The Sports Illustrated Article

[gree0232]

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'?

And no one accusing Lance are pals are they?

How about instead of employing one logical fallacy after another, and the fact that people known each other equateing to blowing of professional ethics and standards in a published report subject to peer review, is about as fallacious as you can get without ACTUAL evidence to bolster such a spurious conclusion.

WADA published a poor rebuttal, which was essentially what your wrote (simplified) and the commission published a counter rebuttal that ripped the WADA rebuttal to shreads.

If you wish to disregard something, you should do it based on a standard you are willing to apply to your own side.

Ergo, since Landis doesn't like Lance, everything he says is out. Ditto for Besty, and her husband has clear conflict of interest. Same goes for LeMond, **** Pound, and Walsh.

After all they all tend to scratch each others back in their holy Crusade, so they cannot be taken at self value.

Which means we should probably look at what they are saying, and the other side, objectively, and see which one presents the better case.

Thus far, the Lance accussers HAVE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANYTHING THAT WILL RESULT IN AN ANTI-SOPING CONVICTION.

But the Stalin method will work fine. Say a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

Unless of course you are a diabolical genius with doped super human powers, able to manipulate multiple anti-doping agencies to do your diabolical will and coherse people with jedi mind tricks - then, the more often you say something, the more UNTRUE it becomes?

Again, you think Lance doped? Fine.

You, and others, want to say it for 12 years? Point fingers and demand inquest? Get said inquest and have it result in ... rumor?

At what point do we get to tell the boy crying wolf to stop?

When do we get to point out that Betsy Andreau's 'word' is not an anti-doping standard?

We are at a point in this long drawn our emotional process where it is time to put up the evidence or stop.

At some point, the abscence of evidence is exoneration.

At some point this process is nothing more than a witch hunt. And there is a point where we should look at the pitch forks and torches and seriously ask, "WTF are we doing? Why?"

 

[leftover pie]

But the Stalin method will work fine. Say a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

never tested high cadence

most testical athlete in history

 

[D-Queued]

...

At some point, the abscence of evidence is exoneration.

At some point this process is nothing more than a witch hunt. And there is a point where we should look at the pitch forks and torches and seriously ask, "WTF are we doing? Why?"

I love it. Conclude with the 'witch hunt' clincher.

I am convinced.

There is no absence of evidence. There is plenty. So much so that the next thread of it is likely to provide the proof to the 'straw that broke the camel's back' analogy.

The best part here is the degree of escalation. Lance would have done well to have only been subject to an anti-doping finding. If that had happened he would not have been as much of a glaring example of getting away with it.

This is all much worse for him, and the storm is still on the horizon and hasn't even arrived yet.

But, for you gree, I recommend that you peddle faster (sic), because nobody is buying this crap.

Dave.

 

[TubularBills]

never tested high cadence

most testical athlete in history

LOL

a shadow revolutionary!

I'm holding out for cadence cures cancer.

 

[gree0232]

I love it. Conclude with the 'witch hunt' clincher.

I am convinced.

There is no absence of evidence. There is plenty. So much so that the next thread of it is likely to provide the proof to the 'straw that broke the camel's back' analogy.

The best part here is the degree of escalation. Lance would have done well to have only been subject to an anti-doping finding. If that had happened he would not have been as much of a glaring example of getting away with it.

This is all much worse for him, and the storm is still on the horizon and hasn't even arrived yet.

But, for you gree, I recommend that you peddle faster (sic), because nobody is buying this crap.

Dave.

You don't have to buy it.

You HAVE to get a ****ing conviction!

12 years and millions of investigative dollars later ....

I want a bike race! Not a bunch of whiny *** Crusaders who caste doubt on every win.

 

[TubularBills]

I love it. Conclude with the 'witch hunt' clincher.

I am convinced.

There is no absence of evidence. There is plenty. So much so that the next thread of it is likely to provide the proof to the 'straw that broke the camel's back' analogy.

The best part here is the degree of escalation. Lance would have done well to have only been subject to an anti-doping finding. If that had happened he would not have been as much of a glaring example of getting away with it.

This is all much worse for him, and the storm is still on the horizon and hasn't even arrived yet.

But, for you gree, I recommend that you peddle faster (sic), because nobody is buying this crap.

Dave.

The model for appropriate behavior is Indurain. i.e. Poise in the face of deception.

... PS is an Idiot.

Evidence: "That's All?"

 

[leftover pie]

You don't have to buy it.

You HAVE to get a ****ing conviction!

12 years and millions of investigative dollars later ....

I want a bike race! Not a bunch of whiny *** Crusaders who caste doubt on every win.

 

[gree0232]

Two can play that game.

And that is why Lance is a doper, because anyone pointing out that there are ACTUAL standards that have to met BEFORE you can declare someone a doper have to met are actually whiners and worse!

Evidence please Ahab!

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Cool it with the silly photos. They don't contribute anything.

Susan

 

[Oldman]

You don't have to buy it.

You HAVE to get a ****ing conviction!

12 years and millions of investigative dollars later ....

I want a bike race! Not a bunch of whiny *** Crusaders who caste doubt on every win.

That's the point. If you knew what a bike race is you'd know you've been watching something else.

 

[craig1985]

This must be a nightmare of a thread to moderate.

Grabs coat.

 

[Benotti69]

Two can play that game.

And that is why Lance is a doper, because anyone pointing out that there are ACTUAL standards that have to met BEFORE you can declare someone a doper have to met are actually whiners and worse!


Evidence please Ahab!

the evidence is his bribery of the UCI. we have yet to see any evidence that shows the money he gave the uci was used for anti doping equipment. they said it was but will not release the proof. Guilty M'Lord.

his '99 TdF samples were found to contain EPO.Guilty M'Lord

He went on record to say during the 99 TdF that he has NEVER used steroids and then tested he positive, which he suddenly produced a back dated TUE from doctor.Guilty M'Lord

3 rock solid examples of a cheat to me.Guilty M'Lord

Now he bribed the UCI so he is not going to get a ban.

the EPO was found a few years after 99 and the UCI and ASO have ignored the findings and explaining it away with BS.

and well there ya go he should have been banned for 2 years in 99 for testing positive for steroids but he bribed the UCI.

so how do you convict someone who is paying the uci to ignore his doping positives?

Now the real biggie test was the SI article. Now answer the clinic this one. SI a huge sports magazine in America, reaches into nearly every sporting fans home, why is Lance Armstrong not suing it after what they have written is lies and untrue.

thar she blows captain

 

[ultimobici]

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?

This is a point that bugs me.
Armstrong has sued on numerous occasions, but I don't think he has ever gone to trial as he has settled out of court. That was when the weight of evidence was small and he was in a position of strength.
Since LA Confidentiel he has not used litigation to confront allegations. When you bear in mind that From Lance to Landis has all the information that was printed in LA Confidentiel in English, you cannot but wonder why.
If you would expend energy & money blocking publication of a book's translation into English, wouldn't it be logical to oppose publication of an almost identical book in English?
It doesn't add up to me, unless he has realised that in the wake of the SCA hearing his chances of proving his case were slim. If he was confident that he was clean he'd stick to his guns.

 

[AussieGoddess]

ok - ignoring the trolls ....

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).

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.

Discussing evidence, the implications of such evidence and forming an opinion based on the sharing of information is NOT a mob.

Sharing information and sorting out the paid spin from the actual facts is not a judgement nor a punishment.

The fact is that in this case, the person at the centre of this HAS employed a PR firm to spin information, to provide lies and substantial misinformation, and to try and deliberately sway public opinion for his own financial benefit.

Why should we not do the same ... share information and discredit obvious mistruths

 

[blackcat]

Cool it with the silly photos. They don't contribute anything.

Susan

well Susan, you have not seen BroDeals fail metaphors for Wigans of planes crashing into buildings.

 

[Benotti69]

ok - ignoring the trolls ....





Discussing evidence, the implications of such evidence and forming an opinion based on the sharing of information is NOT a mob.

Sharing information and sorting out the paid spin from the actual facts is not a judgement nor a punishment.

The fact is that in this case, the person at the centre of this HAS employed a PR firm to spin information, to provide lies and substantial misinformation, and to try and deliberately sway public opinion for his own financial benefit.

Why should we not do the same ... share information and discredit obvious mistruths

i dont think the good people of the clinic are not doing the same as LA's PR, but we/they are sharing information, discussing, debating and discrediting the the obvious mistruths

 

[ultimobici]

ok - ignoring the trolls ....





Discussing evidence, the implications of such evidence and forming an opinion based on the sharing of information is NOT a mob.

Sharing information and sorting out the paid spin from the actual facts is not a judgement nor a punishment.

The fact is that in this case, the person at the centre of this HAS employed a PR firm to spin information, to provide lies and substantial misinformation, and to try and deliberately sway public opinion for his own financial benefit.

Why should we not do the same ... share information and discredit obvious mistruths

Too true.

Up until yesterday I was under the impression that Cofidis treated Armstrong shabbily in the light of his cancer ordeal and tried to wriggle out of the original contract.
Having listened to an interview with David Walsh, where he details Pierre Ballester's account of what actually happened, I find myself having to question everything that comes out of the Armstrong side even more. I dug a little and found a couple of interesting accounts. One from 1998 which has the original "Cofidis dump Armstrong" line & another that paints a very different and frankly more plausible story.

Armstrong's account 1998 - http://outsideonline.com/magazine/0498/9804lance.html?page=4
Contrary View 2004 - Pierre Ballester in LA Confidentiel
Contrary View 2006 - http://competitorradio.competitor.com/2007/07/148david-walsh-part-1/ At 41 minutes in.
Contrary View 2009 - http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=87668&postcount=144

If it was not true when published in French in 2004, why did that not figure in the litigation? Why has he not refuted it vigorously as was his wont then?

My guess - because the documentation that would have been unearthed would, far from upholding his account, paint him in a very poor light.

 

[stephens]

I will say one thing, believing that Armstrong used EPO (very early on) and blood doping (since then) and maybe even had access to substances few have heard of, and just happened to get away with it because of good timing or a little inside info here or there, is so much easier to believe than the massive 12 year successful conspiracy involving dozens of people and half a dozen official organizations and even a few governments we are now being asked to believe.

And if it is true, the anger expressed here seems quite misplaced. I mean, there is just not enough time in the day for Armstrong to pedal the bike, eat, sleep, do all the public appearances and foundation stuff (we can argue about its effectiveness but can't argue that it takes up his time), chase women, and then still somehow manage this massive conspiracy with such precision. In other words, I'm asking who was really managing all this stuff? Heck, at least Armstrong had to pedal the bike - the other players just created and exploited the situation for their own gain while not having to put in all the physical effort and risks (to health and liberty).

 

[jimbob_in_co]

Even the comments on the transcripts of the NPR story about the SI article on Wed afternoon are amazing:

NPR: Sports-Illustrateds-Case-Against-Lance-Armstrong

"Lance is the most tested athelete in sports. No proof, ever, of wrong doing. Just bitter, washed up old cyclists, who can't stand someone overshadowing them."

"Honestly...this is what the FDA is going to waste their time and our tax money on. I am a big sports guy, and to be honest I could care less if Lance doped or not (I don't think he did, how many test does the guy have to pass)."

How hard and painful the fall will be for so many.

 

[blackcat]

guerilla strategy by Public Strategies.

 

[stephens]

guerilla strategy by Public Strategies.

I'm sure there is some of that, but you also have to allow for the phenomenon I touched on a few pages ago: that some people really don't feel it's their job to try to draw conclusions from the outside about someone's guilt or innocence and so they default back to the "never failed a test," as the basis of their public opinion on the matter.

And as I've also said before, the American mind frame is one in which one is not really guilty of something until it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a fair manner. That's because the agreement we have with our society is not that we will follow the law: we simply agree that if we are caught and proven to have violated the law, we will pay the penalty and not try to weasel out of it (this is why if Novitsky can prove a bribe to cover up a real official doping test positive is so important: the US public will really turn on Armstrong for that). So we can all break dozens of laws each day (and we do) and not feel ourselves to be criminals because there is a huge missing piece to the story: being caught and the government proving it. That last piece is missing against Armstrong as well, so many people are interested in reserving guilty judgement until it is in place.

 

[cprior]

guerilla strategy by Public Strategies.

I too thought this was some kind of spam -- and the website offers a conventient way to report it as such. At least.

 

[Ferminal]

well Susan, you have not seen BroDeals fail metaphors for Wigans of planes crashing into buildings.

tbh I was thinking about them not long ago... they were missing this off-season.

 

[Benotti69]

I will say one thing, believing that Armstrong used EPO (very early on) and blood doping (since then) and maybe even had access to substances few have heard of, and just happened to get away with it because of good timing or a little inside info here or there, is so much easier to believe than the massive 12 year successful conspiracy involving dozens of people and half a dozen official organizations and even a few governments we are now being asked to believe.

And if it is true, the anger expressed here seems quite misplaced. I mean, there is just not enough time in the day for Armstrong to pedal the bike, eat, sleep, do all the public appearances and foundation stuff (we can argue about its effectiveness but can't argue that it takes up his time), chase women, and then still somehow manage this massive conspiracy with such precision. In other words, I'm asking who was really managing all this stuff? Heck, at least Armstrong had to pedal the bike - the other players just created and exploited the situation for their own gain while not having to put in all the physical effort and risks (to health and liberty).

you make it sound like he did everything everyday.

it's easy to manage a conspiracy when most of the media are in on it. How many non cycling media gave or gives a sh!t about cycling? easy for a minority sport to keep perpetrating the myth to the many with most of the media spouting the Armstrong press releases. even today they still call him the most tested athlete in history which is more PR BS. too lazy to bother uncovering the truth. its why politicians get away with so much for so long before they get caught. lazy people being spoon fed lazy journalism via PR companies and spin doctors.

 

[frenchfry]

you make it sound like he did everything everyday.

it's easy to manage a conspiracy when most of the media are in on it. How many non cycling media gave or gives a sh!t about cycling? easy for a minority sport to keep perpetrating the myth to the many with most of the media spouting the Armstrong press releases. even today they still call him the most tested athlete in history which is more PR BS. too lazy to bother uncovering the truth. its why politicians get away with so much for so long before they get caught. lazy people being spoon fed lazy journalism via PR companies and spin doctors.

This is an interesting point.

I think the amazing thing about this entire story is that so many people DID know some of the facts, yet it was all so enormous that no 1 person could come out without looking foolish. There were already some cracks (the l'Equipe article Walsh's books, Kimmage) but the media complicity "controlled" by Armstrong meant that the simplistic talking points and blatant lies went unchallenged - except by the cycling forum junkies.

An example of media complicity comes from an interview with Thierry Adam of France Televisions who says that he knew certain compromising facts about Armstrong's doping but refused to reveal them and he remains an Armstrong fanboy to this day. To a certain this complicity can be explained away by hookers and blow, and also to the desire for access to the big star. But another reason could be that no one person could come out on his own for fear of being ridiculed and ostracized. The Landis revelations helped cross this barrier and now there appears to be no end to the discrediting of Lancey-poo.