The ultimate Lance doping thread

iainf72

aurelio wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

Gotta love that IM - every word's the gospel;

"hell, kevin was telling me that after 2000 Ullrich never raced over 42%"

What do you reckon Ullrich might have boosted it to when he 'won' in 97?

What's more interesting is he was doping all along. So "never higher than 42%" is probably highly inaccurate.

DaveyL

No, no, no. It was in the IM - it must be true...

aurelio_-_banned

DaveyL wrote:

No, no, no. It was in the IM - it must be true...

I think the generally applied rules are:

1) 'Anything that implicates Armstrong in doping is either untrue, or cannot be taken as providing any form of evidence, no matter how much other evidence supports it.'

2) 'Anything that says a European rider was not doping may also be taken to be untrue, or at best highly suspect'.

3) 'Anything that implicates any European rider in doping is by definition true, no matter how flimsy the evidence is. '

Oh, I think there is another rule that some on here apply. That is, if it suits one’s views, it is acceptable to claim that (50-39) = (50-49).

DaveyL

aurelio wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

No, no, no. It was in the IM - it must be true...

I think the generally applied rules are:

1) 'Anything that implicates Armstrong in doping is either untrue, or cannot be taken as providing any form of evidence, no matter how much other evidence supports it.'

2) 'Anything that says a European rider was not doping may also be taken to be untrue, or at best highly suspect'.

3) 'Anything that implicates any European rider in doping is by definition true, no matter how flimsy the evidence is. '

Oh, I think there is another rule that some on here apply. That is, if it suits one’s views, it is acceptable to claim that (50-39) = (50-49).

Weeeeeell, just saying - you are taking that IM to be true. Fair enough. But given what we know about Ullrich, are Vaughters and Frankie really that well-informed?

I notice that KKSpeeder (where is he now?) also used the IM to condemn Armstrong, but said the bit about Moreau being clean was rubbish.

So I guess the rules are:

1. Any allegations about Armstrong are true

2. Allegations as to the cleanliness or otherwise of other riders may or may not be correct.

That theory seems to fit my empirical observations a bit better.

robmanic1

I agree with DaveyL, I liken the whole Armstrong thing to religion, some folk, no matter what evidence and logic suggest will always believe what they want to believe, and will build their own beliefs up using whatever methods come to hand. No amount of "apparent" factual evidence will sway them from this, as each faction will tailor whatever material is available to suit there own mindset.

For me ,as in religion, I will only believe what I see with my own eyes. I saw LA win all of his tours, I never saw him dope, I haven't seen god, or any evidence supporting the existence thereof, I don't believe in ghosts, the existence of alien lifeforms or honest politicians.

Remains an interesting debate though.

aurelio_-_banned

DaveyL wrote:

Even Armstrong hasn't claimed his beating cancer was "all" about having an incoquerable will

But he, and his toadies, have let the myth grow that his sporting successes were directly associated with him almost dying from cancer, be this due to him supposedly losing weight and changing his body composition to his treatment completely altering how his hormonal system functions. Given what we know about the real reasons he was transformed from a Tour also-ran to a multiple 'winner' I find such claims to be pretty offensive to be honest...

Then again, I guess Ferrari was a 'Doctor' of sorts...

DaveyL wrote:

I don't like the guy but I'm amazed at how craven some people become, and how they will turn themselves inside out before admitting the guy has ever done anything that might be construed as good...

What? You mean people like Stephanie Mcillvain who clearly believes that Armstrong's whole 'Patron Saint of Cancer' thing is just a cynical PR job intended to deflect any criticism of the way he 'won' his Tours?

http://www.filesavr.com/gregstef

By the way, how much of Armstrong's 'One million Dollar' fee for 'appearing' at the Tour Down Under went to cancer charities, and how much went straight into his back pocket? Oh yes, I forgot, his selfless sacrifice to the cause was to 'raise awareness' of cancer. :roll:

aurelio_-_banned

Robmanic1 wrote:

I agree with DaveyL, I liken the whole Armstrong thing to religion, some folk, no matter what evidence and logic suggest will always believe what they want to believe, and will build their own beliefs up using whatever methods come to hand. No amount of "apparent" factual evidence will sway them from this, as each faction will tailor whatever material is available to suit there own mindset.

For a moment i thought you were talking about the way Armstrong's disciples ignore all the evidence about the way he 'won' his Tours in order to defend their blind faith in him.

If it is true that you only believe what you have seen with your own eyes. There must be an awful lot of things that you don't believe in, from atomic theory to the Holocaust, and from ancient history to the existence of distant galaxies. :roll:

aurelio_-_banned

DaveyL

Where's your post gone?

camerone

But he, and his toadies, have let the myth grow that his sporting successes were directly associated with him almost dying from cancer, be this due to him supposedly losing weight and changing his body composition to his treatment completely altering how his hormonal system functions.

I thought that the real explanation was how nearly dying from cnacer made hm realise what a lazy so and so he had been in his career to date and that he re-evaluated his life and decided to make the most of what he had.

robmanic1

aurelio wrote:

Robmanic1 wrote:

I agree with DaveyL, I liken the whole Armstrong thing to religion, some folk, no matter what evidence and logic suggest will always believe what they want to believe, and will build their own beliefs up using whatever methods come to hand. No amount of "apparent" factual evidence will sway them from this, as each faction will tailor whatever material is available to suit there own mindset.

For a moment i thought you were talking about the way Armstrong's disciples ignore all the evidence about the way he 'won' his Tours in order to defend their blind faith in him.

If it is true that you only believe what you have seen with your own eyes. There must be an awful lot of things that you don't believe in, from atomic theory to the Holocaust, and from ancient history to the existence of distant galaxies. :roll:

He he, quite amusing how this topic gets folk going eh? See how you altered my comment to fit your beliefs?

What I'm trying to say, with my limited vocabulary, is that both sides of this argument will find a veritable mountain of evidence to support their own belief. I accept that it's probably to my detriment that things like atomic theory are way beyond my understanding, as are many of the various stories surrounding our saviour LA, therefore I have to resort to the base belief that what I see I know to be true.

I apologise if this upsets you and makes you respond with sarcasm, where perhaps a more helpful explanation of the reasons behind your theory would help us lesser mortals understand. I didn't respond to any of your comments in this way ( :roll: ), and wouldn't insult your intelligence by doing so.

Please lets not make this personal.

DaveyL

aurelio wrote:

DaveyL

Where's your post gone?

I have no idea. I didn't remove it. Very odd.

Good to see the Greg/Stef link again though - haven't seen it for at least 5 min.

DaveyL

Seems like aurelio's rather uncharitable post has been removed, along with Timoid's and one of mine, possibly becasue they make reference to said aurelio post.

Jeff Jones

DaveyL wrote:

aurelio wrote:

DaveyL

Where's your post gone?

I have no idea. I didn't remove it. Very odd.

Collateral damage. Flagged posts + followups quoting them have been removed.

micron

Jeff, can I ask a question? Why have these new guidelines suddenly appeared and why are posts disappearing - after all, these issues have been batted back and forth for years in pretty much the same way then, all of a sudden, every forum seems to be tightening up their guidleines for defamatory posts.

Just wondering whether the word had come down from on high - like a Second Coming perhaps

supersonic

You can view the forum and website rules, terms and conditions here:

http://www.futurenet.com/futureonline/t ... itions.asp

DaveyL

micron wrote:

Jeff, can I ask a question? Why have these new guidelines suddenly appeared and why are posts disappearing - after all, these issues have been batted back and forth for years in pretty much the same way then, all of a sudden, every forum seems to be tightening up their guidleines for defamatory posts.

Just wondering whether the word had come down from on high - like a Second Coming perhaps

That's very poor, in my opinion, and does the mods here a great disservice.

There are 12 pages on this thread that He would no doubt like to see removed, and a lot of stuff on plenty other threads to boot, as you so rightly point out. They have not been removed.

What was removed, was an exceptionally crass and insensitive comment and I would speculate that it was removed because it was crass and insensitive; not for any other reasons.

However, as is always pointed out, if you want to query a modding decision with the mods, take it to the BR office forum.

moray_gub

DaveyL wrote:

Good to see the Greg/Stef link again though - haven't seen it for at least 5 min.

Now that is funny :-)

MG

dave_1

a quick google of the riders names .. doping + forum brings the defamed right to this thread...I think it is understandable that mods wish people to cease posting material which no court has found adequate to convict a rider on as far as am aware.

DaveyL

Dave that is not happening and it is NOT the reason a few posts were removed - see above.

KKspeeder's posts are still up here on this thread. If anything was going to be culled for the reasons you say then they would be the first up, I'd imagine.

aurelio's post was likely flagged by someone who found it extremely insensitive. (It wasn't me).

dave_1

DaveyL wrote:

Dave that is not happening and it is NOT the reason a few posts were removed - see above.

KKspeeder's posts are still up here on this thread. If anything was going to be culled for the reasons you say then they would be the first up, I'd imagine.

aurelio's post was likely flagged by someone who found it extremely insensitive. (It wasn't me).

I never saw the Aurelio posting...but can imagine it was harsh. This forum is in reality like you getting to write your opinion in a cycle mag that is sold out of newsagents...readership is likey huge here, hence it is fair enough the mods want limits

aurelio_-_banned

Robmanic1 wrote:

I apologise if this upsets you and makes you respond with sarcasm, where perhaps a more helpful explanation of the reasons behind your theory would help us lesser mortals understand.

This is hardly the place for a discussion of epistemology! Suffice to say I am sure that over 99% of everything you and I accept to be true is not grounded in what we have seen with our own eyes. As such there would have to be some very special grounds put forward as to why, in the case of Armstrong, only what you have 'seen with your own eyes' provides sufficient evidence for holding a statement to be true.

Similarly, you would have to put forward grounds as to why evidence and arguments that exist in the media, books, on tapes and so on in relation to Armstrong is not admissible as 'evidence', and yet - as I assume you accept - is admissible in other areas.

You would also have to put forward some kind of argument as to why 'what you see with your own eyes' can be taken to be ‘true’. To my eyes the sun appears to go around the earth, and the earth appears to be both stationary and flat. None of these are true!

Also, you say that you have seen Armstrong's Tour wins 'with your own eyes'. Did you really or did you do this 'second hand' via the TV and reports in magazines and so on? If so you would have to both modify your claim about the primacy of seeing things ‘with your own eyes’ and justify why such a 'second hand' source of evidence can held to provide 'true' knowledge, but only in relation to the fact of whether Armstrong won or not.

Jeff Jones

micron wrote:

Jeff, can I ask a question? Why have these new guidelines suddenly appeared and why are posts disappearing - after all, these issues have been batted back and forth for years in pretty much the same way then, all of a sudden, every forum seems to be tightening up their guidleines for defamatory posts.

Just wondering whether the word had come down from on high - like a Second Coming perhaps

The forum rules have been around before BikeRadar was launched. Also, when you signed up you agreed to the terms and conditions that apply to all of Future's sites (http://www.futurenet.com/futureonline/termsandconditions.asp). These cover defamation among other things.

Posts have been disappearing all the time if they've been flagged and deemed inappropriate. That doesn't mean we police every post on the forum.

There has been no word from "on high", as you put it.

Have a read of this topic. It covers your questions in more detail:

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... t=12611549

aurelio_-_banned

Dave_1 wrote:

I never saw the Aurelio posting...but can imagine it was harsh.

In bad taste maybe, but not harsh.

I won't repeat exactly what I said but zammmmo asked what other factor could there be that transformed Armstrong from being a Tour also-ran into a 'winner'. I pointed out that this supposedly miracle factor is held by many to be the fact that he almost died of cancer. Nothing controversial so far OK?

What seems to have cause offence was my joking (and even the person who attacked my post said that I clearly thought that I was a comedian) about the unexplored role serious illnesses might have in the preparation of athletes. I’m not making that joke again, so far so good?

My post was then attacked as being ‘offensive'. I said that personally I found it more offensive that someone would dope their way to athletic success and then let the myth grow that surviving cancer, not doping, was the reason for their transformation. I also said that I found the whole Armstrong mythology about him 'beating cancer' due largely to the strength of his willpower as being fairly offensive as it implied that many of those who don't survive are somehow to blame for their deaths for not having a strong enough will to live. Fair comment?

I do find it interesting that all the 'libellous' stuff on here should remain and yet my post be removed because someone objected to me making my point via a rather barbed joke. The action suggests that if someone flags a post then the moderators will delete almost anything.

---

A joke that feeds on ignorance starves its audience. We have the choice. We can say something or we can say nothing. Not everything true is funny, and not everything funny is true. Most comics feed prejudices and fear and blinkered vision, but the best ones, the best ones… illuminate them, make them clearer to see, easier to deal with. We’ve got to make people laugh till they cry. Cry. Till they find their pain and their beauty. Comedy is medicine. Not coloured sweeties to rot their teeth with.

Trevor Griffiths.

aurelio_-_banned

Jeff Jones wrote:

The forum rules have been around before BikeRadar was launched. Also, when you signed up you agreed to the terms and conditions that apply to all of Future's sites (http://www.futurenet.com/futureonline/termsandconditions.asp). These cover defamation among other things.

Would you like posters to flag for removal every post on here that contravenes any of those guidelines? If so there won’t be much left!

Kléber

Ironically I think satire gives you some escape from defamation. Straight defamation is more likely to result on court action, but satire is more ambiguous.

I think anyone offended by comments should comment the forum moderators first and ask for their removal. If this is complied with promptly then they would have few grounds to sue, for the moderators have shown reasonable efforts to remove the questionable messages. In other words, a bad message on here doesn't always have to be deleted immediately, if no one is taking offence.

But obviously Future don't want to act as legal guinea pigs. Forum moderation is dictatorial, whether benign or severe!

timoid.

aurelio wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

I never saw the Aurelio posting...but can imagine it was harsh.

In bad taste maybe, but not harsh.

I won't repeat exactly what I said but zammmmo asked what other factor could there be that transformed Armstrong from being a Tour also-ran into a 'winner'. I pointed out that this supposedly miracle factor is held by many to be the fact that he almost died of cancer. Nothing controversial so far OK?

What seems to have cause offence was my joking (and even the person who attacked my post said that I clearly thought that I was a comedian) about the unexplored role serious illnesses might have in the preparation of athletes. I’m not making that joke again, so far so good?

My post was then attacked as being ‘offensive'. I said that personally I found it more offensive that someone would dope their way to athletic success and then let the myth grow that surviving cancer, not doping, was the reason for their transformation. I also said that I found the whole Armstrong mythology about him 'beating cancer' due largely to the strength of his willpower as being fairly offensive as it implied that many of those who don't survive are somehow to blame for their deaths for not having a strong enough will to live. Fair comment?

I do find it interesting that all the 'libellous' stuff on here should remain and yet my post be removed because someone objected to me making my point via a rather barbed joke. The action suggests that if someone flags a post then the moderators will delete almost anything.

---

A joke that feeds on ignorance starves its audience. We have the choice. We can say something or we can say nothing. Not everything true is funny, and not everything funny is true. Most comics feed prejudices and fear and blinkered vision, but the best ones, the best ones… illuminate them, make them clearer to see, easier to deal with. We’ve got to make people laugh till they cry. Cry. Till they find their pain and their beauty. Comedy is medicine. Not coloured sweeties to rot their teeth with.

Trevor Griffiths.

I didn't flag your post , but I commented on it. To mock people with the two serious conditions that you did is pretty sh1tty whatever way you look at it. You're just a poisonous little person who thinks he's/she's some forum titan.

timoid.

aurelio wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

I never saw the Aurelio posting...but can imagine it was harsh.

In bad taste maybe, but not harsh.

I won't repeat exactly what I said but zammmmo asked what other factor could there be that transformed Armstrong from being a Tour also-ran into a 'winner'. I pointed out that this supposedly miracle factor is held by many to be the fact that he almost died of cancer. Nothing controversial so far OK?

What seems to have cause offence was my joking (and even the person who attacked my post said that I clearly thought that I was a comedian) about the unexplored role serious illnesses might have in the preparation of athletes. I’m not making that joke again, so far so good?

My post was then attacked as being ‘offensive'. I said that personally I found it more offensive that someone would dope their way to athletic success and then let the myth grow that surviving cancer, not doping, was the reason for their transformation. I also said that I found the whole Armstrong mythology about him 'beating cancer' due largely to the strength of his willpower as being fairly offensive as it implied that many of those who don't survive are somehow to blame for their deaths for not having a strong enough will to live. Fair comment?

I do find it interesting that all the 'libellous' stuff on here should remain and yet my post be removed because someone objected to me making my point via a rather barbed joke. The action suggests that if someone flags a post then the moderators will delete almost anything.

---

A joke that feeds on ignorance starves its audience. We have the choice. We can say something or we can say nothing. Not everything true is funny, and not everything funny is true. Most comics feed prejudices and fear and blinkered vision, but the best ones, the best ones… illuminate them, make them clearer to see, easier to deal with. We’ve got to make people laugh till they cry. Cry. Till they find their pain and their beauty. Comedy is medicine. Not coloured sweeties to rot their teeth with.

Trevor Griffiths.

I didn't flag your post , but I commented on it. To mock people with the two serious conditions that you did is pretty sh1tty whatever way you look at it. You're just a poisonous little person who thinks he's/she's some forum titan.

aurelio_-_banned

Timoid. wrote:

I didn't flag your post , but I commented on it. To mock people with the two serious conditions that you did is pretty sh1tty whatever way you look at it.

I 'mocked' no one. What I did 'mock' was the notion that a causal, physical side-effect of almost dying of a serious illness can be a transformational improvement in athletic performance, be this due to the illness causing a change in the individuals body composition, body chemistry or whatever.

aurelio_-_banned

Timoid. wrote:

You're just a poisonous little person who thinks he's/she's some forum titan.

May I draw your attention to the following?

you agree not to:

Upload, post or otherwise display Content which is ... threatening, abusive, flaming, hateful, offensive (whether in relation to sex, race, religion or otherwise) harassing, hateful...

...Restrict or in any way inhibit any other person’s use of the Website or the Website Service...

http://www.futurenet.com/futureonline/t ... itions.asp

Kléber

I read what Aurelio wrote and don't think he was mocking any one with illness, instead he was suggesting the story that illness allows the body to reform itself / the recovery brings performance improvement, an oft-repeated assertion that Armstrong's cancer and chemotherapy provided some blank canvas to rebuild himself upon but there's little to suggest this was the case, he didn't lose weight etc.