The Science of Sport's View

[BroDeal]

Good article.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08/the-armstrong-fallout-thoughts-and.html

 

[Benotti69]

Good article.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08/the-armstrong-fallout-thoughts-and.html

Yep.

It could have been compiled from information gleaned in a small but i would argue very effective echo chamber that has 12 apostles inhabiting it

 

[fishtacos]

Good article as usual from Ross Tucker.

In the comments there is the most amazing defense of doping I've ever seen:

"Those who do not wish to harm their health have no right to impose their lifestyle on others. Elite sport is not good for health."

NOT wanting to have to take EPO, T, and HGH to compete against other dopers is now apparently a "lifestyle" choice, according to the commenter. Wow.

 

[Big Doopie]

Good article.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08/the-armstrong-fallout-thoughts-and.html

perfect .

 

[veganrob]

covers it rather well. In a language that even the fanboys could understand.
now if only they would read it.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Should be front page at cyclingnews. I know it´s a very popular site. At least it would counter some media reactions like the BS from Buzz Full-Blown-Delusional Bissinger at Newsweek.

 

[Turner29]

Good article.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08/the-armstrong-fallout-thoughts-and.html

Other than him calling Anna Zimmerman a "legal expert" ...

 

[timbat]

Hammer meet Nail. Excellent and comprehensive coverage of the main points.

 

[Turner29]

Can someone tell me what's the big deal with her?

I know she had a small twitter exchange with Lance but why does everyone else refer to her all the time.

She is not exactly the Long Island Medium for predicting that Lance would refuse arbitration. Many of us have been saying that since the first days of the suit against the USADA.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Can someone tell me what's the big deal with her?

I know she had a small twitter exchange with Lance but why does everyone else refer to her all the time.

Lol!
Welcome to the land of twitter, instant name recognition and social pr...

 

[thehog]

Can someone tell me what's the big deal with her?

I know she had a small twitter exchange with Lance but why does everyone else refer to her all the time.

Hot body and Lance tried to jump her bones with an Internet date over some Mellow Johnny's java.

I'm sure if she was 30 pounds heavier or looked like a East German female track cyclist she would have been written off months ago.

 

[the big ring]

Hot body and Lance tried to jump her bones with an Internet date over some Mellow Johnny's java.

I'm sure if she was 30 pounds heavier or looked like a East German female track cyclist she would have been written off months ago.

This ^ + blond.

Didn't he say she had "the best" analysis or posts discussing the case? Fell off my chair reading that.

 

[Digger]

This ^ + blond.

Didn't he say she had "the best" analysis or posts discussing the case? Fell off my chair reading that.

Again I agree. She knows a bit, but there are others out there who know far more. And i have been wondering for a while why people keeping mentioning her as some voice we should all be listening to. She comes out with some good stuff, but she also has shown herself limited in her understanding at other points.

 

[sniper]

Landis and Hamilton are not credible, that's easy.

I disagree.

Kimmage also disagrees:

“There have been so many questions about what’s going on now, but I’d really go back to that interview I did with Floyd,” he says. “If you read that transcript, you understand why the sport is in the mess it’s in now. It opened my eyes to it. It gave me a deeper understanding of what had happened from the time that I had spent out of it and that basically nothing had changed. The truth is in there, and the way out of it is in that interview that Floyd gave. All of the problems are there.”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/kimmage-uci-needs-root-and-branch-surgery

Let's be real. Floyd's been one of the most credible sources ever since he decided to come clean. And I'm not saying that because all he said is now turning out to be true. I'm saying it because it was clear from the very start that everything he said was gonna turn out to be true.
You didn't have to be a great psychologist to see that.

 

[Cerberus]

I disagree.

Kimmage also disagrees:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/kimmage-uci-needs-root-and-branch-surgery

Let's be real. Floyd's been one of the most credible sources ever since he decided to come clean. And I'm not saying that because all he said is now turning out to be true. I'm saying it because it was clear from the very start that everything he said was gonna turn out to be true.
You didn't have to be a great psychologist to see that.

Floyd was never credible, sure you could guess that much or all of what he said was true, but you could guess that because you should know for example that Lance doped long before Landis opened his mouth. Any case that rested solely on Landis and Himiltons credibility wouldn't and shouldn't have gotten of the ground.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Floyd was never credible, sure you could guess that much or all of what he said was true, but you could guess that because you should know for example that Lance doped long before Landis opened his mouth. Any case that rested solely on Landis and Himiltons credibility wouldn't and shouldn't have gotten of the ground.

I think that were it just Landis vs Armstrong then because of his previous denial(s) it would be fairly easy to make him out to lack credibility. However, when you start corroborating his statements with other witnesses it no doubt becomes much stronger and harder to dismiss.

Regardless of this, if someone goes to the UCI with such information the ethical thing would be to investigate and not sue him. But as Kimmage pointed out why the hell were they chasing Kimmage himself around the courts but will happily welcome known dopers to run cycling teams. I really hope the UCI get the comeuppance.

 

[Cerberus]

I think that were it just Landis vs Armstrong then because of his previous denial(s) it would be fairly easy to make him out to lack credibility. However, when you start corroborating his statements with other witnesses it no doubt becomes much stronger and harder to dismiss.

Regardless of this, if someone goes to the UCI with such information the ethical thing would be to investigate and not sue him. But as Kimmage pointed out why the hell were they chasing Kimmage himself around the courts but will happily welcome known dopers to run cycling teams. I really hope the UCI get the comeuppance.

Absolutely. While I've always know that Armstrong doped I've also been skeptical of the theories of overt complicity from the UCI, but the UCI's behavior in the Armstrong case has sorely tested that skepticism. Their eagerness to defend Armstrong is remarkable to say the least.

 

[hrotha]

I disagree.

Kimmage also disagrees:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/kimmage-uci-needs-root-and-branch-surgery

Let's be real. Floyd's been one of the most credible sources ever since he decided to come clean. And I'm not saying that because all he said is now turning out to be true. I'm saying it because it was clear from the very start that everything he said was gonna turn out to be true.
You didn't have to be a great psychologist to see that.

You're taking that bit out of context. The article says that, in court, Armstrong's legal team could easily dismiss them as not credible, unlike the other witnesses. And that is true.

 

[sniper]

You're taking that bit out of context. The article says that, in court, Armstrong's legal team could easily dismiss them as not credible, unlike the other witnesses. And that is true.

kimmage's appraisal of floyd's account deserves special mention in light of those (many uninformed observers, several pro-lance posters, and of course the uci) who still maintain floyd's previous lies disqualify him as a reliable source.

but you're right of course that Ross Tucker was referring to the credibility of Floyd in court in front of LA's lawyers, which i agree is close to zero.

Makes one wonder, by the way, if Floyd's Qui Tam case stands any real chance of being successful.

 

[Benotti69]

kimmage's appraisal of floyd's account deserves special mention in light of those (many uninformed observers, several pro-lance posters, and of course the uci) who still maintain floyd's previous lies disqualify him as a reliable source.

but you're right of course that Ross Tucker was referring to the credibility of Floyd in court in front of LA's lawyers, which i agree is close to zero.

Makes one wonder, by the way, if Floyd's Qui Tam case stands any real chance of being successful.

If they can call on the evidence that USADA has why not?

 

[will10]

I disagree.

Kimmage also disagrees:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/kimmage-uci-needs-root-and-branch-surgery

Let's be real. Floyd's been one of the most credible sources ever since he decided to come clean. And I'm not saying that because all he said is now turning out to be true. I'm saying it because it was clear from the very start that everything he said was gonna turn out to be true.
You didn't have to be a great psychologist to see that.

Unfortunately Floyd is not credible. His testimony will have played a huge part in the USADA case I am sure, but he has no credibility. If Floyd was their only ex-teammate witness for example, this case would fall flat on it's face.