Why LA is not a doper (seriously)

[elapid]

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

He's all yours guys.

+1. There are two ways of looking at the evidence for and against Lance. There is the preponderance of evidence, whether it be circumstantial or factual, that just screams he has doped; and then there are those that see the world as either black or white and insist that he is clean because he has never tested positive. For posters like Gree, they will never think critically about the available information because it doesn't matter. He never tested positive, so he is clean. Having been down this road too many times before, you just end up getting a headache from beating your head against the wall repeatedly to no avail. If you are looking for intelligent debate, don't engage with the likes of Gree.

 

[gree0232]

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

OK, was not walking free? Al Capone was jailed at what point?

Now, please tell me how Darth Armstrong, a bike rider, has risen to the level of infamy of one Al Capone?

The worst murders and rapists in the world walk the world, the Western World anyway, free, UNTIL you can prove that they are what they are accussed of.

Somehow, for doping, we must apply a completely different standard? Somehow, despite the lower standard of the preponderance of the evidence for such cases, we should even reach THAT standard before we condemn a man? Because we don't like him?

Do you not see the dangers of relying on such things rather than by systemically meeting some sort of pre-determined standards?

Eiether Teflon Armstrong is smarter than every other cyclist, one possibility, or he may indeed be innocent.

He is certainly not OJ Simpson, and OJ Simpson certainly does not make Armstrong guilty of anything. To say that we suspect something is one thing, to say that someone is guilty, convicted if you will, is another entirely.

 

[blackcat]

how about "too big to fail" How does that analogy fit gree?

Armstrong to cycling is AIG to CDO and credit default swaps.

Moral hazard anyone? Won't be able to take Contador down, after his 5th GT, cos he will be le patron. Ullrich and Landis are convenient scapegoats.

You are either **** with us, or you really do not know your cycling.

 

[blackcat]

Bruyneel = Goldmans
Contador = Bernie Madoff
Ullrich = Lehmans
Basso = Bear Sterns
Landis = LTCM

 

[gree0232]

+1. There are two ways of looking at the evidence for and against Lance. There is the preponderance of evidence, whether it be circumstantial or factual, that just screams he has doped; and then there are those that see the world as either black or white and insist that he is clean because he has never tested positive. For posters like Gree, they will never think critically about the available information because it doesn't matter. He never tested positive, so he is clean. Having been down this road too many times before, you just end up getting a headache from beating your head against the wall repeatedly to no avail. If you are looking for intelligent debate, don't engage with the likes of Gree.

Yes, yes, I am incapable of rational though and my value as a human being is suspect. I do love how almost every post of mine on here is about preponderanceof the evidence and the need to meet actual standards for doping violations. Yet somehow, if defiance of all logic, the preponderance of the evidence must somehow, for the Lance haters, means that the preponderance of suspicion, however outrageous (ala Chuck) is somehow the standard that must be apply.

It is they, not me,who are being logical and critical. Jumping on a bandwagon of hatred and suspicion is somehow the 'right' thing to do.

So, brief recap. Betsy Andreau means Lance is a doper? The other eight people in the room disagree, including Lance's doctor, 280 pages of medical records disagree. The preponderance of the avilable evidence strongly suggeest that Mrs.Andreau is mistaken at best.

No, no. It is far more logical to thing tha a doctor, and indeed an entire hospital crimanally altered records, and then criminally covered it up, leaving behind absolutely no audit trail or witnesses ... just to embarass Betsy?

Yes, that is a read both entirely logical AND supported by the preponderance of the available evidence. But I, me, this flawed human being, must be lying. The judges in the case must be dim, and SCA didn't pay more than the original amount. No, No, to side with Armstrong in this case is to reveal intellectual and moral bankruptcy.

And it goes on and on with the Lance haters, the endless recycling of innuendo is trumped as 'proof'. The cherry picking of facts, deliberately ignoring exonerating bits of evidence, false contradictions ala, Lance is doper because a lot of Ferrari's riders were doping -- missing entirely that not all were like Levi (clearly a doper). Fact apparently doesn't matter. Those who point them out are flawed human beings. And my favorite is that these same people, while insulting others ina clearly emotional reaction, will claim that it is they who are being, clear, impartial, and judicial.

And so it goes for the Lance Haters, a decacde of trying ti prove something and failing. THe problem though is not with them in their logic, not their evidence or procedures, or the emphasis they place upon it. The problem, once again entirely logical, is that there is a vast conspiracy of floawed human beings perpetuating a lie. The only way to defeat this lie is NOT by meeting the actual standards, it is to insult those who do not march in jack booted lock step with their thinking.

And for eth record, Lance Armstrong is with a gun to my head right now making me write these things.

 

[gree0232]

how about "too big to fail" How does that analogy fit gree?

Armstrong to cycling is AIG to CDO and credit default swaps.

Moral hazard anyone? Won't be able to take Contador down, after his 5th GT, cos he will be le patron. Ullrich and Landis are convenient scapegoats.

You are either fu<king with us, or you really do not know your cycling.

I do agree with you that many people would be devestaed if Lance were proven a doper. I am not one of them.

I loved Jan, even if he is know discredited.

The simple fact of the matter is that there are people with the anti-doping establishment who would have loved to take Lance down, they tried, and they failed.

Interestingly enough, as we have moved away from leaks and onto more science based, accrate drug testing, the rumors for just about all cyclists has gone away.

DiLuca is a doper because he tested positive, not because a classics guy won and finished a strong second in the Giro.

Lots of people wantto knock down a hero. Why that is? No idea.

 

[Eva Maria]

The simple fact of the matter is that there are people with the anti-doping establishment who would have loved to take Lance down, they tried, and they failed.

Do you have a list of these people and what they tried? Or are you just making that up?

 

[blackcat]

Do you have a list of these people and what they tried? Or are you just making that up?

the only ones were Ressiot and Walsh. We know. Thanks Eva.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I was reluctant to respond to your obvious flaming.

However when you continue to distort the facts - something you clearly hold dear - then I will respond - and continue to do so.

...
And it goes on and on with the Lance haters, the endless recycling of innuendo is trumped as 'proof'. The cherry picking of facts, deliberately ignoring exonerating bits of evidence, false contradictions ala, Lance is doper because a lot of Ferrari's riders were doping -- missing entirely that not all were like Levi (clearly a doper). Fact apparently doesn't matter. Those who point them out are flawed human beings. And my favorite is that these same people, while insulting others ina clearly emotional reaction, will claim that it is they who are being, clear, impartial, and judicial.
.......

Where you say just 1 person heard the incident in the hospital room this is a completely baseless fact.
Frankie Andreau heard and confirmed the story.
Bill Stapelton - was not called to testify.
Page - was not called to testify
Craig Nichols was not LA's Doctor at that point.
Stephanie McIlvain - responded "no" when asked. However a tape recording of her account of the story she admits she heard it.

Furthermore - if all these people had admitted they heard LA say he used PED's it would not have changed the outcome of the case.

This was a contractual dispute not a doping case.

Also - I again strongly object to your term towards me as a 'hater' - for someone who holds values of justice and fairness this 'ad hominem' remark reflects poorly on your objectivity.

 

[poupou]

Hospital -doping- Lance - Betsy

http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/3158304

 

[Digger]

So, brief recap. Betsy Andreau means Lance is a doper? The other eight people in the room disagree,

Lies....lies..


Address and answer the questions I asked you about SCA, Martin Dugard, French TV 3, ETC

 

[elapid]

Interestingly enough, as we have moved away from leaks and onto more science based, accrate drug testing, the rumors for just about all cyclists has gone away.

DiLuca is a doper because he tested positive, not because a classics guy won and finished a strong second in the Giro.

This is wrong. There were lots of rumours swilling about for DiLuca in this year's Giro, and more rumours when DiLuca won the Giro in 2007. One of the main reasons for these rumours was his transformation from a Classics rider to a GT winner. Sound familiar? The fact that he has tested positive only serves to confirm the rumours and that the preponderance of evidence against him riding clean were in fact true. Again, sound familiar? The fact that he was officially caught doping makes him no less a doper than when the evidence was pointing towards him being a doper before he was caught.

 

[Digger]

This is wrong. There were lots of rumours swilling about for DiLuca in this year's Giro, and more rumours when DiLuca won the Giro in 2007. One of the main reasons for these rumours was his transformation from a Classics rider to a GT winner. Sound familiar? The fact that he has tested positive only serves to confirm the rumours and that the preponderance of evidence against him riding clean were in fact true. Again, sound familiar? The fact that he was officially caught doping makes him no less a doper than when the evidence was pointing towards him being a doper before he was caught.

Absolutely, not to mention his name being in the Oil for Drugs doping scandal, or that his testosterone levels in the 07 Giro were that of a child, thus showing obvious masking agents. Carlo Santuccione was his Doctor...a protege of Professor Conconi...A certain Michele Ferrari was another.

 

[gree0232]

I was reluctant to respond to your obvious flaming.

However when you continue to distort the facts - something you clearly hold dear - then I will respond - and continue to do so.



Where you say just 1 person heard the incident in the hospital room this is a completely baseless fact.
Frankie Andreau heard and confirmed the story.
Bill Stapelton - was not called to testify.
Page - was not called to testify
Craig Nichols was not LA's Doctor at that point.
Stephanie McIlvain - responded "no" when asked. However a tape recording of her account of the story she admits she heard it.

Furthermore - if all these people had admitted they heard LA say he used PED's it would not have changed the outcome of the case.

This was a contractual dispute not a doping case.

Also - I again strongly object to your term towards me as a 'hater' - for someone who holds values of justice and fairness this 'ad hominem' remark reflects poorly on your objectivity.

Well, aside from the fact that I never said only 'one' person was in the room, and the basis of your analsyis is just false to begin with a result. If you don;t believe me, prove it.

According to the reports there were ten people present. If Dr. Nichols was not the attending doctor, who was?

If it is just a contractual dispute, how is that judges and legal professionals allowed this testimony into evidence? It is, in your opinion completely superflous. So why is there?

The contract can only be invalidated by Lance performace being false, i.e. performance enhanced. That Lance-haters refuse to acknowledge even that germain statement is telling -- and leads directly to the crditbility of those who would avoid something paifully obvious.

Now, lets again proceed with some of the implications of your statements. The other people in the room were, accept the martyar, Saint Andreau, were all apparently intimidated by Darth Armstrong into changing their testimony.

I am already dealth with the recording which goes as much for Lance as against Lance, barring what comes after, "I know, I was there!" Somehoe the implication of that statement is stronger then the statement she made under oath and accuseed Greg LeMond of lying. A statement made under oath carries no weight?

So, she must have been intimidated?

There are two common ways to do this: Money and violence.

The first method leaves a tangible audit trail, and with the exception of a donation to the UCI, and the idea you can apparently bribe entire organizations rather than individuals with seems a stretch, there is no evidence that Lance has conducted a bribery scheme to cover his tracks.

That leaves the second method, which is violence ala Al Capone. Hav ethere been mysterious disapperences surrounding Lance? Did Mrs. Andreau vanish? Were various family members kidnapped and held until the testimony was given? I have seen torture and rape rooms used to control populations and coarese obedience, and the idea that Lance is such a person is sheer and utter nonesense.

Those are the two most common methods of witness tampering and influence. How did Lance nefariously come up with a different method? Strongly rejecting claims? Oh, so intimidating.

And finally, our system allows people to confront allegations. In each case were the allegations were made with seriousness, Lance has taken them to court and won. Every single time.

There is no other tool available to prove his innocence, and although I will conceed the possibility that he did indeed doped, I will also conceed that it is entirely possible he did not.

I am member of rganizations whose entire existence depends on the ability of discipline, hard work, and dilligence to produce results. I have seen its benefits on both a collective and individual level, and the idea that these would not produce results for a cyclist? I find that to be a stretch. The idea that only doping can produce extraordinary results flies in the face of everything that I have seen. There is no doubt that doping can and does produce results, but there are also those who get results without resorting to doping.

Please bear in mind, when you say, "Lance is a doper," you are not merely expresing an opinion, you are accussing Lance of criminal behavior for which he can be sanctioned.

If you make that statement in a forum, you must be prepared to defend it. When most Lance-Haters read any statement in support of Lance with, "Oh God, another one," or insinuate that the person making the statement is flawed or stupid, the problem may instead lay in the fact that your arguement and beliefs are not as strong you believe.

 

[gree0232]

This is wrong. There were lots of rumours swilling about for DiLuca in this year's Giro, and more rumours when DiLuca won the Giro in 2007. One of the main reasons for these rumours was his transformation from a Classics rider to a GT winner. Sound familiar? The fact that he has tested positive only serves to confirm the rumours and that the preponderance of evidence against him riding clean were in fact true. Again, sound familiar? The fact that he was officially caught doping makes him no less a doper than when the evidence was pointing towards him being a doper before he was caught.

I have made that exact point. Rumors regarding DiLuca did not matter. What nailed him was a positive dope test.

Lance too has been targetted, for years, under the same cloud of suspicion, and the absence of a positive, accept apparently through L'Equip (a sanctioning body no less) is equaly telling.

I will conceed happily that there is suspicion, but, just like DiLuca, that suspicion must produce a testable, veriafiable result in terms of anti-doping.

Otherwise, all performance is subject to the same rumor mill, and if all solid performance is subject to rejection throgh suspicion and this guilt, than that is a poison far worse than actual doping to our sport.

You cannot convict based on suspicion alone, and DiLuca has proved that.

 

[Eva Maria]

Well, aside from the fact that I never said only 'one' person was in the room, and the basis of your analsyis is just false to begin with a result. If you don;t believe me, prove it.

According to the reports there were ten people present. If Dr. Nichols was not the attending doctor, who was?

If it is just a contractual dispute, how is that judges and legal professionals allowed this testimony into evidence? It is, in your opinion completely superflous. So why is there?

The contract can only be invalidated by Lance performace being false, i.e. performance enhanced. That Lance-haters refuse to acknowledge even that germain statement is telling -- and leads directly to the crditbility of those who would avoid something paifully obvious.

Now, lets again proceed with some of the implications of your statements. The other people in the room were, accept the martyar, Saint Andreau, were all apparently intimidated by Darth Armstrong into changing their testimony.

I am already dealth with the recording which goes as much for Lance as against Lance, barring what comes after, "I know, I was there!" Somehoe the implication of that statement is stronger then the statement she made under oath and accuseed Greg LeMond of lying. A statement made under oath carries no weight?

So, she must have been intimidated?

There are two common ways to do this: Money and violence.

The first method leaves a tangible audit trail, and with the exception of a donation to the UCI, and the idea you can apparently bribe entire organizations rather than individuals with seems a stretch, there is no evidence that Lance has conducted a bribery scheme to cover his tracks.

That leaves the second method, which is violence ala Al Capone. Hav ethere been mysterious disapperences surrounding Lance? Did Mrs. Andreau vanish? Were various family members kidnapped and held until the testimony was given? I have seen torture and rape rooms used to control populations and coarese obedience, and the idea that Lance is such a person is sheer and utter nonesense.

Those are the two most common methods of witness tampering and influence. How did Lance nefariously come up with a different method? Strongly rejecting claims? Oh, so intimidating.

And finally, our system allows people to confront allegations. In each case were the allegations were made with seriousness, Lance has taken them to court and won. Every single time.

There is no other tool available to prove his innocence, and although I will conceed the possibility that he did indeed doped, I will also conceed that it is entirely possible he did not.

I am member of rganizations whose entire existence depends on the ability of discipline, hard work, and dilligence to produce results. I have seen its benefits on both a collective and individual level, and the idea that these would not produce results for a cyclist? I find that to be a stretch. The idea that only doping can produce extraordinary results flies in the face of everything that I have seen. There is no doubt that doping can and does produce results, but there are also those who get results without resorting to doping.

Please bear in mind, when you say, "Lance is a doper," you are not merely expresing an opinion, you are accussing Lance of criminal behavior for which he can be sanctioned.

If you make that statement in a forum, you must be prepared to defend it. When most Lance-Haters read any statement in support of Lance with, "Oh God, another one," or insinuate that the person making the statement is flawed or stupid, the problem may instead lay in the fact that your arguement and beliefs are not as strong you believe.

You seem to think that quantity if more important then quality. It doesn't matter how many words your write if they mean nothing.

 

[Digger]

Well, aside from the fact that I never said only 'one' person was in the room, and the basis of your analsyis is just false to begin with a result. If you don;t believe me, prove it.

According to the reports there were ten people present. If Dr. Nichols was not the attending doctor, who was?

Show me one, just one report, which says that ten people were in the room.

How did the EPO get into the urine? Even Lance admits there is EPO there. His defense is that it was spiked (impossible) or that the samples were switched (also incredibly hard).

Do you want the link to hear what Stephanie said? Here, listen.

http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2132106/m/gregstef.mp3

That's the actual phone conversation.

I've also asked you to tell me about the times he has taken people to court and 'won every sinngle time'. You said you dealt with it already on Page 3, however, it's not dealt with, because it's rubbish.
You realise he was fined 1500Euro for wasting the French Court's time?

Do you have any idea of the advantages of blood doping and EPO? And you believe hard training, with a not particularly high VO2Max can achieve this? Your reasoning for believing Lance trained hard? Road to Paris.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well, aside from the fact that I never said only 'one' person was in the room, and the basis of your analsyis is just false to begin with a result. If you don;t believe me, prove it.

I never said there was 1 person in the room - YOU said only person in the room heard the comments.
Please do not try and distort what I post!

Also please show a post where I have ever called you stupid, ignorant or uneducated!

 

[Izoard]

Train wreck

Holy crap, this thread is like a train wreck! I really knew I shouldn't read it, but I did (and regret it - that's time I'll never get back). It does not look like any progress has really been made, other than it looks like there is evidence of cognitive dissonance

 

[Digger]

Holy crap, this thread is like a train wreck!

You;re not wrong!!!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So, brief recap. Betsy Andreau means Lance is a doper? The other eight people in the room disagree, including Lance's doctor, 280 pages of medical records disagree. The preponderance of the avilable evidence strongly suggeest that Mrs.Andreau is mistaken at best.

......
However when you continue to distort the facts - something you clearly hold dear - then I will respond - and continue to do so.

Where you say just 1 person heard the incident in the hospital room this is a completely baseless fact.Frankie Andreau heard and confirmed the story.
Bill Stapelton - was not called to testify.
Page - was not called to testify
Craig Nichols was not LA's Doctor at that point.
Stephanie McIlvain - responded "no" when asked. However a tape recording of her account of the story she admits she heard it.

Furthermore - if all these people had admitted they heard LA say he used PED's it would not have changed the outcome of the case.

This was a contractual dispute not a doping case.

Also - I again strongly object to your term towards me as a 'hater' - for someone who holds values of justice and fairness this 'ad hominem' remark reflects poorly on your objectivity.

Well, aside from the fact that I never said only 'one' person was in the room, and the basis of your analsyis is just false to begin with a result. If you don;t believe me, prove it. ....

This is a public forum - please do not distort what I have written!

Also you have said there was Mrs. Andreu and eight others in the room.
Now you have said there are 10 people in the room.

Can you please name them all for clarification.

 

[poupou]

I have made that exact point. Rumors regarding DiLuca did not matter. What nailed him was a positive dope test.

Lance too has been targetted, for years, under the same cloud of suspicion, and the absence of a positive, accept apparently through L'Equip (a sanctioning body no less) is equaly telling.

Targeted Lance?
Lance was only tested around 75 times by UCI from 1999 to 2005. Less than Zabel or Cippolini or Jalabert!

 

[gree0232]

This is a public forum - please do not distort what I have written!

Also you have said there was Mrs. Andreu and eight others in the room.
Now you have said there are 10 people in the room.

Can you please name them all for clarification.

Yeah, and guess what is public record? The ther person is Frank, Betsy's husband, also admitted.

However, Frank has seems to be publically avoidingthe subject entirely, whereas Mrs. Andreau continues to say that whse was right. In otherwords, teh dubstance of the issue seems to revolve arund Mrs. Andreau and the interview that Lance Haters love to post as 'evidence'.

In fact, it was given in direct rebuttal to my consideration of the SCA case.

So, again, as we lok at the preponderance of the evidence once again, there are still eight other people in the room who directly contradict the Andreau's.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that a husband's testimony should not be taken with a grain of salt? That you honestly see no reason that a husband would lie for his wife? It does not mean that he did, but it does strongly caution and ask for other methods of verification.

Hence as a result of this, I do not always mention the Andreau's, but instead focus on Betsy who continues to be presented by the Lance Haters as some kind of for standing up to Lance while the rest of the evidence is ignored.

I will also point you back to my original on the third page where I lay out the case for Lance's innocence and mention both Frank and Betsy by name, as well as the original eight people, including his Dr. listed by name with citations.

Does the gist of your defense now consist of going through my posts and finding similar posts and saying, "You did not say exactly the same thing here that you did there?" If you have not read teh accounts of teh SCA case, and are demanding that I recount them in exacting detail, then I will direct you to google.

If you diagree with my assessment, you are going to have to make your own case.

I went into this independantly, I have read what the UCI has to say, what WADA has to say, all kinds of riders and doctors with thoughts on the subject, I have seen the Betsy Andreau interview, read bits and pieces of Dr. Walsh's 'book', to the point that I can say with a great deal of confidence that I have seen just about everything there is to see from both the Lance Haters and the Lance Lovers.

In the end, my opinion AFTER that, is that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that Lance did not dope (though strong suspicion remains).

At this point the gist of Lance's accusation really seems to focus around his achievements, that Lance could not have beaten dopers or achieved his results without doping.

Well, Menchov just beat a doped DiLuca. If that line of reasoning is solid, if the center of the arguement surrounding Lance is true, then I would expect the Lance Haters to follow that standard and accuse Menchov as well.

To be clear, at least Greg LeMond took his read on power output and accussed Contador of doping based on his analysis. There is at least some kind of consistancy behind Greg's thoughts, and sme attempt to apply the standard universally and fairly.

As I stated, an environment of suspicion that taints all results is a poison worse actual doping.

 

[gree0232]

A straight up question for Doc

"Furthermore - if all these people had admitted they heard LA say he used PED's it would not have changed the outcome of the case."

If doping could not have effected the outcome of the SCA case involving Lance, then why was it part of the testimony?

THe entire contractual case for the SCA issue can only be about doping. The SCA case consisted entirely of convincing the court that Lance's achievement was false, that it was achieved through unethical means .... thereby violating the contract.

There are three outcomes that such a case could have resulted in:

1. SCA is forced to pay the award as per the contract, plus legal fees and interest. THis is what happened.

2. The court could have found enough evidence of unethical activity to void the contract, or portions of the contract, if strong enough suspicion of unethical behavior existed. Effectively, this would have let SCA walk away and keep the money.

3. The court could have found Lance had engaged in unethical performance enhancement and awarded damages to SCA for Lance's atempt to take advantage of the company.

Now, the entire contract dispute revolves around doping, so I am very curious how simply stating, "It is a contract dispute," somehow nullifies the entire doping process to this claim?

In short, what the hell was Betsy doing there if there is no doping dispute?

What it really means is that, even when Lance is exonerated, he is not in the eyes of the Lance Haters. Which raises a bigger question, how can he prove his innocence other than by doing exactly what he has done?

 

[Digger]

Yeah, and guess what is public record? The ther person is Frank, Betsy's husband, also admitted.

However, Frank has seems to be publically avoidingthe subject entirely, whereas Mrs. Andreau continues to say that whse was right. In otherwords, teh dubstance of the issue seems to revolve arund Mrs. Andreau and the interview that Lance Haters love to post as 'evidence'.

In fact, it was given in direct rebuttal to my consideration of the SCA case.

So, again, as we lok at the preponderance of the evidence once again, there are still eight other people in the room who directly contradict the Andreau's.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that a husband's testimony should not be taken with a grain of salt? That you honestly see no reason that a husband would lie for his wife? It does not mean that he did, but it does strongly caution and ask for other methods of verification.

Hence as a result of this, I do not always mention the Andreau's, but instead focus on Betsy who continues to be presented by the Lance Haters as some kind of for standing up to Lance while the rest of the evidence is ignored.

I will also point you back to my original on the third page where I lay out the case for Lance's innocence and mention both Frank and Betsy by name, as well as the original eight people, including his Dr. listed by name with citations.

Does the gist of your defense now consist of going through my posts and finding similar posts and saying, "You did not say exactly the same thing here that you did there?" If you have not read teh accounts of teh SCA case, and are demanding that I recount them in exacting detail, then I will direct you to google.

If you diagree with my assessment, you are going to have to make your own case.

I went into this independantly, I have read what the UCI has to say, what WADA has to say, all kinds of riders and doctors with thoughts on the subject, I have seen the Betsy Andreau interview, read bits and pieces of Dr. Walsh's 'book', to the point that I can say with a great deal of confidence that I have seen just about everything there is to see from both the Lance Haters and the Lance Lovers.

In the end, my opinion AFTER that, is that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that Lance did not dope (though strong suspicion remains).

At this point the gist of Lance's accusation really seems to focus around his achievements, that Lance could not have beaten dopers or achieved his results without doping.

Well, Menchov just beat a doped DiLuca. If that line of reasoning is solid, if the center of the arguement surrounding Lance is true, then I would expect the Lance Haters to follow that standard and accuse Menchov as well.

To be clear, at least Greg LeMond took his read on power output and accussed Contador of doping based on his analysis. There is at least some kind of consistancy behind Greg's thoughts, and sme attempt to apply the standard universally and fairly.

As I stated, an environment of suspicion that taints all results is a poison worse actual doping.

Name the eight people...
You read bits and pieces of Walsh's book...I find that incredibly hard to believe considering you initially said that FLTL only has a relatively small part on Lance. Your posts do not depict a guy who has read all this. There are too many inaccuracies, the SCA case, the hospital room, Stephanie, Ferrari, not knowing about Martin Dugard or Actevigen. There are too many to mention.