The Sports Illustrated Article

[Pancreas]

The Belgian tv program "Ter Zake", which is a respected program here. You can see it as a regular news journal but with emphasis on 2 or 3 subjects, broadcasted a piece on Armstrong.

http://www.sporza.be/cm/sporza/videozone/MG_sportnieuws/MG_wielrennen/1.945627

Part of it is in Dutch, but most is in English. Hard language from Paul Kimmage.

 

[runninboy]

Oh that place, the Armstrong wing, isn't there some equipment or skeletons stored there?

No No the place where armstrong stores his equipment is the place they made the movie about
Needle Park

 

[runninboy]

This may have been posted previously, but geez, drinking the Kool-Aid there Bobke.

As the Bobke whines....

(Yes I'm talking to you, Bobke. I am pretty sure you lurk this Forum. Your buddy Lancie's 'legal pit bulls' seemed to have muted SI in this instance, but it can't last for much longer.)

I always wondered what it was Lance & Bobke actually were doing on those long training rides in the North Carolina mountains
(cue dueling banjo's music)

maybe i better follow Dr Maserati out the door
which way was it again?

 

[lean mean &green]

reset bob roll's credibility to zero

This may have been posted previously, but geez, drinking the Kool-Aid there Bobke.

As the Bobke whines....

(Yes I'm talking to you, Bobke. I am pretty sure you lurk this Forum. Your buddy Lancie's 'legal pit bulls' seemed to have muted SI in this instance, but it can't last for much longer.)

this little webisode is embarrassing. nothing new in the SI article bob? i've followed the drama pretty closely and there's a few new nuggets in there even for me - along with plenty of older legitimate and unresolved concerns.

honestly, if i were armstrong i'd tell bob roll to stfu. he's a doofus and only makes things worse for LA with his clumsy attempts at covering up. he isn't anywhere near articulate enough to respond to a challenge on the facts so he's more likely to harm than help. in conclusion, keep beating the drum bob, you are a moron who i'm glad to have working on that side.

 

[Cobblestoned]

I thought Clooney lived in Northern Italy with his partner. Villa Oleandra,Laglio, Lago Di Coma, Italia.


Cobbles you want his phone number too

Ah, on Italy side. Come on. That doesn't change anything.

Still many cyclists in Switzerland, still many vip people there with a nice house, and still Lance was officially based in St.Moritz for training without making a secret of it.
And it doesn't matter if he owned or lived in a flat, a house or on a camping side in Ferraris tent.
He will have slept somewhere there.

 

[Race Radio]

Ah, on Italy side. Come on. That doesn't change anything.

Still many cyclists in Switzerland, still many vip people there with a nice house, and still Lance was officially based in St.Moritz for training without making a secret of it.
And it doesn't matter if he owned or lived in a flat, a house or on a camping side in Ferraris tent.
He will have slept somewhere there.

By "Training" you mean "getting bag of blood from Ferrari"

 

[Cobblestoned]

By "Training" you mean "getting bag of blood from Ferrari"

Of course Lance was never training and only pumping blood there.
Lance didn't have to train because he had the holy grale of doping.

I am tired of you for today. Good night.
And listed to me, son, you win some you lose some. Good luck for tomorrow.

 

[gree0232]

At what point does the abscence of evidence consitute evidence?

The SI article isn't even released, and the details of the article, entirely circumstantial to begin with, appear to have been starkly denied by the very people supposedly making the comments.

Caitlin has categorically denied the comments, which are based on the dodgy supposition that an anonymous number 'must' have been Armstrong.

Hemassist link appears to be DOA.

The Swiss connection appears to be another Landis accussation without a shread of evidence to back it up.

Popovych apparently had PED's in his possession but is not suspended for some reason? (Massive UCI cover up no doubt).

Armstrong was apparently in contact with Ferreri, but Ferreri's coviction was tossed out .... so, who cares?

And now Stephen Swart states that Armstrong encouraged doping, but never actually saw him use anything.

If we take Landis's recent comments, it appears likely that his 'whistle blower' lawsuit, and the investigation itself (if what is above are the major findings) have produced nothing.

Great. After all this, we have a bunch more rumors surrounding Armstrong. No one outside a small circle of people knows with any certainty whether or not Armstrong doped, but I see people on both sides of this debate that have essentially put aside all pretenses to objectivity and civility surrounding a debate of entirely circumstatial evidence.

The point is that people have been going after Armstrong since 1999, and every other cyclist that has been looked at with anything approaching this level of scrutiny with similar accussations has been found to dope. 11 YEARS of investigations and all we can produce is heresay and 'might have used instead of's'?

At what point do you simply admit that there is not enough evidence to convict Armstrong and that this effectively exonerates him?

It appears that Armstrong is going win another one ... and the sport, and people's lives, will have to move on.

The malicious streading of rumors devoid of proof has to stop, its not good for anything, least of all the sport.

 

[stephens]

There's a little bit of me that's in awe at the massive commitment / attention to detail that Armstrong put into his doping activities & T de F victories. He gets an exclusive deal with Dr F - the best in the business, he corrupts the UCI, he makes sure his team are systematically 'charged up' & ready to support him, he browbeats the peleton etc etc etc.

Yes, if everything alleged here turns out to be true, Lance Armstrong will surely have to go down as the most powerful athletic figure ever. Surely dominating those organizations and authorities the way he is alleged to have done is more difficult than dominating the pro cycling peloton. It's like going on a solo breakaway and the whole world not being able to pull him back for over 12 years (and counting).

 

[Ferminal]

The malicious streading of rumors devoid of proof has to stop, its not good for anything, least of all the sport.

So which parts of the SI article are you able to show to be "rumours devoid of proof"?

 

[Runitout]

At what point does the abscence of evidence consitute evidence?

The SI article isn't even released, and the details of the article, entirely circumstantial to begin with, appear to have been starkly denied by the very people supposedly making the comments.

Caitlin has categorically denied the comments, which are based on the dodgy supposition that an anonymous number 'must' have been Armstrong.

Hemassist link appears to be DOA.

The Swiss connection appears to be another Landis accussation without a shread of evidence to back it up.

Popovych apparently had PED's in his possession but is not suspended for some reason? (Massive UCI cover up no doubt).

Armstrong was apparently in contact with Ferreri, but Ferreri's coviction was tossed out .... so, who cares?

And now Stephen Swart states that Armstrong encouraged doping, but never actually saw him use anything.

If we take Landis's recent comments, it appears likely that his 'whistle blower' lawsuit, and the investigation itself (if what is above are the major findings) have produced nothing.

Great. After all this, we have a bunch more rumors surrounding Armstrong. No one outside a small circle of people knows with any certainty whether or not Armstrong doped, but I see people on both sides of this debate that have essentially put aside all pretenses to objectivity and civility surrounding a debate of entirely circumstatial evidence.

The point is that people have been going after Armstrong since 1999, and every other cyclist that has been looked at with anything approaching this level of scrutiny with similar accussations has been found to dope. 11 YEARS of investigations and all we can produce is heresay and 'might have used instead of's'?

At what point do you simply admit that there is not enough evidence to convict Armstrong and that this effectively exonerates him?

It appears that Armstrong is going win another one ... and the sport, and people's lives, will have to move on.

The malicious streading of rumors devoid of proof has to stop, its not good for anything, least of all the sport.

Good for you, buddy. You go on believing. No-one can take that away from you.

 

[MacRoadie]

Good for you, buddy. You go on believing. No-one can take that away from you.

Wow, gree0232 makes an appearance. I've had him on ignore since WAY back in the day...

 

[HelmutRoole]

At what point does the absence of evidence constitute evidence?

Caitlin has categorically denied...

Hemassist link appears to be DOA.

The Swiss connection...

Popovych apparently had PED's in his possession but...

Armstrong was apparently in contact with Ferreri...

And now Stephen Swart states...

If we take Landis's recent comments...

Great. After all this, we have a bunch more rumors...

You left out the six positives from '99...

 

[Granville57]

This may have been posted previously, but geez, drinking the Kool-Aid there Bobke.

As the Bobke whines....

Enough of this idiocy. Stop the insanity!

Is Bobke so truly pathetic that he thinks we are all complete and total morons?
I was going to start a new thread just for this, but since we're already here, I'll keep it on this one.

I transcribed Bob Roll's ridiculous response to the SI article so that we can be clear about what he said and parse those words if need be. No wonder very few people want to speak openly about doping when this kind of myth-reinforcement is what they have to contend with. Congratulations, Bob. I hope you get subpoenaed too. Try telling your fairy tales to the Grand Jury.

Here it is, verbatim:

Well, in recent weeks, the rumor mill has been grinding away...and it was said that Sports Illustrated had a huge exposé on the career of Lance Armstrong, most specifically the recent allegations—I guess they’re about a year-old by now—of Floyd Landis.

And I found the expectations to be riding high that this uh, article by Sports Illustrated was going to be a huge, new set of revelations. Unfortunately, very disappointingly, Sports Illustrated didn’t have any new information, and they have rehashed all of the testimony, and all of the statements we’ve heard before, from all of the principal players.

Nothing new under the sun, and I think that Sports Illustrated might have confused the Yellow Jersey for “yellow journalism.” A horrible story.

I’m not sure if the authors were payed by the word but they should spread the wealth around because they didn’t use their words, they used the words of people we’ve already heard from. And uh…nothing new on that front. Very disappointing that Sports Illustrated would uh, try to sell some papers because of this. Another round of accusations that Lance Armstrong and the U.S. Postal and Discovery teams…it doesn’t seem as if there’s anything new under the sun there.

We’ll have to wait and see what uh, Jeff Novitsky and the “FDA” can come up with. But so far, after a <chuckle> long, researched and rumored article, nothing from <chuckle> Sports Illustrated. They need to go back to the drawing board and uh, look for some facts that maybe we could talk about.

What an overtly, transparent joke. I can't wait for corroborating testimony to see the light of day. I hope you're proud of yourself, Bob. You write that yourself?
I guess we can expect to see the term "yellow journalism" sprinkled around in the coming weeks. That Fabiani, boy. He's a tricky one.

(Oh, and just what the hell is so funny, Bobke?)

 

[Deagol]

news flash: the Flat Earth Societyhas categorically denied that the Earth is spherical.

 

[Runitout]

Wow, gree0232 makes an appearance. I've had him on ignore since WAY back in the day...

Well, different points of view are always welcome. Even when they don't know what circumstantial evidence actually is.

Positive test = circumstantial evidence.
Eyewitness testimony = direct evidence

 

[Cobblestones]

Enough of this idiocy. Stop the insanity!

Is Bobke so truly pathetic that he thinks we are all complete and total morons?
I was going to start a new thread just for this, but since we're already here, I'll keep it on this one.

I transcribed Bob Roll's ridiculous response to the SI article so that we can be clear about what he said and parse those words if need be. No wonder very few people want to speak openly about doping when this kind of myth-reinforcement is what they have to contend with. Congratulations, Bob. I hope you get subpoenaed too. Try telling your fairy tales to the Grand Jury.

Here it is, verbatim:



What an overtly, transparent joke. I can't wait for corroborating testimony to see the light of day. I hope you're proud of yourself, Bob. You write that yourself?
I guess we can expect to see the term "yellow journalism" sprinkled around in the coming weeks. That Fabiani, boy. He's a tricky one.

(Oh, and just what the hell is so funny, Bobke?)

Classic Bobke.

 

[Ferminal]

I'll play...

Caitlin has categorically denied the comments, which are based on the dodgy supposition that an anonymous number 'must' have been Armstrong.

No, as the article states:

"A source with knowledge of the request says that the cyclist was Lance Armstrong."

You don't even know the source so how can you dismiss it? Do you think SI just pretended there was a source?

Hemassist link appears to be DOA.

So you think the FDA just pulled the Baxter link out of thin air?

"According to that source, the FDA has information that Armstrong gained access to a Baxter-made drug in clinical trial in the U.S. and Europe in the late 1990s."

The Swiss connection appears to be another Landis accussation without a shread of evidence to back it up.

"Landis and other members of the USPS team walked off the plane, headed for customs and were asked to open their duffel bags for a search."

How do you know that this hasn't been verified by the other people in customs when it happened? How can we dismiss what Landis says whilst blindly accepting the impartiality of Lance's lawyer?

Popovych apparently had PED's in his possession but is not suspended for some reason? (Massive UCI cover up no doubt).

The UCI is a long way down the chain - there is an international investigation going on, why would the Italians rush out to tell the UCI if it may jeopardize their ongoing investigations? If anyone in the investigation has done a shred of background research on the UCI they would know that they cannot be trusted.

Armstrong was apparently in contact with Ferreri, but Ferreri's coviction was tossed out .... so, who cares?

Wow, so you're denying that Ferrari has been doping athletes for 3 decades?

And now Stephen Swart states that Armstrong encouraged doping, but never actually saw him use anything.

Are you suggesting Swart has made up everything he's ever said about his days with Armstrong? Why can you dismiss everything Swart says so easily but accept the words of Armstrong, Catlin etc as the truth.

If you want to argue that such details may not result in a conviction (a la stephens) - fine.

But you're not doing that - you're suggesting that the above gives no indication that Lance Armstrong ever used or intended to use PEDs. Quite frankly I'm not sure how a rational mind could dismiss the mountains of information suggesting otherwise.

Of course there is much more not contained in the SI article.

Seven positives in 1999
Donations to the UCI
The IM convo
The Landis emails
2009 blood values indicating transfusions

etc
etc
etc

I cannot comprehend how a rational mind (not a COURT OF LAW) could dismiss every piece of detail listed above, and not come to the conclusion that the person in question used PEDs at some stage of their career. Frankly, the Clinic is so far beyond this elementary debate that holding any other position is laughable. (I can use bold too)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Wow, gree0232 makes an appearance. I've had him on ignore since WAY back in the day...

Well - if you wanted to know if the SI article had hit a raw nerve, you have your answer

The malicious streading of rumors devoid of proof has to stop, its not good for anything, least of all the sport.

So letting dopers get away with it is good for the sport?


Where has Catlin "categorically denied the comments"?
HemAssist link is DOA? Wow - they don' have a link for a product that did not make it passed FDA Phase III.
Landis word appears to be good enough for the FDA (& it has been confirmed that others have corroborated his earlier statements).
Popvych - do you think the FDA are keeping the UCI in the loop on their investigation?
Ferrari's case was "not thrown out" - his appeal was successful because of statute of limitations.
Steve Swart said the exact same thing years ago - you would know that if you had read From Lance To Landis

At what point do you simply admit that there is not enough evidence to convict Armstrong and that this effectively exonerates him?

I didn't realize SI were in the business of securing convictions.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

That Bobke vid was pretty pathetic. I'm not going to waste the bandwidth commenting anymore on it. He must take us all for fools.

 

[D-Queued]

That Bobke vid was pretty pathetic. I'm not going to waste the bandwidth commenting anymore on it. He must take us all for fools.

He obviously takes himself for a fool.

Dave.

 

[stephens]

So which parts of the SI article are you able to show to be "rumours devoid of proof"?

Isn't the basis of our civilization that the burden of proof lies on the accuser and not the accused (or his, uh, fanboys?).

I mean, it's one thing to privately believe someone to be "guilty" of committing some sort of offense, be it murdering one's ex-wife, or something really heinous like cheating better at a sporting event than the other participants, and believe these charges unless it is proven to them that they are not true. As individuals we all have the right to make judgements in that manner if we chose. But it's quite another to advocate for that position publicly.

What bothers me so much about the way the Armstrong situation is discussed here in this forum is not that there are individuals who have listened to the allegations and made a private judgement on their merit, but that they have made that judgement and then gotten together as a group and promote that guilty position publicly in an attempt to "punish" the accused. Regardless of how we feel about the accused in this case, we really should find such tactics deplorable. It really should be our duty as citizens to allow the proper organizations and authorities to make the official judgements of guilt and hand out the appropriate punishments. Simply put, it's not our job. And the belief that the authorities are simply corrupt and/or incompetent does not make it the job of the mob instead: it makes it our duty to help the proper authorities get stronger/smarter/more-ethical so that they aren't so easily dominated by one supervillain.

This is what forces me to continue to play the devil's advocate publicly, despite privately suspecting some/many of the allegations are true. I think the membership here really needs to take a step back and consider whether gathering up a posse to doll out a little mob justice is the way we want our society to function.

In light of the above, I hope at least some of you can see how the positions that "He never tested positive," and "He has never been convicted of a crime," are not simply the refuge of fanboys who believe the myth. They are actually the proper public position to voice for one who believes in the concept of justice that is the foundation of our society (or at least the societies most of us here live in).

 

[hubbard]

bob roll is right. there is nothing new presented by SI

 

[Ferminal]

Isn't the basis of our civilization that the burden of proof lies on the accuser and not the accused (or his, uh, fanboys?).

I mean, it's one thing to privately believe someone to be "guilty" of committing some sort of offense, be it murdering one's ex-wife, or something really heinous like cheating better at a sporting event than the other participants, and believe these charges unless it is proven to them that they are not true. As individuals we all have the right to make judgements in that manner if we chose. But it's quite another to advocate for that position publicly.

What bothers me so much about the way the Armstrong situation is discussed here in this forum is not that there are individuals who have listened to the allegations and made a private judgement on their merit, but that they have made that judgement and then gotten together as a group and promote that guilty position publicly in an attempt to "punish" the accused. Regardless of how we feel about the accused in this case, we really should find such tactics deplorable. It really should be our duty as citizens to allow the proper organizations and authorities to make the official judgements of guilt and hand out the appropriate punishments. Simply put, it's not our job. And the belief that the authorities are simply corrupt and/or incompetent does not make it the job of the mob instead: it makes it our duty to help the proper authorities get stronger/smarter/more-ethical so that they aren't so easily dominated by one supervillain.

This is what forces me to continue to play the devil's advocate publicly, despite privately suspecting some/many of the allegations are true. I think the membership here really needs to take a step back and consider whether gathering up a posse to doll out a little mob justice is the way we want our society to function.

In light of the above, I hope at least some of you can see how the positions that "He never tested positive," and "He has never been convicted of a crime," are not simply the refuge of fanboys who believe the myth. They are actually the proper public position to voice for one who believes in the concept of justice that is the foundation of our society (or at least the societies most of us here live in).

I'm more a person who makes rational decisions based on the information available.

In my mind, there is only one conclusion a rational person could come to - given the level of information.

Why should I submit the limitations of my thinking to the rigid institutions which govern the world we live in? Why should I restrict my free-thinking nature because somewhere along the line someone invented governments, regulators, corporations, judiciaries. Just because these institutions may have the final say on what happens in this world does not mean that we should renege on individual thinking.

 

[MacRoadie]

bob roll is right. there is nothing new presented by SI

So you knew Armstrong was peeing HUGE T/E ratios way back in '93? You knew he was slammin' HemAssist?