The Sports Illustrated Article

[Granville57]

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.

Ahhhhh...back to the story; the thread; the point of all this to begin with. Thanks for righting the ship.

Of course the other point is, like with Floyd: What, no lawsuit? Hmmm.

 

[BikeCentric]

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.

Yes it truly is deplorable the way people use their own brains to make up their own minds about what happenned. It's not our job to think.

 

[gree0232]

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

And ... people can rebut you.

They can look at your presentation and decide whether or not it is valid. In fact, THEY SHOULD BE.

If instead we allow statements such as this:

"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,"

If we ignore entirely that cyclingnews has BOTH the SI snipped and the responding stories from Caitlin, etc. AND STILL make statements like that as if they are reasonable, objective, or productive to free discussion of ideas?

You do realize that it is a logical fallacy to attack someone you don;t even know on an internet forum and a valuless human being living on an artifical planet?

And to present that as if it is a valid point of view? One that should NOT be challenged?

Seriously?

That is what I take issue with. The Lance must have doped or you are worthless criminal of human being attitude that has infected any sensible inquiry into the actuality of doping.

And attitude that has spread throughout the sport and now effectively taints any successful cyclist.

Which Tour winner has not been accussed of doping in the TMZ clinic?

 

[gree0232]

Oh and Greetard? You're a joke.

Great. So now we are advocating the elementary school ridicule of anyone who disagrees with us as proof of Armstrong's doping.

Why do people think behaving like this is acceptable?

 

[woodburn]

SI had multiple sources for that story. It was not just Floyd, others on the plane confirmed it.

In fact SI had multiple sources for most everything in the piece. The editor used not having 2-3 sources as a reason to leave out some of the best information.

Armstrong's friends....err, employees, are all turning on him.

Surprised if there were multiple people on the plane that confirmed Landis' story that they did not mention it in the story. As an editor you want that in there to avoid the focus being on Landis and his lack of credibility.

 

[rata de sentina]

We are instead wondering about the presentation of logical analysis?

Not really. We're wondering about your capabilities at comprehending English. It's hardly surprising that people get frustrated with you when you persistently misconstrue their statements whether deliberately or in error.

Furthermore, the 'evidence' which you cite doesn't necessarily support your 'thesis'. In the instances where I've taken the time to peruse it then I would say it is at best equivocal. Similarly, the fact that someone elses opinion conforms to your own isn't a particulary convincing argument.

Please try to do better in future - see, anyone can do condescension.

 

[rata de sentina]

That is a gross misrepresentation.

Yeah, bit like a strawman

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Not according to the independant Dutch Research.

The Vrijman report was paid for by the UCI and you know it.

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

Why don't you read the report and find out?

 

[Granville57]

You do realize that it is a logical fallacy to attack someone you don;t even know on an internet forum and a valuless human being living on an artifical planet?

Do you realize that some of the members on this forum actually do know that "someone" that this entire debate is swirling around? If you read more than you typed, you might have discovered that. You also would have learned that some of the members of this forum are even mentioned, by name (their real names) in the SI article.

One final suggestion before I add you to my Ignore List along with stainlessguy:

Less noise, more poise.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

I hope you are not suggesting that the Vrijman report is 'independent Dutch research'? Virjman and Verbruggen are pals - not too independent, would you like me to quote what WADA said about that report?

As for your "Why is that"?
Do you think the UCI are going catch Lance after all his 'donations'?

 

[Colm.Murphy]

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.

It is simply the level of corruption of the system that they perpetrated.

Wiesel acquiring USA Cycling, placing his minions there, Stapleton on the USOC Executive Committee, all workling to create an environment where protecting Lance was their business.

Roll that up to the UCI. Purported cover-up of a Tour de Suisse positive, proven payments directly to the UCI when no other athlete had ever done so. Allegations (strong and from many sources) of advance notice of testing...

The list is exceedingly long as to why it is reasonable to think the environment under which Lance competed was fully corrupted to protect him and his brand.

Seriously, the corruption angle is solid. He could ride again because of it.

Bordry gave Lance to have the samples retested, again. Lance declined. Why dodge the same bullet twice... It gets expensive and ultimately is a business decision.

Put it this way, why would Lance NOT embrace the chance to clear it up (the EPO samples) once and for all?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Gree - i know I asked you this before, but as you have a habit of ignoring certain posts I decided to give you another try..


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.

 

[BikeCentric]

C'mon you guys, quit feeding the troll. No non-troll could possibly accidentally misconstrue every single thing said by every single poster in the thread as well as every single thing written in the SI article and the Vrijman report. Ignore list is your friend.

 

[runninboy]

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.

Fist of all i think you need to take a moment

Did i ever intimate any of those things?
Hate filled animus?
I beg your pardon?
All i was saying was you reference SI like it is some high school paper that just prints whatever lies it wishes willy nilly with no regards to any legal consequences. Which most rational people in the world know would spell certain demise for the publication.
LA has defended his reputation vehemently with legal actions. So i question why he would fail to do so in a case where he KNOWS he cannot lose?
now you accuse me of a hatefilled post?
and advocate violence
Sorry i couldn't follow your logic and really don't wish to
but it seems to me that you are accusing me of being a sociopath and advocating violence against my person.
Legal systems do require actual standard.
And if you stand by your comment you might be brought up on charges.
i will now reach for the ignore button

 

[rata de sentina]

C'mon you guys, quit feeding the troll. No non-troll could possibly accidentally misconstrue every single thing said by every single poster in the thread as well as every single thing written in the SI article and the Vrijman report. Ignore list is your friend.

I agree and I urge everyone else to follow suit. I mean if you came across some nutcase raving and ranting incomprehensible gibberish in the street you wouldn't go up and try and engage them in conversation so why do it here.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

I think the troll has been very well fed tonight. Any more and it might puke it up and then be hungry again.

/moving over to find the ignore button.

 

[Granville57]

I agree and I urge everyone else to follow suit. I mean if you came across some nutcase raving and ranting incomprehensible gibberish in the street you wouldn't go up and try and engage them in conversation so why do it here.

Count me in

 

[Ferminal]

It is simply the level of corruption of the system that they perpetrated.

Wiesel acquiring USA Cycling, placing his minions there, Stapleton on the USOC Executive Committee, all workling to create an environment where protecting Lance was their business.

Roll that up to the UCI. Purported cover-up of a Tour de Suisse positive, proven payments directly to the UCI when no other athlete had ever done so. Allegations (strong and from many sources) of advance notice of testing...

The list is exceedingly long as to why it is reasonable to think the environment under which Lance competed was fully corrupted to protect him and his brand.

Seriously, the corruption angle is solid. He could ride again because of it.

Bordry gave Lance to have the samples retested, again. Lance declined. Why dodge the same bullet twice... It gets expensive and ultimately is a business decision.

Put it this way, why would Lance NOT embrace the chance to clear it up (the EPO samples) once and for all?

Or have his samples tested for DEHP, of course that would not be "real evidence"

 

[theswordsman]

The disinformation campaign really is spewing forth some garbage. This is as far as I got, but I thought the part about evidence mounting even though Lance is innocent was a nice touch. How does that work I wonder? And how many people in the media are for sale, anyway?

Why is the witch hunt coming after Lance Armstrong? Evidence that Armstrong is a doper is mounting and the accusations are flying after Sports Illustrated broke a story full of growing evidence, but still lacking the smoking gun. Enough is enough. Someone needs to get on the phone with the president of sports to get this story killed yesterday. The Lance Armstrong narrative is too powerful and valuable to be tarnished. It's time for the sports reporters in this world to treat this story like a white-trash bar **** and pull out already for chrissakes.

Did Lance Armstrong use performance-enhancing drugs? No

http://www.sports-central.org/sports/2011/01/20/lets_end_the_lance_armstrong_witch_hunt.php

 

[Ferminal]

You missed out by not reading further - this was as far as I got:

Armstrong's Live Strong Foundation has done an amazing job in the past decade in helping cancer victims and in providing money, and lots of it, for cancer research.

Next person has to read beyond that to find more goodies.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Or have his samples tested for DEHP, of course that would not be "real evidence"

They have stable legal footing before IV's were banned, regarding DEHP. It would be suspect for there to be massive spikes, say along timelines as to when Landis or someone on the team corroborates when a transfusion took place. But you can bet they are feeling comfortable with their position that "Any DEHP spike is easily explained by the legal and medically necessary administration of IV fluids after the stages".

I would wager that this is why the are "not worried" about the plasticizer test in their public statements.

I think if spiked align with transfusion dates, and they could not produce a record of the IV being administered (informing the UCI of the IV - which I think was necessary) their confidence could erode quickly.

 

[Granville57]

The disinformation campaign really is spewing forth some garbage. This is as far as I got, but I thought the part about evidence mounting even though Lance is innocent was a nice touch. How does that work I wonder? And how many people in the media are for sale, anyway?
http://www.sports-central.org/sports/2011/01/20/lets_end_the_lance_armstrong_witch_hunt.php

I only got as far as the FRS side bar.

 

[Ferminal]

They have stable legal footing before IV's were banned, regarding DEHP. It would be suspect for there to be massive spikes, say along timelines as to when Landis or someone on the team corroborates when a transfusion took place. But you can bet they are feeling comfortable with their position that "Any DEHP spike is easily explained by the legal and medically necessary administration of IV fluids after the stages".

I would wager that this is why the are "not worried" about the plasticizer test in their public statements.

I think if spiked align with transfusion dates, and they could not produce a record of the IV being administered (informing the UCI of the IV - which I think was necessary) their confidence could erode quickly.

Oh yeh, I mean after the ban, especially 2009 where you could match the DEHP levels to the blood tests.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Oh yeh, I mean after the ban, especially 2009 where you could match the DEHP levels to the blood tests.

Yes, and that would neatly package the case with a nice final bow on it.

Imagine them "awaiting" the results of the DEHP tests as the trial is about to begin... Then they come and the LA crew is faced with final crushing evidence or copping a plea.

This case is as much about the strategic and tactical moves so far as it is about the facts. Each moves the other down the road.

Now, I don't think anyone is going to argue LA doped in 2010. What we saw there was his probably un-doped ceiling of performance. In fact, that could be held up as the "clean" baseline from which to judge the other years.

 

[TubularBills]

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.)

Wow. that was painful to watch. RR has said for a while that PS doesn't have friends, he has employees. I wonder what the wage rate is for an absolute shell?

Thanks though for the link into the transparent web of panicked damage control...

The damage is done and the avalance is imminent.

The epic train wreck of a fall from grace.

What a heel.

ie both bobke and bob -1

Someone throw these guys a life preserver that doesn't feature an 'F'

Fools always FailStrong