funny
This forum is sort of like that scene in Men in Black where Will Smith ask Tommy Lee Jones about how to find information on aliens living on earth. Tommy Lee picks up the tabloids and tells him to start with that. This forum is going to be golden when people realize who the legitimate sources were.
 
Jul 13, 2012
594
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Heros dont dope.
Doping is not acceptable.

Even more unacceptable is trafficking in drugs. Even more unacceptable is telling young riders: "Either you dope or you don't ride." Even more unacceptable is one rider sticking a needle in another rider's arm. And even more unacceptable is a doctor doping an athlete.

The most unacceptable with Lance is the deception. Particularly the deception of cancer victims and their families.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
LauraLyn said:
<more obfuscation>
Dont know what your idea is deing here apart from obfuscation but you are fooling no one.

Maybe it is therapy for all the money you gave liestrong buying all the gear.

You would get better therapy on slowtwitch.
 
Jul 13, 2012
594
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Dont know what your idea is deing here apart from obfuscation but you are fooling no one.

Maybe it is therapy for all the money you gave liestrong buying all the gear.

You would get better therapy on slowtwitch.
Kind sir: What was unclear to you?

I have seen family and friends wearing LiveStrong bracelets. I am quiet. It is their good right. I never wanted one, even before I knew why I never wanted one.

I have never given money to Lance Armstrong, except through taxes and buying postage stamps. (I try to avoid Nike gear, but that is because it is overpriced.)

Slowtwitch is a different discussion than here. It is unfathomable to me how triathletes (not "Ironman" - that is all business and already corrupt) allowed Armstrong recently back into their sport and have been so madly supporting him. He was well on his way to damaging that sport as much as he did cycling. Indeed, in a few short months he nearly wrecked the sport.
 
Jul 13, 2012
594
0
0
the big ring said:
Evidence ?
Have you not seen the evidence?

I think the discussion of Slowtwitch raised by Benotti69 might be better addressed in a different thread than this one. And it is not so interesting for me at the moment. I only responded to Benotti69's kind inquiry as to the therapy one might find on Slowtwitch.
 
I have a feeling Wonderboy would've most certainly tried to mess up the triathlon w/ his doping, so what Laura said, really doesn't seem so far fetched. Its well known whatever wonderboy touches turns to s$+t. Thank goodness USADA stopped it before he could do so.
 
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
86TDFWinner said:
I have no dog in this fight BUT.........do you possess evidence disputing her opinion? In other words, where is your "evidence" showing that what she said is incorrect?
This thread is about evidence, correct?

Some person is claiming "Indeed, in a few short months he (Armstrong) nearly wrecked the sport (triathlon)."

So in a thread about evidence, some wild and IMO ridiculous claim is made and I ask for evidence as to that claim. Something, anything, to back it up.

And you want me to provide evidence that it is an incorrect claim?

I don't have evidence that the sport of triathlon is not wrecked, but I'd be willing to bet that LA hasn't wrecked it in a few short months. He's not that important to them.

So much so that they had NO problem BANNING him from the sport instantly.

BANNING HIM. Say it with me. He is banninated.

Here is the evidence of his bannination from triathlon: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/14/sport/armstrong-doping-allegations/index.html

... Lance Armstrong won't be allowed to compete in international Ironman triathlon contests while he's under investigation for doping, the World Triathlon Corporation announced Thursday.
...

WTC rules "dictate an athlete is ineligible to compete during an open investigation. Armstrong is therefore suspended from competing in WTC-owned and licensed races pending further review," the organization said in a statement.
You can't wreck what you're banned from.

Here's a hint: I will no longer respond to LL posts, are they are typically OT and seek to muddy / dilute threads. I do not wish to pursue this line of dilution any further.
 
Jul 13, 2012
594
0
0
86TDFWinner said:
I have a feeling Wonderboy would've most.certainly tried to mess up the triathlon w/ his doping, so what Laura said, really doesn't seem so far fetched. Its well known whatever wonderboy touches turns to s$+t
86TDFWinner: Thanks. I also am not interested in the dogs in this fight nor the group think that hides weak men.

"The evidence?" Frankly, in here of all places it was simply not an intelligent question. It was already answered in what I said and so many other places.

But to say the obvious: The evidence is Lance Armstrong. The evidence is his doping positives up until and including April 2012. The evidence is all over The Clinic. And I would sincerely challenge any dope to provide "evidence" that having a known doper in a sport is not corrupting.

Sorry, but the question was laughable and the schoolyard pile on . . . it speaks volumes for the boys who want to play in a grown-ups game.
 
Feb 18, 2011
1,325
0
0
this is a which hunt!
leave the man alone, he has done so many good things for the sport.
why do they acuse him now and not at the time?

doesn't make sense
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
0
0
LauraLyn said:
Mathematics and evidence in the Lance Armstrong case. A Standford University professor of mathematics weighs in:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-keith-devlin/lance-armstrong-blood-tests_b_1829050.html

Unfortunately, I think only the Lance PR tables made it into his calculations.
You got that right about the Lance PR output being the only input this guy recognized. Here he is, a math prof - discussing legal language. Can you say disabled?

He calls the first person testimony "hearsay", which is incorrect right off the bat. Then he gets into an analysis of the wording "consistent with". Ayeesh. Perhaps he has a good vocabulary, but apparently his motivation is not the appreciation of language, as he claims. Contrary to the belief of some, being expert in one area does not grant expertise in other areas.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
0
0
the big ring said:
. . .He is banninated.

Here is the evidence of his bannination . . .
:D You guys are killing me this morning! Is that from the Kelly dictionary, like bonification? :D :rolleyes:
 
Jul 13, 2012
594
0
0
hiero2 said:
You got that right about the Lance PR output being the only input this guy recognized. Here he is, a math prof - discussing legal language. Can you say disabled?

He calls the first person testimony "hearsay", which is incorrect right off the bat. Then he gets into an analysis of the wording "consistent with". Ayeesh. Perhaps he has a good vocabulary, but apparently his motivation is not the appreciation of language, as he claims. Contrary to the belief of some, being expert in one area does not grant expertise in other areas.
You know, it could have been a very interesting article about the use of logic and proofs in legal argumentation.

I think what the good professor forgets is that logic and mathematics are purely formal and have no bearing on the real world until they are filled in with substance. (No need to push this further with Brentano or Husserl.)

While his logic and proof sets are fine, the good professor lacks substance. Good he stays in the university.
 
Mar 16, 2009
19,486
0
0
hiero2 said:
You got that right about the Lance PR output being the only input this guy recognized. Here he is, a math prof - discussing legal language. Can you say disabled?

He calls the first person testimony "hearsay", which is incorrect right off the bat. Then he gets into an analysis of the wording "consistent with". Ayeesh. Perhaps he has a good vocabulary, but apparently his motivation is not the appreciation of language, as he claims. Contrary to the belief of some, being expert in one area does not grant expertise in other areas.
The guy is a tool for sure. I am going to concede one point to him. The term "consistent with" was used extensively in The McMartin Preschool Trial here in SoCal. Much of the evidence said upon medical examination the children showed signs "consistent with" abuse. The children showed no signs of abuse but that is "consistent with" child abuse that they show no signs of abuse:confused: .
can be a misleading
not defending the author. just a personal grudge against the term:eek:
 
Jul 13, 2012
594
0
0
"The reason that mathematicians are not perceptive is that they do not see what is before them." - Pascal
 
Jul 13, 2012
594
0
0
krebs303 said:
The guy is a tool for sure. I am going to concede one point to him. The term "consistent with" was used extensively in The McMartin Preschool Trial here in SoCal. Much of the evidence said upon medical examination the children showed signs "consistent with" abuse. The children showed no signs of abuse but that is "consistent with" child abuse that they show no signs of abuse:confused: .
can be a misleading
not defending the author. just a personal grudge against the term:eek:
"Consistent with" is an important mathematical concept, but it is also fuzzy.

Devlin has much based in the Principia Mathematica, which begins in a discussion of "consistent with". However, in his article on Lance, he begins right away by getting things wrong. He states that the "fully" of "fully consistent with" is "superfluous". This is certainly not the case.

His central thesis is that "fully consistent with" (or just "consistent with") is an "odd phrase" for the USADA to use. According to Devlin "weightier" phrases would be "suggest" or "indicates."

Devlin does seem to have a problem with both language and reasoning, even barring a lack of substance.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY