The Tour de France...the Armstrong vs. Contador show

[Parrot23]

Still has to be said:

It's not a reasonable proposition to beat proven dopers in the Tour year after year by some wide margins AND be clean. Not possible--at all--from the what we know about the performance enhancing effects of autologous blood boosting (for one), which has been largely undetectable and untested. Fact. (NB: think of Lasse Viren 70s; the Kenyans and Ethiopians sure did).

NB: the above argument is the one that makes Lance very, very nervous. When asked about it, his responses are weak at the very best (and that's putting it mildly). He knows his position on this is simply not tenable. So he changes the subject to cancer, aerodynamics, diet, schadenfreude, what have you.

Why obsess about never failing a test when the single largest performance booster has been, and largely still is, undetectable. There are huge holes here that you could drive a Mack truck through many times over, backwards and forwards, and you claim test results are airtight, LOL. There are others as well (Ferrari, Conconi, Cechinni, Fuentes etc. are geniuses in having largely solved the blood chemistry problem of high endurance athletes, I'll give you that). Superb work--ethics aside.

You're an ex-FBI agent. These guys could put the best of organized crime to shame for their sheer practicality and chutzpa. They are talented, smart, and resourceful. You will very well know how many, many highy questionable people and fraudsters are untouchable for long periods of time. Anybody in law enforcement knows that. That doesn't prevent reasonable people from having reasonable doubts.

Otherwise we turn logic on its head. There's a hell of a lot of reasonable doubt here. There's just no question about it.

Reading some recent (circa last 10 years) Tour history would be helpful here.

Also what Armstrong is doing in Aspen is par for the course. Nothing unusual there. Don't fall for the Livestrong marketing blitz. I'm sure there are others who don't win (doped or undoped, higher or lower natural abilities) who are doing more, and more intensively, at greater personal cost. He has no monopoly on this. I wouldn't be credulous and buy into the Greek heroic myth-making of a well-oiled public relations machine with lots of $'s at stake.

P.S.: still hope he does very well at the Tour and is in the thick of the things (lots of respect for him from a competitive viewpoint). There is a range of riders I really hope he beats. Great fighter and no one is forcing him to get off the sofa and put his credibility on the line (except maybe Don Catlin was proposing this--and, clearly, there are ALSO commercial/public relations interests at stake motivating the return and others' investment in it).

BroDeal: please post your list of the podium placers in the Tour for the last 10 years or so with the asterisks beside their names.

 

[Anonymous]

Lack of a chain of custody. Pure and simple. I could delve into the legal specifics but I won't "caste pearls before swine." There is a wide chasm of doubt that the characteristics of the sample, assuming it was even Armstrong's sample at all, from 1999, just after acquired, had the same exact unaltered charactersitics of the samples Ashenden tested 6 years later. Its really very simple. Degradation of sample, handling errors, tampering, contaminated equipment, etc. etc. etc. The list could go on and on. WHICH IS WHY ALL CREDIBLE SPORTING BODIES HAVE AN "A" AND A "B" SAMPLE TO DRASTICALLY MITIGATE SUCH ERRORS. Such "evidence" and "proof" as Ashenden implies would be laughed out of court. Why? because it is suspect and specious. Makes great fodder for Internet blogs but "proof" of doping??? Not by a long shot.

Bullsh!t. Show me the actual problems with the chain of custody. Not the possible, but the actual proof there are problems with the chain of custody. The fact is that there was clearly synthetic EPO in all 6 samples and that if it would be laughed out of court, Armstrong would have sued. It is the most damning evidence against him, the proof of whose samples they are was obtained by dishonest means (they lied to him about what they wanted to do with the numbers. Sucks for him) and you and I both know that in a civil court, which is what the case would be had he had the balls to bring against the journalists and everyone involved, would involve a burden of proof that relies on the preponderance of the evidence. Clearly Ashenden's testimony would prove incredibly damning against Mr Armstrong should he testify in front of a jury.

You can try to blow that smoke up the as$ of someone who doesn't actually understand law, but if you do your postulations are meaningless rhetorical fodder meant to obfuscate the reality that there was synthetic EPO in the urine.

Nice try, but just because you know what "chain of custody" is and have heard arguments using that term does not mean you are fully informed of what if any issues there actually are with those specific samples. My guess is that their whereabouts and various handlings were well documented, and would prove impossible for an attorney to disprove in a court where there is a civil burden of proof and not a criminal one.

 

[byu123]

Bullsh!t. Show me the actual problems with the chain of custody. . . . would involve a burden of proof that relies on the preponderance of the evidence. . . . My guess is that . . . .

"This is why you fail." A key element of proof is which party has the initial burden. If Ashenden is going to postulate that Armstrong doped and make that argument based on samples . . . the burden of proving the chain of custody would be on him. Its simple legal procedure.

Thats why you are "guessing."

I'm not guessing. I know from experience, education and practice. The claims Ashenden makes, based on the sample, would require him to "prove" the chain of custody whether the trial were criminal or civil. Ashenden would be the one who would have to "show the actual [absence of] problems with the chain of custody." Thats why the term "prove the chain of custody" is used in everyday legal parlance EVERYWHERE. Again . . . Ashenden's musings makes good fodder for blogs and what not . . . but "proof" of anything that would actually stand the light of day in some sort of legal proceding . . . not by a long shot.

 

[byu123]

Still has to be said:

It's not a reasonable proposition to beat proven dopers in the Tour year after year AND be clean. Not possible--at all

Let me see if I follow this sound logic.

Some people cheat. Its not possible for a non-cheater to beat a cheater. Therefore, all winners in any sport in which anyone cheats in is therefore a cheater also.

Hmmm . . . you might want to think about that some more and try again.

 

[Anonymous]

"This is why you fail." A key element of proof is which party has the initial burden. If Ashenden is going to postulate that Armstrong doped and make that argument based on samples . . . the burden of proving the chain of custody would be on him. Its simple legal procedure.

Thats why you are "guessing."

I'm not guessing. I know from experience, education and practice. The claims Ashenden makes, based on the sample, would require him to "prove" the chain of custody whether the trial were criminal or civil. Ashenden would be the one who would have to "show the actual [absence of] problems with the chain of custody." Thats why the term "prove the chain of custody" is used in everyday legal parlance EVERYWHERE. Again . . . Ashenden's musings makes good fodder for blogs and what not but "proof" of anything that would actually stand the light of day in some sort of legal proceding . . . not by a long shot.

This is where you don't know what you are talking about. In a civil case "preponderance of the evidence" literally means who tipped the scales in their favor. Both sides would produce evidence on that specific topic, but whomever was more persuasive to a jury gets the marbles. I think you need to take some more law classes.

As to the chain of custody, the plaintiff in that case (because Armstrong would be plaintiff if he had the balls to sue) would have to prove the chain of custody was flawed. See, the chain of custody exists already. A chain of custody is the legal trail of any given piece of evidence. Those samples have one as do any samples. It would be the burden of the plaintiff to prove there is a flaw.

Now that you should know what you are talking about, show me the flaws in the chain of custody for those specific samples. Not probability of occurrence, or possible problems in the chain, but actual problems. Oh wait, you can't. Another fanboy who will now have to resort to insult.

Dang

 

[Parrot23]

Therefore, all winners in any sport in which anyone cheats in is therefore a cheater also.

Hmmm . . . you might want to think about that some more and try again.

That is a huge non-sequitur--and strawman. Puffing smoke. Two errors. Check Wikipedia or any other source on what this means. Don Quixote-like fallacy.

You need to read up on the effects of undetectable, untested autologous blood-doping. It's not like cheating at cards, LOL, or golf scores. Apples and oranges. Not 7 times in a row when much of the rest of the very highest placers have been PROVEN dopers, etc. with performance gains of circa 10% at the very minimum. Difference in times between winners and losers in a GT is a tiny fraction of 1% in a GT. ROFLMAO.

You clearly don't know the history of the Tour and its podium for the last 10 years. Why even try to argue when you don't know the facts? We know you admire Armstrong. And so do I. But that's not the basis of a reasonable argument.

Even Lance knows much better, and he doesn't even have a U. education. Very smart guy, though, and a winner. Would still like to see him do well and leave some others in the dust at the Tour.

 

[byu123]

. . . the plaintiff in that case (because Armstrong would be plaintiff if he had the balls to sue) would have to prove the chain of custody was flawed.

OK . . . its getting tortured and unintelligble but let me see if I follow this latest briilliant deduction.

Some nobody makes outlandish unsubstantiated claims against a multi-millionaire somebody who has better things to do than respond to every baseless claim. Since the somebody doesn't respond to the nobody's outlandish claims in court, in a civil trial for money he doesn't need; the claims of the nobody must be true since the somebody didn't challenge. Moreover, if such a hypothetical trial had taken place then the somebody would of had to prove or disprove "X."

Therefore the nobody is right, the somebody is wrong, and "X" is true. Is that the argument you are making??? Come one don't embarrass yourself. You should stick to "rah rah rah . . . cycling" not logic and law.

 

[byu123]

That is a huge non-sequitur--and strawman.

My point exactly. I'm glad you agree.

 

[Anonymous]

OK . . . its getting tortured and unintelligble but let me see if I follow this latest briilliant deduction.

Some nobody makes outlandish unsubstantiated claims against a multi-millionaire somebody who has better things to do than respond to every baseless claim. Since the somebody doesn't respond to the nobody's outlandish claims in court in a civil trial for money he doesn't need, the claims of the nobody must be true since the somebody didn't challenge. Moreover, if such a hypothetical trial had taken place then the somebody would of had to prove or disprove "X."

Therefore the nobody is right, the somebody is wrong, and "X" is true. Is that the argument you are making??? Come one don't embarrass yourself. You should stick to "rah rah rah . . . cycling" not logic and law.

Funny, he sued everyone right up until then. Then nothing....I wonder why?

As for the rest, I realize it must be humbling with your education and experience to write such incredibly ignorant statements that show little to no evidence of said education and experience, but hey ease up. Just swallow real hard and say it "I didn't know what I was talking about when I wrote all that sh!t." and move on.

You are the one that brought up a hypothetical trial. I merely brought out the reality of what that trial would most likely be based on the fact that I don't think Ashenden has any legal claim against Armstrong considering Ashenden is the one making the disputed claim.

Now you not only sound stupid, but you don't even recognize who started the discussion in the first place. I didn't come in talking about some fancied testimony in a trial that didn't/doesn't exist. That would be you.

Dang

 

[Anonymous]

Now come on big boy, say it: "I was wrong."

 

[Anonymous]

Here, let me help you remember.

Lack of a chain of custody. Pure and simple. I could delve into the legal specifics but I won't "caste pearls before swine." There is a wide chasm of doubt that the characteristics of the sample, assuming it was even Armstrong's sample at all, from 1999, just after acquired, had the same exact unaltered charactersitics of the samples Ashenden tested 6 years later. Its really very simple. Degradation of sample, handling errors, tampering, contaminated equipment, etc. etc. etc. The list could go on and on. WHICH IS WHY ALL CREDIBLE SPORTING BODIES HAVE AN "A" AND A "B" SAMPLE TO DRASTICALLY MITIGATE SUCH ERRORS. Such "evidence" and "proof" as Ashenden implies would be laughed out of court. Why? because it is suspect and specious. Makes great fodder for Internet blogs but "proof" of doping??? Not by a long shot.

I see you learned the word "specious" at BYU, so you got that goin' for you....

 

[Robert Merivel]

It's an unfortunate fact for many well-known athletes that they feel they have to come up with "noble" explanations that don't ring true ("I need security for my family", "I want to spend more time with the kids"). I think Lance's ultimate motivation is pretty apparent: like many athletes who became tired of the grind and retired prematurely, he has discovered that there is no substitute for the thrill of competition. As he discovered he still had some ability to compete, it was an irresistible attraction to return to the peloton. There are many pro athletes who have done the same thing--got burned out, retired, then after a couple of years away from the sport, realized they missed it. Not that he might not get there, but Armstrong is still far away from the embarrassment of Michael Jordan or Bret Favre.

I have trouble accepting the idea that self-promotion is the only or even the primary motivation--the training to ride a grand tour is just too damn hard to do it for a reason that shallow.

As a rule, I try to avoid speculating on personal motives, since none of us really know these guys or what they are thinking. You can only go on data: Armstrong worked as a domestique in support of Leipheimer in both the Tour of California and the Giro (I understand that is a limited comparison because they are friends and Armstrong was just getting back his conditioning). I know that back in December, Armstrong made statements that sounded as though he felt entitled to be team leader. I also know that after the Giro, he publicly stated that he was firmly grounded in reality and Contador had shown he was the strongest grand tour rider (again, limited value because they are obviously trying to put on a public front).

To break my rule about speculation, here is my conclusion of how things stand: given that he seems to be a good shape, I think Armstrong is going for a "limited Hinault"--i.e. deep down, he is hoping to find the magic that will allow him to emerge as the strongest rider and go for the win, but I don't think he will be as blatant about sabotaging his teammate as Hinault was in 1986. I think the opening TT will be crucial in that regard, as well as the first mountain stage. I think if AC demonstrates clear superiority, Armstrong will ride for him in strong support, the way he did for Leipheimer. To me, the question will be, if the performances are more equal, at what point do you risk hurting the overall team while still deciding who is the leader? Will AC be allowed to take off in the mountains, or will he be restrained until later in the race? Despite their long relationship, I expect JB to make the call for the best interests of the team, not for LA. He may have already established that by leaving Noval and Horner off the TdF squad.

It won't be boring, that's for sure.

Yes, I am very impressed with the quality of this post. This is someone whose team I would want to be on. I seem to agree with the many points. As I mentioned in the OP, just as Basso so aptly described Lance as becoming a "beast", I think he cognized that directly from the Akashic Records. For what it's worth, I believe Lance has very deep seated anger, possibly from being Fatherless as a youth, and even though he has improved in that department (doesn't seem so blatantly arrogant on the surface anymore), possibly from taking on more responsibility as a Father himself. So, one of the reasons he came back, out of retirement, was to blow off that anger energy in the arena he's truly at home in. Basso knows about that energy in Lance. And I think Basso knows Lance possibly better than those who "merge" with this forum on a daily basis.

Yes, July 4th, Independence day in America, will tell it all. There is no f...king way Lance will not give it more than ever before. The motivation will be high octane with a little nitro mixed in. What a story this already is. He's racing for Horner, for his family, the "Cancer" world, and his followers (pun intended). He's p***ed about Horner and that story. He's fueled up. And he's peaking perfectly considering how the last few months have unfolded. I'm excited! This Tour could set some records. I never thought Lance would get beat in the last 5 tours he did. He retired. He's back. And he's really back! We are talking historic!

The "D..O..P..I..N..G" thing is no longer relevant (even if it is still taking place with "other" riders) and those, where ever they are in the universe, who have this obsessive, compulsion to make us either believers of their "truth" or for them to "prove something to the world; they are knowers of Reality," have exactly what those words, obsessive and compulsive imply; a disorder. They can't stop so don't expect them to. But it's okay. Just remember that when you read their next rant about "you know what," it's a disorder, and it's compulsive, and there is some obsession to reach out to the fallen ones who don't "get it," and "save" them, even though there is nothing to be saved from. Even if you got it, and everybody else got it, they will still continue. Maybe a different subject, like why the economy is in a death spiral and everyone is in denial about it. What ever the subject is, it won't matter. They can't stop. So, it's just best to nod your head forward and backward when communicating with them...it makes them less agitated and their next rant seems less fired up... same exact jargon, just less intensity behind it.

Hey, but nobody is perfect at this forum, so it's cool.

 

[BroDeal]

Lack of a chain of custody. Pure and simple. I could delve into the legal specifics but I won't "caste pearls before swine." There is a wide chasm of doubt that the characteristics of the sample, assuming it was even Armstrong's sample at all, from 1999, just after acquired, had the same exact unaltered charactersitics of the samples Ashenden tested 6 years later. Its really very simple. Degradation of sample, handling errors, tampering, contaminated equipment, etc. etc. etc. The list could go on and on. WHICH IS WHY ALL CREDIBLE SPORTING BODIES HAVE AN "A" AND A "B" SAMPLE TO DRASTICALLY MITIGATE SUCH ERRORS. Such "evidence" and "proof" as Ashenden implies would be laughed out of court. Why? because it is suspect and specious. Makes great fodder for Internet blogs but "proof" of doping??? Not by a long shot.

LMAO. We often joke that the fanboys are the most naive and clueless of fans, but this takes the cake. Someone who is not even a cyclist and only follows the sport because he idolizes Armstrong as the epitome of a heroic survivor comes in here to set people straight about Armstrong's doping, people who have in some cases followed the sport for decades, people who have watched the sport's doping scandals unfold in real-time. To top it off you set us straight about Dr. Ashenden, one of the developers of the EPO test and one of the world's foremost experts in the detection of EPO. Perhaps we should post a link for Dr. Parisotto, another developer of the EPO test who also agrees that the 1999 samples show that Armstrong doped. You can set us straight on him as well. My respect for the FBI just went into the crapper.

Let's review, for fun's sake, some of the circumstantial evidence that surrounds those 1999 positives.

1) The samples were tested anonymously. The lab had no knowledge of who each sample belonged to. I will defer to Ashenden on the validity of the testing procedure.

2) The identity of the samples' owners was only known by the UCI. The lab had no access to the doping forms then and they still do not.

3) Armstrong's samples were identified a long time after the testing was completed by a journalist who obtained Armstrong's doping forms from the UCI with Armstrong's permission.

4) Six of the positive samples turned out to be Armstrong's.

5) The pattern of the tested samples matches what would be expected as a rider injects EPO and the over the course of a few days it becomes harder to detect.

6) Armstrong was recently offered the chance to have the samples retested, including a DNA test to show that they were really his. He refused.

7) Postal's soigneur Emma O'Reilly was asked by Armstrong to dispose of syringes and other doping paraphernalia before the 1999 TdF. She also delivered drugs to Armstrong.

8) O'Reilly helped Armstrong cover up injection marks with make-up.

9) Another Postal soigneur, Ron Jongen, listened to Johan Bruyneel talking on the eve of the 1999 TdF about how all the riders' hematocrits were just under the 50% limit.

9) The chance of a person in the general population being at or near a 50% hematocrit is roughly 2%. Trained endurance athletes have an even smaller chance of being at 50%. Take 2/100 and raise it to the ninth power. The chance of nine riders having Hcts near 50% is close to the chance of winning the lottery.

10) On team Motorola, Armstrong encouraged his teammates to use EPO. He entered into an agreement with the other riders that all riders on the 1995 TdF squad would use EPO.

11) Armstrong encouraged members of Postal, like Andreu and Vaughters, to dope. He told his teammates that it was normal and everyone else was doing it.

12) When Armstrong joined Postal, he brought on board Johan Bruyneel, a man who was nicknamed the Hog because of the vast quantities of drugs he consumed while on team ONCE.

13) Team ONCE had a teamwide doping program since before 1998.

14) Dr. Prentice Steffan, who had refused to help Tyler Hamilton and Marty Jemisen dope, was removed from Team Postal.

15) Bruyneel brought doctors from Team Once to replace Steffan.

16) Armstrong had a long term relationship with Dr. Ferrari, an expert in the use of EPO.

17) Armstrong kept his relationship secret. It was only discovered when an Italian police investigation of Ferrari revealed that Armstrong was periodically travelling to Italy to see Dr. Ferrari.

18) When the rider Simeoni testified that Dr. Ferrari had helped him dope, Armstrong maintained the peloton's policy of omerta by punishing Simeoni during a race.

19) After he prevented Simeoni from being included in a break, Armstrong was seen to make a "zip the lips" gesture to other riders. Armstrong's teammates spit on Simeoni as he rolled past.

20) In a phone call to Greg Lemond about the revelations that he had been seeing Dr. Ferrari, Armstrong said that using EPO was no big deal and everyone did it.

21) In the 1999 TdF, Armstrong told Christophe Bassons, who was revealed to be the one clean athlete on Team Festina and had been speaking out about doping, to stop talking about doping. He encouraged Bassons to leave the sport.

22) As a way to explain his sudden rise, Armstrong constructed and maintained a lie that he had lost large amounts of weight. This was shown to be untrue during the SCA case.

I could go on and on and on. Read From Lance to Landis then come back here and tell us that Armstrong is clean. The circumstantial case against Armstrong is damning. He would be convicted in any court in the land.

 

[byu123]

Funny, he sued everyone right up until then. Then nothing....I wonder why?

Uh . . . how about a complete settlement in his favor for $5 million plus $2.5 million in attorney's fees on top. Sounds like convincing vindication to me.

http://velonews.com/article/10091

 

[Anonymous]

I see you learned the word "specious" at BYU, so you got that goin' for you....

Oh yea, and you were on a top 20 team there too......I'll bet that impresses the ladies down at the "People used to look up to us" bar.

 

[Anonymous]

Uh . . . how about a complete settlement in his favor for $5 million plus $2.5 million in attorney's fees on top. Sounds like convincing vindication to me.

http://velonews.com/article/10091

Uh, how about the fact that the most damning evidence against him, you know, the evidence that shows he took synthetic EPO was never challenged? Hell, if that were untrue, $7.5 million would be the appetizer.

Dang.

Oh, and the arbitration of which you speak proved none of what Armstrong claims. That is publicity, not fact, and you have no idea how stupid you look bringing that up in regards to the topic of the 6 positive samples.

Now again, with feeling, sing it as loud as you can byu "I was wrong."

 

[byu123]

LMAO. We often joke that the fanboys are the most naive and clueless of fans, but this takes the cake. Someone who is not even a cyclist and only follows the sport because he idolizes Armstrong as the epitome of a heroic survivor comes in here to set people straight about Armstrong's doping, people who have in some cases followed the sport for decades, people who have watched the sport's doping scandals unfold in real-time. To top it off you set us straight about Dr. Ashenden, one of the developers of the EPO test and one of the world's foremost experts in the detection of EPO. Perhaps we should post a link for Dr. Parisotto, another developer of the EPO test who also agrees that the 1999 samples show that Armstrong doped. You can set us straight on him as well. My respect for the FBI just went into the crapper.

Let's review, for fun's sake, some of the circumstantial evidence that surrounds those 1999 positives.

1) The samples were tested anonymously. The lab had no knowledge of who each sample belonged to. I will defer to Ashenden on the validity of the testing procedure.

2) The identity of the samples' owners was only known by the UCI. The lab had no access to the doping forms then and they still do not.

3) Armstrong's samples were identified a long time after the testing was completed by a journalist who obtained Armstrong's doping forms from the UCI with Armstrong's permission.

4) Six of the positive samples turned out to be Armstrong's.

5) The pattern of the tested samples matches what would be expected as a rider injects EPO and the over the course of a few days it becomes harder to detect.

6) Armstrong was recently offered the chance to have the samples retested, including a DNA test to show that they were really his. He refused.

7) Postal's soigneur Emma O'Reilly was asked by Armstrong to dispose of syringes and other doping paraphernalia before the 1999 TdF. She also delivered drugs to Armstrong.

8) O'Reilly helped Armstrong cover up injection marks with make-up.

9) Another Postal soigneur, Ron Jongen, listened to Johan Bruyneel talking on the eve of the 1999 TdF about how all the riders' hematocrits were just under the 50% limit.

9) The chance of a person in the general population being at or near a 50% hematocrit is roughly 2%. Trained endurance athletes have an even smaller chance of being at 50%. Take 2/100 and raise it to the ninth power. The chance of nine riders having Hcts near 50% is close to the chance of winning the lottery.

10) On team Motorola, Armstrong encouraged his teammates to use EPO. He entered into an agreement with the other riders that all riders on the 1995 TdF squad would use EPO.

11) Armstrong encouraged members of Postal, like Andreu and Vaughters, to dope. He told his teammates that it was normal and everyone else was doing it.

12) When Armstrong joined Postal, he brought on board Johan Bruyneel, a man who was nicknamed the Hog because of the vast quantities of drugs he consumed while on team ONCE.

13) Team ONCE had a teamwide doping program since before 1998.

14) Dr. Prentice Steffan, who had refused to help Tyler Hamilton and Marty Jemisen dope, was removed from Team Postal.

15) Bruyneel brought doctors from Team Once to replace Steffan.

16) Armstrong had a long term relationship with Dr. Ferrari, an expert in the use of EPO.

17) Armstrong kept his relationship secret. It was only discovered when an Italian police investigation of Ferrari revealed that Armstrong was periodically travelling to Italy to see Dr. Ferrari.

18) When the rider Simeoni testified that Dr. Ferrari had helped him dope, Armstrong maintained the peloton's policy of omerta by punishing Simeoni during a race.

19) After he prevented Simeoni from being included in a break, Armstrong was seen to make a "zip the lips" gesture to other riders. Armstrong's teammates spit on Simeoni as he rolled past.

20) In a phone call to Greg Lemond about the revelations that he had been seeing Dr. Ferrari, Armstrong said that using EPO was no big deal and everyone did it.

21) In the 1999 TdF, Armstrong told Christophe Bassons, who was revealed to be the one clean athlete on Team Festina and had been speaking out about doping, to stop talking about doping. He encouraged Bassons to leave the sport.

22) As a way to explain his sudden rise, Armstrong constructed and maintained a lie that he had lost large amounts of weight. This was shown to be untrue during the SCA case.

I could go on and on and on. Read From Lance to Landis then come back here and tell us that Armstrong is clean. The circumstantial case against Armstrong is damning. He would be convicted in any court in the land.

Right so all of this mindless, hearsay, "he said she said" BS is the standard . . . not a scientifically administered test using strict chain of custody and dual sample proceedures.

Its OK . . . so you imagine the FBI is like the X-Files, "24", and CSI. Its actually more sitting down with the US Attorney and establishing solid facts and evidence which can stand the light of day in court. This complete line of BS you spew is interesting to muse over, may convince a large majority of the weak minded simpleton's in the world, and is good fodder for Internet blogs. But solid evidence in court . . . not by a long shot. No worries your appreciation of the FBI is not needed. We do our job regardless.

Psst . . . I actually worked on this case . . . http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=3033532 So I am very well aware of "proof" as required in a doping case, the evil of PEDs, and what it takes to make a case in the real world . . . not some imagined manufactured case from a series of Internet blogs. Oh BTW you get a very thick skin investigating Meth dealers, working scum sucking drug informants, and the like so don't worry I can take it. I do find the weak reasoning of the Armstrong haters amusing and entertaining however.

 

[Anonymous]

Bro, you are right, fanboys like this really have no idea of just how little they know regarding any of this. I guess we need to just forget everything we have learned over the years and start fresh so that they won't look so incompetent. It is especially bad coming from an FBI trained legal assassin whose knowledge and edumikation have taught him nothing about the burden of proof in civil cases, nor what would constitute as fact should his hero grow a full set and sue the people making the most damning claims against him.

 

[Anonymous]

Right so all of this mindless, hearsay, "he said she said" BS is the standard . . . not a scientifically administered test using strict chain of custody and dual sample proceedures.

Its OK . . . so you imagine the FBI is like the X-Files, "24", and CSI. Its actually more sitting down with the US Attorney and establishing solid facts and evidence which can stand the light of day in court. This complete line of BS you spew is interest, may convince a large majority of the weak minded simpleton's in the world, and is good fodder for Internet blogs. But solid evidence in court . . . not by a long shot. No worrys your appreciation of the FBI is not needed. We do our job regardless.

Dang you don't quit when you are behind. It wouldn't be criminal, therefore there is no US Attorney. It would be brought out in a civil trial. Again, you really should consider not posting.

Again, show me the chain of custody is flawed. How do you know it wasn't "strict?" Oh wait, you don't.

The worst part is that you don't even know enough about all of this to know how stupid you look.

Just stop it before you lose your job for incompetence.

 

[Anonymous]

Psst . . . I actually worked on this case . . . http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=3033532 So I am very well aware of "proof" as required in a doping case, the evil of PEDs, and what it takes to make a case in the real world . . . not some imagined manufactured case from a series of Internet blogs. Oh BTW you get a very thick skin investigating Meth dealers, working scum sucking drug informants, and the like so don't worry I can take it. I do find the weak reasoning of the Armstrong haters amusing and entertaining however.

There is no doping case involving those samples. There cannot be. It doesn't change these two facts.

1. There was synthetic EPO in 6 samples that by evidence of the chain of custody were actually Armstrong's samples. Unless you have any new evidence to the contrary.

2. Any trial that would involve that evidence would have to be civil because there cannot be one for a doping violation because there were only B samples. There couldn't be any criminal trial involving the FBI or US Attorney because Armstrong didn't break a US law on US soil based on the fact the samples were taken in France.

What we are left with is this: The 6 positives have been talked about everywhere. Papers have said he doped based on them. I say he doped based on them. Mr Armstrong has never legally challenged them (the most damning evidence against him) for a reason that is clear to anyone who isn't a deluded fanboy.

Gosh you are proving that college athletes really are thick.

Psst...as for the case you worked on, don't show them this thread because you might never work on another.

 

[BroDeal]

Right so all of this mindless, hearsay, "he said she said" BS is the standard . . .

Every one of those "he said she said" points has first hand witnesses who have come forward.

Again, read From Lance to Landis then get back to us when you actually know what you are talking about.

 

[Anonymous]

Every one of those "he said she said" points has first hand witnesses who have come forward.

Again, read From Lance to Landis then get back to us when you actually know what you are talking about.

OK Bro, I am finished with the guy too. No reason to continue with someone so experienced and educated in the facts surrounding all of this. The country needs him.

 

[byu123]

It wouldn't be criminal, therefore there is no US Attorney. It would be brought out in a civil trial.

Of course it would'nt be criminal never said otherwise. The point was the difference between evidence required for a legal proceeding as opposed to the "I saw this on the Internet" so it must be true logic and line of thought.

Let me help you out on one thing however, US Attorneys represent the USG in a variety of civil suits.

Its OK "Thoughtforfood" I won't be devastated if I fail to gain the admiration, approval, and respect from a towering intellect such as yours.

 

[byu123]

first hand witnesses who have come forward.

You have no idea how many "first hand witnesses" I have interviewed who turned out to be either 1) totally wrong, 2) delusional, 3) lying, 4) just stupid, 5) bias, etc. Its why you have this little thing called "cross examination" in a court and we don't just put a witness on the stand let them speak and conclude . . . "yep those are the facts exactly as it really happened."

It's OK . . . I don't expect a spiteful cycling "I hate Armstrong just because he is good" junky who spends months on this blog to really understand complicated notions such as sound logic and the intracies of procedural law. You should really stick to the "Internet innuendo" realm of debate. But . . . I do find mildly amusing your imagination that you are "schooling" me when it comes to the law, burdens of proof, evidence and the like.

 

[Anonymous]

Of course it would'nt be criminal never said otherwise. The point was the difference between evidence required for a legal proceeding as opposed to the "I saw this on the Internet" so it must be true logic and line of thought.

Let me help you out on one thing however, US Attorneys represent the USG in a variety of civil suits.

Its OK "Thoughtforfood" I won't be devastated if I fail to gain the admiration, approval, and respect from a towering intellect such as yours.

OK, I was gonna be done, but a couple of other points.

1. While you never stated it, your statements initially suggested you were referring to criminal burden of proof. See, I do know the difference.

2. Considering that the most likely case would involve Armstrong suing (because the samples in question are his, and the articles regarding them were in print), the US Attorney would never be involved. I mean, maybe Ashenden could sue, but why would he? He just helped develop the test that was used to find synthetic EPO in Armstrong's urine, and has now clearly stated that the test in fact did produce a positive result, and that the suggestion it could be "spiked" is fanciful rhetoric made by people who don't understand it would be impossible to do so in a way that would produce the result they found.

On a serious note, do us all a favor and actually read what is out there. Don't just rely on the statements of Armstrong and his attorneys about all of this. Would you only listen to the testimony of those who only provide the facts you want to hear in an FBI investigation? If so, please quit because you have failed in your duty as an officer of the US Government.

I think that, like just about anyone who actually bothers to look into it, you will see that the guy doped. He doped in the real world.

Go get 'em Tex.