Walsh Rips on the Bio Passport!

[Von Mises]

In Lance's case we have both, 7 positives and a confession.

In real world simple rules apply: innocent until proven guilty and if we say "proven", then proven by preestablished rules. Cycling is no different. No matter how many times you link to Ahendens interview or L´Equipe article, they just dont count.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I am not sure I would use Coyle's statements as the foundation of my argument.

http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden (search the word 'Coyle')

Overall, the 'Lance' aspect of Doping is becoming a sideshow. I think the sport has a very long and systemic history of drug and performance enhancers and our energies are all better served by not focusing so much on individuals - and yes, it is not news to me which camp I fall into - as much as what, if anything could clean up cycling. I think the first step is forgiveness of anyone who has doped, especially if they are retired or very near to it.

Look at those who own up to it in Baseball (US). Almost instant forgiveness and a welcome back: Andy Pettite. The ones who deny? A long lonely road, Clemens, Bonds, McGuire.

Doping in cycling is like an arms race, the best clean guy ends up dirty because guys who he used to beat are now dropping him. In the end, they all end up more or less as they were before, but now they are all dirty.

Easy for me to say, I don't have a few million dollars a year riding on my ability to stay on top. Maybe if we paid them all nothing and made them beg for tips....

+1 I don't quite understand how people can agree with the statement that everybody dopes and then want to focus on only a select few.
Off point but I really want to believe that the teams who claim to be doing it clean really are, and that the Passport is cleaning things up. I want to, but I just don't know if I can.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

In real world simple rules apply: innocent until proven guilty and if we say "proven", then proven by preestablished rules. Cycling is no different. No matter how many times you link to Ahendens interview or L´Equipe article, they just dont count.

This is not a Court Room - we are not sanctioning or giving out judgments.
Just because someone has not been convicted of an offense does not mean they have not carried out an offense.

Are you suggesting that we cannot comment or question? That we can only take a viewpoint given to us by an official line? That we may not question that source?

 

[ggusta]

+1 I don't quite understand how people can agree with the statement that everybody dopes and then want to focus on only a select few.
Off point but I really want to believe that the teams who claim to be doing it clean really are, and that the Passport is cleaning things up. I want to, but I just don't know if I can.

The IDEA of the passport sounded good. In reality, it's almost counterproductive since so many people think, 'Oh, we have that in place now, so therefore everything I am witnessing is legit.'

I am wondering if there were no restraints on overseeing these athletes, what level of 'quarantine' exactly would it take to really KNOW we are watching an effort unaided by PED's.

I think it would clearly extend beyond the level of privacy invasion that we currently tolerate, but I ask anyone who can knowledgeably answer, what degree of oversight would virtually guarantee a clean athlete?

 

[slcbiker]

One thing that does bug me about this latest round of Walsh criticism is that he's using a Festina doctor as a source. Might as well be using Ferrari for all the credibility that gives.
Festina was one of the dirtier teams around, and Virenque should be getting just as much of this criticism as LA.

 

[elapid]

One thing that does bug me about this latest round of Walsh criticism is that he's using a Festina doctor as a source. Might as well be using Ferrari for all the credibility that gives.
Festina was one of the dirtier teams around, and Virenque should be getting just as much of this criticism as LA.

Perhaps he would be criticized as heavily if he was still riding. He certainly did not get off scott-free when he was riding. How much of this crap do you think would be flying around if the media didn't cover every move made by Armstrong? I think it would die down to Virenque-type levels if Armstrong retired quietly into the night. At least that would be my hope.

 

[Deagol]

Scribe and TheArbiter have rose colored glasses when it comes to Armstrong. Nothing you say to these to will change their opinion abour Armstrong which to me is completely sad because they apparently have wrapped themselves up into the fantasy.

This forum has opened up my eyes a bit more, showing me something I have seen for a long time; Armstrong doped during his entire career; past and present. I also believe Contador is doping today. The posters on this forum that bash Armstrong for doping and then say that Contador isn't are just not able to get past the fan thing.

EVERYONE LIES!!!! Especially when they have something to gain or something to lose.

When something smells like a duck and sounds like a duck then it is a duck. Armstrong and Contador have results that point to doping, have ties to teams/teamates that doped, ties to doctors that were scientific in doping programs. Sorry they doped. They may not have been declared positive due to the RULES surrounding what constitues a positive but that is a technicality and not getting a positive due to a technicality doesn't prove that you are clean.

I used to think Walsh was full of himself, but he may not always present solid facts but his job isn't to always to that. His job is to question the status quo, make others accountable and I think Betsy Andreu, Greg Lemond, and Walsh have all done that about cycling. I look forward to seeing it in other sports as well.

Very well said !!!!

 

[Deagol]

In real world simple rules apply: innocent until proven guilty and if we say "proven", then proven by preestablished rules. Cycling is no different. No matter how many times you link to Ahendens interview or L´Equipe article, they just dont count.

That's not the real world you are talking about, that's a court room. A real event either happened or didn't happen. Whether humans decide after-the-fact to acknowledge the occurrence or to deny the occurrence of said event is irrelevant to the fact that it did or did not occur

Ridiculous example: it would be theoretically possible for a Court of Law to declare that the Earth was flat

 

[Digger]

One thing that does bug me about this latest round of Walsh criticism is that he's using a Festina doctor as a source. Might as well be using Ferrari for all the credibility that gives.
Festina was one of the dirtier teams around, and Virenque should be getting just as much of this criticism as LA.

And would it ever occur to you that he knows what he is talking about, in light of all this.

 

[Eva Maria]

In real world simple rules apply: innocent until proven guilty and if we say "proven", then proven by preestablished rules. Cycling is no different. No matter how many times you link to Ahendens interview or L´Equipe article, they just dont count.

The UCI is not the real world, not even close.

In the real world if the case of Armstrong doping came to court it would be a slam dunk.

You know the fans are getting desperate when they realize that "Never tested positive" or "No Evidence" doesn't work anymore. Their last grasp is "Never Sanctioned" If all you have is the disfunctional UCI your case is weak.

 

[scribe]

Scribe and TheArbiter have rose colored glasses when it comes to Armstrong. Nothing you say to these to will change their opinion abour Armstrong which to me is completely sad because they apparently have wrapped themselves up into the fantasy.

This forum has opened up my eyes a bit more, showing me something I have seen for a long time; Armstrong doped during his entire career; past and present. I also believe Contador is doping today. The posters on this forum that bash Armstrong for doping and then say that Contador isn't are just not able to get past the fan thing.

EVERYONE LIES!!!! Especially when they have something to gain or something to lose.

When something smells like a duck and sounds like a duck then it is a duck. Armstrong and Contador have results that point to doping, have ties to teams/teamates that doped, ties to doctors that were scientific in doping programs. Sorry they doped. They may not have been declared positive due to the RULES surrounding what constitues a positive but that is a technicality and not getting a positive due to a technicality doesn't prove that you are clean.

I used to think Walsh was full of himself, but he may not always present solid facts but his job isn't to always to that. His job is to question the status quo, make others accountable and I think Betsy Andreu, Greg Lemond, and Walsh have all done that about cycling. I look forward to seeing it in other sports as well.

There is more than one way to Fantasy Island. Jumping to conclusions based on circumstantial evidence is not the proper way to proceed with EVERYONE'S decision making. I have no problem with the fact that you see the whole lot of everything as dopers and cheaters and liars. Fine. Seems too simple a solution. The problem with what i read above is you're projecting this view onto everyone else around you. The information you have assembled to make your decision is not good enough for me.

Give me a positive within the system's doping control mechanism, and I will be the first to admit my distaste for what I see in front of me. Until then, I want more out of the cycling governing bodies and the development and application of controls. The rest will easily take care of itself going ahead.

 

[Von Mises]

This is not a Court Room - we are not sanctioning or giving out judgments.
Just because someone has not been convicted of an offense does not mean they have not carried out an offense.

Are you suggesting that we cannot comment or question? That we can only take a viewpoint given to us by an official line? That we may not question that source?

No, I am not suggesting that we cannot comment or question? Are you suggesting that I cannot point out the difference between fact and opinion?

I personally think that Armstrong and majority of other GT contenders during last 15 years were probably doped. That’s my opinion. That’s not a fact.

Burden of proof does not lie on Armstrong nor his supporters. The fact that they (Armstrong and his supporters) have acted in this way, ie “Why LA is not doper (seriously)” thread, shows that they are a bit stupid. It seems that new generation of cyclist (like Contador) have learned from Armstrong PR mistakes and learned the power of “no comment”.

The correct way how Armstrong supporters should argue is following. At first they should understand the right premise: they need no evidence to support their claims. Benefit of assuption is on their side. They don’t have to prove, that Lance is not a doper. They don’t have to find evidence. They don’t have dicredit L´Equipe story. They shouldn’t say that L´Equpe is bad evidence. They can just say that it is not evidence at all.
And btw, quite often int this forum official line is – LA (and all cyclists) are dopers. LA supporters fall into this trap and try to find evidence suggesting that LA is not. In this way they give away upper hand, they give away “the necessity of proof lies with those who lay charges.”

That's not the real world you are talking about, that's a court room. A real event either happened or didn't happen. Whether humans decide after-the-fact to acknowledge the occurrence or to deny the occurrence of said event is irrelevant to the fact that it did or did not occur

Ridiculous example: it would be theoretically possible for a Court of Law to declare that the Earth was flat

In science rules about burden of proof are simlar to courtroom. Assumption is that world is not flat, that LA (and other cyclists) is not a doper.

The UCI is not the real world, not even close.

In the real world if the case of Armstrong doping came to court it would be a slam dunk.

Why don’t you then (or Le Mond or L´Equipe or etc) bring it to the court?

 

[Digger]

Give me a positive within the system's doping control mechanism, and I will be the first to admit my distaste for what I see in front of me. Until then, I want more out of the cycling governing bodies and the development and application of controls. The rest will easily take care of itself going ahead.

So, you think all the cyclists involved in Operation puerto are innocent?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

There is more than one way to Fantasy Island. Jumping to conclusions based on circumstantial evidence is not the proper way to proceed with EVERYONE'S decision making. I have no problem with the fact that you see the whole lot of everything as dopers and cheaters and liars. Fine. Seems too simple a solution. The problem with what i read above is you're projecting this view onto everyone else around you. The information you have assembled to make your decision is not good enough for me.

Give me a positive within the system's doping control mechanism, and I will be the first to admit my distaste for what I see in front of me. Until then, I want more out of the cycling governing bodies and the development and application of controls. The rest will easily take care of itself going ahead.

Scibe (&Arbiter) are entitled to their views. It is not up to anyone to set the level of where the line should be to come to a decision or form an opinion.

While for me, the weight of evidence - actual and circumstantial - is more than enough to conclude Lance doped, it does not give me right to assume everyone else must come to the same conclusion.

However -I do find it difficult how anyone could put their faith or trust in to the UCI as the basis for having an assumption that certain riders are clean.

 

[scribe]

However -I do find it difficult how anyone could put their faith or trust in to the UCI as the basis for having an assumption that certain riders are clean.

I don't put faith in the UCI or other governing bodies. I put the responsibility on them to make what we are watching, into something real by finding mechanisms that will eliminate doping. I don't think they have been nearly serious enough, and as a result, the fans are revolting against the results of the past 20 years. I am comfortable with the idea that many are angry with Armstrong for what they expect out of this sport and his role in that. I blame cycling's authority for not wanting to ensure the quality of competition during his reign.

 

[Eva Maria]

Why don’t you then (or Le Mond or L´Equipe or etc) bring it to the court?

On what charge? What jurisdiction?

It is funny to see the fanboys suspend rational thought when it comes to their hero. Sanction or not the evidence is overwhelming.

 

[Anonymous]

And would it ever occur to you that he knows what he is talking about, in light of all this.

So you are saying only select liars are credible? You are willing to believe the Festina doctor but everything Ferrari says is rubbish?

Not too sure about that.

 

[Kennf1]

Why don’t you then (or Le Mond or L´Equipe or etc) bring it to the court?

Other people have made this statement, and I just don't get it. What exactly is an individual or newspaper supposed to be bringing to court? In what type of claim would anyone have standing? As far as I know, individuals and newspapers can't sue athletes for doping.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, I am not suggesting that we cannot comment or question? Are you suggesting that I cannot point out the difference between fact and opinion? .....

Of course not - you are entitled to your opinion and to share it,
however when you make a statement like the one below you are setting out the 'rules' that we should apply.

In real world simple rules apply: innocent until proven guilty and if we say "proven", then proven by preestablished rules. Cycling is no different. No matter how many times you link to Ahendens interview or L´Equipe article, they just dont count.

Also - only one poster ever says "they all doped".
Occasionally in a debate about cycling in the 90's someone will say "they all doped", however when questioned further they clarify that it was the majority of top riders within that era - that is quite different.

 

[Anonymous]

On what charge? What jurisdiction?

It is funny to see the fanboys suspend rational thought when it comes to their hero. Sanction or not the evidence is overwhelming.

Well for starters how about the court of public opinion? Instead of being hunkered down on some obscure MB why don't you take your information and shop around for an American or French investigative reporter to take down an American sports icon? That's practically a pastime in the US. Build 'em up so we can tear 'em down.

 

[Digger]

So you are saying only select liars are credible? You are willing to believe the Festina doctor but everything Ferrari says is rubbish?

Not too sure about that.

Where did I say that everything Ferrari says is rubbish? When it comes to PEDS, he knows his stuff.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So you are saying only select liars are credible? You are willing to believe the Festina doctor but everything Ferrari says is rubbish?

Not too sure about that.

Can you point out where Vayer's had lied, please?

He has a reputation within the French cycling community as staunchly against doping - and I believe he worked with Bassons in Festina.

 

[Eva Maria]

Can you point out where Vayer's had lied, please?

He has a reputation within the French cycling community as staunchly against doping - and I believe he worked with Bassons in Festina.

Exactly. Vayers was let go from Festina and pushed out of the sport because he WOULDN'T dope riders.

 

[Deagol]

In science rules about burden of proof are simlar to courtroom. Assumption is that world is not flat, that LA (and other cyclists) is not a doper.

Science is concerned with discovering the truth of the natural world, law is concerned with rules and procedures. Science strives to create predictable, repeatable results, Court Orders strive to set precedence. Court (jury) verdicts are open to debate (among jurors). Science tells you what happened, the courtroom tells you if you should decide to accept it or deny it.

 

[BigBoat]

The argumentation for the French ministry of sport lying but Dr. Ferrari somehow having credibility is grasping at a straw.

One think I keep seeing is Lance fans being unsure if they should support Contador being taken down so Lance has a better chance, or if they should support Contador since their also doping appologists and they support all top dopers. Its a mixed feeling thats hurting the argument because your admitting dopers are there.

In the old days of Cycling forums the biggest Lance fans tried their best to hush or censor doping. If doping does not exist in a significant quantity, than Lance isnt a doper.