Tyler sinks the Lance

BarryBonds

what dennis just said x10

shinyhelmut

No tA Doctor wrote:

I would be very interested to see what happens about the allegations of UCI cover-ups though.

To be honest this is what I'm more interested in now that Lance has retired (again)

I have my opinion of his career, whether the grand jury convict him or not is unlikely to change it. Corruption in the UCI however remains relevant.

dilemna

dennisn wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Hey Dennis,

If you had to fall on one side or the other:

Are Hamilton and Flandis telling the truth about Armstrong or not?

I believe everyone dopes. As to whether FL and Hamiton are telling the truth, see previous statement.

Apparently Big Geroge Hincapie has been speaking to the feds as well. Weren't George and Lance supposed to be like "brothers"? George was with Lance for every one of his 7 Tour wins. Hamilton more than likely faced being indicted if he didn't cough to the feds, maybe the same with George. I really wanted to believe Lance was clean ...... but it's not looking good. Novitsky always gets his man (or woman). Landis's allegations don't seem so crazy now. Let's face it all the Pro Tour riders were either doped or drugged up to the eyeballs since then even Contadour couldn't resist trying some clenbuterol to try to gain even more of an advantage. The bent UCI and team managers have turned a blind eye, the sponsors have turned a blind eye. So if they were all doped up to the eyeballs then surely Lance is STILL the best rider ever winning 7 TdFs?

No_Ta_Doctor

dilemna wrote:

So if they were all doped up to the eyeballs then surely Lance is STILL the best rider ever winning 7 TdFs?

Not this old chestnut again....

Firstly, after the Festina affair there's evidence to suggest that some riders stopped doping, LA didn't. And there have always been clean riders.

Secondly, some clean riders will have been excluded from the sport entirely because they weren't able to compete with the doped riders.

Thirdly, if it's true that there were UCI cover ups of positive tests, and that some cyclists were warned of impending tester visits, then these riders had an unfair advantage over other doped riders.

Fourthly, a race between dopers becomes a comparison of doping technique rather than cycling ability - a little like Formula 1, where the best driver might have a crap car and not win anything.

Lastly, some riders respond better to various doping methods than others. I might get a 10% performance boost from EPO where you only get 5%.

So to sum up, no it wasn't a level playing field at all.

BikingBernie

dilemna wrote:

if they were all doped up to the eyeballs then surely Lance is STILL the best rider ever winning 7 TdFs?

There is no reason at all to assume that, given that different riders benefit from doping to different degrees. For example, a rider with a natural haemocrit of 48% has much less to gain from boosting it to the UCI's limit of 50%, or higher, than someone whose natural haemocrit level is 42%. As such, doping does not create a ‘level playing field’, instead it totally distorts it.

In addition, given the huge advantages to be had from doping, the 'best' rider is simply often the one whose team is running the most effective doping programme, or the rider who is willing to risk pushing the doping envelope further than others are.

Take doping out of the equation and the 'real' winner might have turned out to be some unknown rider who came in 35th. There is no way of knowing.

All in all, Armstrong's 'wins' are totally meaningless.

sherer

don't forget as well the difference between an individual top rider doping to having a whole team on a doping programme, knowing when they will be tested and being able to cover it up by paying off the UCI

paulcuthbert

I still think he's clean

iainf72

paulcuthbert wrote:

I still think he's clean

Do you believe in father Christmas too?

In other news, the owner of cache cache confirmed she told lance Tyler was there

sherer

iainf72 wrote:

paulcuthbert wrote:

I still think he's clean

Do you believe in father Christmas too?

In other news, the owner of cache cache confirmed she told lance Tyler was there

Interesting and that could get Lance in trouble. He went to a place where he knew a witness was when he could have stayed away and avoided it all.

If this means they can charge him up to the present day he really will feel stupid

BikingBernie

paulcuthbert wrote:

I still think he's clean

"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.

We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defences with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks.

But man’s resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his convictions then ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervour about convincing and converting other people to his view."

From When Prophecy Fails by Festinger, Rieken and Schacter (1956).

---

In other words, human beings have an amazing capacity be be irrational fuckwits.

Of course, Paul could just be trolling.

mididoctors

paulcuthbert wrote:

I still think he's clean

if you were placed in a situation of life and death.... where getting the answer wrong will lead to your death you would choose he was clean?

I don't believe you would

bicyclepirate

Guys I have to admit.... I'm a bit of a lance fanboy. That's right I think the guys amazing. I appreciate bb's facts figures and charts but still if I had to choose, I'd be pretty sure he was clean. Plus if he wasn't , then it basically means that there is sweet fa point in testing anyone. Anyhow I'm off onto YouTube to watch the descent into gap video, it's incredible. I'll be really surprised if he ever gets prosecuted for anything, an truly shocked if he ever gets convicted. If there is legal proof he was on the sweets then I'll change my mind but until then......

Ps I don't have any other irrational beliefs like Believing in dragons honest.

andrewjoseph

You know, I wouldn't be surprised if Lance hasn't already come clean to the 'feds' and been given some sort of immunity from prosecution.

He might even have a double who rides his bike for him and accosts people in restaurants.

That way he can continue his normal behaviour knowing nothing will come of it.

Abdoujaparov

bicyclepirate wrote:

Guys I have to admit.... I'm a bit of a lance fanboy. That's right I think the guys amazing. I appreciate bb's facts figures and charts but still if I had to choose, I'd be pretty sure he was clean. Plus if he wasn't , then it basically means that there is sweet fa point in testing anyone. Anyhow I'm off onto YouTube to watch the descent into gap video, it's incredible. I'll be really surprised if he ever gets prosecuted for anything, an truly shocked if he ever gets convicted. If there is legal proof he was on the sweets then I'll change my mind but until then......

Ps I don't have any other irrational beliefs like Believing in dragons honest.

Do a bit more reading and see what you think then.

Remarkable that anyone (who knows even just the smallest bit about cycling) still holds your view.

jim453

bicyclepirate wrote:

Guys I have to admit.... I'm a bit of a lance fanboy. That's right I think the guys amazing. I appreciate bb's facts figures and charts but still if I had to choose, I'd be pretty sure he was clean. Plus if he wasn't , then it basically means that there is sweet fa point in testing anyone. Anyhow I'm off onto YouTube to watch the descent into gap video, it's incredible. I'll be really surprised if he ever gets prosecuted for anything, an truly shocked if he ever gets convicted. If there is legal proof he was on the sweets then I'll change my mind but until then......

Ps I don't have any other irrational beliefs like Believing in dragons honest.

Dragons are positively rational, even plausible in comparison to what you've just written.

dg74

Have to admit I was in the same camp as Bicyclepirate.

Then I read Bad Blood and then starting digging up information on doping and the possibility of LA doping and things just didn't add up. FWIW - LA did dope, can't not have done and especially at the time when riders such as Ullrich, Pantani, etc were riding with such vigour but these guys were also suspected of doping.

Lance is a cheat as probably most of the peloton is.

andyp

bicyclepirate wrote:

Guys I have to admit.... I'm a bit of a lance fanboy. That's right I think the guys amazing. I appreciate bb's facts figures and charts but still if I had to choose, I'd be pretty sure he was clean. Plus if he wasn't , then it basically means that there is sweet fa point in testing anyone. Anyhow I'm off onto YouTube to watch the descent into gap video, it's incredible. I'll be really surprised if he ever gets prosecuted for anything, an truly shocked if he ever gets convicted. If there is legal proof he was on the sweets then I'll change my mind but until then......

Ps I don't have any other irrational beliefs like Believing in dragons honest.

Genuine question - if he was scientifically, rather than legally, proved to have doped, would that change your mind?

I think it's more relevant to be honest.

bicyclepirate

Good question, I'm pretty openminded. However by scientifically proven I would assume you mean a positive a&b sample ala contador. I'd accept that. I don't think you can argue with that, so long as the lab validates the test. However, as all his competition is done I'm pretty sure that won't happen. In the absence of this smoking gun, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. I mean have you seen the descent into gap that's awesome!

BikingBernie

andyp wrote:

Genuine question - if he was scientifically, rather than legally, proved to have doped, would that change your mind?

I had thought that the scientific proof was already there, and it was only the legal wrangling that was left.

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

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

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

BarryBonds

bicyclepirate wrote:

Good question, I'm pretty openminded. However by scientifically proven I would assume you mean a positive a&b sample ala contador. I'd accept that. I don't think you can argue with that, so long as the lab validates the test. However, as all his competition is done I'm pretty sure that won't happen. In the absence of this smoking gun, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. I mean have you seen the descent into gap that's awesome!

Dont forget the black socks Awsome the man even led the way with his own style.

Im trying to ignore the positive tests he had. They dont count anyway becasue the lab was french and they couldnt be used to prosecute.

Monty Dog

LA has tested positive twice, but conveniently managed to produce a post-dated TUE plus/or paid-off the sport's governing body to "make it go away". There's probably more evidence to support the existence of Father Xmas that LA being clean. But hey, lets not let facts get in the way of the myth.

bicyclepirate

Your telling me Santa clause isn't real, this I will not believe ! I've read the nyvelocity link but the other one won't load can bb repost? Cheers

symo

Read the whole thread from start to finish, awesome.

Nice to see that the bullying brash gobby a-hole getting what he deserves finally.

Now can the FEDS do him for witness interference too?

frenchfighter

Legs.

mfin

All gone quiet on the investigation??? ...any news?

Gazzaputt

mfin wrote:

All gone quiet on the investigation??? ...any news?

Cheers for dragging this up again!

mfin

Gazzaputt wrote:

mfin wrote:

All gone quiet on the investigation??? ...any news?

Cheers for dragging this up again!

Thats alright was just discussing it with someone the other day and it seems like ages since any news or links have popped up to do with any developments at all

No_Ta_Doctor

Gazzaputt wrote:

mfin wrote:

All gone quiet on the investigation??? ...any news?

Cheers for dragging this up again!

Better than starting a new thread at least :-)

sherer

after two years it still seems to be dragging on. Not sure if that is good or bad.

You would have thought after this time they would at least either be able to go forward with charges or just drop it.

Thank god we aren't the asylum it's being discussed in depth in every thread there