The Sports Illustrated Article

[saxe_coburg_gotha]

Article crap and nothing new. Get some factsd please this is boring the bearskin of me.

 

[lean mean &green]

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.

except no one here claimed that. what you did is called a straw man. you should research logical fallacies a little further.

 

[Granville57]

You bring down corrupt organization by proving they are corrupt.

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

What then?

I didn't realize the federal investigation had come to a conclusion

 

[stephens]

Damage suffered by USPS is immaterial.

IANAL, but as far as I know, civil courts exist to make people whole for damages they have suffered. Unless the usps can show they were somehow damaged by the defendant (tailwind or armstrong or whomever), I don't understand how they will receive a dime. (furthermore, breaking the contract is not a crime anyone will go to jail for either).

 

[Deagol]

I didn't realize the federal investigation had come to a conclusion

Some here have equated the latest SI article with the investigation itself.

 

[jraama]

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?

My understanding is that the contract with USPS explicitly stated no PEDs were to be used by the team, as a condition of sponsorship. If PEDs can be proven, then a breach of contract has taken place (that is akin to defrauding the government, since the USPD team violated the terms of the contract, and covered up said violation) and damages can be awarded. Injury does not have to be proven in a breach of contract case (at least I don't think so). And since the USPS is a government backed institution, the federal whisleblower statues apply. And Landis could get up to 30% of any financial penalties imposed.

I may be oversimplifying it, or using the wrong terminology, but that is the jist of the whisleblower case. Someone with more expertise can feel free to correct me.

 

[gree0232]

except no one here claimed that. what you did is called a straw man. you should research logical fallacies a little further.

Well, then I suggest you go back and look at what that was a response to, where you will clearly see someone complaining about 'evidence' and how this is not a court.

A strawman is taking someone's position and spinning it into statements they did not make. Someone clearly made those statements.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=416653#post416653

You can clearly see Granville57 saying exactly that.

That would be how evidence works.

You claim something .... and back it up with something tangible - as in a direct quote for a statement, or a positive dope test (real one, not botched research tests), financial transaction record, PED's in possession of athlete or known associate, or credible nearly universally corroberated eye witness accounts to equate to doping accussations.

 

[Deagol]

..... And Landis could get up to 30% of any financial penalties imposed.
.....

Holy cow !!
That answers my prior question that may have been lost, Thanks !!!
I hope this doesn't take forever to play-out.

 

[gree0232]

Some here have equated the latest SI article with the investigation itself.

That would be because the SI article is about the investigation.

"In light of those proceedings, SI writers Selena Roberts and David Epstein reviewed hundreds of pages of documents and interviewed dozens of sources in Europe, New Zealand and the U.S. for a story in the Jan. 24 issue of the magazine, which will be available on newsstands Wednesday."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/more/01/18/lance.armstrong/index.html?eref=sihp

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You bring down corrupt organization by proving they are corrupt.

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

What then?

Hey, you know how you like evidence so much and how people shouldn't say anything without evidence.

Can you show some evidence (your standard) that the Ferderal Investigation has produced nothing............. or did you just lie.

 

[Granville57]

That would be because the SI article is about the investigation.

"In light of those proceedings, SI writers Selena Roberts and David Epstein reviewed hundreds of pages of documents and interviewed dozens of sources in Europe, New Zealand and the U.S. for a story in the Jan. 24 issue of the magazine, which will be available on newsstands Wednesday."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/more/01/18/lance.armstrong/index.html?eref=sihp

Of course the SI article is about the investigation. It is not, however, the investigation itself.

Do you really think that SI has all the documents and evidence that the Feds have? The indictments haven't even been handed down yet! This investigation is only just beginning.

 

[lean mean &green]

Well, then I suggest you go back and look at what that was a response to, where you will clearly see someone complaining about 'evidence' and how this is not a court.

A strawman is taking someone's position and spinning it into statements they did not make. Someone clearly made those statements.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=416653#post416653

You can clearly see Granville57 saying exactly that.

That would be how evidence works.

You claim something .... and back it up with something tangible - as in a direct quote for a statement, or a positive dope test (real one, not botched research tests), financial transaction record, PED's in possession of athlete or known associate, or credible nearly universally corroberated eye witness accounts to equate to doping accussations.

he said we could speak freely, express or opinions, and that this wasn't a court of law. those things are all true. he never claimed anything remotely close to:

suspicion of doping should be rampant and totally unobjective or without even rudimentary standards

that's a gross exaggeration for effect in order to set up a staw man argument. it is a logical fallacy which is hilarious because you accused others of making them right before doing it yourself. seriously, i laughed when i read it. we're done here b/c i actually suppose your real goal is just to disrupt an otherwise purposeful discussion.

 

[gree0232]

Hey, you know how you like evidence so much and how people shouldn't say anything without evidence.

Can you show some evidence (your standard) that the Ferderal Investigation has produced nothing............. or did you just lie.

Because that is how logical arguementation works doc.

Thesis
Supporting EVIDENCE
restarted theiss = conclusion.

SO, when the thesis is Lance doped.

The evidence should be --- standards to indicate doping.

A revelation of the evidence - Betsy's testimony vs. Lance's doc testimony for example and why Betsy MUST be more accurate.

Why the SI article about Caitlin's comments should be taken as greater veracity than Caitlin publically dissing said statement?

And finally how that equates to a doping violation?

I gaurantee you, if you come up with something tangible and well evidenced, rather than TMZ standard, there are people with loaded shotguns and pitchforks who will go out and get exactly what you desire.

12 years later ...

We are instead wondering about the presentation of logical analysis?

 

[Colm.Murphy]

IANAL, but as far as I know, civil courts exist to make people whole for damages they have suffered. Unless the usps can show they were somehow damaged by the defendant (tailwind or armstrong or whomever), I don't understand how they will receive a dime. (furthermore, breaking the contract is not a crime anyone will go to jail for either).

The damage is the money they paid that they would not have paid.

If they prove the doping was there from the beginning, then all of it was obtained under false pretense, and violation of the contract, and all of the money they did pay is the damage. Times 3.

So, let's say its roughly 50M. x 3. $150M going back to the govt from the principals of the organization who defrauded them.

I never said they'd go to jail for that.

I predict they will eventually go to jail due to the Feds bringing a RICO criminal charge. Even the SI article cites Racketeering as a possible charge. It is fitting.

The problem is, at least on one level, how they (LA et al) can effectively fight these two legal fronts. The second problem is the exposure they all have, relative to possible jail, fines and repayment (in triplicate) back to USPS.

That adds up to a great exposure to risk, in two venues, with two different burdens of proof, stemming from one general set of circumstances, facts and evidence. The basis of which is they doped. And they most certainly did. In an organized way, year after year, winning and winning, all while saying they were clean.

I simply don't see how they can withstand the weight of it all. Their farce is coming apart at the seams.

 

[Elagabalus]

Well, then I suggest you go back and look at what that was a response to, where you will clearly see someone complaining about 'evidence' and how this is not a court.

A strawman is taking someone's position and spinning it into statements they did not make. Someone clearly made those statements.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=416653#post416653

You can clearly see Granville57 saying exactly that.

That would be how evidence works.

You claim something .... and back it up with something tangible - as in a direct quote for a statement, or a positive dope test (real one, not botched research tests), financial transaction record, PED's in possession of athlete or known associate, or credible nearly universally corroberated eye witness accounts to equate to doping accussations.

Ho-hum...

Did the 1999 samples contain traces of EPO or not? And didn't Armstrong willingly provide the codes of his samples? And didn't the codes match the very same samples which contained EPO?

 

[runninboy]

So.....
blah blah blah blather blah blah blah

sorry i just couldn't stand to actually quote you accurately.It seems so pointless. We are all speculating here. We have no actual proof beyond what is written, that is pretty much a given on the internet.However we also know that in this day in age lies will be exposed fairly quickly. The legal system does however take a little longer to convict people as well it should.
The way i see it, you are basically claiming that everything in the SI article means nothing. However you of course are wrong. If someone were to publish so many accusations in such fashion without many reputable sources they would be exposing themselves to a huge lawsuit that would be easily winnable. In addition since the main subject of the article is a man who has previously shown no hesitation to bring legal actions in a similar vein you must admit his inaction is troubling to say the least.

Here would be an example lets say you are LA and completely clean. You have no knowledge of this HemeAssist or whatever it is called. It does not matter what the rationale is behind the SI story because you would know you hold the high ground of absolute truth. Boom! lawsuit! Immediately with no hesitiation. Same for the Swiss accusations, No way it ever happened, i would be on the phone with the lawyer and have the suit filed before the issue hit the newsstands! Same with all these accusations you know they can't be close to being true, you are as pure as the driven snow, so anyone who would dare to smear your sterling image deserves to pay.

and yet there is nothing....

Whether or not a major magazine would gamble their entire existence on a pack of unsubstantiated accusations does not seem to be an issue with you . For the rest of us who live on planet earth, we understand the reality of the situation and thus give their version of events a little more weight. In the meantime you can stand there and yell liar liar pants on fire but it will probably not last for long.

Now i see why MacRoadie had you on ignore.

 

[gree0232]

he said we could speak freely, express or opinions, and that this wasn't a court of law. those things are all true. he never claimed anything remotely close to:



that's a gross exaggeration for effect in order to set up a staw man argument. it is a logical fallacy which is hilarious because you accused others of making them right before doing it yourself. seriously, i laughed when i read it. we're done here b/c i actually suppose your real goal is just to disrupt an otherwise purposeful discussion.

Yes, I am just totally making up the parts where he referrence the words COURTS or EVIDENCE.

It was a malicious lie on my part to say, fine, but when discussing these things we need to referrence some kind of objective standard.

THe fact of the matter is that those making a case one way or the other on Lance need to produce some kind of supporting evidence.

If you think Lance doped, fine. I understand that after 12 years of digging there are certainly valid suspicions of that.

However, if after 12 years of digging you cannot find something that will result in a conviction .... what does that tell you?

To simply say, "well, we should be allowed to talk," you should also being saying, "Well, we should also be held accountable for what comes out of our mouths."

 

[stephens]

I simply don't see how they can withstand the weight of it all. Their farce is coming apart at the seams.

On the other hand, the evidence in the Balco case, and the MLB doping cases in general, is much more straight forward and overwhelming and that investigation hasn't resulted in even 1/100th of what people are predicting will happen to Armstrong and his cronies. And these are cases featuring people who are much more famous/relevant than Armstrong and you'd expect a publicity ***** prosecutor/investigator would go at them much harder than he would a cyclist. We'll see, I guess.

 

[gree0232]

sorry i just couldn't stand to actually quote you accurately.It seems so pointless. We are all speculating here. We have no actual proof beyond what is written, that is pretty much a given on the internet.However we also know that in this day in age lies will be exposed fairly quickly. The legal system does however take a little longer to convict people as well it should.
The way i see it, you are basically claiming that everything in the SI article means nothing. However you of course are wrong. If someone were to publish so many accusations in such fashion without many reputable sources they would be exposing themselves to a huge lawsuit that would be easily winnable. In addition since the main subject of the article is a man who has previously shown no hesitation to bring legal actions in a similar vein you must admit his inaction is troubling to say the least.

Here would be an example lets say you are LA and completely clean. You have no knowledge of this HemeAssist or whatever it is called. It does not matter what the rationale is behind the SI story because you would know you hold the high ground of absolute truth. Boom! lawsuit! Immediately with no hesitiation. Same for the Swiss accusations, No way it ever happened, i would be on the phone with the lawyer and have the suit filed before the issue hit the newsstands! Same with all these accusations you know they can't be close to being true, you are as pure as the driven snow, so anyone who would dare to smear your sterling image deserves to pay.

and yet there is nothing....

Whether or not a major magazine would gamble their entire existence on a pack of unsubstantiated accusations does not seem to be an issue with you . For the rest of us who live on planet earth, we understand the reality of the situation and thus give their version of events a little more weight. In the meantime you can stand there and yell liar liar pants on fire but it will probably not last for long.

Now i see why MacRoadie had you on ignore.

So, Lance doped because anyone who doesn't jump on the Lance train is an ***, a human being devoid of value or worth :clap:

How do people even rationalize such hate filled animus as this?

Apparently, Lance having sued and won in the past, and publically stating that he was done, "not worth the effort". NOW he is guilty because he is no longer suing .... Loads of people in jail based on that standard. How many cyclist sanctioned for that? Cancellera? Hincapie? Levi?

Was it the stories that were released that Landis did not sue to stop that got Landis nailed or the positive dope test?

12 years and no conviction. Nothing.

And anyone who thinks that legal systems require actual standard is a worthless sociopath who should be shot.

 

[Granville57]

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.

except no one here claimed that. what you did is called a straw man. you should research logical fallacies a little further.

Well, then I suggest you go back and look at what that was a response to, where you will clearly see someone complaining about 'evidence' and how this is not a court.

A strawman is taking someone's position and spinning it into statements they did not make. Someone clearly made those statements.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=416653#post416653

You can clearly see Granville57 saying exactly that.

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.

Just wanted to clear that up. That's pretty much all I have to say on this topic.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

'...'A strawman is taking someone's position and spinning it into statements they did not make. Someone clearly made those statements.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=416653#post416653

You can clearly see Granville57 saying exactly that. '...'

Granville57's wrote

"'...' It's an expression of our informed opinions. '...'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.'...'"

You described his post as "

'...' but claiming that suspicion of doping should be rampant and totally unobjective or without even rudimentary standards is rediculous.

That is a gross misrepresentation.

 

[BikeCentric]

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?)

What's really funny to me is seeing the Armstrong camp attack Sports Illustrated's credibility. Why is that so funny? Because I've been reading SI for about 20 years, and they are a very professional and very serious group of reporters. I can absolutely assure you that they are going to take very personally these statements attacking their professionalism and they are going to just sink their teeth even further into this story and run more articles. Thanks Lance and Bob for baiting your enemies once again, you aren't fooling anyone except for a very small minority of blinkered chamois-sniffers in the cycling world. Everyone else is laughing at you. By the way, remember that this is the same publication that gave Lance their Sportsman of the Year award in 2002, so it's pretty idiotic to accuse them of "yellow journalism." Good Lord.

Oh and Greetard? You're a joke.

 

[Granville57]

Granville57's wrote

You described his post as "

That is a gross misrepresentation.

It was a fun a little ride though, wasn't it?

Now I get to keep the previous few posts forever as the clearest example of "straw man" that I have ever encountered.

 

[Ferminal]

.
.
.

I'm not asking you to convict anyone.

I'm asking you to make a decision whether or not you believed Lance was to have used PEDs. There is no accuser and burden of proof - it's just coming to terms with the copious amounts of information out there and coming to a conclusion.

Like you say - there's two decades of the same information out there, why is it so difficult for a rational thinker to come to a conclusion one way or the other?

 

[gree0232]

Ho-hum...

Did the 1999 samples contain traces of EPO or not? And didn't Armstrong willingly provide the codes of his samples? And didn't the codes match the very same samples which contained EPO?

Not according to the independant Dutch Research.

Not based on the fact that Lance, despite the samples and their admissability within the anti-doping timeline, was never issued a sanction.

So, why is that?

Massive universal conspiracy involving the entire continent of Europe?

If it is so rock solid, why no sanction? Why was Lance allowed to ride again despite this dambing evidence?

Same ol ****?

Ho-hum indeed.