The Sports Illustrated Article

[gree0232]

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

What part would be considered an evidenced accussation?

The fact that Landis is again at the center of the most sensational accussation ...

Caitlin publical non-plussed ....

Hemassist apparently unplausible ....

And a rider from 20 years ago who didn't apparetly see any actual drug use ....

PED's that are apparently NOT in Popo's possession?

Are any of these going to stand up to ANY kind of judicial process?

Again, where is the objectivity? 11 years on, with people saying the 'shoe is about to fall!'

What part of the SI article is above the standard of tabloid journalism? What part points to a legitimate test? Something that can be tested?

We convict people based on REAL evidence, not opinions, not emotional veracity of an opinion or the number of stinging insults flung toward detractors.

And after 11 years if all you have is rumors and hearsay .... you have nothing.

Lance will go down if and only if evidence is produced that indicates he ACTUALLY doped. To have any other standard makes no sense.

 

[Martin318is]

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

Almost exactly the same comment that I had just posted on Bob's video...

 

[Granville57]

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.

Well, I suppose one difference from an internet forum (pssst, that's where we are right now) and the real world outside, is that we are not actually planning, recruiting for, or doing that. We are just "commenting."

Not quite sure how you made that leap.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

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

Wrong.

Here are some of the new items:

1. LA had at least three adverse A samples for T/E ratios in the 90's.
2. Bill Stapleton and LA atty Mark Levenstien called and attended the UCLA Lab inquiring as to LA's results and testing techniques.
3. Source citing Feds have evidence LA obtained a study medicine that was an HBOC.
4. Catlin's previously unexplored role in suppressing testing of Olympic athletes (and presumably cyclists) in advance of Olympics.
5. Landis story about Swiss customs agents accepting that the doping products LA had in a bag were "vitamins".
6. Expanded details of Steven Swart's experience with HCT testing at Motorola, relaying HCT's that exceed 50.

Unless you "knew" of this, then these are news.

 

[Ferminal]

What part would be considered an evidenced accussation?

The fact that Landis is again at the center of the most sensational accussation ...

Caitlin publical non-plussed ....

Hemassist apparently unplausible ....

And a rider from 20 years ago who didn't apparetly see any actual drug use ....

PED's that are apparently NOT in Popo's possession?

Are any of these going to stand up to ANY kind of judicial process?

Again, where is the objectivity? 11 years on, with people saying the 'shoe is about to fall!'

What part of the SI article is above the standard of tabloid journalism? What part points to a legitimate test? Something that can be tested?

We convict people based on REAL evidence, not opinions, not emotional veracity of an opinion or the number of stinging insults flung toward detractors.

And after 11 years if all you have is rumors and hearsay .... you have nothing.

Lance will go down if and only if evidence is produced that indicates he ACTUALLY doped. To have any other standard makes no sense.

No - he will go down if the evidence indicates that he broke laws. I don't think Lance would go down just if a court proved he used PEDs, as far as I know this wouldn't have been a crime in the US.

As a result your opinion "Lance has never used PEDs until a court convicts him" is invalid. A court may convict Lance without concluding that he used PEDs (maybe only trafficked them). Maybe a court will fail to convict Lance without dismissing the notion that he did use PEDs.

Be brave - use your mind outside of a court to decide whether or not you think Lance used PEDs.

 

[stephens]

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.

I think you missed my point. Of course we all have the right to make conclusions how we wish. And you are right that it may be perfectly rational to believe the allegations against Armstrong. My post was about what we do next: do we join in a mob and attempt to hand out punishment (usually the mob can't influence incarceration - though sometimes they do! - but they can certainly punish economically and damage reputation)? Is it really any of our business to do so? Is that the way we really want society to work?

 

[Granville57]

We convict people based on REAL evidence, not opinions, not emotional veracity of an opinion or the number of stinging insults flung toward detractors.

We convict people on eyewitness testimony as well.

 

[Ferminal]

I think you missed my point. Of course we all have the right to make conclusions how we wish. And you are right that it may be perfectly rational to believe the allegations against Armstrong. My post was about what we do next: do we join in a mob and attempt to hand out punishment (usually the mob can't influence incarceration - though sometimes they do! - but they can certainly punish economically and damage reputation)? Is it really any of our business to do so? Is that the way we really want society to work?

We're arguing different things

I'm suggesting that Gree is acting silly because he refuses to take a stance on whether or not Lance used PEDs until a court makes a ruling.

I'm not suggesting we should throw Lance out the window without due process.

 

[stephens]

Well, I suppose one difference from an internet forum (pssst, that's where we are right now) and the real world outside, is that we are not actually planning, recruiting for, or doing that. We are just "commenting."

Not quite sure how you made that leap.

Because it's not just talk. People's words here, and elsewhere on the internet, and in sporting magazines, have real consequences on people's life. They can damage reputation, damage them economically, and so on. This is exactly what the "mob" is doing - handing out a punishment.

 

[rata de sentina]

Isn't the basis of our civilization that the burden of proof lies on the accuser and not the accused.

Actually no it's not. It's quite weird how people persist with this misconception that some abstract concept applied in a court of law is somehow applicable to every form of human discourse. To further confound your argument there are a legion of examples of those who have got off scot free with a 'not guilty' or "dismissed" through some procedural quirk and yet any fair minded person would acknowledge that they did the crime.

Anyway, in this conversation the proof that is required is that sufficient for any particular individual to be convinced or otherwise. Feel free to continue with your advocacy of this devil but don't expect everyone to kowtow to your self appointed 'judge' stephens. Your equating of a forum discussion with "mob justice" doesn't do much for your argument either, it just makes you sound shrill and hysterical.

 

[Deagol]

Because it's not just talk. People's words here, and elsewhere on the internet, and in sporting magazines, have real consequences on people's life. They can damage reputation, damage them economically, and so on. This is exactly what the "mob" is doing - handing out a punishment.

I see your point, somewhat, but in this case, it feels a lot more like carma

 

[jraama]

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).

No one in this forum will be sitting in the jury box, or making an argument in a court of law about this case. None of the discussions in this forum will be entered as evidence in the case. This forum exists to publicly discuss the facts and spout opinions based on those facts. You can chose to participate in the discussions, or not. You can chose to give your opinion, or not. But please don't lecture me on whether I have the right to discuss the case, or whether I have the right to offer an opinion.
Your opinion is that everyone should refrain from making a judgment, you have a right to hold that opinion, I have a right to disagree with your opinion. But I would not be so bold as to tell you that you have some obligation to do one thing or the other.
By the way, the LA supporters are not shy about announcing their judgment of the case, quite often, on this forum. Perhaps you would like to chastise them as well?
And for the record, I agree with the spirit of your post (innocent until proven guilty), but as I said, I would not try to impose that on anyone else.

 

[Polish]

Wrong.

Here are some of the new items:

1. LA had at least three adverse A samples for T/E ratios in the 90's.
2. Bill Stapleton and LA atty Mark Levenstien called and attended the UCLA Lab inquiring as to LA's results and testing techniques.
3. Source citing Feds have evidence LA obtained a study medicine that was an HBOC.
4. Catlin's previously unexplored role in suppressing testing of Olympic athletes (and presumably cyclists) in advance of Olympics.
5. Landis story about Swiss customs agents accepting that the doping products LA had in a bag were "vitamins".
6. Expanded details of Steven Swart's experience with HCT testing at Motorola, relaying HCT's that exceed 50.

Unless you "knew" of this, then these are news.

Old items 1 2 3 4 5 6
1990's and early 2000's
Golden Oldies. Nothin new.
Heck, Joe Papp's drug dealin' in 2007 is considered old by some

 

[Merckx index]

What part of the SI article is above the standard of tabloid journalism? What part points to a legitimate test? Something that can be tested?

IMO one of the least-appreciated pieces of info in that article was Catlin saying that he believed the EPO positives of the 99 samples were valid. There is nothing alleged about these positives, they are real. And now Catlin joins another respected anti-doping researcher, Ashenden, in saying that he believes the Paris lab conducted the tests correctly. Ashenden has already denbunked the notion that these samples could have easily been spiked, even assuming someone knew whose they were.

Old items 1 2 3 4 5 6
1990's and early 2000's

Really? Can you provide links? I hadn't heard about the T/E ratios before, nor Catlin's possible role wrt Olympic doping. And while LA has been linked with artificial oxygen vectors before, I never heard before the specific allegation of HemAssist.

Because it's not just talk. People's words here, and elsewhere on the internet, and in sporting magazines, have real consequences on people's life. They can damage reputation, damage them economically, and so on.

What a pessimistic view! Much more often, people's words make fortunes for celebrities. How much of LA's wealth, fame, connections, etc., came just from winning a bike race in France,and how much of it from all the talking people did about that race?

I've always found it hypocritical that celebrities rake in fortunes that come from fame, then complain when that same fame turns against them. I don't see you complaining that Jan Ullrich's life has been ruined by internet talking. Despite being forced into early retirement, he seems pretty happy with the way his life has turned out.

 

[Granville57]

I'm still not clear as to why some people on here believe that others of us have confused an internet forum for a court of law. We haven't. It isn't.

No one is going to jail based on what we say here. It's an expression of our informed opinions. We can do that. So we do.

We don't need to prove anything here. Common sense is the judge for many of us; ignorance is the "crime;" and the punishment would seem to be the inability to form independent thoughts based on rational observation. A horrible fate indeed.

 

[lean mean &green]

Because it's not just talk. People's words here, and elsewhere on the internet, and in sporting magazines, have real consequences on people's life. They can damage reputation, damage them economically, and so on. This is exactly what the "mob" is doing - handing out a punishment.

welcome to the information age, good luck trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube bro.

to the bolded, it's true to some extent but ask yourself for a second if it can't also be a good thing. couldn't it act as a check and balance against PED users and a potentially complicit governing body unwilling to sufficiently invest in effective anti-doping controls? in a way it's very democratic. much more in line with the values of western civilization than cycling's oligarchy.

you probably won't "get it" so i'll go ahead and tell you, i'm totally screwing with you.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

No - he will go down if the evidence indicates that he broke laws. I don't think Lance would go down just if a court proved he used PEDs, as far as I know this wouldn't have been a crime in the US.

As a result your opinion "Lance has never used PEDs until a court convicts him" is invalid. A court may convict Lance without concluding that he used PEDs (maybe only trafficked them). Maybe a court will fail to convict Lance without dismissing the notion that he did use PEDs.

Be brave - use your mind outside of a court to decide whether or not you think Lance used PEDs.

Lance will go down if they can sufficiently prove he (and/or the USPS team and management) used PED's in the Federal Whistleblower case.

40-50 Million x 3 = hardcore damage, aka, going down. Even a settlement would be nearly irrecoverable from.

That action has a lower burden of proof than any possible criminal case. and it seems much of the evidence is the same.

It seems Landis hedged his bet with this one.

Anyone else sensing an end-game here?

 

[gree0232]

I'll play...



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?

So someone claimed the number was Armstrong's. An unknown person, but supposedly knowledgeable about ANONYMOUS numbers, assumes that it was Armstrong's, and tells SI.

We'll take that to court huh? We'll convict say, the Schlecks, because an unknown party with 'inside' information on an anonymous number claims anonymously that the test was Schlecks?

We should use this a doping control measure? Really.

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."

Yep:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/experts-call-armstrong-hemassist-connection-unlikely

However, it is MORE plausible, that a tightly controlled substance in clinical tests was leaked to Armstrong, through methods unknown, in an unaccounted for method, or that 'surviving' batches, also unaccounted for, were scooped up in a totally unaccounted for manner and administered to Armstrong ..... all without a single shread of paper to back up a controlled medical substance?

That would be called speculation.

"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?

THe only person's name dropped in th story is Landis's. Is there a flight number? A date? A customs form? Other people on the pane to corroberate?

Nope. Just like Landis's OTHER allegations, they remain unevidenced. And that is because the entire cycling world is corrupt to the very bone.

I need to point out that Armstrong falt out told Landis to go public when he was threatening it. Landis did. And we have yet to see anything concrete as a result.

The inability to produce ACTUAL evidence means you have no evidence, not that the system is corrupt for not acting on innuendo and statements.

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.

PED's equate to pretty unequivocal proof. The Italian police and CONI, based on their prosecutions, would have no qualms whatsoever in prosecuting Popo for violations of ITALIAN law.

They have not.

Your OPINION of the UCI, an IOC accredited organization is noted, and in terms of evidence irrelevant.

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

I am saying that his conviction was over turned, and someon talking to a doctor with no convictions is NOT a crime.

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.

1. Why are all the other team mates not standing up and saying the same thing?

2. Even Swart is NOT claiming he ever saw Armstrong dope.

So, how is this relevant to Armstrong doping?

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.

If I spent 12 years spreading malicious rumors about you, finding everyone who was so much as remotely disliked you, any office mate who was ever jealous of you are with an axe to gring, I am sure I could come up with some doozies as well.

We do not convict people based on such things. That simple.

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

All of these have been looked at time and time again, and NOT ONE rises to the point where a doping conviction can be garnered - and there are plenty of people trying. LOADS.

So explain the failure is the evidence is so overwhelming?

Explain why we can effectively nail, Basso, Ullrich, Valverde, Di Luca, Rebellin, Schumacher, Hamilton, LANDIS, etc. but super genius Armstrong is protected?

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)

I cannot comprehend how rumor and innuendo, totally failing to meet rudimentary standards, passes as the rational method?

THe simple fact of the matter is that I have administered drug tests, and have seen cyclist found guilty of doping under circumstances that HAVE resulted in test for cocaine and other drugs being thrown out.

We have seen riders sanctioned through eye witness statements and corroberating financial records within the last year alone.

We have seen riders sanctioned for possession of PED's found in drug raids (and the Astana and Radio Shack stuff was searched - public claims of 'finds' never result in anything).

After 12 years of looking we have nothing on Armstrong that reaches that level.

However, we have a bunch of people that will clog this forum with insults and personal attacks, for not deriding Armstrong for .... apparently being the subject of rumors ...

Like Cancellera. And pretty much anyone who is successful in cycling.

Why don't we just rename the Clinic, Cycling TMZ?

 

[Deagol]

Lance will go down if they can sufficiently prove he (and/or the USPS team and management) used PED's in the Federal Whistleblower case.

40-50 Million x 3 = hardcore damage, aka, going down. Even a settlement would be nearly irrecoverable from.

That action has a lower burden of proof than any possible criminal case. and it seems much of the evidence is the same.

It seems Landis hedged his bet with this one.

Anyone else sensing an end-game here?

What would Landis get from the suit ? best-case (for him) scenario?

 

[stephens]

Lance will go down if they can sufficiently prove he (and/or the USPS team and management) used PED's in the Federal Whistleblower case.

40-50 Million x 3 = hardcore damage, aka, going down. Even a settlement would be nearly irrecoverable from.

That action has a lower burden of proof than any possible criminal case. and it seems much of the evidence is the same.

It seems Landis hedged his bet with this one.

Anyone else sensing an end-game here?

I've always been unclear about how exactly the USPS or by extension the US Government or taxpayer (who doesn't even fund the USPS) was actually defrauded by Armstrong. Did they somehow not get what they paid for - publicity? Would they be damaged in any way if the public was to learn that Armstrong had violated some rules or laws while sponsored by USPS?

Can someone explain this charge to me?

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Old items 1 2 3 4 5 6
1990's and early 2000's
Golden Oldies. Nothin new.
Heck, Joe Papp's drug dealin' in 2007 is considered old by some

Dunce, new as in "not before known or disclosed or confirmed" not new "by calendar date".

Also, as for "new by calendar date" is the story declaring Popo had PEDs taken from his house, along with data linking them to Ferrari.

Yes, they are denying it, but it would not serve the prosecution to have a star cooperating witness confirm the evidence and explain his cooperation.

Do you think them cornering Popo in Austin, serving him with subpoena, then immediately raiding his house are simply coincidence? More like consequence, as result of GJ testimony and pressure to cooperate.

Your obtuseness is glowing brightly.

 

[Granville57]

Because it's not just talk. People's words here, and elsewhere on the internet, and in sporting magazines, have real consequences on people's life. They can damage reputation, damage them economically, and so on. This is exactly what the "mob" is doing - handing out a punishment.

I would agree with the bolded part, words in a sporting magazines can have real consequences on people's live. It's a matter that those magazines should take very seriously for that very reason.

This forum, however, is not a sporting magazine--and certainly not an international one that gets picked up by major news outlets world wide. We don't need to hold ourselves to the same standard.

If it only it were so easy to bring down the corrupt organizations of the world.

 

[gree0232]

I'm still not clear as to why some people on here believe that others of us have confused an internet forum for a court of law. We haven't. It isn't.

No one is going to jail based on what we say here. It's an expression of our informed opinions. We can do that. So we do.

We don't need to prove anything here. Common sense is the judge for many of us; ignorance is the "crime;" and the punishment would seem to be the inability to form independent thoughts based on rational observation. A horrible fate indeed.

No, but reasonable discussion turn on something called credibility.

So if you are trying to say Armstrong is doper, there is a standard by which such statement are held - like the WADA code.

If you produce speculation, great, that is called creative writing.

However, for some reason, when people say back it up with something, they are unreasonable and deserve to be derided as idiots for not immediately jumping on the Armstong band wagon (completely ignoring that such statements are an appeal to ridicule and thus a logical fallacy).

So, this may not be a court, but claiming that suspicion of doping should be rampant and totally unobjective or without even rudimentary standards is rediculous.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

I've always been unclear about how exactly the USPS or by extension the US Government or taxpayer (who doesn't even fund the USPS) was actually defrauded by Armstrong. Did they somehow not get what they paid for - publicity? Would they be damaged in any way if the public was to learn that Armstrong had violated some rules or laws while sponsored by USPS?

Can someone explain this charge to me?

If you agreed to comply by certain conditions of a contract, withheld the details that would have exposed the departures, and still collected the money, it is fraud.

Value of the original publicity is immaterial.

Damage suffered by USPS is immaterial.

They did not get what they paid for by condition of the contract. Tailwind clearly lied by omission as to "how" they were non-compliant with the contract and went ahead and took the money, in ever increasing amounts, year after year after year.

USPS is part of the govt, by settled law. That issue is not really debatable.

 

[gree0232]

If it only it were so easy to bring down the corrupt organizations of the world.

You bring down corrupt organization by proving they are corrupt.

And when a federal investigation into those accussations produces .... nothing ....

What then?