Why LA is not a doper (seriously)

[180mmCrank]

Don't you guys ever get a bit bored of this?

Just wandering...

 

[gree0232]

Modern Anti-Doping also gives us some reason for caution in our accussations.

For teh record the two men that I hold most accountable for the dping problem in cycling are Verbruggen, who turned a bllind eye to the problem, and Pound, who used innuendo and the press rather than solid science as his primary weapons in the anti-doping fight.

Now, both forced aside, anti-doping professionalized and de-politicized, and we are seeing results. Riders are targetted basedon suspicion, and legitimate positives are the result.

Two things:

1. At no point has the majority of the peloton tested positive.

2. There has been no changes in teh relative performances of the pelotons top riders. I.e. Contador still won the Tour, and Andy Schleck is still a hell of a rider despite the uptick in teh number of positives.

Curiously enough though, Sastre and Evans, both deomnstratably clean riders, were beaten soundly this year. Interesting.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

His hemcrit level was over 50, that is considered a anti-doping violation and he was tossed out of the Giro. What do you think those health concerns were?

Ullrich's blood was tested and found to present in the Operation Puerto blood bags, the same legal standard that was used to convict Basso. As he retired, there is no need to seek a sanction, should he attempt to return to racing ....

Zulle admitted that he took EPO. That also qualifies as an ant-doping violation.

Now, are you trying to say that these men were innocent of doping, but Lance was not? I find it very strange that you will split hairs for every other rider, including admitted dope users, while applying generalities to Lance.

For teh record, the standard is committing and anti doping violation, proven, whether sanction is issued as a result of a PROVEN anti-doping violation ....
Intersting.

You write a lot of words and yet say very little.

The point of your argument yesterday - which you have conviently ignored is that there is a presumeption of innocence - the quote you gave was 50.1%

BTW there were 4 riders that you accused - you for some reason appear to have forgotten Zabel & Pantani

How long was the doping sanction that you allude to for both these riders?

 

[elapid]

Don't you guys ever get a bit bored of this?

Just wandering...

I do, but ********** like Gree0232 are just so annoying that you want to bring them down a notch or two. No matter, you can present all the facts in the world until your red in the face and it will always come down to the preponderance of evidence for those that believe Lance doped and the lame ass"Lance has not doped because he has not been sanctioned" excuse for those that believe Lance has not doped.

I've given up caring who believes what, but I do care that those who are arguing do so without intelligence and critical thinking.

 

[Digger]

Go back to page 3 all there.

Indeed they are....and the inaccuracies are there in all their beauty.

You should address the points raised in the other thread as i address alot of the points you raised on page three. I bet you still don't accept that the SCA trial was about contract law and not about proving whether he doped or not. Do you accept this? Do you admit that you've read neither LAC or FLTL?

 

[Digger]

I do, but ********* like Gree0232 are just so annoying that you want to bring them down a notch or two. No matter, you can present all the facts in the world until your red in the face and it will always come down to the preponderance of evidence for those that believe Lance doped and the lame ass"Lance has not doped because he has not been sanctioned" excuse for those that believe Lance has not doped.

I've given up caring who believes what, but I do care that those who are arguing do so without intelligence and critical thinking.

But even if the UCI did sanction Lance for a positive, he would blame the lab anyway. So Lance will always be clean in Gree's eyes regardless.

 

[issoisso]

I've given up caring who believes what, but I do care that those who are arguing do so without intelligence and critical thinking.

This.

Blind lemming "belief" is annoying. More so when the lemmings insist on forcing their beliefs on everyone else.

And even more annoying because the vast majority will criticise everything said to them, but won't ever bother to present any semblance of arguments or logic. They'll just walk around the arguments presented.

 

[elapid]

Modern Anti-Doping also gives us some reason for caution in our accussations.

For teh record the two men that I hold most accountable for the dping problem in cycling are Verbruggen, who turned a bllind eye to the problem, and Pound, who used innuendo and the press rather than solid science as his primary weapons in the anti-doping fight.

Now, both forced aside, anti-doping professionalized and de-politicized, and we are seeing results. Riders are targetted basedon suspicion, and legitimate positives are the result.

Two things:

1. At no point has the majority of the peloton tested positive.

2. There has been no changes in teh relative performances of the pelotons top riders. I.e. Contador still won the Tour, and Andy Schleck is still a hell of a rider despite the uptick in teh number of positives.

Curiously enough though, Sastre and Evans, both deomnstratably clean riders, were beaten soundly this year. Interesting.

Interesting because you give too much credit to the current UCI under McQuaid. McQuaid is Verbruggen's puppet. The UCI has done very little in combating doping that has been effective, other than good PR. The vast majority of busts, particularly of top riders, come from the likes of the Festina Affair, Operation Puerto, etc. and not drug tests. The UCI introduced the EPO test in 2001, 10 years after they and everyone else knew it was a problem in the professional peloton. The biological passport is a good PR exercise - it can catch the small fry, but not known dopers like Kohl, Schumacher, Rebellin, etc. It doesn't catch the big fish that have expensive programs and doctors who know how to beat the system. Look at Dwaine Chambers autobiography: he was drug tested (with evidence literally all over his hands and arms), called his doctor and his doctor said don't worry if you stuck to the doses and timing. And guess what, he did not test positive. So don't delude yourself that the doping controls are becoming more effective. The athletes are still ahead of the game.

 

[Eva Maria]

His hemocrit level was over 50, that is considered a anti-doping violation and he was tossed out of the Giro. What do you think those health concerns were? At the time, the evidence wasn;t conclusive enough to prodce a sanction and we have the forced rest. NOW, if your hemocrit is over 50, you will be banned for two years.

Please provide a link to the part of the WADA code that states that you get a two year ban if you are over 50%. I will save you the time, it does not exist. You made this up.

Ullrich's blood was tested and found to present in the Operation Puerto blood bags, the same legal standard that was used to convict Basso. As he retired, there is no need to seek a sanction, should he attempt to return to racing

So let me get this straight. You believe that a bag of blood, found in a gynecologist refridgerator, taken by the Guardia Civil, Handed to the Judicial system, then flow to Germany, is more secure then a sample that has been stored and tested by a WADA accredited lab? Most would see this dichotomy as hypocritical.

Now, are you trying to say that these men were innocent of doping, but Lance was not? I find it very strange that you will split hairs for every other rider, including admitted dope users, while applying generalities to Lance.

You may want to check the title of the thread. It is about LA being a doper. You are welcome to start a thread about other riders being dopers. I may agree with you.

So, you tell me, why 2005 when Lance Armstrong suppossedly tested positive, do we not have an official anti-doping violation? Why is there no sanction, despit ethe fact that he has returned to racing? Why did Basso recieve punishment for his trangression, but Lance not at roughly the same time?

The answer is simple. WADA only has jurisdiction for doping that happened after August 2004. Armstrong's samples with EPO in them were from 1999 so the UCI is in charge. For Basso WADA is in charge. Yet more evidence of the UCI incompetence.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Don't you guys ever get a bit bored of this?

Just wandering...

Actually 180 I do.

Also I dont have a major beef against Lance either, as he is just another pawn (ok a big pawn) in the doping world.

But I get suspicious when someone comes on and writes a page loaded with waffle on a particular subject and when someone counters that arguement has another full page of waffle churned out within minutes.

Someone has their homework done - yet not very well.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Simple question: If there is SOOO MUCH evidence that LA is doper, why hasn't it ever been proved? In every case that has been brought before some sort of panel, court, etc., the allegations have been found to be false. In many cases, the evidence itself tainted. .

I presume you have heard of Bernard Kohl? He has admitted to doping for years and yet only got caught last year for a new drug - it is a sad fact that many riders fly under the radar.

So, simple question, if Armstrong did ride clean, how does he prove it? Riddle me that rather than insulting those of us who have done our homework on the subject..

Well he could have the samples retested from 1999 - as was offered to him to clear his name - EPO doesn't grow over time.

And, for the record, **** Pound, WADA, ACS all had plenty of dough and time to go after Lance. All failed.

Again the SCA hearing was a contractual dispute not a doping case.
Dick Pound retired from WADA over a year ago.

But please step up and fill the void. Prove that LA doped.

Again - you have raised many questions on this thread and the other LA doping threat - feel free to look at the counter arguments offered by lots of people here. If you want to believe that LA is clean - then that is your right and you are entitled to it. As I am entitled to mine.

 

[beroepsrenner]

I do, but ********** like Gree0232 are just so annoying that you want to bring them down a notch or two. No matter, you can present all the facts in the world until your red in the face and it will always come down to the preponderance of evidence for those that believe Lance doped and the lame ass"Lance has not doped because he has not been sanctioned" excuse for those that believe Lance has not doped.

I've given up caring who believes what, but I do care that those who are arguing do so without intelligence and critical thinking.

IMO 96% of the world form their opinions without intelligence or critical thinking. They are happy for the media to do it for them.

 

[Anonymous]

IMO 96% of the world form their opinions without intelligence or critical thinking. They are happy for the media to do it for them.

And Mr Armstrong very clearly understands this. It is why you have little fluffers running around spouting the same lines as the next.

 

[auscyclefan94]

According to AAMilne, If lance armstrong is clean then the grass must be blue.

Berhnard Kohl was using epo since he was 19 and was only caught last year. IN the lance era it wasn't too hard to get away with it but nowadays it's not easy at all.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Berhnard Kohl was using epo since he was 19 and was only caught last year. IN the lance era it wasn't too hard to get away with it but nowadays it's not easy at all.

Remember that Kohl was only caught because of CERA. Nothing else. Kohl even stated that he would get tested right after doping, and had no fear of getting caught. Though you might disagree, most people do not believe testing accuracy has improved in the months since Kohl was caught.

Also keep in mind there are no tests for autologous blood doping, Hematide, or AICAR (or Repoxygen or stem-cell gene doping for that matter). Also that no one has ever actually tested positive for several other drugs and doping methods suspect of being used.

 

[gree0232]

Please provide a link to the part of the WADA code that states that you get a two year ban if you are over 50%. I will save you the time, it does not exist. You made this up.


So let me get this straight. You believe that a bag of blood, found in a gynecologist refridgerator, taken by the Guardia Civil, Handed to the Judicial system, then flow to Germany, is more secure then a sample that has been stored and tested by a WADA accredited lab? Most would see this dichotomy as hypocritical.


You may want to check the title of the thread. It is about LA being a doper. You are welcome to start a thread about other riders being dopers. I may agree with you.



The answer is simple. WADA only has jurisdiction for doping that happened after August 2004. Armstrong's samples with EPO in them were from 1999 so the UCI is in charge. For Basso WADA is in charge. Yet more evidence of the UCI incompetence.

Agh yes, so, if evidence of doping is tampered with, it does not equate to doping. I would hole heartedly agree.

Now, the question: why does that process apply to Operation Puerto riders, but not to the process regarding Lance?

As for the 50 hemocrit level, I actually have to admit that I was wrong. It is not, in and of itself proof of doping. Howevere, in this era it would almost certainly have resulted in follow up testing that woudl confirm or deny the prescence of doping products in the blood.

Those teste were certainly not availbel in 2000 after the ride up Hautacam, or earlier when Pantani blew the limit. I will also say that it has been a long time indeed since a rider busted that limit.

Again, almost everyone assumes that Pantani was doping. However, if 50+ hemocrit level is not strong enough to indicate guilt for Pantani, I find myself wondering why and even lower standard is being used to hold Armstrong accountable as a guilty rider?

 

[gree0232]

I presume you have heard of Bernard Kohl? He has admitted to doping for years and yet only got caught last year for a new drug - it is a sad fact that many riders fly under the radar.


Well he could have the samples retested from 1999 - as was offered to him to clear his name - EPO doesn't grow over time.


Again the SCA hearing was a contractual dispute not a doping case.
Dick Pound retired from WADA over a year ago.


Again - you have raised many questions on this thread and the other LA doping threat - feel free to look at the counter arguments offered by lots of people here. If you want to believe that LA is clean - then that is your right and you are entitled to it. As I am entitled to mine.

OK, so Bernard Kohl got away with it. How does that make Lance a doper?

Well, according to WADA a stability test os required because over time naturally accorring enzemys can produce a false positive for EPO. There is a simple test to exclude that possibility, and it was NOT performed on Lance's samples.

Again, for those who fail to understand statute and contractual disputes, the gist of the issue is that the contract was invalid because, and only because, Lance had apparently doped. Without a alleged doping violation, there is no contractual dispute at all.

So, again, the judges in the case, legal professionals, were too stupid to realize this when they accepted the case? Vast criminal conspiracy (of which there is no evidence) or innocence? Those are effectively the choices.

And I do love how Lance-Haters assume that simply because someone hold to the standard of, "Innocent until proven guilty" that they are uneducated. Interesting.

That such a standard is in the document I swore to defend with my life .... well, we all know soldiers and those who lead them are all uneducated and stupid.

And for the record, there were armed insurgents that went after me, and they failed to get me. Because of their failure, I am now here to giving Lance-Haters absolute conniptions. Stupid insurgents.

Again I have said on numerous times, bring it to me. I will freely admit that Lance is doper if indeed he doped. I admit that I admire Lance, and, even if he doped I will continue toa dmire him -- just as I admire Ullrich.

However, if a big, stupid, uneducated, grunt can punch holes in it, then even a washed up lawyer who cannot pass the bar will be able to punch a hole in it.

I promise you, if at any point I see an arguement that I cannot find a hole in I will say so. I will submit the matter the UCI, WADA, and USADA myself. I will personally congratulate the person who can do so.

I am the dumbest of the dumb, the bar is thus low, so bring it.

 

[M Sport]

Gree0232, You won't find anything in all the evidence and so called evidence that would legally stand up in a criminal or anti-doping case. It just doesn't exist in a form to be able to prosecute with, it fails all tests of credibility.

My personal opinion is that he doped. There are just too many factors against LA being clean. This is not based on my legal opinion but on logic, I base this on most other riders doping during his period of domination and the lessor (non legal) standard to make an objective opinion on all the evidence and innuendo, there is just way too much smoke for there not be a fire.

LA is lucky enough to be a big fish that got away.

btw I'm not a hater, I'm sort of neutral on him really. Hell, everyone else doped during his time so why should I hate on him.

 

[gree0232]

Chuck Norris

Again, as we dive down the rumor mill, I thought it would be appropriate to tell the tale of how Lance became a professional cyclist. It involves another American hero, the tale begins now:

We all know that Lance is brash and prone to displays of machismo. It has always been this way. As a young tri-athlete, Lance was prone to run his mouth, and in the days before twitter, simply hired planes to tow signs of his opponents weakness and lack of worth as human beings. After one of his races, Lance was surrounded by a crowd of his adoring admirers, (For some reason they were all wearing tin foil hats?) when a shadow crept up behind them, and began to watch young Lance.

Lance continued to bash his competitors, saying then that a future Jalabert would never equal the amazing feats that Lance had just accomplished, demonstrating not only his keen athletic abilities, but also revealing his dark ability to foretell the future.

As Lance neared the climax of boastful display, a chuckle was heard coming from an unknown drection that was somehow all around them. A thuderstruck Lance, peered into the darkness beyond his admirers, and in a voice barely above a whisper asked, "Who is there?"

Fleeting glimpses of beard, a fist, a cowboy hat finally solidified into a shape that was vaguely human. As the figure came into the circle of Lance's young fans, we came to know that Chuck Norris was present. He sad nothing, simply staring at Lance, asking nothing while the weight of the unasked question hung uneasily over the gathered crowd.

A nervous but defiant Lance finally screamed, "I just won the bike portion of the race!"

Chuck's gaze never left Lance, and it appeared as if his lips did not even move as words were heard from everywhere but no where, "So you think you can ride a bike?"

Lance, clearly unnerved, nevertheless replied with a single, "Yes."

From nowhere and everywhere, came the reply, "Then prove it."

From the darkness came two perfectly sized and fitted road bikes, Pinarello, Trek, Colnago .... there names were lost as all attention feel upon the two figures that mounted the bikes.

Lance clad himself in spandex, road shoes, and helmet. A slight scoff, or was it a laugh?, was heard as Lance slide his sunglasses into place.

Chuck, clad in cowboy boots, blue jeans, plaid cowboy shirt, vest, and cowboy hat, began to ride toward the horizon. No one knows it what direction they rode, be it North, or South; East or West, what is known is that over the next ten days the riders the were seen in North Dakota, Hawaii, Alaska, Washington, New Mexico, New York, Florida, and even West Virgina.

There was no sleep, there was no food or water, and still the figures were seen pedalling on horizons across the country.

After ten days, Lance was visibly tired, the sweat stains and dried salt had turned his spandex white, yet Lance still matched Chuck, whose denim remained pristine, stroke for stroke.

As they crossed Texas, we believe this to be somewhere near Austin, Chuck was seen to incline his head ever so slightly to acknowledge Lance with just the slightest bit of respect. Chuck's words follwing the acknowledgment were telling, "I'm a little bored, you look tired, and one of your fans is kinda hot. I think we should stop here."

An exhausted Lance offered no reply, but his legs stopped pedalling. His chest was seen heaving, as he cupped his head in his hands with beads of sweat dripping between his crossed arms supported by the handlebars of a still unknown bike onto the ground.

Chuck's bike simply disappeared. His clothing remained immaculate, and he smelled of roses and Old Spice, the scent he wished to smell at that time. As he walked past Lance he was heard to exclaim, "Perhaps you can ride a bike, you should try to do it professionally."

We are not entirely sure what Chuck said next, or even if it was meant for Lance, but we believe it was a question, "So what college did you say you attended?"

After that, Lance left Tri behind. The rest is history.

All I am saying is that it could have happened. I have no proof, but I do have suspicion.

 

[mr.biggles]

I guess we found out what creative writing majors do with their time while looking for jobs.

 

[M Sport]

I'm sure if one believes Lance is clean, then it's not too much of a stretch to believe that story

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

No kidding. I'm done with this tiresome thread.

He's all yours guys.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Gree0232, You won't find anything in all the evidence and so called evidence that would legally stand up in a criminal or anti-doping case. It just doesn't exist in a form to be able to prosecute with, it fails all tests of credibility.

My personal opinion is that he doped. There are just too many factors against LA being clean. This is not based on my legal opinion but on logic, I base this on most other riders doping during his period of domination and the lessor (non legal) standard to make an objective opinion on all the evidence and innuendo, there is just way too much smoke for there not be a fire.

LA is lucky enough to be a big fish that got away.

btw I'm not a hater, I'm sort of neutral on him really. Hell, everyone else doped during his time so why should I hate on him.

Ah "M Sport", mon ami - you have used logic, crtitical thing, objectivity and common sence to your thinking. "Gree0232" has already told us we are not allowed to apply that logic......

.....
That is as strong a proof of innocence as our system (The Western system) allows, and I will remind you that the burden of proof must be 50.1% in order turn suspicion into guilt.

Gree, Marco Pantani - who you said earlier was a doper - never failed an anti-doping test. Nor was he sanctioned for having a crit level at ironically 50.1%.

But it is ok he will not sue you - he is dead - of drug abuse at just 34.

At no time did I call you uneducated. Also I object to being called a 'hater', LA is just another doper in a large system designed to contain - as opposed to eliminate - doping practises.

I find it disturbing that someone who can claim a military background would try to smother the opinions and set the standards for the members of a public forum - as you said in an earlier post "this is not Iran".

You are entitled to your opinion - as I am mine, that Lance doped.

 

[runninboy]

That is as strong a proof of innocence as our system (The Western system) allows, and I will remind you that the burden of proof must be 50.1% in order turn suspicion into guilt.

I could not resist this.
By your rationale OJ Simpson was innocent of murder the system does not look quite so infallible as you have made it out to be. Unless of course you are one of those people who believed that cops were running around a crime scene throwing out blood & bloody gloves willy nilly.

You obviously are not a lawyer, or at least a very good lawyer(maybe a jailhouse lawyer, ever do any time?)
As a great lawyer once said, "in its most basic form, it is all about telling stories. Both sides get to tell a story, whichever one is liked best wins."
It is not about burden of proof, rule of law, it all boils down to which story draws them in.

The OJ jury rejected a story that contained irrefutable facts and accepted one that had no basis in reality but was good fiction.

The other famous saying that they teach in law school & still applies
"When you have the facts on your side, you pound on the facts"
"When you have the law on your side, you pound on the law"
"and when you have neither the facts nor the law on your side?"
"You pound on the table!"

Al Capone was not a murderer, a gun runner, a bootlegger he was a furniture dealer who cheated on his taxes. At least that is the logic that you use.
We are to suspend critical thinking and look purely at courtroom results. even though lawyers themselves agree that courtroom does not equal reality.



also a washed up lawyer would have already passed the bar why would he take it again? If he was unable to pass the bar he is not a lawyer and is not allowed to practice as such.

I do agree with you on one point
You are dumb
your words

 

[beroepsrenner]

An aquaintence of mine in Australia is a barrister who represents petty drug offenders. ( I believe in the USA he would be called a public defender ) he told me that the truth and facts are irrelevent in the court room. Its a matter of which side can manipulate them the best to convince the court. He would celebrate his successes by smoking a joint.