SC1990 said:I'd rather wait for these to actually get tested so we can see what (if anything) is in the samples, rather then wild specualtion about how this is the end of the world for 'fanboys.'
My question would be what will the Clinic do if they all come back negative, defeating the old myth of 7 positives and so on? Obviously we know what would happen if they come back positive (much 'hoo har we told you so 'na na na-na na' etc), but the other possibility needs to be entertained.
Please try and keep the insults to a minimum.
Mambo95 said:I'm guessing by 'LA fans', you're putting in me, wrongly, in that category. I'm not fan (I always preferred Ullrich), I'm just not a hater. I see him no different than any other doper.
What I was separating was BBs theory about trafficking, which I thought wouldn't fly. I think a professional like Novisky will have something more substantial up his sleeve.
You appear to have fallen into the trap of thinking any poster not denouncing Armstrong is a fan. Not the case. Here's an analogy. Some Christians think that evolution is rubbish and the world is 6000 years old. Other Christians are more reasonable and believe evolution and think that the world is 4.5 billion years old. This doesn't mean they're atheists - they just a little more circumspect. It's the difference between fundamentalism and reasoned thinking. This is the problem with this forum when it comes to LA - it's black or white and grey is dismissed by one side as the other.
Colm.Murphy said:2. EPO test
3. CERA test (if this is not part of the EPO test)
Berzin said:He'll have to explain where he got it, hence the "trafficking".
Mambo95 said:We are all short of facts. But if LA stands trial for trafficking as the focus then you will be very disappointed in the outcome. So will Novitsky.
If you think you know what the charges are and what the sentences are available, then please tell us. That's what we're discussing.
A lot of posters say 'you know nothing' without saying what they know. Everyone likes to learn.
JMBeaushrimp said:That, my friend, may the crux of the ongoing discussion.
He is SO different than any other doper. Not only in public profile, but more importantly in methodology and his personal history with the UCI. NO OTHER rider (or doper) has had this type of confluence of personal team management and potential influence with the international governing body.
His is NOT 'just another doper'.
Dr. Maserati said:They were already tested in 2005 - six of his samples had EPO in them.
The samples will not degrade if stored properly - and as the Feds have requested them, then it is safe that they believe they have been stored correctly.
Race Radio said:Really? Flying illegal drugs around on his private jet is not against the law?
Mambo95 said:If he did that then that's something to investigate. But I have no knowledge of that. Maybe Novisky does.
Dr. Maserati said:No - I haven't.
I just read your posts and they are all the same, there is nothing reasoned in them. All your pots look to defend LA at every turn, ..... saying things like Novitzky will be laughed at etc is not reasoned thinking. There is nothing grey in your arguments.
Race Radio said:Did you read the Sports Illustrated article?
Don't worry, Novitzky does
BotanyBay said:But if I were in Lance's shoes, and someone tried to introduce 12-year-old urine evidence against me, and that evidence had been stored in private, non-judicial hands (and even re-tested without my consent or presence), I'd be working very hard to discredit it. And I don't think it would be very hard.
In other words, I hope they've got a lot more than Floyd and some 12 Y/O urine.
MacRoadie said:I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that if a bunch of us can come up with all these arguments as to the weakness of using the samples in any of the manners suggested here in the forum, then there's a pretty good chance seasoned federal investigators and Assistant Attorneys General considered all these long before they even requested the samples.
Just a hunch, but whatever use they plan on for those samples, the time, effort and expense were all taken into acount and the use was still vetted by the folks well up the food chain from Novitsky, et al.
SC1990 said:I thought it was 2001? Ah well, kinda helps my point, some many rumours and discrepancies that the Feds looking at it will clear it up once and for all and give a definitive answer - no longer will one side be able to say 'that was just the newspaper and they never really had the evidence and now half of them are missing', and the other will no longer be able to say 'clearly he tested positive.'
Why bother then if we all supposedly know they are positive? That's the problem with this whole scenario, even in the case if Armstrong is innocent, he can never prove it any more. It's going to run forever.
Another question, just because I can't remember, how come if he did test positive and this was brought up in 2005, how come nothing came of it?
This is why I accuse you of being a Lance fan -(nothing wrong with that BTW)Mambo95 said:He's only different because he was better at it and more successful. So the rest of his team were at it. Is this different than Ullrich, Virenque, Millar etc? Not to me it isn't. A cheat's a cheat in my book.
Dr. Maserati said:This is why I accuse you of being a Lance fan -(nothing wrong with that BTW)
The 3 examples you gave all served sanctions for their doping - if you were interested in justice and say ' a cheat is a cheat' then you would be happy to see LA get his day too.
Dr. Maserati said:This is why I accuse you of being a Lance fan -(nothing wrong with that BTW)
The 3 examples you gave all served sanctions for their doping - if you were interested in justice and say ' a cheat is a cheat' then you would be happy to see LA get his day too.
SC1990 said:My question would be what will the Clinic do if they all come back negative, defeating the old myth of 7 positives and so on? Obviously we know what would happen if they come back positive (much 'hoo har we told you so 'na na na-na na' etc), but the other possibility needs to be entertained.
Your blue would make sense if the highlighted were true, but it's not.Mambo95 said:Of course the three examples severed sanctions - so should Armstrong. The fact that it won't matter much is down to timing. I just don't buy into the blood lust for substantial prison time unless it's justified (which it probably isn't).
This forum runs so much on hatred, that dislike is seen as fandom. You all need step back and get some perspective.
BotanyBay said:And I'm seeking theories as to "what else might they have" that they're combining with this 12-year-old potentially insecure evidence. I agree with you. I'm not here just to crap on this evidence. I want to see theories on what they plan to combine it with.
BotanyBay said:Don't get your ti*†s all twisted in a knot. I simply asked a question about being a hypothetical juror and looking at this evidence. Why so much anger here?
Mambo95 said:LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. (Good enough?)