AFLD v Armstrong
Comments
-
camerone wrote:aurelio wrote:
From that story:iainf72 wrote:
'Armstrong never tested positive and was cleared by a Dutch investigator appointed by UCI.'
As ever, the PR spin masks the reality. :roll:
the statement in italics i am afraid IS the realilty. Ie it really happened. he never gave a positive test that was proved positive and not in some way found to be inadmissible. And he was cleared by a Dutch investigator appointed bt the UCI.
I'll go along with that statement. For all the talk that is put forth against him(for whatever reason) he is OUT THERE RACING. And for all the books, magazine articles, and the like that claim this or that about him, HE"S STILL OUT THERE.
Dennis Noward0 -
First paragraph was covered by mine,
second paragraph is fumbling round the fact that the Dutch investigator exonerated LA.
All i am saying is that those things actually happened. History records them as such - whilst also recording tons and tons of opinion/evidence/circumstance that will enable there to be debates in years to come.
I agree with iain - lets keep to current topic and not have all threads ending up in 1999. we are fortunate to be given enough material to debate in the present by LA - its almost as if its being done deliberatley!0 -
I am afraid that you will have to explain the logical connection between camerone's erroneous interpretation of what actually happened and your own statement.dennisn wrote:
I'll go along with that statement. For all the talk that is put forth against him(for whatever reason) he is OUT THERE RACING. And for all the books, magazine articles, and the like that claim this or that about him, HE"S STILL OUT THERE.camerone wrote:the statement in italics i am afraid IS the realilty. Ie it really happened. he never gave a positive test that was proved positive and not in some way found to be inadmissible. And he was cleared by a Dutch investigator appointed bt the UCI.0 -
its not erroneous, for someone who is such a stickler for details i am surprised. the actual events you described happened. irrespective of any wrongdoings and the report 'being a fix'etc etc etc it happened.aurelio wrote:
I am afraid that you will have to explain the logical connection between camerone's erroneous interpretation of what actually happened and your own statement.dennisn wrote:
I'll go along with that statement. For all the talk that is put forth against him(for whatever reason) he is OUT THERE RACING. And for all the books, magazine articles, and the like that claim this or that about him, HE"S STILL OUT THERE.camerone wrote:the statement in italics i am afraid IS the realilty. Ie it really happened. he never gave a positive test that was proved positive and not in some way found to be inadmissible. And he was cleared by a Dutch investigator appointed bt the UCI.
The Microbe
by Hilaire Belloc [1870-1953]
The Microbe is so very small
You cannot make him out at all,
But many sanguine people hope
To see him through a microscope.
His jointed tongue that lies beneath
A hundred curious rows of teeth;
His seven tufted tails with lots
Of lovely pink and purple spots,
On each of which a pattern stands,
Composed of forty separate bands;
His eyebrows of a tender green;
All these have never yet been seen--
But Scientists, who ought to know,
Assure us that they must be so...
Oh! let us never, never doubt
What nobody is sure about!0 -
So, is it just a matter of semantics? How about agreeing that Armstrong tested positive, but the UCI, by virtue of breaking it's own rules, failed to sanction Armstrong for this positive test?camerone wrote:First paragraph was covered by mine,
It didn't 'exonerate' him in that it found that the science showing Armstrong had exogenous Epo in his body was flawed, or that the samples were not his, or that the samples had been tampered with and so on. Rather it criticised the lab and WADA on a number of peripheral issues. For example arguing that a breach of confidentiality had occurred. Here is WADA's original response to that report:camerone wrote:second paragraph is fumbling round the fact that the Dutch investigator exonerated LA.
http://www.sportslaw.nl/documents/cms_s ... ort%20.pdf0 -
aurelio wrote:
I am afraid that you will have to explain the logical connection between camerone's erroneous interpretation of what actually happened and your own statement.dennisn wrote:
I'll go along with that statement. For all the talk that is put forth against him(for whatever reason) he is OUT THERE RACING. And for all the books, magazine articles, and the like that claim this or that about him, HE"S STILL OUT THERE.camerone wrote:the statement in italics i am afraid IS the realilty. Ie it really happened. he never gave a positive test that was proved positive and not in some way found to be inadmissible. And he was cleared by a Dutch investigator appointed bt the UCI.
My statement said "He's still out there". That would indicate to me that, well, "He's still
out there". Didn't think it was that hard to follow. He's racing, you're complaining about it.
I would assume that this scenario won't change much. You won't change anyone's mind and he might win a Grand Tour. Let me see, who might come out ahead on that one, you or Lance?
Dennis Noward0 -
Your claim that Vrijman 'exhonerated' Armstrong certainly is erroneous.camerone wrote:its not erroneous
How about the fact that Vrijman was in no position to 'exonerate' anyone; it was the UCI alone who had the power to do that. All that Vrijman did was to highlight a number of essentially peripheral issues (as well as a number that were irrelevant) that in his view gave the UCI grounds for not taking further action against Armstrong, almost irrespective of the fact that he had exogenous Epo in his body. For example:
'It is the conclusion of the investigator that WADA had also the intention that the research results, in combination with the additional information requested by WADA, be used for disciplinary purposes against individual athletes, directly contrary to its representation that the results would not be used “for any sanction purpose”.'0 -
My head is starting to itch in this sand.
I too am sick of people putting links up to recent interviews that have been posted on the internet. Then people have the cheek to discuss them on internet forums. What is that about?
I'm surprised that the WADA document Aurelio linked to isn't in French, I'm not going to read it anyway because it is incorrect.0 -
no one has really posted anything about armstrong's side of the story
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... -AFLD.html
[/i]0 -
I usually am Dennis 8)0
-
Odd that none of the tin foil helmet brigade have made a link between the Giro being re-routed to avoid France, and this story...
Yet.
Le Blaireau (1)0 -
I was going to joke that the stage change means the riders are free from the AFLD but I think the route only went through France and didn't stop overnight there.
This could be serious for Armstrong now. Either the AFLD man is telling porkies or Armstrong/Bruyneel are.0 -
aurelio wrote:
Your claim that Vrijman 'exhonerated' Armstrong certainly is erroneous.camerone wrote:its not erroneous
How about the fact that Vrijman was in no position to 'exonerate' anyone; it was the UCI alone who had the power to do that. All that Vrijman did was to highlight a number of essentially peripheral issues (as well as a number that were irrelevant) that in his view gave the UCI grounds for not taking further action against Armstrong, almost irrespective of the fact that he had exogenous Epo in his body. For example:
'It is the conclusion of the investigator that WADA had also the intention that the research results, in combination with the additional information requested by WADA, be used for disciplinary purposes against individual athletes, directly contrary to its representation that the results would not be used “for any sanction purpose”.'
the strength of your views on this cloud your ability to see straightforward fact.. go back to the original point - you said that PR spin hides reality or something. i simply pointed out that the reality is the statement in italics. it was not meant to spark yet more debate about the pre retirement (sabbatical?) LA did he or didnt he - every single post degenerates into that and its usually you that takes it there.
do you think we can go back to the original post topic involving the current antics in relation to this test, or shall we just keep boring the t1ts off everyone else on here?0 -
Kléber wrote:I was going to joke that the stage change means the riders are free from the AFLD but I think the route only went through France and didn't stop overnight there.
This could be serious for Armstrong now. Either the AFLD man is telling porkies or Armstrong/Bruyneel are.
I am beginning to think that he behaves erratically to create confrontation. either that or JB and LA really did forget to engage brain that morning0 -
LA should not have left his sight during the verification call to the UCI...seems either a really bad attitude or deliberate. How can AFLD ban Lance on the word of one man? Esp if LA has witnesses? Surely CAS would look harshly at AFLD if they're serious...which I doubt they are. The call to the UCI seems entirely reasonable...the going away doesn't0
-
You mean 'Armstrong never tested positive and was cleared by a Dutch investigator appointed by UCI.' ?camerone wrote:go back to the original point - you said that PR spin hides reality or something. i simply pointed out that the reality is the statement in italics.
As I have pointed out that is NOT the reality. For one Armstrong did test positive for corticoids, it's just that the UCI managed to avoid having to sanction him for this positive test by breaking it's own rules regarding the use of TUE's.
Secondly, the Vrijman report did NOT 'clear' Armstrong of anything. It just provided the UCI with what it was looking for - a few peripheral reason for not investigating any further just why Armstrong had artificial Epo in his body.0 -
I do love these Lance threads....could do with a seperate forum though0
-
Latest Twitter from HRH
Was winning the Tour seven times that offensive?!?
I'm really so tempted to send him a message now. Poor lamb.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:Latest Twitter from HRH
Was winning the Tour seven times that offensive?!?
I'm really so tempted to send him a message now. Poor lamb.
I don't like that, a little humility goes a long way.0 -
The Prodigy wrote:I don't like that, a little humility goes a long way.
Something like "I hope we can work out this misunderstanding ASAP" would be way more appropriate.
I've already seen a blog saying "FRANCE SCARED OF LANCE"Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Careful! In Moray's world highlighting such comments is clear evidence of 'Anti-Americanism'!iainf72 wrote:I've already seen a blog saying "FRANCE SCARED OF LANCE"
0 -
I don't think that it was his 'winning' seven Tours that anyone found 'offensive', it was the methods he employed.iainf72 wrote:Latest Twitter from HRH
Was winning the Tour seven times that offensive?!? 0 -
Armstrong and his entourage are alleging that the AFLD tester made a procedural mistake in letting the Texan disappear for some time. If so, he'd do well to let things calm down, rather than trying to stir things up. After all, it was just a point of admin, no?
It was he and Bruyneel who made the tester wait because apparently they didn't realise the AFLD was charged with dope testing in France, which sounds bizarre given many lowly fans on here know all about the AFLD. In other words, if Bruyneel had heard of the AFLD, none of this would have happened.
Of course other reports say the AFLD claimed the paperwork got signed but then Armstrong literally slammed the door in the tester's face and locked the door for 20 minutes...0 -
aurelio wrote:
From that story:iainf72 wrote:
'Armstrong never tested positive and was cleared by a Dutch investigator appointed by UCI.'
As ever, the PR spin masks the reality. :roll:
It's not PR spin though. It's stating the information relevant to doping allegations as it exists in the public record. If you don't include that information pursuant to the information about L'Equipe you are not reporting the story fully and are being deeply partial in your coverage. As an agency Reuters are always going to leave that decision up to the customer as to whether they rewrite without it. Keeping it in also pre-empts Armstrong demanding right of reply and avoids giving him cause for complaint.0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:I like this from Kleber's link:-
Bruyneel said he called UCI chief Pat McQuaid to make sure the AFLD had the authority to test Armstrong out of competition.
Should this be of any concern to the transparent twosome?
I would certainly find out if they(AFLD) had the authority to do this, if I didn't know, before letting anyone test anyone. If they wanted to test me I would make sure all the i's were dotted and the T's crossed.
Dennis Noward0 -
Which reminds me...leguape wrote:Keeping it in also pre-empts Armstrong demanding right of reply and avoids giving him cause for complaint.
From The Sunday Times
March 22, 2009
Publish and be slammed
The rich and famous are employing expensive new muscle to protect them: strong-arm lawyers who take no prisoners
Stephen Robinson
Every year, dozens and dozens of … legal letters are sent out from Schillings - policing newspapers, magazines, TV, radio stations and websites - and by a handful of other firms that have cornered the market in celebrity “reputation management” on behalf of actors, pop singers and people simply famous for being famous. He acts for such household names as Nicole Kidman, Ozzy and Sharon Osbourne, Naomi Campbell, Hugh Grant, Keira Knightley, Cameron Diaz, Lance Armstrong, JK Rowling and others.
…These well-remunerated figures are engaged in what is increasingly a relatively new, booming industry that might be termed “reputation management” with legal dimensions.
...The two sentences that comprise Article 8 of the ECHR have created a multi-million-pound bonanza for a small group of London solicitors and the barristers they instruct. And, as the House of Commons select committee for culture, media and sport was warned last month, regional and local newspapers are now effectively unable to contest any actions, no matter how spurious or false, brought by the opportunistic litigant who has the financial muscle to bully them into submission, because of prohibitive legal costs.
… English common law is being swept away and replaced by a European-style system with no place for any meaningful exposure of public figures or teasing of politicians. Eady, along with a good number of the people directly or indirectly involved in this radical shift in the legal landscape, would be held to account in most countries, but not in Britain.
…The US Congress is so exercised by how the High Court in London is infringing American First Amendment rights that it is framing a Free Speech Protection Act, expressly designed to defend Americans from judgments in British courts. Schillings has acted in several such cases.
… “This privacy notion is supposed to defend the ordinary person,” says Hislop, “but it is just being used by the rich and powerful as a means of censorship.”
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 931985.ece0 -
Quite true but for both the rider and his manager to not know that the AFLD is the testing body in France is quite something. After all, many fans know it is, and that's just from reading about Paris-Nice or Riccardo Ricco. Claiming you need to check, well it makes my eyebrows rise!dennisn wrote:I would certainly find out if they(AFLD) had the authority to do this, if I didn't know, before letting anyone test anyone.0
