US prosecutors drop case against Armstrong/USPS

[fatandfast]

saying that Steve Tilford is "just some guy that rode a bike" is a shot. It's inaccurate .

 

[Anonymous]

Do you not find it odd that Tilford, who has been involved in the sport for decades, only stumbles on that Vaughters/Andreu exchange now? What i do find odd is how you're clamouring to him when clearly he does not have much insight into it, especially the developments that occurred after the exchange. Thinking for oneself and looking at things objectively is as important as listening to outside opinion.

Do you not find it odd that Tilford, who has been involved in the sport for decades, only stumbles on that Vaughters/Andreu exchange now?

What's odd about it? Dude spends a fair amount of his time on his bike... and probably not much time in the clinic.

What i do find odd is how you're clamouring to him

Not clamoring to anybody. Tilford's been around the block more than a few times... Personally I will listen to what he has to say on this and other cycling related subjects until and unless there were ever a reason not to listen anymore. My guess is he knows significantly more about the under-belly of this sport than most even if he had never heard of the JV/FA IM until recently (it's a fairly small detail, no?).

 

[aphronesis]

saying that Steve Tilford is "just some guy that rode a bike" is a shot. It's inaccurate .

Per your quote above; I didn't say "who" he was. I referenced what he did or does. I said "so he rode a bike"?

Is that inaccurate? Or insufficient? According to your criteria and Scotty's. So I guess only pro bike racers (true fans and insiders) have real say on the issue.

Now that the GJ vacated, which rules are governing this discussion? Folk wisdom?

Excellent.

How about locking the true authorities in a room together and let them debate it?

Oh, wait....

 

[Race Radio]

This is entertaining.....by attacking a guy like Tilford his detractors are proving him right.

His whole point was that anyone who questions Lance get set on by a bunch of rapid, irrational, groupies.

 

[Anonymous]

Per your quote above; I didn't say "who" he was. I referenced what he did or does. I said "so he rode a bike"?

Is that inaccurate? Or insufficient? According to your criteria and Scotty's. So I guess only pro bike racers (true fans and insiders) have real say on the issue.

Probably a good time to put down the shovel.

 

[aphronesis]

This is entertaining.....by attacking a guy like Tilford his detractors are proving him right.

His whole point was that anyone who questions Lance get set on by a bunch of rapid, irrational, groupies.

do you mean vapid?

which cult is yours?

no one attacked him. you posted a blog link to try to keep the discussion unidirectional and someone questioned it.

there are probably millions of people, in multiple fields, with years of experience who have blogs. few of their fellow professionals would ever cite such blogs as authoritative.

 

[Anonymous]

do you mean vapid?

which cult is yours?

no one attacked him. you posted a blog link to try to keep the discussion unidirectional and someone questioned it.

there are probably millions of people, in multiple fields, with years of experience who have blogs. few of their fellow professionals would ever cite such blogs as authoritative.

Yep. Experience is highly over-rated.

 

[thehog]

I'll go put the kettle on shall I?

 

[aphronesis]

Yep. Experience is highly over-rated.

Doesn't seem to slow you down. Experience as to what? Exactly? In Tilford's case.

Function asked you this: you know what you believe, what do you need in the way of some post-hoc blog to confirm those beliefs?

 

[Race Radio]

Next up..... Greg LeMond, just some old fat guy who sells spin bikes. What does he know about the sport anyways?

Or David Walsh and Paul Kimmage, just some tabloid hacks.

Blah, blah, blah....attack the messenger

 

[function]

Not clamoring to anybody. Tilford's been around the block more than a few times... Personally I will listen to what he has to say on this and other cycling related subjects until and unless there were ever a reason not to listen anymore. My guess is he knows significantly more about the under-belly of this sport than most even if he had never heard of the JV/FA IM until recently (it's a fairly small detail, no?).

By attacking people who say that Tilford may not be authoritative here, you are in a manner clamouring to him. My point is that just because Tilford said something, doesn't mean you should adhere to what he says, from your quote above it appears you're content with following that tact, i'll respect that.

 

[Polish]

Do you not find it odd that Tilford, who has been involved in the sport for decades, only stumbles on that Vaughters/Andreu exchange now? What i do find odd is how you're clamouring to him when clearly he does not have much insight into it, especially the developments that occurred after the exchange. Thinking for oneself and looking at things objectively is as important as listening to outside opinion.

I do NOT find it odd that Tilford was unaware of the JV/FA exchange.
It is obscure.
The vast majority of people are unaware. Unaware of the 99 peepee, unaware of the Floyd e-mails and the Tyler book deal too.

To most people, Lance is a Cancer Survivor/Spokesman and a TdF Record Holder. Thats it. Oh, and I guess that whole "doping thing". But now that Lance has been cleared by the Feds, most peple will doubt that whole "doping thing" lol.

 

[Velodude]

I do NOT find it odd that Tilford was unaware of the JV/FA exchange.
It is obscure.
The vast majority of people are unaware. Unaware of the 99 peepee, unaware of the Floyd e-mails and the Tyler book deal too.

To most people, Lance is a Cancer Survivor/Spokesman and a TdF Record Holder. Thats it. Oh, and I guess that whole "doping thing". But now that Lance has been cleared by the Feds, most peple will doubt that whole "doping thing" lol.

Polish my dear. Can you define "cleared by the Feds"?

Thankng you in advance of your answer.

 

[function]

Next up..... Greg LeMond, just some old fat guy who sells spin bikes. What does he know about the sport anyways?

Or David Walsh and Paul Kimmage, just some tabloid hacks.

Blah, blah, blah....attack the messenger

The proper analogy would be if Greg Lemond wrote a blog post marvelling at Armstrong's backdated TUE. Would that reinforce Lemond as an expert with respects to Armstrong's doping in your mind? To me it would add nothing new to the discussion.

 

[Anonymous]

Doesn't seem to slow you down. Experience as to what? Exactly? In Tilford's case.

Function asked you this: you know what you believe, what do you need in the way of some post-hoc blog to confirm those beliefs?

Experience as to what? Exactly? In Tilford's case.

Oh, I don't know. Cycling at an extremely high competitive level in multiple disciplines for 20+ years?

Function asked you this: you know what you believe, what do you need in the way of some post-hoc blog to confirm those beliefs?

I know what I believe? In this case, yes. Believe it or not I didn't always hold this same belief.

Funny things happen like that when one's mind is open.

 

[thehog]

I do NOT find it odd that Tilford was unaware of the JV/FA exchange.
It is obscure.
The vast majority of people are unaware. Unaware of the 99 peepee, unaware of the Floyd e-mails and the Tyler book deal too.

To most people, Lance is a Cancer Survivor/Spokesman and a TdF Record Holder. Thats it. Oh, and I guess that whole "doping thing". But now that Lance has been cleared by the Feds, most peple will doubt that whole "doping thing" lol.

Here come the reinforcements. Go to DefCon 5. Obstruficate! Obstruficate! I said Obstruficate!

"Radio Lance - we're doin' just fine down here in the Clinic. The situation is under control, I repeat its under control. If things turn nasty we'll drop the Greg LeMond grenade"

 

[Anonymous]

By attacking people who say that Tilford may not be authoritative here, you are in a manner clamouring to him. My point is that just because Tilford said something, doesn't mean you should adhere to what he says, from your quote above it appears you're content with following that tact, i'll respect that.

By attacking people who say that Tilford may not be authoritative here, you are in a manner clamouring to him

I'm not attacking anyone. I questioned the troll who insinuated Tilford to be lying on his blog.

My point is that just because Tilford said something, doesn't mean you should adhere to what he says,

Gee, thanks for that. I've met Mr. Tiford a couple of times and had him on a composite team for a nationally know stage race here in the US.

I'll go ahead and listen to what the man says if that's OK with you.

 

[aphronesis]

Oh, I don't know. Cycling at an extremely high competitive level in multiple disciplines for 20+ years?



I know what I believe? In this case, yes. Believe it or not I didn't always hold this same belief.

Funny things happen like that when one's mind is open.

This is not the thread to engage your "open beliefs." Let alone most others' in this thread. Even in the politics threads your posts tend to let go of said openness in favor of point-scoring and snide irony. I know, it's congenital to the environment. Open mindedness then appears as a lifestyle convenience.
Like a new beer, say.

On topic: this thread is about a federal case. Dropped. Not bike racing. What does Tilford's regurgitation of the Vaughters exchange have to do with that.

In what hypersensitive microcosm does questioning that relevance amount to an attack on him?

 

[Velodude]

The proper analogy would be if Greg Lemond wrote a blog post marvelling at Armstrong's backdated TUE. Would that reinforce Lemond as an expert with respects to Armstrong's doping in your mind? To me it would add nothing new to the discussion.

See you simply got it wrong. It was not a backdated TUE (a TUE was required but a can and must only be provided in advance) but a backdated prescription.

Everyone knew about the (excuse of) backdated prescription cos the corticoid found in Armstrong's sample should have had him ejected from the Tour while in yellow.

UCI had to save him after the 1998 disgrace & debacle over French border customs exposing drugs in TdF cycling that UCI could not.

And those same people should have known about the IM between JV & FA?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

ruckus-amongus

Wow look what RaceRadio started in here!

I can not get to the “Blog” by Tilford but from what I am reading here in the Clink It seems like Tilford who still rides his bike a lot, just stumbled onto the “PM” exchange between JV and others. Tilford must take some shots at LA and his groupies and that “BLOG” post has caused a ruckus-amongus here in the Clink.

In my opinion it seems odd that anyone who follows cycling the last 12 years would not know about the PM exchange. BUT there are folks who do not spend all day reading the Clink and it is possible he never knew. Then again he must not have a Television that has any sports networks on it and he must not have a browser that can link to SI, Outside, CNN, or ESPN.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Polish my dear. Can you define "cleared by the Feds"?

Thankng you in advance of your answer.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict that certain trolling trolls will continue to make that statement for as long as they can get someone to rise to the bait.

..............

 

[Anonymous]

The proper analogy would be if Greg Lemond wrote a blog post marvelling at Armstrong's backdated TUE. Would that reinforce Lemond as an expert with respects to Armstrong's doping in your mind? To me it would add nothing new to the discussion.

No, that's actually a bad analogy.

If Lemond was still spending most of his waking hours training, traveling year-round and competing in several cycling disciplines and may have been unaware that Tony Cruz was met in his driveway (by surprise) by Novitsky and questioned.

Was it important? Maybe, maybe not.

But this;

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/magazine/05/23/lance.armstrong/index.html

In 1999, while Armstrong was on his way to his first Tour victory after beating cancer, a French newspaper received a tip that Armstrong had tested positive for a corticosteroid and had no therapeutic use exemption (TUE) on his medical form. Armstrong, who was riding for the Postal team, had just said in a press conference that he did not have any prescriptions for banned products. When the team discovered that the newspaper had received the tip, panic hit Armstrong and his inner-circle, according to Emma O'Reilly, a soigneur from Ireland who worked with the team and specifically with Armstrong. She was in the hotel room after the 15th Tour stage when, she says, Armstrong and team officials devised a plan.

"They agreed to backdate a medical prescription," O'Reilly tells SI. "They'd gotten a heads up that [Armstrong's] steroid count was high and decided they would actually do a backdated prescription and pretend it was something for saddle sores."

In violation of its own protocol requiring a TUE for use of such a drug, officials from the UCI announced that Armstrong had used a corticosteroid for his skin and his positive result was excused

is very well known.

 

[Anonymous]

This is not the thread to engage your "open beliefs." Let alone most others' in this thread. Even in the politics threads your posts tend to let go of said openness in favor of point-scoring and snide irony. I know, it's congenital to the environment. Open mindedness then appears as a lifestyle convenience.
Like a new beer, say.

On topic: this thread is about a federal case. Dropped. Not bike racing. What does Tilford's regurgitation of the Vaughters exchange have to do with that.

In what hypersensitive microcosm does questioning that relevance amount to an attack on him?

Go back and read a coupla pages and if you comprehend what you read your questions shall be answered.

 

[aphronesis]

Go back and read a coupla pages and if you comprehend what you read your questions shall be answered.

Had they been, this wouldn't be continuing. Humor me; you've got some time and the facility. Spell it out for everyone who doesn't want to wade through the past few pages. Tilford finds the exchange incriminating re. doping.

Which has zero to do with the federal case. You have an alternate argument?

 

[SirLes]

See you simply got it wrong. It was not a backdated TUE (a TUE was required but a can and must only be provided in advance) but a backdated prescription.

Everyone knew about the (excuse of) backdated prescription cos the corticoid found in Armstrong's sample should have had him ejected from the Tour while in yellow.

I'm going to regret posting this but anyway....

Wasn't the amount of corticoid found in Lance Armstong's sample below the level that actually constituted a positive result so nothing would have have happened anyway as it was never a positive test??