WADA: Armstrong investigation to drop "bomb" shortly.

[Race Radio]

You want to make another list of those who have made such public statements? Start with Frankie Andreu. Then add the other '99 teammate that remained anonymous in the press (NY Times) but that some of you here can probably identify. Then add the recent statements by Steffen Kjaergaard, Peter Meinert-Nielsen, Pavel Padrnos, Pascal Derame, who spoke of Armstrong's separation from the rest of the team and the writer alludes to this as being the reason they never saw anything.

For the record, I'm sure he cheated. But we need to tell the whole story here.

Really, the words of non-US riders are of little help. The WSJ has said that 3 riders have confirmed there was doping on the team.

 

[Race Radio]

This is another witch hunt spending taxpayers money for what? What do we gain from this whole fiasco? Cycling's reputation is already in the toilet, and Alberto getting busted can't sink it any lower. This is a worthless investigation that does nothing and will change nothing.

How large does the crime need to be before you are OK with investigating it?

 

[scribe]

What crime?

 

[Anonymous]

This is another witch hunt spending taxpayers money for what? What do we gain from this whole fiasco? Cycling's reputation is already in the toilet, and Alberto getting busted can't sink it any lower. This is a worthless investigation that does nothing and will change nothing.

Yep. What cycling really needs is more of the same. Omerta, omerta, omerta.

 

[stephens]

Really, the words of non-US riders are of little help. The WSJ has said that 3 riders have confirmed there was doping on the team.

Well, the world has known that for years since Andreu and the anonymous other rider admitted to using EPO.

 

[SpartacusRox]

It appears that the law is another area of knowledge deficiency for you. The fact is direct witness testimony is the cornerstone of most cases.

Of course it is, no argument there at all. The question becomes one of credibility of witness. There has already been evidential discrepancies between Andreu and the Lemonds in past civil cases. This would be used by the defence to cast doubt on any testimony given that is not backed up by corroborating evidence. 'Beyond reasonable doubt' is a high level of proof, this is not a balance of probability matter as in civil cases.

Despite the peurile fanboy comments to the contrary, I do not hero worship LA or any sportsperson, I merely admire their achievements. For me this isn't an issue of whether I think Armstrong has doped or not, it is an issue of whether it can be legally proved he has doped. That has not occurred and in my view it probably won't be. I have never posted a post at any time stating that my personal beliefs as to whether Armstrong rode clean or otherwise. What I have been consistent in, is challenging presuppositions based upon biased views of the issue and in many cases, wishful thinking.

Personally i don't care if you know Armstrong personally or not, or if you consider him to be a complete tosser. In fact you may well be right, but then again he may think the same about you. For me a persons personality is not part of the equation, sport is not a popularity contest and plenty of people considered Merckx and Hinault to be arrogant *** too.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Perhaps they have been asked by Novitzky to keep quite in order to not jeopardize the investigation. Better that Wonderboy does not know who said what.

Or perhaps they have given their views on the matter but would prefer not to enter meaningless public debates on the issue where every comment is twisted to mean something else.

 

[Race Radio]

Babbble....................Andreu and the Lemonds in past................ babbble

You are incorrect to think that this case in any way hinges on Frankie, Betsy, or Greg. There are at least three other riders confirming that there was doping on the team.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Yeah, those guys are in a fantasy world plus....

Novitzky, the Federal Investigators, **** Pound, Greg LeMond, Andreu, JV, Floyd, "the Tabloid media ie. all of the them," 95% of European cycling fans,

ok, enough....seriously who is living in YOUR fantasy world. Where are Pharmstrong's defenders besides RBR?

I am curious to know why you consider me an Armstrong defender?

I have never posted anything on here defending him, if by defending you mean my condoning him taking PED's or cheating in the clinical sense. I do not condone any rider taking illegal substances.

What I have done is respond to posts that are already assuming him to be guilty. He has not been proven guilty of anything, he has never been sanctioned by the sports governing bodies, nor has he lost a civil action. In the legal sense (and that is what people on here continually refer to.."The Investigation") he is an innocent man, unless the judicial foundations of the USA have changed recently.

At the end of the day, noone on here knows whether or not there will be an indictment served on him or what that indictment will relate to, although I accept that you could take an educated guess. The 'evidence' that posters on here accept as gospel will be tested by due process and at the end of that he will either be found guilty or not guilty, should the matter progress that far.

If the evidence is such that he is found guilty, then so be it. If he is found not guilty, then I am assuming the majority of posters on here will accept that they were wrong and that he did win clean. You can't have it both ways.

( of course the reality will be that most on here would view that as a gross miscarraige of justice and it will further entrench their views on the matter)

 

[SpartacusRox]

You are incorrect to think that this case in any way hinges on Frankie, Betsy, or Greg. There are at least three other riders confirming that there was doping on the team.

There will also be others who say that there wasn't and you know that. That being the case the question will become: does this prove that the doping on the team was systemic and supported and orchestrated by the team management. Further is Armstrong legally part of the team management. I am not offering an opinion on this one way or the other. what i am saying is that three riders admitting to doping on the team may mean a lot or nothing in the legal sense.

 

[flicker]

There will also be others who say that there wasn't and you know that. That being the case the question will become: does this prove that the doping on the team was systemic and supported and orchestrated by the team management. Further is Armstrong legally part of the team management. I am not offering an opinion on this one way or the other. what i am saying is that three riders admitting to doping on the team may mean a lot or nothing in the legal sense.

Arsmrong neve rested positive, period.

 

[pedaling squares]

... 'Beyond reasonable doubt' is a high level of proof, this is not a balance of probability matter as in civil cases.
...

Actually this standard is no more than what a reasonable person would believe given the circumstances. There can still be doubt about the accused's guilt, but it must not be enough to sway a reasonable belief that the person is guilty. IIRC, this standard was brought about in English law to avoid every accused person going free, as jurors were failing to convict offenders when any doubt existed. It is much more stringent than the balance of probabilities, but it is not iron-clad proof with no room for opposing theories.

 

[SpartacusRox]

You are incorrect to think that this case in any way hinges on Frankie, Betsy, or Greg. There are at least three other riders confirming that there was doping on the team.

I also note that you define 'babble', as anything that does not accord to your own opinions on a particular issue.

Seems like you suffer from a similar egotistical narcissm condition to the one that you accuse Armstrong of.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Actually this standard is no more than what a reasonable person would believe given the circumstances. There can still be doubt about the accused's guilt, but it must not be enough to sway a reasonable belief that the person is guilty. IIRC, this standard was brought about in English law to avoid every accused person going free, as jurors were failing to convict offenders when any doubt existed. It is much more stringent than the balance of probabilities, but it is not iron-clad proof with no room for opposing theories.

I agree, but the prosecution must prove 'beyond' reasonable doubt. The defence only needs to attain a point of raising a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof as you know always rests with the prosecution.

The point I would make is that in past cases in the civil court, some (not all RR) of the very people who will be material witness in any potential criminal case have already had their evidence essentially dismissed or at least found to be unsubstantiated. That raises serious issues in a criminal setting where the defence will be able to point to that. Of course there may and probably will be other evidence presented which will be considered on its own merits.

My concern is that there is a tendency for RR and others to dismiss as fabrication any evidence one raises that could be used to support Armstrong's case but present as bulletproof, potential evidence that would be detrimental to him. When I point out such evidence as in the case of the Virjiman findings relating to the 99 sample testing, the response I get from RR is that WADA rejected those findings, essentially on the basis that they did not like them. To reinforce his point he posts in large font, perhaps beacuse he feels that adds more emphasis to his argument.

Taking that into a criminal court setting, the fact that WADA disagreed with the findings of an independent panel on the basis that they felt hard done by will be laughed out of court.

 

[NashbarShorts]

Seems like you suffer from a similar egotistical narcissm condition to the one that you accuse Armstrong of.

I don't know if you are qualified to be making psychological diagnoses, but irregardless, you might want to check the definition of "sycophant"...

I already know that RR, Hog. Thoughtless and other sycophants are living in an anti LA fantasy world.

In order to be a sycophant, you have to be a "servile, flattering follower". So for instance, from your screenname, we might surmise that you are a sycophant of Cancellara. And obviously, "fanboys" can be considered sycophants of Armstrong.

But for those of us -- like RR and theHog -- who strongly believe that Armstrong is a total FRAUD, who exactly are we "sycophants" of??? The accusation makes no sense.

We are the ones saying that the Emperor has no clothes. We can hardly be considered sycophants.

 

[python]

your rants are getting out of hand in volume and absurdity. calling a paid hatchet job an independent panel is the hight of fanboyism no matter how much you deny it. diminishing the opinion of the world's regulator of doping without addressing the actual issues raised by wada is the height of both incompetence and baseless speculation you accuse others of. your game is simplistic and transparent, i afraid brodeal is right - that monkey is way smarter.

 

[Race Radio]

There will also be others who say that there wasn't and you know that. That being the case the question will become: does this prove that the doping on the team was systemic and supported and orchestrated by the team management. Further is Armstrong legally part of the team management. I am not offering an opinion on this one way or the other. what i am saying is that three riders admitting to doping on the team may mean a lot or nothing in the legal sense.

Name an American Tour rider that will say this. Easy to get some guy who did not race Tour with Lance but VDV, Tyler, George....they were there and will have to tell the truth, or they go to prison.

 

[Race Radio]

I also note that you define 'babble', as anything that does not accord to your own opinions on a particular issue.
.

Your have the habit confusing quantity with quality. Too much babble, not enough info that is based on reality. Don't be surprised when someone trims the fluff to get to your often discredited point.

 

[Race Radio]

I agree, but the prosecution must prove 'beyond' reasonable doubt. The defence only needs to attain a point of raising a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof as you know always rests with the prosecution.

The point I would make is that in past cases in the civil court, some (not all RR) of the very people who will be material witness in any potential criminal case have already had their evidence essentially dismissed or at least found to be unsubstantiated. That raises serious issues in a criminal setting where the defence will be able to point to that. Of course there may and probably will be other evidence presented which will be considered on its own merits.

My concern is that there is a tendency for RR and others to dismiss as fabrication any evidence one raises that could be used to support Armstrong's case but present as bulletproof, potential evidence that would be detrimental to him. When I point out such evidence as in the case of the Virjiman findings relating to the 99 sample testing, the response I get from RR is that WADA rejected those findings, essentially on the basis that they did not like them. To reinforce his point he posts in large font, perhaps beacuse he feels that adds more emphasis to his argument.

Taking that into a criminal court setting, the fact that WADA disagreed with the findings of an independent panel on the basis that they felt hard done by will be laughed out of court.

Not only did WADA rejected the farce that is the Virjiman report but so did vast majority of fans, researchers, and many of the UCI's own Bio Passport committee.

The only people who still cling to it are the fanboys.

 

[Berzin]

I am curious to know why you consider me an Armstrong defender?

I have never posted anything on here defending him, if by defending you mean my condoning him taking PED's or cheating in the clinical sense.

If by defending him you mean post after post of you telling us how sure you are he never doped without knowing the content of the grand jury testimonies...

If by defending him you mean taking threads off-topic and making every single one of your apologist rants about you and not the topic at hand, thus muddying the waters for the sake of obfuscation...

If by defending him you mean telling us the rising mountain of information proves nothing...

If by defending him you mean posting about nothing else except any topic remotely related to Armstrong?

If by defending him you mean making your Quixotic internet crusade a lifetime's work...

There. Fixed the definition of "defend" for you so maybe you'd understand.

Still curious as to why we consider you an Armstrong defender?

 

[SpartacusRox]

your rants are getting out of hand in volume and absurdity. calling a paid hatchet job an independent panel is the hight of fanboyism no matter how much you deny it. diminishing the opinion of the world's regulator of doping without addressing the actual issues raised by wada is the height of both incompetence and baseless speculation you accuse others of. your game is simplistic and transparent, i afraid brodeal is right - that monkey is way smarter.

Python, this is laughable coming from you. I have never seen ANYTHING of substance posted by you on these forums. Your posts consist almost solely of taking potshots at anyone who disagrees with your view of the world. In this case, you disagree with the findings therefore it must be a hatchet job. Then of course you sign off by throwing out a personal insult.

True to formula i have to say.

 

[SpartacusRox]

I don't know if you are qualified to be making psychological diagnoses, but irregardless, you might want to check the definition of "sycophant"...



In order to be a sycophant, you have to be a "servile, flattering follower". So for instance, from your screenname, we might surmise that you are a sycophant of Cancellara. And obviously, "fanboys" can be considered sycophants of Armstrong.

But for those of us -- like RR and theHog -- who strongly believe that Armstrong is a total FRAUD, who exactly are we "sycophants" of??? The accusation makes no sense.

We are the ones saying that the Emperor has no clothes. We can hardly be considered sycophants.

I guess i would call it a circular sycophancy, where you and the others in your mutual admiration society, feed off each other.

I have no problem at all with you thinking Armstrong is a total fraud, I guess time will tell whether or not you are right.

 

[SpartacusRox]

If by defending him you mean post after post of you telling us how sure you are he never doped without knowing the content of the grand jury testimonies...

If by defending him you mean taking threads off-topic and making every single one of your apologist rants about you and not the topic at hand, thus muddying the waters for the sake of obfuscation...

If by defending him you mean telling us the rising mountain of information proves nothing...

If by defending him you mean posting about nothing else except any topic remotely related to Armstrong?

If by defending him you mean making your Quixotic internet crusade a lifetime's work...

There. Fixed the definition of "defend" for you so maybe you'd understand.

Still curious as to why we consider you an Armstrong defender?

1. I am only giving posters the courtesy of a response. Surely that is the polite thing to do, rather than ignoring their responses to my posts.

2. I do post on other topics. In fact today i have posted on two other topics totally unrelated to Armstrong. One on cramping and antoher on rehabilitation after injury.

3. I may be wrong but this thread is essentially about LA and the "Investigation Bomb" so how do i take it off topic. In fact I try to ensure that I don't take threads off topic. It is much more likely to be people like Moose, Hog, Thoughtless etc who bring Armstrong into every clinic thread.

4. I don't post about me, I post about the issue. generally in response to another poster. I admit I do sometimes have a dig in response to a few of the less rational posters such as Python.

5. I have NEVER said i am 'sure he has never doped'. if i have perhaps you could quote the thread where i said it.

6. Finally, before you accuse me of ranting, which I do not do, I merely present a point of view. You may wish to re-read some of your own posts which give a better definition of ranting than mine ever will.

 

[bobs nob]

Luck rides again.

Howman said he suspects "some information will come out of the current inquiries that will be equally as significant as BALCO."

Howman wouldn't get into specifics of what he thought might come out of the case being investigated by US prosecutors in Los Angeles, but said WADA has agreed to cooperate in passing along any information it has.

People who used to work with Armstrong have been called in front of the grand jury meeting in Los Angeles.

Armstrong, who won the Tour de France a record seven times, has repeatedly denied allegations he took performance-enhancing drugs.

Federal prosecutors have been taking a look at cheating in cycling for months, aided by Food and Drug Administration Agent Jeff Novitzky, who played a key role in BALCO.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...-significant-as-BALCO-says-WADA-director.html

haven't read but a couple responses to the original post. I assume my sentiments are going to roughly mirror many others. News from wada should probably make it easier for the armstrong story to be less of an atomic bomb because of all of the ac coverage.

Luck rides again.

Very fortunate and conspiracy theorists will probably be/have said that the AC story was planted & stoked by LA, it's a reasonable theory but I really have stopped paying a lot of attention so don't know if there is any solid evidence to support the theory.

The doping keeps cycling relegated to a niche sport. Every time it starts gaining some greater following, boom, here comes a major doping story and it's just killing it. The AC story has completely cooled my enthusiasm.

I have already been told by other forumites to not let the door hit me on the way out. But that mentality doesn't really help, either. I'll still post, but with far less zeal.

 

[python]

Python.

that's because you have a compromised view of me and everyone else who sees through your cheap assurances of not being an apologist and a fanboy extraordinaire. as to the substance in my posting i'll let the record stand, you are the last one i'd be concerned with. btw, getting back everything you threw at others - ad hominems, stupid word play on peoples handles, calling disagreeing with you sycophants is the least you deserve. that monkey is indeed way smarter than you, primitive fanboy.