Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 282

Thread: Lance Armstrong is a dope

  1. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TripletDaddy View Post
    Whoa. Are they stripping him of his titles based solely off the testimony of two witnesses promised immunity for merely testifying? If so, I agree with you. That is unfair.
    The USADA claims to have 12 witnesses that observed Armstrong's PED use.

  2. #62
    BYU Delenda Est Mormon Red Death's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    the Planet Lovetron, bringing funkiness to all over the world
    Posts
    7,503

    Default

    per soft jazz coug on utefans:

    The short of it, yes I do believe that Lance doped. However the USADA proceedings have been curious at best, scandalous at worst.

    From everything I've seen, they are breaking their own rules and making apparent sweetheart deals with some cyclists.

    The first question is how do they strip wins from over 8 years ago when their own statute of limitations prevents them from doing so?

    Secondly, how does Armstrong defend himself when he doesn't even know who exactly his accusers are, and what they've said? USADA has claimed they are protecting them from intimidation.

    Thirdly, how can this testimony even be considered reliable when the former teammates testifying are either convicted dopers themselves, or are likely receiving amnesty for what they did or are currently doing? I can get that some deals might need to be worked out to take down a doping ring that is currently active, but Armstrong is retired from cycling. Bruyneel is still out there, but this isn't really about him.

    Fourth, USA Cycling and the International Cycling Union (UCI) have asked USADA for the evidence, which they refuse to provide to them, how can a legal proceeding from an organization supported by tax payer money have fair proceedings while operating in a black box? Basically the service that is supposed to be there for these two organizations is refusing to let these organizations see what is going on.

    There are of course arguments behind supporting all of these things too. Armstrong has been known to try to intimidate witnesses and despite being retired still wields a lot of power in the cycling community (see the refusal by everyone at the Vuelta to even publicly comment on what has happened).

    So, while I personally believe Armstrong doped, there is something fishy going on at USADA too.

    I wouldn't be a bit surprised actually, since USADA and USA Cycling and UCI have been butting heads, if the UCI either appeals their decision, or ignores it outright. This is far from over.
    "Be a philosopher. A man can compromise to gain a point. It has become apparent that a man can, within limits, follow his inclinations within the arms of the Church if he does so discreetly." - The Walking Drum

    "And here’s what life comes down to—not how many years you live, but how many of those years are filled with bullshit that doesn’t amount to anything to satisfy the requirements of some dickhead you’ll never get the pleasure of punching in the face." – Adam Carolla

  3. #63
    Senior Member SteelBlue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    FarNorCal
    Posts
    6,380

    Default

    Does anyone who has followed Lance's career really believe he'd stop fighting because he's "had enough of all this"? The guy who beat cancer, grinded out 7 TdF wins and has been relentless as a protector of his own legacy now wants to quit fighting what would likely be the final challenge to that legacy? It's just my opinion, but stopping the fight is way out of character for him. Stopping because he knows the evidence against him is finally overwhelming makes much more sense. If by stopping he also prevents the public release of the evidence then it makes even more sense. Just judging by my facebook news feed his plan is working pretty well already.
    Last edited by SteelBlue; 08-24-2012 at 10:19 AM.

  4. #64
    sweet triple TripletDaddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    58,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pelagius View Post
    The USADA claims to have 12 witnesses that observed Armstrong's PED use.
    Agreed. Do they claim to have any other evidence?
    Fitter. Happier. More Productive.


  5. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TripletDaddy View Post
    Agreed. Do they claim to have any other evidence?
    blood tests from 2009 and 2010 "fully consistent" with doping. i'm not sure what that means. elevated red blood cell count? traces of the epo itself? it's not like the usada has any authority to compel a private, foreign organization to do anything anyway.
    Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

  6. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by camleish View Post
    blood tests from 2009 and 2010 "fully consistent" with doping. i'm not sure what that means. elevated red blood cell count? traces of the epo itself? it's not like the usada has any authority to compel a private, foreign organization to do anything anyway.
    Where is everyone getting their info about the 2009 and 2010 samples and the 12 witnesses? I did a search in the espn.com headline story but didn't find those references.

    EDIT: I just found the 2009 and 2010 samples reference (I was looking at the wrong espn.com story), but still looking for the 12 witnesses note.

  7. #67
    sweet triple TripletDaddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    58,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scottie View Post
    Where is everyone getting their info about the 2009 and 2010 samples and the 12 witnesses? I did a search in the espn.com headline story but didn't find those references.

    EDIT: I just found the 2009 and 2010 samples reference (I was looking at the wrong espn.com story), but still looking for the 12 witnesses note.
    The 12 Witnesses part is just after the title page and introduction.
    Fitter. Happier. More Productive.


  8. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TripletDaddy View Post
    The 12 Witnesses part is just after the title page and introduction.

  9. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scottie View Post
    Where is everyone getting their info about the 2009 and 2010 samples and the 12 witnesses? I did a search in the espn.com headline story but didn't find those references.

    EDIT: I just found the 2009 and 2010 samples reference (I was looking at the wrong espn.com story), but still looking for the 12 witnesses note.
    Nevermind, I found some non-espn stories, as well as 3D pointing me to the right place.

  10. #70
    One man.....one pie Moliere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The Republic of Tejas
    Posts
    20,413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by camleish View Post
    blood tests from 2009 and 2010 "fully consistent" with doping. i'm not sure what that means. elevated red blood cell count? traces of the epo itself? it's not like the usada has any authority to compel a private, foreign organization to do anything anyway.
    Again, how do you strip titles won before 2005 based on evidence of doping in 2009 and 2010? That's like taking away olympic medals from 2008 because some guy tested positive during the 2012 games even though he was clean (or never had a negative test) during 2008. Seems weird.

    I understand what Steelblue is saying, but I wonder if Lance knows they can't strip his titles (he may legally challenge them or claim the statute of limitation has passed) so he's not going to dragged through the mud anymore.

    Of course, maybe he cheated, but so did Bonds and he doesn't have an asterisk next to his name.
    "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

  11. #71
    Senior Member dabrockster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    8,486

    Default

    Just leave LA alone!!!

    [YOUTUBE]GugsCdLHm-Q[/YOUTUBE]

  12. #72
    sweet triple TripletDaddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    58,326

    Default

    [YOUTUBE]MIl5RxhLZ5U[/YOUTUBE]
    Fitter. Happier. More Productive.


  13. #73
    Known Heterosexual RC Vikings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Rexburg, Idaho
    Posts
    7,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by camleish View Post
    blood tests from 2009 and 2010 "fully consistent" with doping. i'm not sure what that means. elevated red blood cell count? traces of the epo itself? it's not like the usada has any authority to compel a private, foreign organization to do anything anyway.
    So they are basing this off of his two comeback years? How stupid would Armstrong have to be to use EPO, during a time when everybody was watching, to ride a race he knew he had little chance of winning and risk everything else. I would like to see what Hinicapie said because I've still never seen a report where an ex-teammate said they saw him Armstrong injecting himself with something. They have said there was pressure from the team to use but nobody physically saw him use. If they are going to do this to Armstrong they might as well take away Indurains also.

  14. #74
    a day late/a dollar short Sullyute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,824

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RC Vikings View Post
    So they are basing this off of his two comeback years? How stupid would Armstrong have to be to use EPO, during a time when everybody was watching, to ride a race he knew he had little chance of winning and risk everything else. I would like to see what Hinicapie said because I've still never seen a report where an ex-teammate said they saw him Armstrong injecting himself with something. They have said there was pressure from the team to use but nobody physically saw him use. If they are going to do this to Armstrong they might as well take away Indurains also.
    You leave Miguel out of this!
    "Friendship is the grand fundamental principle of Mormonism" - Joseph Smith Jr.

  15. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RC Vikings View Post
    I would like to see what Hinicapie said because I've still never seen a report where an ex-teammate said they saw him Armstrong injecting himself with something.
    RC, Hamilton did say that he saw Armstrong inject EPO. Are you looking for others beside Hamilton (maybe you don't find Hamilton credible)?

    Asked what he actually witnessed, Hamilton told Pelley, "I saw it in his refrigerator, you know. I saw him inject it more than one time."

    "You saw Lance Armstrong inject EPO?" Pelley asked.

    "Yeah, like we all did, like I did many, many times," Hamilton said.

    "You saw it more than once?" Pelley asked.

    "I think I saw it a couple times," Hamilton replied.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-20064858.html

  16. #76
    Senior Member SteelBlue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    FarNorCal
    Posts
    6,380

    Default

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/sp...pagewanted=all

    The name that seals the deal is Hincapie. That was game over.

  17. #77
    Known Heterosexual RC Vikings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Rexburg, Idaho
    Posts
    7,997

    Default

    "I think I saw it a couple times," Hamilton replied.
    When someone starts out "I think" doesn't that mean they don't know or aren't sure. Hamilton broke my heart because I always thought he was clean. Never believe a liar.

  18. #78
    Where's Wallace? Surfah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    V to the izz-A.
    Posts
    32,938

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelBlue View Post
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/sp...pagewanted=all

    The name that seals the deal is Hincapie. That was game over.
    I bet he'd pull a Pettitte for LA.
    "Nobody listens to Turtle."
    -Turtle

  19. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RC Vikings View Post
    When someone starts out "I think" doesn't that mean they don't know or aren't sure.
    Not in context. A few sentence earlier he makes it clear he saw Armstrong inject EPO. In the follow up he says he thinks he saw it a couple of times. That seems like uncertainty about the number not uncertainty about whether he ever saw it. Lots of people discount Hamilton's testimony, but I don't think you can discount that he claims to he have seen Armstrong inject.

  20. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pelagius View Post
    Not in context. A few sentence earlier he makes it clear he saw Armstrong inject EPO. In the follow up he says he thinks he saw it a couple of times. That seems like uncertainty about the number not uncertainty about whether he ever saw it. Lots of people discount Hamilton's testimony, but I don't think you can discount that he claims to he have seen Armstrong inject.
    Am I reading it wrong, or didn't he say he saw LA dope many, many times right before saying a couple times?

  21. #81
    Senior Member Eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Davis County
    Posts
    6,028

    Default

    Yeah. I like the transition from "More than one time" to "many many times" to "I think twice".

    So...um...which was it?

  22. #82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveCoug View Post
    Am I reading it wrong, or didn't he say he saw LA dope many, many times right before saying a couple times?
    Yes, I think you are reading it wrong. The many, many times refers to Hamilton (or the group collectively) injecting EPO not to Armstrong specifically.
    Last edited by pelagius; 08-24-2012 at 12:04 PM.

  23. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pelagius View Post
    Yes, I think you are reading it wrong. The many, many times refers to Hamilton (or the group collectively) injecting EPO not to Armstrong specifically.
    i don't know about that. this makes more sense, given the question:

    "You saw Lance Armstrong inject EPO?" Pelley asked.

    "Yeah, like we all [saw him inject], like I did many, many times," Hamilton said.

    "You saw it more than once?" Pelley asked.

    "I think I saw it a couple times," Hamilton replied.
    Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

  24. #84
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    20,983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myboynoah View Post
    Thanks for that commentary. I'm torn over LA because I think he came to pretty much the same conclusion that Bonds did; both looked around and saw others excelling and getting rewarded for it by cheating. So they partook.

    A work colleague in France, as well as many, many others, concluded that they were all cheating, so LA's achievements should be viewed through that lens; he was the best among a group of cheaters. I can understand that, and as result, 7 wins still seems pretty extraordinary (except I guess when you consider that some of his best competition was getting caught and not eligible while he got those wins). That's why I still love what Landis did on Stage 17 and it is hard for me not to remember it with fondness--what a ride and perhaps my best TDF memory. But still, they cheated.

    I know I've said this before, but what really sets it apart for me is how aggressively and vindictively LA went about using his position in USA cycling circles to squash all opposition and intimidate everyone that could threaten him. I guess he felt he had to protect the franchise.
    I am not sure this conclusion stands to scrutiny. The range of possible doping methods is broad. It is unlikely that all of the cheaters were cheating the same way or with similar effectiveness. Many would have been limited by resources and access, among other things. Moreover, its not like a bike, where everyone can see some new innovation. It is done is secret, without discussion, under no scrutiny, and without consideration by the sports' governing bodies. IOW, the field isn't level for the cheaters. It is very uneven among them.

    Your Landis example illustrates this point. What Landis did that day was PHENOMENAL. and it turns out he was amped up with testosterone. LA has not been accused of using testosterone. Landis cheating is very different from LA's cheating and both of them are different than Contador's cheating.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  25. #85
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    20,983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TripletDaddy View Post
    What does that matter? People get exonerated from blood that is decades old.

    This very issue will define lance Armstrong and his legacy. If he really were innocent, he wouldn't give up the fight. He loses everything by not clearing his name.

    Lances teammates have indicated he is a cheat, his otherworldly accomplishments are so far out of the realm of ordinary that it raises eyebrows, and beating a doping test in a sport that is filled to the brim with dopers evading tests hardly exonerates him. They nailed him to the wall and he finally can't fight it anymore. Adios, cheater. Lance is a fraud. He beat cancer and for that he can be proud and grateful, but his persona is a lie.

    "what am I on? I'm on my bike....oh, and I'm also oxygenating my blood to enhance my performance."
    Nailed him to the wall? Thats sort of funny. The summary of the evidence is this:

    1. Results from two years of testing that are 'fully consistent with" EPO use. As I posted elsewhere, this likely means that his hematocrit levels were suspiciously even and close to but not over the line. I have read a couple of articles by one of the guys who created the hematocrit testing protocol and he makes a pretty persuasive case that such results are, in fact, indicative of doping. But the thing is the results do not prove doping. They don't even qualify as a violation. they are just "consistent with" such practices based on a series of assumptions.

    2. Testimony from team members and perhaps others who claim to have been aware of his use of drugs. It is on the basis of this testimony, which has not been made officially public, that he is being stripped of his titles. It would not work in a court of law. It would likely not work in CAS and probably not elsewhere or in front of the UCI. it works in front of USADA because USADA says it is good enough. Seriously, it is almost that simple.

    None of this means he DIDN'T dope, of course, but it is a far cry from saying he was 'nailed to the wall.'

    Btw, how's the search for my posts going? I am good to my word; if I need to apologize I will.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  26. #86
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    20,983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coach McGuirk View Post
    I believe UCI has already asked USADA for their evidence.
    They asked and USADA refused toi give it to them, last I heard.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  27. #87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    LA has not been accused of using testosterone.
    The the letter from USADA to Armstrong accuses him of use and/or attempted use of EPO , blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids, and masking agents. So they were accusing him of test this time.

    See here for the whole letter: http://timewellness.files.wordpress....arging0613.pdf

  28. #88
    sweet triple TripletDaddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    58,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    Nailed him to the wall? Thats sort of funny. The summary of the evidence is this:

    1. Results from two years of testing that are 'fully consistent with" EPO use. As I posted elsewhere, this likely means that his hematocrit levels were suspiciously even and close to but not over the line. I have read a couple of articles by one of the guys who created the hematocrit testing protocol and he makes a pretty persuasive case that such results are, in fact, indicative of doping. But the thing is the results do not prove doping. They don't even qualify as a violation. they are just "consistent with" such practices based on a series of assumptions.

    2. Testimony from team members and perhaps others who claim to have been aware of his use of drugs. It is on the basis of this testimony, which has not been made officially public, that he is being stripped of his titles. It would not work in a court of law. It would likely not work in CAS and probably not elsewhere or in front of the UCI. it works in front of USADA because USADA says it is good enough. Seriously, it is almost that simple.

    None of this means he DIDN'T dope, of course, but it is a far cry from saying he was 'nailed to the wall.'

    Btw, how's the search for my posts going? I am good to my word; if I need to apologize I will.
    He was banned for life and stripped of all his titles today. Odd time to be arguing that he wasn't nailed to the wall.

    If he were innocent, he would continue to fight the charges. If you want to continue to defend him, of course that is your prerogative. It is going to take a lot of energy and effort, so you might want to start doping up in preparation for the long uphill climb.
    Fitter. Happier. More Productive.


  29. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    I am not sure this conclusion stands to scrutiny. The range of possible doping methods is broad. It is unlikely that all of the cheaters were cheating the same way or with similar effectiveness. Many would have been limited by resources and access, among other things. Moreover, its not like a bike, where everyone can see some new innovation. It is done is secret, without discussion, under no scrutiny, and without consideration by the sports' governing bodies. IOW, the field isn't level for the cheaters. It is very uneven among them.
    Another issue with PEDs is that there is also significant variance in how people respond to them. This is well known for steroids. Some people are what they call hyper-responders. This is pretty well understood in bodybuilding circles. To be an elite bodybuilder you need have both great genetic structure and great response to steroids. So even if everyone has the same access and took the exact same drugs it wouldn't get you to the same ranking of riders as a non-drug equilibrium.

  30. #90
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    46,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TripletDaddy View Post
    He was banned for life and stripped of all his titles today. Odd time to be arguing that he wasn't nailed to the wall.

    If he were innocent, he would continue to fight the charges. If you want to continue to defend him, of course that is your prerogative. It is going to take a lot of energy and effort, so you might want to start doping up in preparation for the long uphill climb.
    From what I have heard on the radio, the USADA has no authority to strip his titles. The group that does has promised to take a look at their evidence and then make a decision.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •