USADA - Armstrong

[peacefultribe]

It's interesting to me that most of Armstrong's fans have moved away from thinking 'he didn't do it' to 'he never got caught'. It's a subtle but significant difference.

We all have a friend or two who are polarizing, yet seem to have something redeeming about them, so we forgive their indiscretions. I'm very intrigued, as a student of human nature, to see seemingly good people support what appears to be one of the most destructive forces in cycling history. I know some of his 'friends' personally, and watching them rally makes me curious about loyalty, and what it really means in this case. The line between selling your soul and being loyal to a friend seems to be blurry.

 

[BotanyBay]

I think someone just forgot to log in under their other name? That or you missed the fact that I was posting one argument made by Krebs, with another post he made a couple of years ago. I wasn't addressing your post at all.

No, I think I probably mistook what you were saying to krebs as being directed at me. Yes, I also saw you quoting him, but look back a few posts and see how I may have assumed such.

I'm just me. Anyone that uses more than one screen name needs even more therapy than the rest of us

 

[BotanyBay]

It's interesting to me that most of Armstrong's fans have moved away from thinking 'he didn't do it' to 'he never got caught'. It's a subtle but significant difference.

We all have a friend or two who are polarizing, yet seem to have something redeeming about them, so we forgive their indiscretions. I'm very intrigued, as a student of human nature, to see seemingly good people support what appears to be one of the most destructive forces in cycling history. I know some of his 'friends' personally, and watching them rally makes me curious about loyalty, and what it really means in this case. The line between selling your soul and being loyal to a friend seems to be blurry.

Who doesn't want to be on the winning team? That's the American psyche summarized.

 

[mikkemus23]

I'm going to counter the argument you have been making here (that lance is a superior athlete) with someone who thinks you are a bit full of it.

You just wrote:


A couple of years ago you wrote:

Ha ha, what`s the term? Pwned?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

No, I think I probably mistook what you were saying to krebs as being directed at me. Yes, I also saw you quoting him, but look back a few posts and see how I may have assumed such.

I'm just me. Anyone that uses more than one screen name needs even more therapy than the rest of us

I don't really pay much attention to your posts, so you'll have to excuse me for not seeing where it applied to you at all.

If I were hiding who I was, I would worry about your little barb. The change is only related to the fact that it is my twitter handle and I prefer it.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Ha ha, what`s the term? Pwned?

It might be, but the mods forbid me from using common internet sayings because it upsets the balance in the force. So let me just say that I agree with 2009 Krebs, but think 2012 Krebs is arguing just to argue because he isn't backing up his opinion with any facts or data.

 

[peacefultribe]

Who doesn't want to be on the winning team? That's the American psyche summarized.

I guess it depends on what you think a winning team is.

 

[mikkemus23]

It seems very strange that people not seduced by the LA myth 3 years ago now suddenly has fallen under his spell. Why now, of all times

Please tell Krebs - what made you change your mind, and why now?

 

[spetsa]

Max Testa also allegedly caught some flack for not spotting the enlarged testicle of his rider and ordering tests. Or so I was told by Fraysse.

In regards to who is at fault for failing to first recognizing LA's health problems, I don't really buy the argument that the UCI should have any blame. They were not even taking blood at that point in time and I would venture to guess that his own team doctors were drawing it and testing it quite regularly.

I know very little about cancer-thankfully-but was/is it detectable through urine tests?

 

[sniper]

It's interesting to me that most of Armstrong's fans have moved away from thinking 'he didn't do it' to 'he never got caught'. It's a subtle but significant difference.
(...)

I find it hilarious to note that the LA camp and the fanboys aren't able to sing the old "they're just jealous, discredited and have an axe to grind"-song. Great move not to make those 10 names public.

 

[Morbius]

I must be dumb because I can't see any difference between 2009 Krebs and 2012 Krebs. In 2009 he was saying that Armstrong was doping,as the alternative would be that he won purely because he was physiologically superior.
This does not contradict the 2012 idea that he was amongst the best of his age group before he started doping, which transformed him from a very good rider to an all-time great.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I must be dumb because I can't see any difference between 2009 Krebs and 2012 Krebs. In 2009 he was saying that Armstrong was doping,as the alternative would be that he won purely because he was physiologically superior.
This does not contradict the 2012 idea that he was amongst the best of his age group before he started doping, which transformed him from a very good rider to an all-time great.

Then you aren't reading his 2012 argument very well. His whole point is that the doping didn't transform him at all in terms of physiological ability in relation to GT's. Read through again. In 2009 he says Armstrong wasn't physiologically superior at all.

 

[zigmeister]

I find it hilarious to note that the LA camp and the fanboys aren't able to sing the old "they're just jealous, discredited and have an axe to grind"-song. Great move not to make those 10 names public.

Hopefully, one day you won't be facing some kind of crime, or accusations that can't be substantiated except by a couple of liars and blood tests that are "indicative" of doping. But of course, not factual evidence and proof positive.

It would suck for you to be thrown in jail for a DUI when there was no blood test done, or breathalyzer to substantial such claims, and your line walking was suspicious, but not proof positive of you driving while drunk. Wouldn't it? Or are you ok with that type of treatment overall?

Yet, you get thrown in jail, get a criminal record, have your reputation hosed up...or lose your job, way of living etc..

Wouldn't that be fun to not have a US Constitution and Due Process and rights under the law? Or would some accusations, co-workers with vendettas, and lack of factual proof of something be good enough for you and consider that fair treatment?

I just generalizing and giving out random examples.

Just playing Devil's advocate. The USADA's case is one of ridiculous proportions, due to the fact that it is a provate non-profit organization that doesn't have to follow any rules, have any factual proof under the laws of the US. Therefore, the entire case is considered a sham, showboating, axe-grinding, a vendetta and any other word you would like to use to classify what they are doing as being nothing more than a pre-determined biased outcome in the making. They are just going through the motions, to then make some huge PR/media claim how they have found him guilty as charged!!! Off with his head now!

 

[pedaling squares]

I don't really pay much attention to your posts, so you'll have to excuse me for not seeing where it applied to you at all.

If I were hiding who I was, I would worry about your little barb. The change is only related to the fact that it is my twitter handle and I prefer it.

I don't think BB was taking a swipe at your change of handle. Pretty sure he was extending an olive branch and had mistaken your post to krebs as one directed at him.

 

[peterst6906]

... co-workers with vendettas, ...

Please name all of the 10+ and show that each of them has a vendetta.

Making assumptions about the evidence and stating your final view about the motivation for the investigation is a perfect example of doing exactly what you've accused USADA of doing.

Why the double standard? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. I would have thought that LA and his supporters would welcome a further investigation, especially by the USADA as it will surely provide even further confirmation of his clean status. Right?

 

[MrRoboto]

Again, cancer is obviously a terrible thing but until I looked it up in detail a few years ago I was under the impression that Dopestrong's recovery was indeed miraculous and added weight to his "how could I be doping after coming back from the dead", which with a 73% survival rate it isn't exactly.

We already know he used EPO and testosterone as treatment after the cancer. So that argument is pretty silly to to be honest.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Silly nonsense

You forgot "witch hunt", you're always supposed to include that. Didn't you read the memo?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Hopefully, one day you won't be facing some kind of crime, or accusations that can't be substantiated except by a couple of liars and blood tests that are "indicative" of doping. But of course, not factual evidence and proof positive.

You decry lying by opening with a lie.

It would suck for you to be thrown in jail for a DUI when there was no blood test done, or breathalyzer to substantial such claims, and your line walking was suspicious, but not proof positive of you driving while drunk. Wouldn't it? Or are you ok with that type of treatment overall?

Your comparison is laughable. Get Lance off the cross, we need the wood.

Yet, you get thrown in jail, get a criminal record, have your reputation hosed up...or lose your job, way of living etc..

Yea, it sucks when someone has to pay for their crimes. I prefer people who use the cancer shield to convince people the rules for them should be different.

Wouldn't that be fun to not have a US Constitution and Due Process and rights under the law? Or would some accusations, co-workers with vendettas, and lack of factual proof of something be good enough for you and consider that fair treatment?

If you think the process used by the USADA has anything to do with the constitution or constitutional due process, you don't understand anything about the constitution or the basis for due process. Quit commenting on things you don't understand is my suggestion. Direct testimony is considered good evidence everywhere, so you are really striking out on the legal front.

I just generalizing and giving out random examples.

Just playing Devil's advocate. The USADA's case is one of ridiculous proportions, due to the fact that it is a provate non-profit organization that doesn't have to follow any rules, have any factual proof under the laws of the US. Therefore, the entire case is considered a sham, showboating, axe-grinding, a vendetta and any other word you would like to use to classify what they are doing as being nothing more than a pre-determined biased outcome in the making. They are just going through the motions, to then make some huge PR/media claim how they have found him guilty as charged!!! Off with his head now!

Lance is a doping fraud who profited by using cancer as a shield to keep him from scorn. I know it sucks to be a minion of such a person, but there you are tee shirt and Trek and all.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I don't think BB was taking a swipe at your change of handle. Pretty sure he was extending an olive branch and had mistaken your post to krebs as one directed at him.

Maybe, but the little wink and the fact that I am posting under a new name make that sentence seem to be a bit of a swipe. If I misread it, I apologize however.

 

[Morbius]

His whole point is that the doping didn't transform him at all in terms of physiological ability in relation to GT's.

That's not what he said at all. He said quite clearly that he was a strong cyclist as a junior and showed potential to win a GT, but that there was no way he could win a single GT without doping let alone 7.

EDIT: Gratuitous insult removed

 

[DirtyWorks]

I just generalizing and giving out random examples.

Yes, indeed. None of which have any basis in fact.

Read this: http://150wattsofawesome.blogspot.com/2012/06/paging-lance-armstrong.html

It pleases me to see the denial is getting progressively harder to maintain and thus repulsive to casual viewers/readers. At this point, the denial progression a logarithmic scale.

I eagerly await the denial propaganda. None of which I'll see after logging in.

 

[Pedaaldanser]

Still nothing filed in Federal court. Looks like tomorrow's meeting will go on uncontested.

Wonderboy, all talk no action.

There's still some time left. They usually don't submit these things until the last day/hour. I noticed that when I was reading the Contador ruling some time ago.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Yes, indeed. None of which have any basis in fact.

Read this: http://150wattsofawesome.blogspot.com/2012/06/paging-lance-armstrong.html

It pleases me to see the denial is getting progressively harder to maintain and thus repulsive to casual viewers/readers. At this point, the denial progression a logarithmic scale.

I eagerly await the denial propaganda. None of which I'll see after logging in.

So, you're not really "eagerly awaiting" it at all, are you?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

That's not what he said at all. He said quite clearly that he was a strong cyclist as a junior and showed potential to win a GT, but that there was no way he could win a single GT without doping let alone 7.

EDIT: Gratuitous insult removed

No, that isn't what he said at all. He said that without anyone doping, it is likely that Armstrong would still have won 7 (and/or showed great GT ability) because of his physiological superiority (as evidenced by his dominance as a junior.) I realize that he has danced around here, modifying his position at times, but go read the first post on the subject and you will see that you are not reading his position correctly at all.

P.S. Good thing you removed the insult.

 

[peterst6906]

..without anyone doping, it is likely that Armstrong would still have won 7 ... ... because of his physiological superiority

Where did he say that? I must have missed that quote. Do you have a reference post?