Doesn't anyone think it's sad....

eh

Even my mum thinks LA is dirty, so case closed

Seriously though how deluded are people who think LA was clean. Just look at his two coaches Chris Carmichael and Dr Ferrari, who know nothing about doping, no never, nothing to see here :roll:

BikingBernie

eh wrote:

Seriously though how deluded are people who think LA was clean. Just look at his two coaches Chris Carmichael and Dr Ferrari, who know nothing about doping, no never, nothing to see here :roll:

On the subject of Carmichael...

Dope And Glory

...The national teams are where America's Olympic athletes are trained, and Strock was on the fast track. Lance Armstrong and five future Olympians were also riding for America that year. Strock never made it to the Olympics. At the top of his game, he was struck down by a catastrophic illness.

...Strock believes he was given banned drugs to enhance his performance - dope that he says ruined his health. He's now suing U.S.A. Cycling, which is in charge of Olympic training.

Strock says the doping began in France, when he was racing poorly because of a bad cold. His condition improved rapidly after the U. S. team coach gave him pills that were supposedly vitamins and an injection which he says the coach called extract of cortisone.

But there's no such thing as an extract of cortisone. Cortisone is a cortico-steroid, banned in the kind of injections that Strock describes. In large doses, cortisone depresses the immune system, and Strock says those injections became routine.

..."We were given the same injections at the same times, and we raced together pretty much at every race during that year," Kaiter said. "And I became very ill with a lot of the same symptoms that I now know Greg suffered."

They don't know what was in those syringes, and they don't recall taking a drug test in those days. But they say the injections were given by the U.S.A. Cycling staff, including coach Rene Wenzel, trainer Angus Fraser and, according to documents, coach Chris Carmichael.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/04/ ... 4958.shtml

eh

Carmichael was also involved with the USA cycling team at the LA Olympics who are known to have used blood transfusions, albeit they were allowed at the time.

Richrd2205

BikingBernie wrote:

Richrd2205 wrote:

The quote talks about there being no room in cycling for folk with even a hint of suspicion hanging over them, not that he will make public statement thereon. He has never put himself up as judge & jury. If you can find a quote as above, I'll happily stand corrected, apologise & back your claims.

If you read the links you will find that he actually said where there is 'any' suspicion about a rider, the other riders should refuse to start a race where they are on the start line, a rather stronger action that making a comment. Not a rider who is a convicted doper but one who there is 'any' suspicion about. Is that not acting as judge and jury?

Sorry for the delay in responding. Work, then work do....
So you've failed to find any quote I asked for, but simply told me that the previous quote can be extended to cover that.....
Aye, right....
I appreciate what you are saying & agree with what you are saying, up until the point where you demand folk do stuff which would be stupid & suicidal. Then you take out of context quotes & claim it means something it doesn't.
Then you derail multiple threads, demanding they meet your abstract demands!
Multiple posts have pointed out this flaw in your thinking, you don't seem to recognise it. As a psychology lecturer, do you care to offer a hypothesis as to why?
Did you read my comment re Armstrong in the Landis thread? Could this be you?

Bernie
I really like your comments on this board most of the time, but you really need to stop trying to ram a specific point down peoples' throat. Can I suggest Miller & Rollnick?
Regards

No_Ta_Doctor

Richrd2205 wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

Richrd2205 wrote:

The quote talks about there being no room in cycling for folk with even a hint of suspicion hanging over them, not that he will make public statement thereon. He has never put himself up as judge & jury. If you can find a quote as above, I'll happily stand corrected, apologise & back your claims.

If you read the links you will find that he actually said where there is 'any' suspicion about a rider, the other riders should refuse to start a race where they are on the start line, a rather stronger action that making a comment. Not a rider who is a convicted doper but one who there is 'any' suspicion about. Is that not acting as judge and jury?

Sorry for the delay in responding. Work, then work do....
So you've failed to find any quote I asked for, but simply told me that the previous quote can be extended to cover that.....
Aye, right....
I appreciate what you are saying & agree with what you are saying, up until the point where you demand folk do stuff which would be stupid & suicidal. Then you take out of context quotes & claim it means something it doesn't.
Then you derail multiple threads, demanding they meet your abstract demands!
Multiple posts have pointed out this flaw in your thinking, you don't seem to recognise it. As a psychology lecturer, do you care to offer a hypothesis as to why?
Did you read my comment re Armstrong in the Landis thread? Could this be you?

Bernie
I really like your comments on this board most of the time, but you really need to stop trying to ram a specific point down peoples' throat. Can I suggest Miller & Rollnick?
Regards

Though I have a fair amount of sympathy with Bernie's point I think I agree more with Richard here. Anyone still cycling that comes out with outright condemnation of LA at this point is setting themselves up for a very nasty fall. That said, a blanket neutral "very serious.... must be investigated thoroughly... appropriate actions taken" comment wouldn't go amiss. I also think he's put himself in a position where his silence is critcisable (sorry any pedants, it's early, can't find an actual English word that fits there!) I just don't think that in itself is a particularly big thing in the circumstances, worthy of note, but not anything to be particularly surprised or upset about.

Can we drop it now and get back to ridiculing LA fanboys? ;-)

verloren

BikingBernie wrote:

beatsystem wrote:

"I think it's sadder that there are still people out there who believe the myth of Armstrong."

I have heard nothing to make me not believe it thank you!

You had better get reading.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16226502/Lanc ... ng-History

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... t=12703967

I read the first link for a while, but when it switched from "Look, he sued these people who tried to reveal his doping, he must be guilty!" to "Look, he didn't sue these people who tried to reveal his doping, he must be guilty!" I lost interest. Do you have anything that doesn't read like it should be on a single long web page with lots of different fonts and blinking text?

No_Ta_Doctor

verloren wrote:

I read the first link for a while, but when it switched from "Look, he sued these people who tried to reveal his doping, he must be guilty!" to "Look, he didn't sue these people who tried to reveal his doping, he must be guilty!" I lost interest. Do you have anything that doesn't read like it should be on a single long web page with lots of different fonts and blinking text?

So you're basically disregarding the whole thing because you don't like what someone else has written about it? Bernie has conveniently provided you with a fairly brief summary of the many and various allegations against Armstrong. You don't need to agree with the conclusions of the writer, or their style or layout, but if you want to comment here then I'd recommend you actually read and familiarised yourself with the subject matter. Find your own sources if you will, the allegations are documented in a vast array of places, from Broadsheet newspapers to blogs to forums to specialist cycling sites.

In an era where doping dominated the sport LA won 7 TdF's on the trot. Very many people have pointed the finger at him. He's associated with an extremely dodgy doctor. He had EPO in his wee, but no B sample to confirm it. As you can see if you bother actually investigating, there's a huge amount of material pointing at him. As it is you come across as wilfully ignorant.

BikingBernie

No tA Doctor wrote:

Anyone still cycling that comes out with outright condemnation of LA at this point is setting themselves up for a very nasty fall. That said, a blanket neutral "very serious.... must be investigated thoroughly... appropriate actions taken" comment wouldn't go amiss.

Which is exactly what I have been trying to argue all along.

verloren

No tA Doctor wrote:

verloren wrote:

I read the first link for a while, but when it switched from "Look, he sued these people who tried to reveal his doping, he must be guilty!" to "Look, he didn't sue these people who tried to reveal his doping, he must be guilty!" I lost interest. Do you have anything that doesn't read like it should be on a single long web page with lots of different fonts and blinking text?

So you're basically disregarding the whole thing because you don't like what someone else has written about it? Bernie has conveniently provided you with a fairly brief summary of the many and various allegations against Armstrong. You don't need to agree with the conclusions of the writer, or their style or layout, but if you want to comment here then I'd recommend you actually read and familiarised yourself with the subject matter. Find your own sources if you will, the allegations are documented in a vast array of places, from Broadsheet newspapers to blogs to forums to specialist cycling sites.

In an era where doping dominated the sport LA won 7 TdF's on the trot. Very many people have pointed the finger at him. He's associated with an extremely dodgy doctor. He had EPO in his wee, but no B sample to confirm it. As you can see if you bother actually investigating, there's a huge amount of material pointing at him. As it is you come across as wilfully ignorant.

I've investigated the issue, and found a long list of "that's a bit dodgy isn't it?" incidences. All of them count against him, as far as I'm concerned, and every new one counts against him more. And that's exactly the effect that link was trading on - "Look, he sued these people, that's a bit dodgy isn't it? And then he didn't sue these other people, that's a bit dodgy isn't it?"

But so far all I've seen is a long list of things that are dodgy, but no specific case. What I'm left with is a choice. He could be an enormously talented athlete, in purely physical terms perhaps literally the best there has ever been. Or he could be a 'merely' world-class athlete who is also better than anyone else in the peloton, perhaps in the history of sport given just how many times he's been tested, at evading detection, and is also amazingly gifted at controlling the governing body of his sport and the various doping agencies. The latter is certainly possible, and while it would be a shame for the sport I really don't care if it's true. But until there's an actual case against him, rather than a string of 'dodgies', the former seems more likely.

To show my actual bias I admit that when Landis' latest accusations surfaced I rejected them* not because he accused Armstrong, but because he accused Hincapie. I don't think Armstrong doped, but he may well have; somehow I can't imagine Hincapie doing it, even though I know he's only human too

*apart from rejecting them because he's a massive liar, of course

BikingBernie

Richrd2205 wrote:

I appreciate what you are saying & agree with what you are saying, up until the point where you demand folk do stuff which would be stupid & suicidal...

But I have not asked anyone to say things that are 'stupid & suicidal', just make a generalised comment along the line of 'The authorities really need to get to the bottom of this, one way or another'.

I also said at least twice that I was probably expecting to much of Wiggins et al.

Of course, it could be argued that your comments about the dangers of saying things that are 'stupid and suicidal' confirms all that has been said about the power and vindictiveness of Armstrong.

BikingBernie

verloren wrote:

Do you have anything that doesn't read like it should be on a single long web page with lots of different fonts and blinking text?

This is probably all you really need...

"So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden

UCI experts do not believe in Armstrong

It may be that Lance Armstrong never officially tested positive, but according to Robin Paris Otto, one of UCI's anti-doping experts and the man who in 2000 developed the first analytical method for the detection of EPO, there is evidence that the opposite is true.

...He adds that the results which showed that the American was doped in1999 must be considered to be valid from a scientific point of view . "The methods used were valid. It is clear that the question mark concerning whether Armstrong was doped really is more of a legal than scientific nature. So there is scientific evidence that he was doped in 1999 and that he took epo. To deny it would be to lie. "

http://www.feltet.dk/index.php?id_paren ... yhed=17128

Richrd2205

BikingBernie wrote:

Richrd2205 wrote:

I appreciate what you are saying & agree with what you are saying, up until the point where you demand folk do stuff which would be stupid & suicidal...

But I have not asked anyone to say things that are 'stupid & suicidal', just make a generalised comment along the line of 'The authorities really need to get to the bottom of this, one way or another'.

I also said at least twice that I was probably expecting to much of Wiggins et al.

Of course, it could be argued that your comments about the dangers of saying things that are 'stupid and suicidal' confirms all that has been said about the power and vindictiveness of Armstrong.

I applaud your answer! You selectively quote, then ask me to believe that every right thinking person would make comments on the scandal regardless, then suggest that it might be dangerous after all. & you present the argument as cogent & congruent. Chapeau, sir! I simply couldn't do that....
I asked for a quote suggesting that BW would do what you are suggesting he promised to do. You've not provided that. Can I assume that you have extrapolated what he said & reached your own conclusion, then demanded he meet these inferred promises? Feel free to correct me with a quote.
Is quoting on this "stupid & suicidal" or not? You kind of suggest it isn't under any circumstances, then that it maybe. It's quite hard to respond to that in a cogent fashion. Let me know which it is & I'm happy to respond.
Do you fancy answering any of the other points I raised?

Apologies once more, I don't get online all that often to respond quickly, I hope no offence is taken....

rdt

BikingBernie wrote:

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden

Great link & interview.

BikingBernie

Richrd2205 wrote:

Is quoting on this "stupid & suicidal" or not? You kind of suggest it isn't under any circumstances, then that it maybe.

I feel that I have already stated quite plainly what I think, both in this thread and in the thread listing comments from the Pros. Given that any further replies from me would probably be taken as evidence that I am 'obsessed' with this issue - which I am not - I am quite happy to let the debate return to 'the main show'. Thank you and good night.

ratsbeyfus

verloren wrote:

Do you have anything that doesn't read like it should be on a single long web page with lots of different fonts and blinking text?

'From Lance to Landis' lists the evidence against Lance prior to Landis' revelations/lies. Worth reading if, like me, you want to have something to balance against LA's explanation of his Tour wins.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lance-Landis-Inside-American-Controversy/dp/034549962X