The Sports Illustrated Article

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

Can you show where the Vrijman report was "subject to peer review"? Or did you make that up.

There was EPO in his sample - that in itself is evidence unless you want to show how nazi frogmen spiked the sample.

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.

Can you produce this published counter rebuttal that ripped the WADA rebuttal to shreads? Or did you just make that up too.

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.

What is Betsys "conflict of interest"? What did LeMond, Pound or Walsh gain?

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.

There won't be an anti doping sanction when you pay off the UCI & USAC.

A lie like "never tested positive" or "most tested athlete".....I agree, some people actual believe those lies.

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?"

Betsy Andreu does not sanction people - so your strawman is correct - what you fail to address is that what she said is that Lance doped, which was confirmed by the SI revelation of his T/E ratios before his cancer.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

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.

Well, perhpas you should do some research.

Radomski (MLB supplier to the Yankkes and others) was convicted of a felony.
Conte sits in prison, a convicted felon.
Greg Anderson sits in prison for contempt, protecting Bonds, whose perjury case is coming up.

The lost of athletes whose careers are in ruins from Balco is pretty long.

MLB did not have steroids on the banned list. Thus, the majority of them are clear from sanction but the stars won't make their hallowed Hall of Fame.

The parallels are simply not there between those two and what is happening there.

1. USPS was a sponsor of LA's team, and it will be proven that he and his cronies defrauded them, exposing them to a massive monetary fine.

2. Criminal investigation is indicated to involve drugs, wire/mail fraud, running a racket (controlling the sport) for monetary gain. Sounds like a RICO case to me. Better do some research there to pick up on their legal exposure.

 

[Oldman]

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.

You are breaking new ground in generalization, here. You're also ignoring overwhelming direct testimony by people that Armstrong associated with for many years. Assuming that so many would expose themselves to public ridicule, legal harassment and career suicide just to bring down the King is assuming that the American People can't think for themselves. Is OJ innocent? C'mon; I know many Americans that have already convicted him in their heart.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

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.

In my view, that's an abdication of responsibility. Fans who refuse to speak out against doping and its most blatant protagonists are complicit. I'm not as worried about what pros do under medical supervision as I am about what impressionable teenagers do, unsupervised, to emulate their heroes. That's why blatant dopers like Armstrong have to be exposed. I don't give a rats @rse whether that exposure is through some legal process, or through all the circumstantial information being collected and presented by media outlets.....including this forum. That's the "4th estate" working like it is supposed to IMO.

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.

Well, that's a fascinating insight into AN american mind frame. My interpretation of the agreement we each have with society, is that adults are responsible for choosing actions which are not detrimental to others. In that mind frame, most laws appear to be a minimum standard.

 

[DirtyWorks]

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.

I would argue that the point on the upside to building the myth was to keep the media property in business. Stuff about tearing down the myth trickles out near the apex of the myth building.

Then, when enough of the right properties start tearing a myth down, the rest jump in. They are keeping the media property in business tearing down the myth too.

This is a very common cycle.

 

[Sanitiser]

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.

The problem is that it was going to be a death by a thousand cuts from the media. There was never a smoking gun and a fatal gunshot.

 

[Benotti69]

The problem is that it was going to be a death by a thousand cuts from the media. There was never a smoking gun and a fatal gunshot.

i thought the epo found in his 1999 TdF sample is a smoking gun. what more do you need as evidence of doping.

Floyd Landis is another smoking gun. i dont dismiss his statement lacking credibility because Floyd lied to keep his TdF win.

There's the Andreu's who heard admit to taking PEDs in a hospital to Doctors treating him for his cancer.

There's Emily O'Reilly former Masseuse testimony.

There's the payment to UCI.

There's Stephen Swart's account from riding with LA on motorola.

so many guns and each with a cracking shot...

but each wound has been patched with complicity of the uci and the media.

but now what we see is a 7 time TdF dead man walking or riding (for now)

 

[Sanitiser]

In a trial by media that is a lot of circumstantial evidence that when added together makes a strong case however in dribs and drabs amounts to very little.

 

[Benotti69]

In a trial by media that is a lot of circumstantial evidence that when added together makes a strong case however in dribs and drabs amounts to very little.

trial by media????

the media found the epo from the 99 samples?

McQuaid has admitted the payment from LA, but cant produce the blood machine receipt he claims to have?

Betsy Andreu testified in a court that she heard him admit his PED use.

these examples are not media circumstantial evidence in the real world.

 

[Sanitiser]

Trial by media, court of public opinion etc. All these facts that were reported in the media would come out and either be dismissed as 'he says, she says', 'shady but not definite proof' or just buried altogether in a pro-Lance article.

The truth is that Lance Armstrong has no real future earning capital for the media and that's why they finally decided to hang him out to dry.

 

[Oldman]

Trial by media, court of public opinion etc. All these facts that were reported in the media would come out and either be dismissed as 'he says, she says', 'shady but not definite proof' or just buried altogether in a pro-Lance article.

The truth is that Lance Armstrong has no real future earning capital for the media and that's why they finally decided to hang him out to dry.

That's a generalization that Stephens would appreciate...Media is big business and carries big legal consequences for indefensible allegations. That SI, WSJ and others are willing to carry the story underlines the seriousness of available evidence. The investigators conducting the probe would keep the best for themselves to not compromise their case.

 

[Benotti69]

Trial by media, court of public opinion etc. All these facts that were reported in the media would come out and either be dismissed as 'he says, she says', 'shady but not definite proof' or just buried altogether in a pro-Lance article.

The truth is that Lance Armstrong has no real future earning capital for the media and that's why they finally decided to hang him out to dry.

the facts were dismissed by the media with a few exceptions because the powers that be, uci were complicit. if they did their job Armstrong would've been sanctioned and banned.

 

[D-Queued]

the facts were dismissed by the media with a few exceptions because the powers that be, uci were complicit. if they did their job Armstrong would've been sanctioned and banned.

Speaking of which, anyone remember those disappearing "I will publish all of the test scores"?

Might be worth another look:

http://cdn-community2.livestrong.co...c981f7be-e46c-4245-aa9d-d61ae110a264.Full.jpg (click on the link if you want to see the picture)

Two things appear to jump out:

1. BIG Jumps in HCT just before the Comeback Tour, and then again during the Tour.
2. Look at how many times he was NOT tested for EPO! Isn't that the whole reason for ooc testing? This dovetails well with the WADA IO observations that those riders in the '10 Tour with the highest risk profiles were not EPO tested.

It is possible that the UCI was not complicit. Then again, it is possible the Earth could stop spinning on its axis.

Dave.

 

[MacRoadie]

Resize it dave!!!!!!

 

[D-Queued]

Resize it dave!!!!!!

Link pls

Dave.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Resize it dave!!!!!!

No it's big enough, I can read it, thanks.

 

[MacRoadie]

I can read it, thanks.

So can I....from across the room.

Edit: Thanks Dave!

 

[luckyboy]

 

[D-Queued]

No it's big enough, I can read it, thanks.

No excuse, but the size was proportionate to the hot air from the PS campaign.

Dave.

 

[MacRoadie]

No excuse, but the size was proportionate to the hot air from the PS campaign.

Dave.

PM'd you on how to resize images.

 

[Ferminal]

Can someone tell me why Armstrong hasn't publically denied all these rumours and innuendo? When was the last time Armstrong publically stated "I've never taken performance enhancing drugs", definitely not since May.

 

[luckyboy]

I have coloured in the charts corresponding to the races he was in at the time. Also, the Tour results are separate and I have added info about the stages so people don't have to track stuff down.

Tenerife Training Proof - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2TVUiahoJI

 

[Ferminal]

Still get a kick out of seeing the Haemoglobin go from 14.3 at the start to 14.5 at the end.

Although maybe he took a bag after that first test and prior to Stage 1.

 

[goober]

Still get a kick out of seeing the Haemoglobin go from 14.3 at the start to 14.5 at the end.

Although maybe he took a bag after that first test and prior to Stage 1.

Why do these numbers bother you? I am trolling you FYI and you will fall into the trap if you try to use science to back up your issue with these numbers .

 

[luckyboy]

Anyone know what he was doing in the middle of June? Hct & Hb numbers at their highest there.

He won the Nevada City Classic 4 days after those numbers.