- Aug 7, 2010
- 1,247
- 0
- 0
- Status
Big Doopie
BANNED
- Oct 6, 2009
- 4,345
- 3,989
- 21,180
gree0232 said:
um...he has been utterly "nailed".
everything he cheated for to win -- erased from the record books.
he soon becomes, with his fraudulent achievements, meaningless (which will torture his sociopathy and drive his chamois-sniffing fans crazy).
i find it perplexing that you feel that someone who benefits from his fraudulent and illegal gains and therefore has enough influence and the wherewithal to hide his criminality and delay justice is not worth bothering to go after.
that is actually the definition of injustice.
anyway, bagdad bob, i imagine you will disappear from these forums as soon as usada's evidence is published.
tally-ho!
- Jul 9, 2009
- 7,842
- 1,258
- 20,680
Caruut said:
Those are really good answers to every one of Gree's points(?). However I am sure he will ignore them or come up with some other ridiculous argument to refute them (at least in his little mind), so in that regard it was probably a waste of time. But for anyone with an open (or existent) mind they were good clear answers all.
Robert21 said:
May as well throw in the near death of Jesus Manzano on the side of the 2003 TdF cycling race course from allegedly being injected with Oxyglobin and in a later event being wrongly infused with incompatible blood.
Being sacked by his team, Kelme, for allegedly entertaining a wench in his room. was the precursor to Operation Puerto for Manzano to break the code of omerta and exact retribution on Kelme by detailing his drug plight.
This is the list of drugs admitted by Manzano in his coming out
Actovegin (extract of calves blood which supposedly improves oxygen carrying capacity)
Albumina H. (protein in blood plasma)
Androgel (testosterone)
Aranesp (Darbepoetin alfa = super EPO)
Celestote (corticosteroid)
Eprex (EPO)
Genotorm (growth hormone)
Hemoce (plasma)
Deca durabolin (anabolic steroid)
Humatrope (growth hormone)
IgF1 (insulin growth factor 1)
Neofertinon (hormone to stimulate ovulation and estrogen production)
Neorecormon (hormone that regulates red blood cell production)
Norditropin (growth hormone)
Nuvacten (corticosteroid)
Trigon (asthma drug)
Urbason (corticosteroid)
Ventolin (bronchial dilator)
Oxandrolona (anabolic agent)
Vitamin B12 (essential B vitamin)
Triamcinolona (corticosteroid)
Testoviron (testosterone)
Aspirina (analgesic, anti-inflammatory)
Oxyglobin (artificial haemoglobin intended for anaemic dogs)
Hemopure (artificial haemoglobin)
Ferlixit (iron)
Caffeine (stimulant)
Hemassist (artificial haemoglobin)
Prozac (antidepressant)
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/mar04/mar24news2
http://joepapp.blogspot.com.au/2009/08/from-archives-former-kelme-professional.html
Caruut said:
Do you honestly think that after 16 years of mutual recrimination, that either side is operating above any level animus?
Please look at the posts, USADA has been taking shots at the UCI for months, and that it righteous, UCI fires back and it's a conspiracy.
Do we have a system that any objective person would consider objective?
Well, is cycling the only place where drugs are a problem? Why not look at what people have done to reduce the problems? The actions are criminal, so why are we not using tactics and procedures that are successful against international cartels. Why setup dueling commissions of bureaucrats with no real investigative powers, no warrant process, and whose standards vary widely from sport to sport?
There tactics that work. This process may nab Armstrong, but I doubt seriously this process strung out over 16 years has done anything to reduce doping.
I assume that you are familiar with the term conspiracy theory. The same organization that just punished Contador is actually sweeping things under the rug? The one that called Floyd a liar from the start is now corrupt?
At some point the mutual recrimination is just hyperbole. Hence, my desire to produce the evidence and move this process swiftly along to CAS, where, for better or worse, it will finally end.
Hence the question, why are we doing all the stupid dancing before CAS? If USADA really thinks the UCI is corrupt, send the evidence to CAS and ask them to make decision.
The only reason it has taken this long is because it was not until to DOJ investigation that anyone actually attempted evidenced based jurisprudence. USADA may now be doing that, but that remains to be seen doesn't it?
And we are waiting on evidence rather than bland emotional smear tactics. This process is stupid.
Hugh Januss said:
I am glad that people such as this think that Lance is the jerk.
Really, discussing LA now is beyond the pale, and we are left with nothing but silly demonization.
A reminder to poster such as this, there will be a rebuttal to USADAs case, and all the screaming and insults in the world will not change that.
Throw all the temper tantrums you want, it's going to happen.
Dr. Maserati
BANNED
- Jun 19, 2009
- 13,250
- 1
- 0
Hi Gree,gree0232 said:
Again I have noticed at no point do you deny Armstrong is doping throughout those years.
Also - who will "rebutt"?
And in your long post where you mention Contador and say conspiracy theory - you miss that the UCI were not the ones to convict him, that was CAS. But please carry on.
- Apr 3, 2009
- 12,546
- 8,395
- 28,180
gree0232 said:
You did not address the question you quoted. This is the kind of thing that makes people think you're not engaged in serious discussion but are simply attempting to obfuscate. Ongoing patterns of obfuscation and shifting the topic, while not directly engaging with other members and their statements/questions are noted and of concern to the moderators. Please refrain from this technique in the future. This is a warning, and comes about because of repeated examples of what I've just described. Thanks for your consideration.
red_flanders said:
That is exactly the impression I have, as such Gree's comments almost appear almost farcical
Big Doopie
BANNED
- Oct 6, 2009
- 4,345
- 3,989
- 21,180
gree0232 said:
um...armstrong is a really, really bad person.
he is not a mere "jerk" and the victim of "silly demonization".
he is a very, very bad person who has done really terrible things to innocent, less influential people.
other human beings and society should be protected from him.
- Dec 9, 2011
- 482
- 0
- 0
Gree - can't take you seriously.
Just a story to break up the crazy chat.
I was at a conference today. One of the lectures was on Strategic leaders taken by a dutch guy.
His 5th slide was an example of an effective strategic leader.
Guess who? Yep Mr Lance Armstrong.
Apart from the fact he said Armstrong won 5 Tours in total he made 2 new claims I hadn't heard before.
1) Armstrong invented Teamwork in cycling teams ie: where riders work for one leader
2) He built a special simulator and cycled the TDF route before he went to France each year.
This was in front of maybe 150 people. I couldnt stop laughing. Went to him afterwards and kindly suggested he should maybe look into Mr Amrstrong current predicament. He hadnt a clue what was going on. This guy probably got paid a decent little sum for that presentation.
Just a story to break up the crazy chat.
I was at a conference today. One of the lectures was on Strategic leaders taken by a dutch guy.
His 5th slide was an example of an effective strategic leader.
Guess who? Yep Mr Lance Armstrong.
Apart from the fact he said Armstrong won 5 Tours in total he made 2 new claims I hadn't heard before.
1) Armstrong invented Teamwork in cycling teams ie: where riders work for one leader
2) He built a special simulator and cycled the TDF route before he went to France each year.
This was in front of maybe 150 people. I couldnt stop laughing. Went to him afterwards and kindly suggested he should maybe look into Mr Amrstrong current predicament. He hadnt a clue what was going on. This guy probably got paid a decent little sum for that presentation.
red_flanders said:
Considering the point being that both parties are far for independent, have vested interests I the outcome of this matter, I fail to see how saying one is better than the other is relevant ... When I think both sides are committing the same faults.
Is there a reason my point is being changed and disregarded in what appears to be a threat?
Feel free to involve the moderator, and remember, it's your side that accuses others of silencing dissent - witness intimidation.
I am glad that cycling ewes has a forum where only one side is allowed to present views? Equally glad that the lance haters, so committed to evidenced based processes have been flooding the mod team with silliness that everything that disagrees with them is off topic.
If you want no one on defend Lance or question whether this system as established is fair or efficient, please feel free to amend the rules to clarify that point.
Thanks for your consideration.
AcademyCC said:
Then move on.
Just remember, in about two weeks when the evidence is released, it's the others sides turn.
And when we think that a so called trial doesn't allow rebuttal? Well, what was the term used? Witch hunt.
- Jul 9, 2009
- 7,842
- 1,258
- 20,680
gree0232 said:
The time for the rebuttal was in front of the arbitration panel, the process that is clearly spelled out in the agreement which those of us who take out racing licenses agree to be bound by. Lance, by not going to arbitration plead guilty, that is the end of the story. He did that because he knows that he will loose the support of even the most gullible when and if all the evidence becomes public. The only "rebuttal" will be if the UCI tries to challenge on jurisdictional grounds, I don't think they will because they know that there is a lot of evidence of their guilt too. When USADA sends them the reasoned decision UCI will first sit on it as long as possible while they try to choose between the rock and hard place of WADA and whatever Lance has over them. Then they will most likely rubberstamp USADA's punishment and try their best to insure that as little information as possible ever makes it to the public eye. How's that for a "rebuttal"?
Perhaps you could point out where I was having a "temper tantrum" in the post you quoted?
As an aside to Caruut, see?
Dr. Maserati
BANNED
- Jun 19, 2009
- 13,250
- 1
- 0
red_flanders said:
If this is a new policy shift or cutting down on the sludge - the I would welcome it and expect it to be done consistently.
Gree is obfuscating - no doubt about that, but that's the only card they have left to play. Isn't one of the points of the forum to allow all opinions and if others object let them take it apart?
Let's be fair - this thread is a trash can, a perfect place to let this sort of dialogue take place.
Hugh Januss said:The time for the rebuttal was in front of the arbitration panel, the process that is clearly spelled out in the agreement which those of us who take out racing licenses agree to be bound by. Lance, by not going to arbitration plead guilty, that is the end of the story. He did that because he knows that he will loose the support of even the most gullible when and if all the evidence becomes public. The only "rebuttal" will be if the UCI tries to challenge on jurisdictional grounds, I don't think they will because they know that there is a lot of evidence of their guilt too. When USADA sends them the reasoned decision UCI will first sit on it as long as possible while they try to choose between the rock and hard place of WADA and whatever Lance has over them. Then they will most likely rubberstamp USADA's punishment and try their best to insure that as little information as possible ever makes it to the public eye. How's that for a "rebuttal"?
Perhaps you could point out where I was having a "temper tantrum" in the post you quoted?
As an aside to Caruut, see?
I realize or are attempting to voice your side, but you are fooling yourself.
#1 - JB is going before said panel, and apparently, he's not seen the evidence yet? If he has, then why isn't Lance screaming bloody murder where this evidence has implicated him in 30 times worse fashion?
#2 - lance attorney made a public note challenging the veracity of what USADA was doing. LA declined to attend the arbitration for the reasons cited. As soon as UCI decides to sanction or not, then LA still has the right to appeal.
Skipping a questionable step in the process that one deems inherently faulty, is hardly surrender.
Additionally, your side is all about fairness? OK, tell me is an arbitration panel, set by USADA, with withheld evidence, under rules set by USADA perhaps not exactly an objective or fair process? Particularly when guilt is predetermined in an ultimatum?
Now, perhaps I should report you for not actually addressing these points, or perhaps label you a fanatic hater, a troll, or otherwise insult you simply because you think that this matter is closed?
It's not. And that is the point that the lance haters seem intent in burying. Two weeks gentlemen. And remember, it's not going to be this forum that judges Lance, it's going to be the general public that hasn't exactly been obsessed with the details of this case for 16 years.
I look forward to the UCI rebuttal of corruption charges that were part of this indictment for instance.
Big Doopie said:
Why? Because he doesn't treat people very nicely? He doped?
As opposed to Floyd? Who is what exactly? Friendly?
And that means if you disagree with and hate lance that you are free to demonized or otherwise harass anyone who questions whether the process used to 'get' Lance is fair?
Again, the people who demonize Lance, would do well to look at their own behavior, which is not exactly been in keeping with Mother Theresa standards in its own right.
- Jul 7, 2009
- 583
- 0
- 0
Dr. Maserati
BANNED
- Jun 19, 2009
- 13,250
- 1
- 0
gree0232 said:
Ah - finally. So it will be the UCI that rebutt. Which basically means that LA won't , youre catching on.
Not only are you looking forward to a UCI rebuttal on their corruption - so am I , and I would say so is Paul Kimmage.
- Apr 3, 2009
- 12,546
- 8,395
- 28,180
gree0232 said:
You'll notice that I am a moderator and the warning (or threat if you will), to be specific, is that your posts can and will be edited, deleted or you can face further sanctions including bans of varying length.
There are no sides in what I'm talking about. If you consistently post on threads and ignore the responses, it's not a discussion it's an interruptive monologue. As mentioned, the item called out is an example of what I see as a pattern. Whether you are attacking or defending any rider or position, if you repeatedly post unsubstantiated claims and ignore your fellow board members' questions and statements, that falls into the category of trolling.
You can be sure that such behavior will be addressed no matter what a person's opinions might be.
I just joined these forums (after lurking for years) just to say this:
Circlejerk
I could say a whole bunch of other things, but I'll stick to the above.
Circlejerk
I could say a whole bunch of other things, but I'll stick to the above.
Dr. Maserati
BANNED
- Jun 19, 2009
- 13,250
- 1
- 0
flarunner said:
Welcome - by the way if you are sticking to something then you might Want to be more careful where you sit.
red_flanders said:
And I am going to publically disagree with you.
When a post asks whether one agency, with its own boss, it better than another agency, with its own boss (and remember, WADA has to justify itself with anti doping successes and has every reason to exaggerate) and the other side has reasons to be biased, and their spheres of influence overlap with those interests, one to exaggerate and one to minimize, we have a problem.
The statement was about why we should favor one side, my reply was that both sides have the same issue - both sides have vested and potentially bias inducing influences in this affair.
And it goes right back to the point that the process up to this point, is acrimonious, inefficient, and rife with rivalry. A point that apparently saying, "we'll, I side with WADA" on this matter disagrees with.
Would you like to clarify how that response does not address the posters concern? Because I certainly think it does.
Additionally red, I don't spend a lot of time on this forum. But when I do, the treatment received by posters on this forum is horrible.
For years I have said that a criminalized process like the DOJ or now apparently USADA process were the only thing that would or would not get Lance. Dozens of posters routinely attacked me, and anyone else who dared question whether statements in the press made by cyclists and rumors published in books would never amount to anything. They didn't, did they.
So was this forums tolerance of that in civility, the routine abuse of dissention, really necessary?
Are you telling me that we need posters to not answer questions or points, to scream troll, twist statements into silly accusations to the moderation team, and generally derail conversations that undermine the current status quo of the LA saga?
Do you, as a moderator doubt for even one second that when the evidence is released that there will be a rebuttal?
So, I am attempting to largely ignore the posters screaming troll like its civilized ornproductivem have indeed expanded my ingore list with several of the more recent zealots, and maintain the old zealots on the ignore list and am attempting to have a civilized discussion about the likely effects to come in the two weeks in between vacuous pot shots.
My concern with the process is the process, not LA. Those who wish to have a discussion about what worked and why, what is sustainable and not, are free to discuss. Those that just want to silence anyone who disagrees with them can simply ignore me and move on like an adult.
Or is there a better way for a poster interested in anti-doping to figure out which posters are up for discussion, and which ones just want to scream at one another?
A reminder Red, I do have a fairly extensive back ground on the policing side of anti doping. So my concerns are not simply being raised to **** off the lance trolls, there is a legitimate professional concern for the future of my favorite sport.
Is that on topic enough, or would you like to threaten me some more?
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 791
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 855
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 40K
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s ITT, September 21- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 942
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram