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

[byu123]

I say he doped based on them.

Doh! You got me! What unassailable proof that he in fact doped! I take back everything I said. You have finally brought to life the convincing proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it is all true because . . . you "Thoughtforfood" say so . . . .

[congrats you finally made me laugh outloud]

 

[Anonymous]

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.

Holy sh!t, you don't even know the burden of proof in a civil case and you have the nerve to write that....

Here, explain "preponderance of the evidence" to everyone so that we can see just how sharp you are in regards to "complicated notions such as sound logic and the intracies of procedural law."

Again, you might fool someone who isn't educated in such, but I am not one of those people. You flat out don't know what you are talking about and have avoided revisiting the posts where I show you that. I wonder not only why Armstrong doesn't sue over the doping allegations involving his 6 positives, but also why you don't refute the truth of what I wrote.....(psst...I know the answers to both, I am just being an ***)

 

[byu123]

Would you only listen to the testimony of those who only provide the facts you want to hear in an FBI investigation?

OK on a serious note. Of course not. But what rules the day is what goes beyond bias hearsay and unproven undeterminable statements of fact. When you have hundreds of negative test and these tests are the state of the art and standard in the industry for proving an issue . . . (i.e. a cyclist doped because a scientifically administered test according to standards was positive) . . . you have to have some solid evidence that what you propound is in fact true to overturn the weight of the hundreds of negative tests. It just isn't there. There is lots of smoke but no fire. If there were not hundreds of negative tests, the quantity of the smoke may win the day but the sheer volume of negative tests places a higher burden on those who would declare otherwise.

 

[BroDeal]

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,

6) Defendents who swore up and down that they were innocent but were guilty.
7) Well meaning rubes who were taken in by guilty defendents and refused to believe said defendents were guilty.
8) Not so well meaning rubes who really did not know what they were talking about but still insisted defendents must be innocent.

 

[byu123]

Holy sh!t, . . . I am just being an ***)

Come on "Thoughtforfood" you can aspire to something greater than that I know you can.

 

[BroDeal]

OK on a serious note. Of course not. But what rules the day is what goes beyond bias hearsay and unproven undeterminable statements of fact. When you have hundreds of negative test and these tests are the state of the art and standard in the industry for proving an issue . . . (i.e. a cyclist doped because a scientifically administered test according to standards was positive) . . . you have to have some solid evidence that what you propound is in fact true to overturn the weight of the hundreds of negative tests. It just isn't there. There is lots of smoke but no fire. If there were not hundreds of negative tests, the quantity of the smoke may win the day but the sheer volume of negative tests places a higher burden on those who would declare otherwise.

We have already gone over that. The hundreds of tests are near worthless because testing is ineffective. Many of the substances that the riders use are not detectable. Even substances that can be detected are usually not detected. Bernard Kohl said that 100 out of his 200 tests should have been positive.

You are also using a logical fallacy. It does not matter how many data points you have that prove a theory. All it takes is one data point, or counterexample, to disprove it. We have that data point. In fact we have six of them.

 

[Anonymous]

OK on a serious note. Of course not. But what rules the day is what goes beyond bias hearsay and unproven undeterminable statements of fact. When you have hundreds of negative test and these tests are the state of the art and standard in the industry for proving an issue . . . (i.e. a cyclist doped because a scientifically administered test according to standards was positive) . . . you have to have some solid evidence that what you propound is in fact true to overturn the weight of the hundreds of negative tests. It just isn't there. There is lots of smoke but no fire. If there were not hundreds of negative tests, the quantity of the smoke may win the day but the sheer volume of negative tests places a higher burden on those who would declare otherwise.

No I don't. I am not a court of law. I am not being sued by Mr Armstrong. This is an internet forum where issues such as this are discussed. I know that there are tens of thousands of tests that were negative for people who turned up positive. I know that there are plenty of measures taken to produce "negative" tests. I know that Dr Ferrari isn't an expert on how to ride up a mountain. He is a doping doctor which has been proven in a court of law. http://velonews.com/article/7047

You really do need to do some more research. I understand because I once was where you are on the subject as were many here. We didn't begin to believe otherwise until we actually read the information that is out there. You obviously have not, and that is not a barbed statement. You really do need to do some more reading if for no other reason than being able to converse in a more informed manner with those of us who have read it and believe he doped based on a preponderance of the evidence.

 

[Anonymous]

Come on "Thoughtforfood" you can aspire to something greater than that I know you can.

Why, Bill Maher makes a killing off of it.

 

[byu123]

It does not matter how many data points you have that prove a theory. All it takes is one data point to disprove it. We have that data point. In fact we have six of them.

Yea . . . and OJ didn't kill Nicole and Ron Goldman either . . . his attorneys disproved with one data point a whole string of evidence and a bunch of idiots bought it.

 

[byu123]

Why, Bill Maher makes a killing off of it.

On that we can be in complete agreement . . . Bill Maher is an a$$hole. LMAO.

 

[byu123]

Why, Bill Maher makes a killing off of it.

You better be carefull "Thoughtforfood" more sound wise cracks like that and I might be tempted to click the button on cyclingnews.com to make you my "friend" and you wouldn't want that.

 

[BroDeal]

Yea . . . and OJ didn't kill Nicole and Ron Goldman either . . . his attorneys disproved with one data point a whole string of evidence and a bunch of idiots bought it.

Jeebus. Are you even following the conversation?

You make a competely bogus argument that lots of negative tests somehow prove that Armstrong must have been clean. When called on it, you go off on O.J. If we want to bring O.J. into this then you are the Johnny Cochran here. You are the one using the Chewbacca defense against the mountain of evidence.

 

[byu123]

Why, Bill Maher makes a killing off of it.

Lets go for a twofer . . . "Global warming is a big scam wipped up by liberals to tax and spend us to death in new ways."

threefer . . . "Illegal immigration is killing our culture and country. Legal immigration is healthy and good but illegal immigration will be the deathnell of America as we know it."

fourfer . . . "The notion that our healthcare system can be efficiently run by the likes of those at the DMV is preposterous." [yes I see the irony of saying this as a gov. employee]

 

[BroDeal]

You better be carefull "Thoughtforfood" more sound wise cracks like that and I might be tempted to click the button on cyclingnews.com to make you my "friend" and you wouldn't want that.

I might be willing to set up video sales of that if you can get it on tape. This could be worth a bundle. It worked for Pam Anderson and Tommy Lee.

 

[byu123]

the mountain of evidence.

The "mountain of evidence" that could stand the light of day court is hundreds of scientifically adminstered tests which all came up negative.

 

[Anonymous]

You better be carefull "Thoughtforfood" more sound wise cracks like that and I might be tempted to click the button on cyclingnews.com to make you my "friend" and you wouldn't want that.

Its all good. In reality, this is all just words on a computer. Most people I know are just husbands/fathers/wives/mothers/ trying to live the best life they can with what they have. Opinions about cycling are just diversions in our lives that in the grand scheme of things matter little to our loved ones, and they are the people who really count anyway.

 

[BroDeal]

What the hell did Bill Maher do now? The only show I watched all the way through with Maher in it was "Cannibal Women in the Avacado Jungle of Death." No joke.

 

[byu123]

Its all good. Opinions about cycling are just diversions in our lives that in the grand scheme of things matter little to our loved ones, and they are the people who really count anyway.

Yea but the imaginary war we are waging here is a good diversion from the 75% of my work life which is spent in a cubicle as a gov. worker. [the other 25% I get to do that whole "kick down the door" . . . "rolling surveillance" . . . "work informants" . . . "operate undercover from time to time" . . . FBI thing. Thank the Lord its not 100% cubicle work I would not survive.

 

[Anonymous]

Jeebus. Are you even following the conversation?

You make a competely bogus argument that lots of negative tests somehow prove that Armstrong must have been clean. When called on it, you go off on O.J. If we want to bring O.J. into this then you are the Johnny Cochran here. You are the one using the Chewbacca defense against the mountain of evidence.

Ah, my favorite pop culture reference: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1974564/chewbacca_defense/

Bravo good sir!

 

[byu123]

Ah, my favorite pop culture reference: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1974564/chewbacca_defense/

Bravo good sir!

So . . . "Thoughtforfood" since it is 2:26 am in your time zone, North Carolina and only 11:26 in my time zone California I guess I get to claim the I am less of a Internet junky title since I am going to quit and go to bed before midnight right?

 

[Anonymous]

So . . . "Thoughtforfood" since it is 2:26 am in your time zone, North Carolina and only 11:26 in my time zone California I guess I get to claim the I am less of a Internet junky title since I am going to quit and go to bed before midnight right?

I am on vacation in California until tomorrow.

 

[byu123]

I am on vacation in California until tomorrow.

Come on . . . you can't lie to "Big Brother" like that and get away with it. Your nowhere near the west coast.

 

[nobody]

Of the hundreds/thousands of test Armstrong has taken not a single one has ever produced a positive result for a banned substance.

Not hundred....
Just around 70-80 tests before his comeback... far away of the 160 NO positive of Marion Jones or others athletes, swimmers,...

Who has lied about that? Lance who is less tested than many riders! He know the rules testing, he know that he has less wins than sprinters, so less tests... but he prefers to lie.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Not hundred....Just around 70-80 tests before his comeback... far away of the 160 NO positive of Marion Jones or others athletes, swimmers,...

The better stat if you're looking at the big picture is Kohl saying he was tested over 200 times before popping positive, and over 100 of those he was blatantly doped.

Who has lied about that? Lance who is less tested than many riders! He know the rules testing, he know that he has less wins than sprinters, so less tests... but he prefers to lie.

It's usually his supporters that claim this, did Lance ever actually say it? Logic dictates that Cippolini, Jalabert, Zabel, McEwen, were tested more times, other riders as well. Simply as they raced much more, and won much more, and were in the same random pool for an equally, if not longer, period of time.

Testing of all riders seems more frequent in the last year or so. But I don't have numbers on that.

Still love that avatar, Nobody. Hilarious.

 

[nobody]

Still love that avatar, Nobody. Hilarious.

I like it too. Thanks and Credit to the LiveWrong and CheatStrong opponent.