• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

What would you do if you were Lance?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
gree0232 said:
random troll babble

Ashenden gives a very detailed overview of the samples, testing, and results and the best you can do is link a random 4 year old blog post?

You should not wonder why other posters think you are a troll, you just proved it.
 
gree0232 said:
Then why is Lance still riding without sanction?

Accussation without proof is just creative writing - some better than others - but that does not get us to the point where LA will be sanctioned does it?

Every single challenge that has been brought to LA has been beaten when it goes before an adjudicative authority - every single one.

You cannot simply dump the accussation and declare 'proof' when you ignore the rebuttal. So what is the rebuttal to your story, and how does the story simply negate the rebuttal?

Interestingly enough, I see Levi, Lance & Trek, and BMC in the adverts as I write this - I think I can clearly see where the proof lead - and it was certainly not to a doping conviction.

BTW, here is a very short rebuttal to this well known accussation:

http://www.tdfblog.com/2006/06/thoughts_on_the.html

Notice the bottom line:

"The report suggests very strongly that WADA chose to urinate all over its own WADA Code (PDF link) in order to plant suspicion that Lance Armstrong doped. It did this even with the foreknowledge that the “evidence” thus generated rose barely above the level of innuendo, and couldn't be used as evidence in a real doping inquiry. That's pretty much the definition of a smear campaign."

So Lance should be worried because people keep bringing up the same already debunked accussations? RIIIGGGHHHTT.

troll.................
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
Ashenden gives a very detailed overview of the samples, testing, and results and the best you can do is link a random 4 year old blog post?

You should not wonder why other posters think you are a troll, you just proved it.

http://www.asser.nl/sportslaw-webroot/cms/documents/cms_sports_id96_1_Article by Emile Vrijman.pdf

Well, start with that.

THen you can try the entire report. I figured a shorter response and summary would be easier to digest - but you want the full monty, here you go.

http://62.50.72.82/imgArchive/Homepage/Rapport HR zonder.pdf

THAT is why LA is not worried.

Really, this stuff is easy to find if you just take the time to look at both sides rather than just one.

And please bear in mind, any adjudicative authority MUST look at both sides.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Visit site
Digger said:
troll.................

You are aware of how a discussion forum works right? And you are aware that simply disagreeing with you is not trolling right?

But by all means, report me, and see what the admins do.

BTW, the constant accussations of trolling without proof is .... trolling. Go figure.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
gree0232 said:
http://www.asser.nl/sportslaw-webroot/cms/documents/cms_sports_id96_1_Article by Emile Vrijman.pdf

Well, start with that.

THen you can try the entire report. I figured a shorter response and summary would be easier to digest - but you want the full monty, here you go.

http://62.50.72.82/imgArchive/Homepage/Rapport HR zonder.pdf

THAT is why LA is not worried.

Really, this stuff is easy to find if you just take the time to look at both sides rather than just one.

And please bear in mind, any adjudicative authority MUST look at both sides.

I have read the Virjman report, it appears you have not. It makes no attempt to explain how EPO got into Armstrong samples, it is just a series of lies and political score settling. There is a reason why the head of WADA said

“so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical.”

This view was shared by many. If you knew Virjman's history of assisting dopers escape sanction you would understand why the UCI hired him for the coverup.

I see you have again avoided addressing any of Ashenden very complete analysis. Let us know when you can refute any of his well thought out analysis.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
I have read the Virjman report, it appears you have not. It makes no attempt to explain how EPO got into Armstrong samples, it is just a series of lies and political score settling. There is a reason why the head of WADA said

“so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical.”

This view was shared by many. If you knew Virjman's history of assisting dopers escape sanction you would understand why the UCI hired him for the coverup.

I see you have again avoided addressing any of Ashenden very complete analysis. Let us know when you can refute any of his well thought out analysis.

Well, here is part of just the excerpts.

"4.26 […] both representatives of the LNDD concluded on their own that the right answer to the question whether the alleged “positive” urine samples constituted Adverse Analytical Findings was an “unqualified no”."

"4.58 Consequently, the “screening positives” reported by the LNDD in its research reports in fact can not be qualified as constituting a Presumptive Analytical Finding, much less an Adverse Analytical Finding."

"4.59 Given the absence of an “internal laboratory chain of custody”, the possibility that urine samples of the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France might have been contaminated can not be ruled out."

I love that you claime dto have read the report though :rolleyes:

I also noticed you passed on reading Vrijman's rebuttal to the WADA rebuttal.

Again, any adjudicative agency must look at both sides of an issue. And saying, "that is farsical," is not indicative that it actually is.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
gree0232 said:
random troll cut and paste

thank you for proving my point, the report does not even attempt to address how EPO got in Armstrong's samples.

The Ashenden interview does, Armstrong doped using EPO. I can understand why you do not even bother to read it as it might hurt this fantasy you have built up.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
thank you for proving my point, the report does not even attempt to address how EPO got in Armstrong's samples.

The Ashenden interview does, Armstrong doped using EPO. I can understand why you do not even bother to read it as it might hurt this fantasy you have built up.

Well, I guess English must be problematic for you.

It was bolded. Please try again.

In layman's terms, with the problems in chain of custody, and given the nature of the smear campaign, it is entirely likely that the agent was introduced artificially - i.e. it was deliberately spiked.

That is why chain of custody is so important, and why a failure to follow those rules invalidates the entire procedure.

I am sorry that YOU can't accept that, but the system does. Deal with it.
 
gree0232 said:
Well, I guess English must be problematic for you.

It was bolded. Please try again.

In layman's terms, with the problems in chain of custody, and given the nature of the smear campaign, it is entirely likely that the agent was introduced artificially - i.e. it was deliberately spiked.

That is why chain of custody is so important, and why a failure to follow those rules invalidates the entire procedure.

I am sorry that YOU can't accept that, but the system does. Deal with it.

480/1 chance of it being spiked. :rolleyes:
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
gree0232 said:
Well, I guess English must be problematic for you.

It was bolded. Please try again.

In layman's terms, with the problems in chain of custody, and given the nature of the smear campaign, it is entirely likely that the agent was introduced artificially - i.e. it was deliberately spiked.

That is why chain of custody is so important, and why a failure to follow those rules invalidates the entire procedure.

I am sorry that YOU can't accept that, but the system does. Deal with it.

You appear to be confused, again, nothing that you have posted in any way explains how the metabolites of synthetic EPO were found in Armstrong's samples.

If you actually took time to read the Ashenden interview you might not be embarrassing yourself. "The System" is Dr Ashenden. He is one of the head guys on the Bio-Passport. He says Armstrong doped. As does another UCI Doctor, Robin Parsiotto. I will go with their word over some rambling guy on the internet.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
You appear to be confused, again, nothing that you have posted in any way explains how the metabolites of synthetic EPO were found in Armstrong's samples.

If you actually took time to read the Ashenden interview you might not be embarrassing yourself. "The System" is Dr Ashenden. He is one of the head guys on the Bio-Passport. He says Armstrong doped. As does another UCI Doctor, Robin Parsiotto. I will go with their word over some rambling guy on the internet.

Nazi frogmen!
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Visit site
Digger said:
480/1 chance of it being spiked. :rolleyes:

Source?

Again, the system works by declaring a positive. The only way to prove innocence is to show violations in the process or determine an innocent explanation.

The Vrijman report indicates that the entire process was pretty much made into a farce. Thus there are no positives.

And the errors in chain of custody alone are enough to invalidate the entire procedure.
 
May 15, 2010
833
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
You appear to be confused, again, nothing that you have posted in any way explains how the metabolites of synthetic EPO were found in Armstrong's samples.

If you actually took time to read the Ashenden interview you might not be embarrassing yourself. "The System" is Dr Ashenden. He is one of the head guys on the Bio-Passport. He says Armstrong doped. As does another UCI Doctor, Robin Parsiotto. I will go with their word over some rambling guy on the internet.

IT'S FEEDING TIME AT THE TROLL ZOO.

And unfortunately, RR, you are our Ace troll wrangler.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
You appear to be confused, again, nothing that you have posted in any way explains how the metabolites of synthetic EPO were found in Armstrong's samples.

If you actually took time to read the Ashenden interview you might not be embarrassing yourself. "The System" is Dr Ashenden. He is one of the head guys on the Bio-Passport. He says Armstrong doped. As does another UCI Doctor, Robin Parsiotto. I will go with their word over some rambling guy on the internet.

You appear to be confused as to how the actual system works.

Once you violate chain of custody, you invalidate everything. And that is only one of the issues that the Vrijman Report actually addresses.

Why not ACTUALLY read the report, as it will answer most of yoru questions.

Vrijman's WADA rebuttal will answer many more. Try reading that as well.

We are not going to change standards simply because you don't like LA.

LA is not worried about these old accussations, because an independant ivestigator looked at them and completely bebunked them.

Dr. A says he doped? He has incontrovertible proof? Then why is Lance riding? I will let that reality sink in for a bit.

So why would he be worried about them now?

Short answer, he wouldn't.
 
gree0232 said:
You appear to be confused as to how the actual system works.

Once you violate chain of custody, you invalidate everything. And that is only one of the issues that the Vrijman Report actually addresses.

Why not ACTUALLY read the report, as it will answer most of yoru questions.

Vrijman's WADA rebuttal will answer many more. Try reading that as well.

We are not going to change standards simply because you don't like LA.

LA is not worried about these old accussations, because an independant ivestigator looked at them and completely bebunked them.

So whay would he be worried about them now?

Dr. A says he doped? Then why is Lance riding? I will let that reality sink in for a bit.

Short answer, he wouldn't.

No alphabet in Iraq?
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Visit site
Alpe d'Huez said:
"Everyone in cycling dopes. It sucks, and is filled with lies, but that's the way it is, and was before I got into the sport. Others doped more than I ever did. I used EPO just like when I had cancer, it's not bad for you in low doses. HGH isn't bad for you in small doses either. I did these always under doctor supervision. I'm sorry, and sorry the whole thing stinks, but I'm being honest. I will now retire and quietly commit the rest of my life to helping cancer patients."

I could see how he could say this and still live out the rest of his life being regarded as a true champion and a hero to many people. Not to the Nancy Reagans here in the Clinic forum, but to the public in general, Lance's explanation above might mesh quite easily with their own personal morality (i.e. it's not really cheating unless you are doing something your competitors aren't doing. e.g., when everyone is driving along at 75mph, they don't consider themselves to be breaking any important law: they consider the guy who goes blasting by at 100mph to be speeding and worthy of being ticketed though because he's out of the norm...).

Another thing to consider: if people think Landis' has info he can drop regarding other cyclists, think of the info that Lance/TheHog must have. They could "prove" that damn near every single pro cyclist over the last twenty years has doped.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
gree0232 said:
Source?

Again, the system works by declaring a positive. The only way to prove innocence is to show violations in the process or determine an innocent explanation.

The Vrijman report indicates that the entire process was pretty much made into a farce. Thus there are no positives.

And the errors in chain of custody alone are enough to invalidate the entire procedure.

thanks for once again proving that you have not read the Ashenden interview.
 
May 5, 2009
696
1
0
Visit site
like any other cyclist, he will only confess what can be evidenced. not an inch more. so hihgly unlikely that he will ever have a major problem, unfortunately. too much at stake. we are talking about only $7m that he had to pay back to the insurance, but think about the livestrong profiteering brand, potential law suits, etc.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
bobs *** said:
IT'S FEEDING TIME AT THE TROLL ZOO.

And unfortunately, RR, you are our Ace troll wrangler.

Sorry, got sucked into the crazy this morning. Chest cold keeping me off the bike.

I wonder if he was this angry when he found out Santa Claus was not real?
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Visit site
You guys are great at arguing against believers in santa claus. but what do you really have to say to someone like me who doesn't give one **** about lance armstrong, is quite ready to accept that he doped as much or more than the rest of the peloton, and still doesn't believe he is "guilty," because guilt to me means an irrefutable positive test given in a proper manner following the sporting regulations and generally accepted human rights laws of western civilization?

I don't give a **** what turns up in ancient blood/urine samples or what scientists can declare based on power graphs or blood passport abnormalities (my own series of blood tests makes me suspect these since i often have changes in hematocrit from one to the next without the other changes that the Clinic's favorite "experts" claim must be present if such changes were natural and not from doping).

I don't even like the back testing schemes. I'd want a 6 month statute of limitations on everything. Current blood, current tests, current results, current appeal process, current conclusion of illegal or legal, and all of that before one word is leaked to the press.

That's why just about the only thing that concerns me about Landis' allegations is the one about a bribe to cover up an actual official test that was failed by Armstrong. THAT is a big deal. That, if proven, should destroy the reputation of Armstrong and anyone else involved because it violates the basic moral contract that most people have: we don't really agree to follow the rules so much as we agree to accept the punishment when we are caught following those rules, so dodging the punishment is a worse crime to us than breaking the rule in the first place.


None of the other usual allegations interest me in the least.
 

TRENDING THREADS