What constitutes proof that a cyclist/team are doping?

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Arguing over the length of Hincapie's ban is a personal question. There is no real disagreement on the facts. It's obvious that Hincapie was a huge liar, a huge doper, and a key omerta enforcer. The disagreement is just over whether snitches should get deals.

Me? I like me some snitches....
 
Mar 26, 2009
342
0
0
mountainrman said:
Your lance, not mine - since most of the threads you take part in are about Lance and you object to references to other riders implicated. Why?
indeed the clinic is seemingly fixated on lance, at the expense of proper treatment of others

I dislike all dopers unlike the rest of the clinic seemingly, not just Lance.
So the contrast between riders is important in determining whether the judicial process is working. Hincapie proves it is not.

[...]

The first requirement of proof is a body willing to take an objective dispassionate and equitable view of evidence. We do not have that anywhere in cycling.
1. The clinic is not fixated on Lance. For proof you just need to look at all the many, many threads that are not about Lance. The problem, for you, is that so much of the cycling-doping world is inter-related that there are not many degrees of separation between Lance and so many other dopers, or doping products, or doping doctors, or doping teams. This is not fixation on Lance, but fixation on doping, and Lance being so deeply involved.

2. You call for equal treatment and equal dislike of all dopers, and accuse the "rest of the clinic" as being biased against Lance. Your second problem, then, is your inability to see three things: that not all doping is the same, and that not all dopers are the same or are disliked simply because they are dopers. A thief that quietly steals a loaf of bread is not the same as a thief that steals millions and acts poorly towards everyone around him. The thieves aren't the same, nor is the theft. People will be more interested in the second thief and his crimes.

3. You think we need "objective dispassionate and equitable view of evidence" before we can have proof of doping. You are correct that we don't have that in cycling, but you are incorrect to believe we ever will. We have no such thing in any court cases, since the quality and quantity of evidence is never the same in any two court cases, yet judges can and must still decide guilty or innocent. Your reasoning implies that testimony from a former personal servant/mechanic should not be admissible against Lance because other dopers don't have to defend themselves against such testimony, but this is only because no other dopers have manservants/personal mechanics. We've seen what happens when we have a single threshold of drugs to decide on positive/negative tests, and the result is Lance cheating for a decade and getting away with it. We need to use all available evidence, and so it will necessarily NOT be "equitable".
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
left out the other talking point, extraordinary allegations require extraordinary proof.

But since when were we talking Marvel Comics?

Ordinary allegations, require ordinary proof.

Capital punishment trials, require proof according to evidentiary rules/law.

Capital punishment burden of proof/s accept witness testimony.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
silverrocket said:
2. You call for equal treatment and equal dislike of all dopers, and accuse the "rest of the clinic" as being biased against Lance. Your second problem, then, is your inability to see three things: that not all doping is the same, and that not all dopers are the same or are disliked simply because they are dopers. A thief that quietly steals a loaf of bread is not the same as a thief that steals millions and acts poorly towards everyone around him. The thieves aren't the same, nor is the theft. People will be more interested in the second thief and his crimes.
.
Whilst not all doping is the same or doping crimes - we clearly disagree (and incidentally so does the law, had this been a criminal conspiracy) on the relative significance of Armstrong and Hincapie (for example) in the same heist.

Realities are..
1/ You cannot win the tour on your own. The team who supports is a key part of the victory , without the conspiracy to cheat, the victories would not have been possible.

2/ The key supporters were just as heavily doped - and importantly - doped before Lance returned from cancer and after he retired. In short they were career dopers, not occasional deviants from good behaviour

3/ ALL of the key lieutenants stayed silent and continued to support lance as he persecuted such as Emma and Betsy. So they were all willing and knowing conspirators in that. If they had qualms about it , they could have talked or left.

4/ ONLY the key conspirators got the TDF Prize money assuming the team conformed to the norms that the victor shared the prize money amongst the key members of the team. So they were responsible for the heist of prize money, and in winning they were assured of big contracts so were clearly not acting for altruistic reasons or just to help lance. They did it to make money. They made $millions.

5/ In mitigation, none of them came forward at a time which could have halted the victories, and it can be reasonably assumed that it was only because of the gun to the head, being given immunity removing right to silence , and breathing the words "marion jones" that got them to talk. Once they had "come clean" to the feds, they could assume it would become public, so that "confessing" to USADA was more or less inevitable. So very little should be given in mitigation.

6/ In the UK there is a law called "joint enterprise" designed to ensure that key co conspirators just by being there at the time of criminal offenses committed are made equally guilty without pulling the trigger or taking the loot. All jurisdictions , make key conspirators similarly guilty.

The final point is..
7/ DOPING is the crime not winning. So who wins in your statement above or how much should be irrelevant (although in the cases of all the key support riders including hincapie that is $million plus so even on the basis of how much they won, they are still in by your definition). They were whole career dopers and should be treated accordingly.

On the basis of the above it is RIDICULOUS giving such as hincapie 6 months. Life commuted to 6 years for a full confession makes more sense - provided he returns 1/5 share of all the sum TdF prizes, since he not lance will have been the beneficiary.

It really is time for the cycling community to ask for proper justice - against such as hincapie and the other key lieutenants. For too long cycling has found another scapegoat, treated them harshly and then swept the rest under the table to surface again at a later time.

The message radiated by these sentience to all riders is "have a great life. be a superdomestique, do not be a team leader with all those stresses, and you can earn millions and still be let off with a derisory ban and fine even if you dope your entire life - let the leader be the fall guy!"

I would like to wager that at least one of the ones who said "we stopped doping in 2006 after lance went" ( yeah right, as if...) - will be caught and charged for doping. The problem has been allowed to fester.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
mountainrman said:
Whilst not all doping is the same or doping crimes - we clearly disagree (and incidentally so does the law) on the relative significance of Armstrong and Hincapie (for example) in the same heist.

Realities are..
1/ You cannot win the tour on your own. The team who supports is a key part of the victory , without the conspiracy to cheat, the victories would not have been possible.

2/ The key supporters were just as heavily doped - and importantly - doped before Lance returned from cancer and after he retired. In short they were career dopers, not occasional deviants from good behaviour

3/ ALL of the key lieutenants stayed silent and continued to support lance as he persecuted such as Emma and Betsy. So they were all willing and knowing conspirators in that. If they had qualms about it , they could have talked or left.

4/ ONLY the key conspirators got the TDF Prize money assuming the team conformed to the norms that the victor shared the prize money amongst the key members of the team. So they were responsible for the heist of prize money, and in winning they were assured of big contracts so were clearly not acting for altruistic reasons or just to help lance. They did it to make money. They made $millions.

5/ In mitigation, none of them came forward at a time which could have halted the victories, and it can be reasonably assumed that it was only because of the gun to the head, being given immunity removing right to silence , and breathing the words "marion jones" that got them to talk. Once they had "come clean" to the feds, they could assume it would become public, so that "confessing" to USADA was more or less inevitable. So very little should be given in mitigation.

6/ In the UK there is a law called "joint enterprise" designed to ensure that key co conspirators just by being there at the time of criminal offenses committed are made equally guilty without pulling the trigger or taking the loot. All jurisdictions , make key conspirators similarly guilty.

The final point is..
7/ DOPING is the crime not winning. So who wins in your statement above or how much should be irrelevant (although in the cases of all the key support riders including hincapie that is $million plus.

On the basis of the above it is RIDICULOUS giving such as hincapie 6 months. Life commuted to 6 years for a full confession makes more sense.

It really is time for the cycling community to ask for proper justice - against such as hincapie and the other key lieutenants. For too long cycling has found another scapegoat and then swept the rest under the table.
See, yet again you are crying on about doping the act.

Hincapie was a doper - he eventually confessed his part and implicated others. Therefore he gets 6 months (as well as having results removed).

Armstrong was not just a career doper, he also coerced others to dope, and aided and abetted team wide doping practices.
 
Oct 30, 2012
428
0
0
mountainrman said:
Whilst not all doping is the same or doping crimes - we clearly disagree (and incidentally so does the law, had this been a criminal conspiracy) on the relative significance of Armstrong and Hincapie (for example) in the same heist.

Realities are..
1/ You cannot win the tour on your own. The team who supports is a key part of the victory , without the conspiracy to cheat, the victories would not have been possible.

2/ The key supporters were just as heavily doped - and importantly - doped before Lance returned from cancer and after he retired. In short they were career dopers, not occasional deviants from good behaviour

3/ ALL of the key lieutenants stayed silent and continued to support lance as he persecuted such as Emma and Betsy. So they were all willing and knowing conspirators in that. If they had qualms about it , they could have talked or left.

4/ ONLY the key conspirators got the TDF Prize money assuming the team conformed to the norms that the victor shared the prize money amongst the key members of the team. So they were responsible for the heist of prize money, and in winning they were assured of big contracts so were clearly not acting for altruistic reasons or just to help lance. They did it to make money. They made $millions.

5/ In mitigation, none of them came forward at a time which could have halted the victories, and it can be reasonably assumed that it was only because of the gun to the head, being given immunity removing right to silence , and breathing the words "marion jones" that got them to talk. Once they had "come clean" to the feds, they could assume it would become public, so that "confessing" to USADA was more or less inevitable. So very little should be given in mitigation.

6/ In the UK there is a law called "joint enterprise" designed to ensure that key co conspirators just by being there at the time of criminal offenses committed are made equally guilty without pulling the trigger or taking the loot. All jurisdictions , make key conspirators similarly guilty.

The final point is..
7/ DOPING is the crime not winning. So who wins in your statement above or how much should be irrelevant (although in the cases of all the key support riders including hincapie that is $million plus so even on the basis of how much they won, they are still in by your definition). They were whole career dopers and should be treated accordingly.

On the basis of the above it is RIDICULOUS giving such as hincapie 6 months. Life commuted to 6 years for a full confession makes more sense - provided he returns 1/5 share of all the sum TdF prizes, since he not lance will have been the beneficiary.

It really is time for the cycling community to ask for proper justice - against such as hincapie and the other key lieutenants. For too long cycling has found another scapegoat, treated them harshly and then swept the rest under the table to surface again at a later time.

The message radiated by these sentience to all riders is "have a great life. be a superdomestique, do not be a team leader with all those stresses, and you can earn millions and still be let off with a derisory ban and fine even if you dope your entire life - let the leader be the fall guy!"

I would like to wager that at least one of the ones who said "we stopped doping in 2006 after lance went" ( yeah right, as if...) - will be caught and charged for doping. The problem has been allowed to fester.
But you're totally missing the point of the challenge professional cycling faces. The relative harshness of sentencing in this case is almost irrelevant to the bigger picture.

The problem your sport is faced with is the incredibly awkward one of trying to find a workable solution to doping enforcement. And nobody apart from a few journalists and ex-riders has been getting to grips with that problem. The teams themselves are carrying on as if nothing has happened pretty much.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
Grandillusion said:
But you're totally missing the point of the challenge professional cycling faces. The relative harshness of sentencing in this case is almost irrelevant to the bigger picture.

The problem your sport is faced with is the incredibly awkward one of trying to find a workable solution to doping enforcement. And nobody apart from a few
journalists and ex-riders has been getting to grips with that problem. The teams themselves are carrying on as if nothing has happened pretty much.
There are variety of aspects to this problem.

I have no doubt in my mind that if UCI had been functioning correctly - and in reality splitting the doping functions away from the sport promotion to avoid conflict of interests - then the evidence such as it was would have been investigated a great deal earlier. UCI condemning all who said there was a problem as liars are a large part of the problem.

UCI must take a lot of the blame. McQuaid if he had any decency would have resigned months ago recognising his own abject failure in dealing with the problem.

I do not think the random sentences arbitrarily extended or commuted by help or active hindrance from McQuaid have helped the problem one iota either. It has fostered the impression of being out of control and corrupt.

Before I make the next statement - it is important to state I support free journalism, and so have contributed to the Kimmage defence fund

BUT that does not mean I am a fan of all of the behaviour of such journalists.

I also think some of how the journalists have behaved has been a hindrance to uncovering the truth rather than a help. Kimmage calling Lance a "cancer" as an allegory was never going to help the situation, always going to alienate, even help foster public sympathy for Armstrong, nor did Walsh when granted an interview saying "I am only going to ask questions about doping" There is a lot he could have asked Armstrong about who was an authority on top rank cycling about other subjects as well as doping just to keep that channel open, without ever being a "fan with a typewriter"

Ashenden being sacked as a UCI expert because he refused to be gagged has proved that UCI want to try to hide the very kind of information that cast provable doubt on armstrong too.

There are many aspects to the problem.
The justice system is one of them.

Hincapie and Leipheimer coming out home free is outrageous.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
mountainrman said:
There are variety of aspects to this problem.

I have no doubt in my mind that if UCI had been functioning correctly - and in reality splitting the doping functions away from the sport promotion to avoid conflict of interests - then the evidence such as it was would have been investigated a great deal earlier. UCI condemning all who said there was a problem as liars are a large part of the problem.

UCI must take a lot of the blame. McQuaid if he had any decency would have resigned months ago recognising his own abject failure in dealing with the problem.

I do not think the random sentences arbitrarily extended or commuted by help or active hindrance from McQuaid have helped the problem one iota either. It has fostered the impression of being out of control and corrupt.

Before I make the next statement - it is important to state I support free journalism, and so have contributed to the Kimmage defence fund

BUT that does not mean I am a fan of all of the behaviour of such journalists.

I also think some of how the journalists have behaved has been a hindrance to uncovering the truth rather than a help. Kimmage calling Lance a "cancer" as an allegory was never going to help the situation, always going to alienate, even help foster public sympathy for Armstrong, nor did Walsh when granted an interview saying "I am only going to ask questions about doping" There is a lot he could have asked Armstrong about who was an authority on top rank cycling about other subjects as well as doping just to keep that channel open, without ever being a "fan with a typewriter"

Ashenden being sacked as a UCI expert because he refused to be gagged has proved that UCI want to try to hide the very kind of information that cast provable doubt on armstrong too.

There are many aspects to the problem.
The justice system is one of them.

Hincapie and Leipheimer coming out home free is outrageous.
Yes, the UCI are certainly implicated in all this.
You spend a lot of time giving out about Hincapie. How much did he give to the UCI in 'donations'?
Now, do you want to repeat that George & Lance are the same - if not, then please drop that the same sanctions should be applied.
Justice is about appropriate sanctions for offenses.

Also, can you back up the highlighted about Walsh?
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Yes, the UCI are certainly implicated in all this.
You spend a lot of time giving out about Hincapie. How much did he give to the UCI in 'donations'?
Now, do you want to repeat that George & Lance are the same - if not, then please drop that the same sanctions should be applied.
Justice is about appropriate sanctions for offenses.

Also, can you back up the highlighted about Walsh?
Read any of the articles by Walsh - he says it openly - Armstrong was getting irritated by some of the coverage given by Walsh so invited him to a "one on one" - and Walsh seems to take pride in having said then "the only questions I am going to ask about doping, not one question on anything else" - he then says "not surprisingly, I was never granted another interview". Walsh seems to take that as a matter of pride, so it appears in many of his articles on the subject.

I think it was extremely poor journalism on his part, closing the door to all future communication. It proved to me that Walsh had little interest in the sport only the "scoop" of being the one to out Armstrong. Certainly tabloid hack behaviour not broadsheet. He could have asked many questions about factors influencing performance and historic performances to get deep background on how some of the performances may have been affected by doping. As well as direct doping questions. And by publishing a few articles on that, which would have kept channels open, he too might have got closer, sooner, or managed to trap Armstrong in a lie.
 
check?

mountainrman said:
Ashenden being sacked as a UCI expert because he refused to be gagged has proved that UCI want to try to hide the very kind of information that cast provable doubt on armstrong too.

There are many aspects to the problem.
The justice system is one of them.

Hincapie and Leipheimer coming out home free is outrageous.
once again your way wrong

ashenden was not sacked as far as i know...........did he not resign
preferring not to sign a non disclosure agreement?

big george and levi did not come out of this home free ( this has been pointed

out to you many times ) they both lost results / received bans and of course

are now labelled 'dopers'

at least we can agree..........lance is no longer a cancer on cycling'

a small step for armstrong a huge leap for cycling
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
mountainrman said:
Read any of the articles by Walsh - he says it openly - Armstrong was getting irritated by some of the coverage given by Walsh so invited him to a "one on one" - and Walsh seems to take pride in having said then "the only questions I am going to ask about doping, not one question on anything else" - he then says "not surprisingly, I was never granted another interview". Walsh seems to take that as a matter of pride, so it appears in many of his articles on the subject.

I think it was extremely poor journalism on his part, closing the door to all future communication. It proved to me that Walsh had little interest in the sport only the "scoop" of being the one to out Armstrong. Certainly tabloid hack behaviour not broadsheet. He could have asked many questions about factors influencing performance and historic performances to get deep background on how some of the performances may have been affected by doping. And that way by publishing a few articles on that, he too might have got closer, sooner.
I have read plenty about Walsh - please link to anyone of these obviously numerous articles where he made the quote that you attribute to him.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
I have read plenty about Walsh - please link to anyone of these obviously numerous articles where he made the quote that you attribute to him.
With respect - if you were reading the detail - not just the soundbites you would have seen it by now.

Take this as one example of many: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/david-walsh-it-was-obvious-me-lance-armstrong-was-doping

Including the quote which I think is bad journalism: “But the only questions I want to ask you are about doping. I won’t be asking you one question about cycling outside of the context of doping.”

It really concerns me just how superficial some of the commenters in the clinic are : they are reading hyped headlines not the detail, and then commenting on the basis of soundbites.

Repeatedly.

Most of them for example seem still to want to present Judge Sparks judgement as some kind of vindication for USADA process. It was anything but.

For anyone that actually read it and understood - and read the judgement not the press cuttings, it was just about as far removed from vindication as was possible to be. It was a damning indictment of Tygarts kangaroo process, slamming the charging letter, questioning the motives clearly apparent, confirming there was a real problem over jurisdiction, and concluding in the first paragraph of judgement that he doubted that Armstrong could EVER get a fair hearing with any of the bodies..

That last statement says it all - the USADA system is not fit for purpose.

Sparks was just powerless to stop it in constitutional law until the outcome of the appeal could determine the scope and scale of actual damage which had then been done to Armstrong's constitutional rights which his court had the power to reverse in hindsight.

I am certain that had Tygart pulled that ridiculous and non judicial publicity stunt of putting evidence in public domain pre appeal as he has for Bruyneel, Sparks would have had the justification to do what he clearly was minded to do, and stop the thing dead in its tracks, with the grounds (he cites) of "immediate damage" -. He simply lacked the legal powers to halt what was a civil process (and essentially a tort arising from contract) until completion unless compromised by such stupidity as that.

So clearly we need a new judicial process in which Tygart does NOT play judge.
He can still be prosecutor at an independent (non UCI) judgement body.

In future - please read the detail all!
 
detail

mountainrman said:
With respect - if you were reading the detail -

In future - please read the detail all!
mountainrman so will you now be stopping writing the same errors in your

posts that i point out above?

you can hold your own views ( hey this is a forum ) but if your too thick

skinned to take on board the errors in your thoughts that members here have

pointed out to you many times there is little hope

lance is banned the cards are played..........live with it
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
mountainrman said:
With respect - if you were reading the detail - not just the soundbites you would have seen it by now.

Take this as one example of many: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/david-walsh-it-was-obvious-me-lance-armstrong-was-doping

Including the quote which I think is bad journalism: “But the only questions I want to ask you are about doping. I won’t be asking you one question about cycling outside of the context of doping.”

It really concerns me just how superficial some of the commenters in the clinic are : they are reading hyped headlines not the detail, and then commenting on the basis of soundbites.

Repeatedly.

Most of them for example seem still to want to present Judge Sparks judgement as some kind of vindication for USADA process. It was anything but.

For anyone that actually read it and understood - and read the judgement not the press cuttings, it was just about as far removed from vindication as was possible to be. It was a damning indictment of Tygarts kangaroo process, slamming the charging letter, questioning the motives clearly apparent, confirming there was a real problem over jurisdiction, and concluding in the first paragraph of judgement that he doubted that Armstrong could EVER get a fair hearing with any of the bodies..

That last statement says it all - the USADA system is not fit for purpose.

Sparks was just powerless to stop it in constitutional law until the outcome of the appeal could determine the scope and scale of actual damage which had then been done to Armstrong's constitutional rights which his court had the power to reverse in hindsight.

I am certain that had Tygart pulled that ridiculous and non judicial publicity stunt of putting evidence in public domain pre appeal as he has for Bruyneel, Sparks would have had the justification to do what he clearly was minded to do, and stop the thing dead in its tracks, with the grounds (he cites) of "immediate damage" -. He simply lacked the legal powers to halt what was a civil process (and essentially a tort arising from contract) until completion unless compromised by such stupidity as that.

So clearly we need a new judicial process in which Tygart does NOT play judge.
He can still be prosecutor at an independent (non UCI) judgement body.

In future - please read the detail all!
Here is the full quote in context - please let me know how doing so is "a hindrance" as you called it.
“He rang me because he knew I was asking a lot of questions and he thought that if I come along, and he’s really nice to me, and he gives me a one-on-one interview, I’ll be as happy as every other journalist and I’ll become his friend,” Walsh says. *

“I didn’t feel any desire to be his friend because I had a sense of what he was like, and I felt there were lots of questions that needed answering.”

He recalls his first words to Armstrong when he arrived at the hotel: “I don’t believe you’re clean, but this is why I’m here, because I have questions.

“But the only questions I want to ask you are about doping. I won’t be asking you one question about cycling outside of the context of doping.”
 
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
mountainrman said:
Including the quote which I think is bad journalism: “But the only questions I want to ask you are about doping. I won’t be asking you one question about cycling outside of the context of doping.”
You've written this now multiple times and you're just entitled to your opinion as anyone.

Only you need to realise that this opinion, as in several others you have, has you in a very small minority, a group of 1.

Repeating it over and over isn't going to change anyone else's mind on the significance of that being written.

However, if you are going to reply to Mas's request to post an article by Walsh (your original comment was that Walsh's articles have contained that statement on many occasions), posting one by David Pugh doesn't really meet the request since Walsh can't really be responsible for what Pugh chooses to write.

Walsh may well have written what you said; and perhaps on several occasions, but linking to an article by a different author is a bit of a con.

Maybe rather than a superficial read of what was asked, you can read the detail.

Most of them for example seem still to want to present Judge Sparks judgement as some kind of vindication for USADA process. It was anything but.
Again, writing the same thing over and over and over isn't going to make us any more aware of your opinion. Everyone who is a regular reader of posts in the clinic is well aware of your view.

I would ask you though to back up your statement with evidence of what you have said. Please show that most commenters in the clinic (as you've claimed) are superficial and want to present Sparks judgement as anything other than what it is?
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
ebandit said:
mountainrman so will you now be stopping writing the same errors in your

posts that i point out above?

you can hold your own views ( hey this is a forum ) but if your too thick

skinned to take on board the errors in your thoughts that members here have

pointed out to you many times there is little hope

lance is banned the cards are played..........live with it

Ebandit, you ignore the substance and continue to pick irrelevant nits.

6 month ban to a retiring cyclist is nothing. Nada, over the winter when he would not be racing! They even let him ride the last TDF when he should already have been suspended. Did you learn nothing from my post? Tradition says ALL of the TDF winnings went to the team not lance, and the biggest payments to the most senior such as hincapie, including massive team bonuses none of which will have to be repaid by him. He took a fortune from conspiring to cheat at the TdF Hincapie won little directly himself, so taking that little away is hardly a penalty. Most of his money is safe. Only hincapie says he went clean in 2006. Convenient yes?

The guy should be banned for at least 4 years - a triathlete just got that for a EPO. Mr clean Bassons got 12 months for a screw up on a race withdrawal.
The ban of 6 months for life doper hincapie is outrageous, and I will keep repeating that until WADA or UCI appeal, or USADA no longer have a role in judging, which that sentence and Judge Sparks says they are not fit to do fairly.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
mountainrman said:
The ban of 6 months for life doper hincapie is outrageous, and I will keep repeating that until WADA or UCI appeal, or USADA no longer have a role in judging, which that sentence and Judge Sparks says they are not fit to do fairly.
:eek:


Are you concerned Hincapie is going to make a comeback?
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
peterst6906 said:
You've written this now multiple times and you're just entitled to your opinion as anyone.

Only you need to realise that this opinion, as in several others you have, has you in a very small minority, a group of 1.

Repeating it over and over isn't going to change anyone else's mind on the significance of that being written.

However, if you are going to reply to Mas's request to post an article by Walsh (your original comment was that Walsh's articles have contained that statement on many occasions), posting one by David Pugh doesn't really meet the request since Walsh can't really be responsible for what Pugh chooses to write.

Walsh may well have written what you said; and perhaps on several occasions, but linking to an article by a different author is a bit of a con.

Maybe rather than a superficial read of what was asked, you can read the detail.



Again, writing the same thing over and over and over isn't going to make us any more aware of your opinion. Everyone who is a regular reader of posts in the clinic is well aware of your view.

I would ask you though to back up your statement with evidence of what you have said. Please show that most commenters in the clinic (as you've claimed) are superficial and want to present Sparks judgement as anything other than what it is?
Walsh has repeated it several times!! In Video interviews too.

Why dispute it?
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
:eek:


Are you concerned Hincapie is going to make a comeback?
Lance did.

It is clearly ridiculous that Hincapie can ride next summer when Bassons cannot.

I would not be surprised to see him in local or regional minor pro races. Cycling is in the blood, it cannot be turned off.

The sentence should also make a deterrent statement to key domestiques in doping teams, Instead of which we get the reverse - Benoit Joachim wishing he had doped - no doubt because he sees how leniently the key supporters were treated. What kind of message is that to young riders?
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,499
0
0
MarkvW said:
Arguing over the length of Hincapie's ban is a personal question. There is no real disagreement on the facts. It's obvious that Hincapie was a huge liar, a huge doper, and a key omerta enforcer. The disagreement is just over whether snitches should get deals.

Me? I like me some snitches....
This is not the case. Lance was never caught by the UCI. The UCI didn't possess any data that warranted punishment for Armstrong. Then after an extensive investigation and some due process the UCI took possession of and acted on data and conclussions made by an outside party. The data that the USADA gave to the UCI was used to strip Lance of his results.
Now data from another body has been made available to the UCI but instead of going outside the parameters of punishment like they did with Armstrong they have gone in an opposite direction and given the doping bunch, including Hincapie a lesser punishment than is available by their own posted rules. 2 years should be the start for George and the rest of the funky bunch. McQuaid claims that everything was brand new, a huge surprise,dumbfounded by the dopers.
Sounds like a lie in the making for McQuaid. Did the USADA tell the violating riders that there governing body would go easy on them? Sure looks that way.
Why would everybody rush for the bottom? McQuaid should be outraged that he was hoodwinked by George and the others and give them a two year minimum rather than allow them to contest races during the process.This is all a doping cyclists dream of searching for the agency with the best punishment deal for the offense they committed. Pat just quit already
 
Oct 30, 2012
428
0
0
mountainrman said:
Lance did.

It is clearly ridiculous that Hincapie can ride next summer when Bassons cannot.

I would not be surprised to see him in local or regional minor pro races. Cycling is in the blood, it cannot be turned off.

The sentence should also make a deterrent statement to key domestiques in doping teams, Instead of which we get the reverse - Benoit Joachim wishing he had doped - no doubt because he sees how leniently the key supporters were treated. What kind of message is that to young riders?
What do you mean "Lance did"? Lance Armstrong is probably going to end up in a psychiatric ward, and even I feel some measure of compassion for the silly sod, however heinously he has been shown to have behaved.

Travis Tygart, if my poor understanding is correct, has been generally very understanding and relatively compassionate in his statements regarding the possibilty for rehabilitation of those riders who've succumbed to the temptation to dope.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
Grandillusion said:
What do you mean "Lance did"? Lance Armstrong is probably going to end up in a psychiatric ward, and even I feel some measure of compassion for the silly sod, however heinously he has been shown to have behaved.

Travis Tygart, if my poor understanding is correct, has been generally very understanding and relatively compassionate in his statements regarding the possibilty for rehabilitation of those riders who've succumbed to the temptation to dope.
"lance did" was a direct response to the question as to whether Hincapie would ride again after retirement. Cycling is in the blood. I would be very surprised if Hincapie does not enter some more minor events, just as Lance cannot live without competition.

As for Tygart "understanding" - his ideas of sentence are all over the map.
Which is one of the reasons he is unfit to judge. He just banned a triathlete for 4 years for EPO - where is similar "compassion" there? - Yet Hincapie 6 months for the decade of doping.

He wants to "blame" lance and Bruyneel for the whole affair and pretend the others were "victims" somehow pressured into it, but to do so is rewriting history: it does not stack up (hincapie was doping before armstrong returned from cancer, and continued after he left as did others, this was a career choice). This was never about "clean cycling" for Tygart, it was about "get Armstrong" - that was evident enough for Judge Sparks to remark in his judgement on the questionable motives of the agencies pursuing Armstrong.

Hincapie did not "snitch": granting of immunity preventing his silence, and a gun at his head (presumably the same as leipheimer) forced him into confession to the grand jury, and it was then reasonable for him to suppose that the testimony would come out in public in time, either by leak or court cases, so it was a no brainer for him to confess to Tygart because it was only a matter of time. He was a rat that deserted a sinking ship, so little credit should be given for that.

The time he should have come clean is when the worst of the excesses were being inflicted on emma and betsy, all in the media so he clearly knew, and he knew they were telling the truth! So he should then either have confessed or at least should have left to distance himself from what then took place. That he stayed showed he was neither unknowing or unwilling to form a part of the web of deceit from then on. And he only owned up when there was little other choice.

That does not deserve a massive reduction of sentence in my book!
 
Oct 30, 2012
428
0
0
"Lance did" seems to be as if you're saying Lance "came back" after the reasoned decision, that's all I meant to query. Lance is not coming back anywhere, and must be in a world of pain I can't even begin to imagine.

You seem to be obsessed with some perceived injustice regarding George Hincapie.

Travis Tygart has done your sport a huge favour, painful as it may be, and you should be celebrating the potential dawn of a new era, and fighting strongly to make that possibilty come to fruition.
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,499
0
0
Tygart was able to amend Lance's punishment to include a title yank or two for the personal insults that Lance tossed out there when he was in his position of power. Tygart used the judgement of a scorned lover as he went beyond anything previous to punish Armstrong. Tygart was allowed to go as far as he has because Lance unlike he promised,rolled over to show his soft underbelly rather than the fight to the death like he stated until the USADA decision was handed down.

The entire wad of scum deserve each other each guy more petty and pathetic than the next. Lance did this,not Tyagrt,not McQuiad,not Novitzky,just Lance. He made the decision that this would be one sided.
when he finally tells his story it will be a waste fo time
 
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
mountainrman said:
Walsh has repeated it several times!! In Video interviews too.

Why dispute it?
I'm not disputing it.

However, your original statement that he has written it in several articles and that is poor journalism is still at issue, particularly as you linked to a different authors work.

Irrespective, your view that it is poor journalism is your view. No-one else has yet supported that position and simply repeating it many times over isn't going to change anyone's view of that.

One thing I am interested in is, why is it poor journalism? As far as I can see, there is nothing particularly wrong with one journalist sticking to his convictions and calling Lance out for cheating when the rest of the media were too scared (for whatever reason) or not well informed.

Walsh seems to me, to have shown the best aspects of journalism rather than a poor approach.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY