US prosecutors drop case against Armstrong/USPS

[Anonymous]

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?

I am now disappointed with you.

Go back and (this time) read the blog post. If you are not then embarrassed by your question above then one of us is being obtuse.

Since you appear to be on the lazy side, here is the summary;

What is weird is how these guys talk about getting on the wrong side of the Lance. As if it’s matter of fact that it isn’t a good thing to have happen to you.

I have no personal experience in any of this. But it makes me wonder why all these guys would go out of their way to just make trouble for themselves by lying? I see no reason why Tyler Hamilton, Floyd Landis, Emma O’Reilly, Frankie’s wife, etc. would lie under oath just to make their lives miserable.

I am sick of the whole thing really. Our legal system and maybe even our sports governing body don’t have a means to deal with the subject properly. So I kind of wish it would just disappear and we could just write it off as a dark era of the sport. But that doesn’t make the people that were directly affected, and are still affected, have closure. Those are the people that I think got the raw end of the deal. The innocent bystanders that got caught up in the whole mess and became some of Lance’s foes by default.

http://stevetilford.com/?p=18113

I highlighted the salient points for your benefit.

 

[aphronesis]

I am now disappointed with you.

Go back and (this time) read the blog post. If you are not then embarrassed by your question above then one of us is being obtuse.

Since you appear to be on the lazy side, here is the summary;



http://stevetilford.com/?p=18113

I highlighted the salient points for your benefit.

Welll, then we're both disappointed. And Obtuse. I did read the blog post, the heartfelt opining. On the subject, etc.

I'll ask it again, should I use all caps for the easily distracted? What. Does. It. Matter? if a bike racer is disappointed with the US legal system.

You yourself point out that he's spent much of his time on a bike, not thinking about the US legal system. Let alone worrying about it. So what exactly does what he says have to do with the F u h e d e r a l case?

But yes, you did answer my question. So it's not really about the case at all. Just back to the old "bad things happened and no one has paid for it," argument. Dreadful. I can't believe that that kind of interpersonal abuse and deceit is taking place in this society. Glad Tilford could wise us all up to that.

What else you got?

Lazy, from you....

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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??

No.

Think about it - why would you need a TUE if there was a limit and he was under it?
There is no limit for corticosteroids.

 

[Race Radio]

No matter what happens to Wonderboy there is always somebody here to clog the toilet with rambling babble. Impressive dedication to the cause

 

[aphronesis]

No matter what happens to Wonderboy there is always somebody here to clog the toilet with rambling babble. Impressive dedication to the cause

A new level of self-promotion?

 

[Anonymous]

No matter what happens to Wonderboy there is always somebody here to clog the toilet with rambling babble. Impressive dedication to the cause

The **** just won't go down.

Nice phraseology

 

[Velodude]

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??

Myth created by UCI to firstly protect the yellow jerseyed Armstrong, secondly, other riders who had failed the same newly introduced test and, thirdly, the future of the TdF and cycling after the Festina debacle of the previous year in 1998.

See CyclingNews:

Lance Armstrong, the yellow jersey holder in the 86th Tour de France was tested on July 4 at 17.00 after the first stage of the Tour between Montaigu and Challans. The test was done by the Laboratoire national de lutte contre le dopage (LNLD) at Châtenay-Malabry (Hauts-de-Seine), and they detected traces of triamcinolone acétonide, a synthetic corticoid in the urine. However, the analysis was not declared positive, the testosterone ratio for epitestosterone being too low to warrant a positive finding. It was 0.2, when the limit after which a positive test is returned is fixed at 6.

If you refer to the UCI banned list from 1999 to present glucocorticosteroids, the class of drug to which covers triamcinolone acétonide, do not have a threshold level. They are banned outright.

Just like the extremely minute presence of clenbuterol that sanctioned Contador.

Triamcinolone acétonide is not a synthetic steroid that required the t/e ratio initial test to further test if the sample contained a synthetic steroid, a la Floyd Landis. Floyd was 11:1 and well in excess of the 4:1 threshold level (down from a previous 6:1 as stated in that article)

Do your really think the UCI and Postal/Armstrong scrambled to falsely produce a back dated prescription if Armstrong's result tested under a threshold?

 

[aphronesis]

The **** just won't go down.

Nice phraseology

So much for open mindedness. See how long that lasted? Stunning integrity.

 

[Anonymous]

So much for open mindedness. See how long that lasted? Stunning integrity.

Look, I can't help it if you won't read or if you don't quite get what you read. You didn't get the blog post until after you were embarrassed. Not my fault.

If we don't reach the same conclusions about the topic it does not mean either of us have a lack of integrity, just so you know.

But I'll go ahead and be the bad guy here. I don't mind.

 

[aphronesis]

Look, I can't help it if you won't read or if you don't quite get what you read. You didn't get the blog post until after you were embarrassed. Not my fault.

If we don't reach the same conclusions about the topic it does not mean either of us have a lack of integrity, just so you know.

But I'll go ahead and be the bad guy here. I don't mind.

Yes, I do know that. And frankly you don't know my conclusions here. I was objecting to the fact that a poster with a 300 word vocabulary dismisses anything contrary as "babble." Which you endorsed. Kinda slices through your above point don't it?

I read the blog post after he linked it. You're right of course (no offense to Tilford), but surely a cycling blog is on the edge of my reading comprehension.

Am not asking you to be the "bad guy." I don't need one. I'm asking you, in your own words, to tell me what relevance Tilford's commentary has to the federal case. Just because he mentions it.....

I haven't been embarrassed in years.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, I do know that. And frankly you don't know my conclusions here. I was objecting to the fact that a poster with a 300 word vocabulary dismisses anything contrary as "babble." Which you endorsed. Kinda slices through your above point don't it?

I read the blog post after he linked it. You're right of course (no offense to Tilford), but surely a cycling blog is on the edge of my reading comprehension.

Am not asking you to be the "bad guy." I don't need one. I'm asking you, in your own words, to tell me what relevance Tilford's commentary has to the federal case. Just because he mentions it.....

I haven't been embarrassed in years.

So, self-awareness isn't your strong suit. That's ok, I know many with this issue.

Which you endorsed.

Frankly, he's right. And funny. It's a devastating combination.

but surely a cycling blog is on the edge of my reading comprehension.

Then why the question re: doping and the federal case? It's not Tilford's point.

You are inferring something that wasn't there likely because you commented on something before you read it.

I'm asking you, in your own words, to tell me what relevance Tilford's commentary has to the federal case. Just because he mentions it.....

There is no current federal case that I know of. Further, I don't think Tilford's comments were designed to be relevant to anything other than his own perception/observations.

If you are worried that his blog being linked to is off-topic then report it... or just move on. That's ok too.

 

[function]

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

See quote below;

You calling Tilford a liar?
You have any effing idea who the guy is?
Maybe you ought to do a little homework...

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.

See quote below, i'll reiterate, i respect your decision, no need to be defensive.

from your quote above it appears you're content with following that tact, i'll respect that.

 

[ChrisE]

This is funny.

I made a comment that I didn't believe Tilford just ran across the PM (he of the infinite amount of cyclng wisdom). Yes, he just woke up and said "Golly, look at what all these people are saying about LA. Golly Gee!?!?!?".

Then, on top of that he took it without even doing any research about it and using it as "proof" of something.

I made no comment on what he thinks.

From that, we get a 5 page shytstorm lol.

The haters in here do not wish to address my point because they can't. If they say he is clueless, that flies in the face of his "cycling guru/insider" status. They don't want to touch my other points about the PM itself because I am right. Scoreboard.

They would rather call names and say "babble" and run the thread into the ditch then cry foul. SSDD, as Polish would say.

I made a comment the other week about how I wanted this to go to trial to prove me right (ie this wouldn't fly with an American jury). But, the case being dropped is worth its weight in gold. The haters in here have become more unhinged than ever. Classic.

 

[Anonymous]

See quote below;





See quote below, i'll reiterate, i respect your decision, no need to be defensive.

You calling Tilford a liar?

That's a legitimate question.

You have any effing idea who the guy is?

Also a legitimate question.

Maybe you ought to do a little homework...

A legitimate suggestion.

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.

Am I attacking here?

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

Yep. Summed up nicely.

 

[function]

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?

Ok so from my statement you're going to choose to argue over "backdated TUE" versus "backdated prescription". I'll leave you to it.

 

[function]

That's a legitimate question.
Also a legitimate question.
A legitimate suggestion.
Am I attacking here?
Yep. Summed up nicely.

You calling Tilford a liar?
You have any effing idea who the guy is?
Maybe you ought to do a little homework..

That post in its entirety, context and tone towards another poster would constitute an attack, i won't press it any further.

 

[Anonymous]

The haters in here do not wish to address my point because they can't. If they say he is clueless, that flies in the face of his "cycling guru/insider" status. They don't want to touch my other points about the PM itself because I am right. Scoreboard.

Can't what?

Saying Tilford is clueless would be as stupid as saying your posts are not designed to get a response.

 

[Anonymous]

That post in its entirety, context and tone towards another poster would constitute an attack, i won't press it any further.

Ok, got it.

I have an announcement to make.... (blowing into mic) Hey, is this thing on??

"Uh, To ChrisE,

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for asking you two questions followed by a suggestion in an earlier post. The tone and context have offended some of the member's sensibilities and for that I shall give myself a 24 hour benching effective immediately.

It's the least I can do."

This announcement has now concluded.

 

[AngusW]

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.

Nice Avatar!

Good summary, Polish. Most people would have been unaware that Armstrong was even under investigation. Those people that have heard about allegations of doping would probably assume that "all cyclists dope, so it's a level playing field", etc. Most people who have heard of Armstrong would probably not even be able to state correctly how many Tours he won (yes, I know, Patsy, count them: OneTwoThreeFourFiveSixSeven). Like you say, to most people, Armstrong is cancer survivor, has a charity that raises money for cancer research (yes, I know Livestrong doesn't do that) and won the Tour de France lots of times in a row and is the best cyclist ever.

And, yes, those like Skippy who believe no sanctions = no doping will no doubt think that as the Federal investigation has been dropped, Armstrong raced clean throughout his career.

The investigation may have achieved the purpose ascribed it by Polish by "smearing" Armstrong in that more people are now thinking "he beat all those dopers in the Tour, maybe he himself was taking drugs?"

The one thing I hoped that the investigation would achieve was that the truth would be made public and people who have fallen foul of Armstrong could feel vindicated or at least get some closure. Instead they continue to be labelled as liars, cheats, vindictive, disgruntled, dopers and shrieking harpies.

WADA and USADA may well go after Armstrong based on what, if any, information they get from the Feds, but after the outcome of the Federal investigation I'm very pessimistic that Armstrong will ever be sanctioned. I don't think he's worried by any investigation - I think his attitude is more likely to be "Done and dusted. Now, whose *** can I kick next?"

 

[ChrisE]

Can't what?

Saying Tilford is clueless would be as stupid as saying your posts are not designed to get a response.

Yes Yes! We are taking baby steps but progress feels so good! At my age it is even better than sex.

Now, the next step is, we agree that Tilford is not clueless. In fact, the uber forum smart guy/crystal ball guru RR wrote this:

Steve Tilford has been around the sport for decades. His blog is always a good read

Stop the presses! We all agree Tilford is not clueless! I agree with you and RR!!!! Yipppeeee!

But, then I scratch my head and say to myself "ChrisE, if he is not clueless then why doesn't he know about the PM?". So, I question that.

Subsequently after I toss that out, you and your scorched earth posse go berzerk and start calling names and derailing threads.

Maybe you guys should huddle up and work out this pesky little contradiction in your point of attack.

 

[ChrisE]

Ok, got it.

I have an announcement to make.... (blowing into mic) Hey, is this thing on??

"Uh, To ChrisE,

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for asking you two questions followed by a suggestion in an earlier post. The tone and context have offended some of the member's sensibilities and for that I shall give myself a 24 hour benching effective immediately.

It's the least I can do."

This announcement has now concluded.

No problem. I know you have issues you are trying to work thru.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes Yes! We are taking baby steps but progress feels so good! At my age it is even better than sex.

Now, the next step is, we agree that Tilford is not clueless. In fact, the uber forum smart guy/crystal ball guru RR wrote this:



Stop the presses! We all agree Tilford is not clueless! I agree with you and RR!!!! Yipppeeee!

But, then I scratch my head and say to myself "ChrisE, if he is not clueless then why doesn't he know about the PM?". So, I question that.

Subsequently after I toss that out, you and your scorched earth posse go berzerk and start calling names and derailing threads.

Maybe you guys should huddle up and work out this pesky little contradiction in your point of attack.

I'd like to respond, but I've voluntarily benched myself for 24 hours for attacking you earlier.

Sorry.

Edit:

The answer to this;

"ChrisE, if he is not clueless then why doesn't he know about the PM?"

is in his blog post. Read it, you'll find it.

When I get off of my self-imposed suspension for being mean to you we can discuss further the 5 page shytestorm.

 

[MacRoadie]

I'd like to respond, but I've voluntarily benched myself for 24 hours for attacking you earlier.

Sorry.

This is a forum (ostensibly) about cycling.

As such, you may appeal your self-inflicted suspension and continue posting. After the 24 hour period has expired, you can then uphold your own suspension, but give yourself partial credit for the period during which you were procrastinating the appeal. You may then serve the remainder of your suspension during your sleep tomorrow night.

 

[ChrisE]

I'd like to respond, but I've voluntarily benched myself for 24 hours for attacking you earlier.

Sorry.

Edit:

The answer to this;



is in his blog post. Read it, you'll find it.

When I get off of my self-imposed suspension for being mean to you we can discuss further the 5 page shytestorm.

OK, but you shouldn't be so hard on yourself. From what I know about your background you probably think incarceration is the answer to all mistakes. I am here to say that perhaps working thru the issue while being aware of your shortcoming is the best way to become a better person. I think a probation period would be good for this relatively minor offense.

If you want to talk I am here for you.

Moving on, hopefully somewhere in his blog he writes that he was just kidding about this:

I was looking for something on google and came upon this exchange between Frankie and Jonathan Vaughters, the owner, czar of the Garmin Team. I don’t think I ever saw this before.

I cannot find it. If he was only kidding about not knowing about it after being this 20 year cycling guru fanatic, along with just discovering the gossip about LA, then he should work some emoticons into his blog posting. I know I forget to sometimes and people take me wrong, so I do not wish to throw stones in my glass house here.

Anyway, take care and I will see you in 24 hours. Bye.

 

[Anonymous]

This is a forum (ostensibly) about cycling.

As such, you may appeal your self-inflicted suspension and continue posting. After the 24 hour period has expired, you can then uphold your own suspension, but give yourself partial credit for the period during which you were procrastinating the appeal. You may then serve the remainder of your suspension during your sleep tomorrow night.

Damned good legal advice right there.