NY Times - Cyclists are said to back claims Armstrong doped

calvjones

Bernie you're not necessarily wrong, just irrelevant.

cajun_cyclist

This is all irrelevant, but it's political talk and like someone said, feel free to talk till your blue in the other forum but it's way off topic here. USA and England drew in the World Cup and England's Premier League employs a good number of Americans now, all that needs to be said!

That's patronizing to say, well, America has a black President, what would the poster be happy if the President was Idi Amin??

We've got http://www.britspub.com/ Brits Pub here, I guess we can say, at least we've got a British Pub in town!

Because for those expressing some opinions, there are others with their own opinions, you don't represent everyone!

http://www.3speedtour.com/ <---- Check this out.

No_Ta_Doctor

cajun_cyclist wrote:

That's patronizing to say, well, America has a black President, what would the poster be happy if the President was Idi Amin??

While I'm happy to call it a day/move this debate to a more appropriate location, I just want to point out that I mentioned America having a black president purely to show that racism in America is maybe a little overplayed. It doesn't equate to an endorsement of Obama, and is a long, long way from suggesting that black presidents are inherently better than white ones. The point I've been trying to make all along is that the US has a rich and highly varied tapestry of cultural traditions. It includes "dumb rednecks", but isn't in any way limited to them.

Over and out :-)

SpaceJunk

That's 3 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

Note to self: as soon as any forum topic looks like it is being derailed, get out! It probably will be.

BikingBernie

No tA Doctor wrote:

I mentioned America having a black president purely to show that racism in America is maybe a little overplayed.

On the other hand Obama only got into power because of the level of support he received from black voters and a large shift in the Hispanic vote. To pretend that American is now 'colour blind' is ridiculous...

A $95,000 question: why are whites five times richer than blacks in the US?

A huge wealth gap has opened up between black and white people in the US over the past quarter of a century – a difference sufficient to put two children through university – because of racial discrimination and economic policies that favour the affluent.

A typical white family is now five times richer than its African-American counterpart of the same class, according to a report released today by Brandeis University in Massachusetts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ma ... cher-black

'People still see things in black and white'

That's the thing about many discussions of race in the US - they so easily overlook the north. The assumption is that the south was where the problem started with slavery and the civil war, while the north has always been a haven of enlightenment.

But it is the north that today hosts the most segregated cities in the US. The most recent census in 2000 shows that nine out of the 10 most segregated cities are northern, including New York, Chicago, and Cleveland and Cincinnati in the crucial electoral battleground of Ohio. "The northern system of segregation has never been about symbols of power on the streets - separate water fountains - but about segregated neighbourhoods and workplaces,"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/au ... s2008.race

Obama should realise that segregation may be over, but exclusion lives on

On 29 June, 65 children from the Creative Steps summer camp in Philadelphia took a trip to the private suburban Valley Club swimming pool for a dip. The Valley Club knew they were coming and how many there were because the camp had signed a contract and paid $1,950 in advance for weekly visits throughout the summer. But somehow the arrival of the mostly African-American and Latino children was still a shock. As the black and brown kids got into the pool, the white parents pulled their kids out.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ama-speech

Pool Boots Kids Who Might "Change the Complexion"

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/loc ... exion.html

'Even Charles Manson could beat him now'

Truth be told they never really liked Obama much in Floyd County. He won only 5% of the vote against Hillary Clinton's 94% in the primaries. But until recently they did love Democrats. In the 2004 election John Kerry won the county with a 25-point margin. In 2008, John McCain took it by 2 points – the first time a Republican had won Floyd in living memory. That's to say following hurricane Katrina, the failure in Iraq, the collapse of the economy and the unravelling in Afghanistan, a sizeable portion of Floyd's voters took a look at Obama and decided that this time, for the first time, they would turn their back on the Democrats.

Back at the Feed My Sheep food pantry Cindy Hernandez has just picked up her groceries and is rifling through the secondhand clothes. She has no doubts about why Obama struggled in a county that is 98% white.

"That's because Obama was black. Let's get real," she says with a laugh.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2 ... first-year

Having Barack Obama as president doesn't make America colour-blind

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ju ... ms-america

BikingBernie

cajun_cyclist wrote:

This is all irrelevant, but it's political talk and like someone said, feel free to talk till your blue in the other forum but it's way off topic here.

Well, we can thank Iain for bringing in the race issue. That said, I would argue that much of what has been said is not irrelevant if we are to understand why so many in the US seem to think that the Novitsky investigation is part of some on-going conspiracy by 'the French' against America...

iainf72

BikingBernie wrote:

Well, we can thank Iain for bringing in the race issue.

Apologies for being a tedious bore everyone.

No_Ta_Doctor

iainf72 wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

Well, we can thank Iain for bringing in the race issue.

Apologies for being a tedious bore everyone.

You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself young man. I know I am.

paulcuthbert

calvjones wrote:

Bernie you're not necessarily wrong, just irrelevant.

+1

calvjones

One from the other side: Armstrong is clean

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/jonker- ... -armstrong


In case you can't remember him:

'His best Tour de France performance came in ONCE colours in 1996, when he finished 12th'

samiam

Fascinating.

Someone who never rode the Tour with Lance says he will swear on a bible that he didn't see Lance dope during the Tour.

dennisn

samiam wrote:

Fascinating.

Someone who never rode the Tour with Lance says he will swear on a bible that he didn't see Lance dope during the Tour.

I could find millions of people that would say that. Some might even ask, WHO? Not to worry though. There are at least 5 or 6 people on this forum who I am sure know "The Truth". They have been telling us the truth, about LA, for years, but the rest of us are just too stupid to see it. It is good that we have these people to guide us and tell us what we need to think.

drenkrom

The fun thing about this forum is that you can not log in for a year and, when you finally come back, you feel like you never even left.

thanks for that!

KillerMetre

"if you take away the soap opera and look at the scientific evidence, there is nothing"

End of story.Im no LA fanboy but really can't be arsed with this whole obsessive pursuit of Armstrong.You cant tarnish a persons entire career and life story based on hearsay.

calvjones

KillerMetre wrote:

"if you take away the soap opera and look at the scientific evidence, there is nothing"

End of story.Im no LA fanboy but really can't be arsed with this whole obsessive pursuit of Armstrong.You cant tarnish a persons entire career and life story based on hearsay.

I'm not sure the Feds often open investigations based on hearsay...

Kléber

One person's hearsay is another's sworn testimony.

BikingBernie

KillerMetre wrote:

"if you take away the soap opera and look at the scientific evidence, there is nothing"

"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 in1999 and that he took epo. To deny it would be to lie. "

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

KillerMetre

calvjones wrote:

KillerMetre wrote:

"if you take away the soap opera and look at the scientific evidence, there is nothing"

End of story.Im no LA fanboy but really can't be arsed with this whole obsessive pursuit of Armstrong.You cant tarnish a persons entire career and life story based on hearsay.

I'm not sure the Feds often open investigations based on hearsay...

Show me one piece of scientific evidence that holds weight in court.

avoidingmyphd

KillerMetre wrote:

calvjones wrote:

KillerMetre wrote:

"if you take away the soap opera and look at the scientific evidence, there is nothing"

End of story.Im no LA fanboy but really can't be arsed with this whole obsessive pursuit of Armstrong.You cant tarnish a persons entire career and life story based on hearsay.

I'm not sure the Feds often open investigations based on hearsay...

Show me one piece of scientific evidence that holds weight in court.

I can't do that, but I can tell you that the evidence being talked about at the moment isn't hearsay. Hearsay and Scientific aren't the only two types of evidence, and you can prove stuff - categorically - with other types too.

iainf72

KillerMetre wrote:

Show me one piece of scientific evidence that holds weight in court.

You're looking at this from an anti-doping perspective. Different rules will apply in a court of law and they will look at the evidence as a whole.

Richrd2205

KillerMetre wrote:

Show me one piece of scientific evidence that holds weight in court.

Already been posted: http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden
This would be held as expert testimony in English law & therefore would be "scientific evidence that would hold weight in court."

Although you do seem a little confused about standards of evidence: do you mean scientific proof, or proof deemed sufficient in a court of law; they are two quite different things. Unless you're at CAS, which has a para-legal, rather than strict legal, function. For example, witness testimony can be proof in court, but not "scientific proof." Likewise, scientific proof can be ignored in courts....

Saying you're bored of the discussion , then throwing in a comment that just winds it up seems a little contradictory to me....
The proof is there whichever standard you choose, but you're right the discsussion does get tiresome!

paulcuthbert

Richrd2205 wrote:

The proof is there whichever standard you choose, but you're right the discsussion does get tiresome!

Do you mean proof or evidence? I was always told you can't prove most things- just that there is a lot of evidence to suggest something...

RichN95.

KillerMetre wrote:

Show me one piece of scientific evidence that holds weight in court.

You've been watching CSI too much. Evidence doesn't have to be scientificly proven..

Cali4nia

BikingBernie wrote:

KillerMetre wrote:

"if you take away the soap opera and look at the scientific evidence, there is nothing"

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

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

Ahh Yes!

I do like this part from the interview.

AS: You were able to analyze the results, correct?

MA: I interpreted the results. They assessed each sample according the different criteria, and those were the results that we were given.

Nothing says science like personal interpretation.

Hey Bernie...

No_Ta_Doctor

Cali4nia wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

KillerMetre wrote:

"if you take away the soap opera and look at the scientific evidence, there is nothing"

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

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

Ahh Yes!

I do like this part from the interview.

AS: You were able to analyze the results, correct?

MA: I interpreted the results. They assessed each sample according the different criteria, and those were the results that we were given.

Nothing says science like personal interpretation.

Hey Bernie...

I think you'll find that scientific interpretation is a very, very different affair to personal interpretation....

iainf72

Cali4nia

No tA Doctor wrote:

I think you'll find that scientific interpretation is a very, very different affair to personal interpretation....

I will take it from the horses mouth, all the same.

MA: I interpreted the results.

Limburger

There was an interesting bit on the BBC news website a few days ago about how Stalin got western academics and literary figures to praise his communist Russia whilst killing and deporting hundreds of thousands of people.

I'm not saying Lance killed anyone, but I bet he would if he could get away with it. Lance can only hope to be as popular as Stalin once was too, not like I am comparing them or anything. Totally unrelated.......

No_Ta_Doctor

Cali4nia wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

I think you'll find that scientific interpretation is a very, very different affair to personal interpretation....

I will take it from the horses mouth, all the same.

MA: I interpreted the results.

Ah yes, because science never involves interpretation, does it? I'm sorry, but your argument here is weaker than wet tissue paper. Without interpretation there IS no science. Posting pictures of an utter twat like Cowell doesn't help it.

Perhaps I should post a pic of the famous face-palm to prove the point?[/quote]

DaveyL

Cali4nia wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

I think you'll find that scientific interpretation is a very, very different affair to personal interpretation....

I will take it from the horses mouth, all the same.

MA: I interpreted the results.

I'm going to take a wild guess here and say you don't know much about science, do you?