I don't believe Lance Armstrong doped and never will

the_cyclist_of_catan

DonDaddyD wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19365234

I'm beginning to feel sorry for Lance Armstrong and this ridiculous witch hunt. Innocent until proven guilty, and to prove someone guilty you need the evidence.

Innocent until proven guilty is the starting point, but not necessarily the whole matter.

Lance *was* (like Fred West, Andreas Breivik and many others) taken to be innocent at the start of the process. The USADA thought otherwise, and charged him with the doping offences. At that point, Lance had - like EVERY other defendant - a choice; contest the charges, which were to be determined by arbitrators who would (like the courts) apply a presumption that Lance was innocent unless the evidence established otherwise. Alternatively, Lance could choose not to contest the charges - in which case the arbitrators (and everyone else) is entitled to assume that Lance was guilty. The way MOST defendants indicate that they are not contesting the charges (indeed the ONLY way allowed in an English criminal court) is to enter a guilty plea; everything else goes to trial. Lance has chosen not to come out and SAY that he's guilty so that he can continue to pretend, but his failure to say "I am NOT guilty" and contest the charges speaks volumes in my mind.

thomthom

DonDaddyD wrote:

Where is the positive sample that proves he doped?

You get found guilty on the basis of evidence not conjecture.

I do not believe Contador willfully doped, he was suspended from professional racing because he had a banned substance in his system, not enough to enhance performance but banned nonetheless.

If Lance had produce a positive sample - that wasn't exempt due to his cancer treatments - then why has it taken this long for any 'authority' to reveal/produce it?

This should keep you entertained for a while. You should read i all cause it seems like you have no idea about what's up and down in this case.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/ind ... -the-years

blazing_saddles

bompington wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Where is the positive sample that proves he doped?

In a lab in France, I believe

With these, he could have blown down the USADA's house of cards with ease.
The French previously offered to re-test those 1999 "B" samples'
Lance said were clean, so there was no need for them to spend the money.
All he had to do was ask for those re-tests, now........... :roll:

Gazzaputt

Rick Chasey wrote:

You're an idiot if you think that.


Seriously.

Have you actually seen any of the evidence? Beyond what he himself is saying...

Nice attitude from a moderator there :roll:

Freedom of speech?

rick_chasey

Gazzaputt wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You're an idiot if you think that.


Seriously.

Have you actually seen any of the evidence? Beyond what he himself is saying...

Nice attitude from a moderator there :roll:

Freedom of speech?

I have my opinions, he has his. Haven't deleted anything.

DDD knows what he's doing. I'll play along.

nathancom

OP, if you take the time to review the evidence already out there and think you wouldn't post something like this. The catalog of evidence and evidence of collusion with the UCI is damning and that is why Lance refused to go to arbitration. It has worked out well for him on Day 1. How it works out on Day 2 when the court writs start coming in, when the other defendants enter arbitration and when USADA releases evidence is going to be interesting.

dsoutar

DonDaddyD wrote:

Until someone holds up the pee-filled-cup with positive written across it I have no reason to say that he doped.

If he did and there was evidence then why has he yet to be banned/suspended ala Contador?

I suggest you read Walsh's book(s). I'm not a great fan of him as a person and I think he's actually quite a crap writer (it's a style thing I guess) but his books contain enough documentation (that's in the public domain) about what was going on between LA and the UCI

Gazzaputt

Rick Chasey wrote:

Gazzaputt wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You're an idiot if you think that.


Seriously.

Have you actually seen any of the evidence? Beyond what he himself is saying...

Nice attitude from a moderator there :roll:

Freedom of speech?

I have my opinions, he has his. Haven't deleted anything.

DDD knows what he's doing. I'll play along.

That isn't an opinion your stating there your your making a personal derogatory remark to someone.

I'm not defending DDD here but stating you can't have your cake and eat it.

bartman100

The OP is a troll = moron
The OP actually believes this = moron

rick_chasey

Gazzaputt wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Gazzaputt wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You're an idiot if you think that.


Seriously.

Have you actually seen any of the evidence? Beyond what he himself is saying...

Nice attitude from a moderator there :roll:

Freedom of speech?

I have my opinions, he has his. Haven't deleted anything.

DDD knows what he's doing. I'll play along.

That isn't an opinion your stating there your your making a personal derogatory remark to someone.

I'm not defending DDD here but stating you can't have your cake and eat it.

Probably.

He can report it if he wants. Or you can.

DDD's said worse to me and I've probably said worse to him.

rozzer32

DDD why don't you pi$$ off back to communting.

You have already messed up this forum once, don't try and do it again.

Wrath Rob

Just add him to the ignore list, its the easiest way. That way he can't get to you...

the article don

I rarely post but felt this merited it.

Don Daddy D : that's as unabashed a piece of trolling as you are ever likely to see.

Your recent drive to close down The Crud Catcher, cleanup the Cake stop etc now looks like a blatant piece of attention seeking, just like your post here.

Whatever it takes to load up your 10000+ post count and boost your "profile" on an internet forum, I guess.

raymondo60

Even 'morons' are entitled to an opinion. Resorting to personal insults is a moronic thing to do too. This is obviously an emotive issue - I certainly have strong feelings about the Lance Armstrong case, but let's keep it civil chaps.

rick_chasey

Fair point, fair point.

I take it back!

ocdupalais

Rick Chasey wrote:

Fair point, fair point.

I take it back!

Don't admit saying what you didn't say!
This is a thread about a bloke who won't admit doing what everyone else knows he did...

B.M.R.

I just don't know how to feel. So many people seemed sure he was cheating (on the basis of his performance?) but he never returned a positive sample. Does this whole thing call into question the point of sample checking? If there are ways around it that means someone can win a major (nay, the biggest) cycle race 7 times and never trip up over a sample, and he won them because he was doing something he shouldn't have been doing, then why isn't the doping tests catching it? And if there are documented ways round it, why aren't the tests being altered to catch these new ways?

I genuinely don't know what to think. But a big part of me is thinking "why give up if you are innocent?".

If I can ask a genuine question (as I'm fairly new to understanding the pro cycling business) - A lot of people seem to have been convinced for years he was cheating, why was this? It seems to be "common knowledge" amongst the cycling fraternity, but I'm just wondering if someone could summarise the main reasons for the years of suspicion?

Like I said, it's a legitimate question as I don't know alot about the history here.

rolf_f

dsoutar wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Until someone holds up the pee-filled-cup with positive written across it I have no reason to say that he doped.

If he did and there was evidence then why has he yet to be banned/suspended ala Contador?

I suggest you read Walsh's book(s). I'm not a great fan of him as a person and I think he's actually quite a crap writer (it's a style thing I guess) but his books contain enough documentation (that's in the public domain) about what was going on between LA and the UCI

I've not read enough on the subject to not potentially make a fool of myself on this but the one on Lance I have read is John Wilcocksons which reads as very pro Lance (I got it for 99p in Oxfam!). Yet I finished it feeling that it would be surprising if he hadn't doped. Certainly Wilcockson, reading between the lines, came up with some pretty good unintentional justification for it which is surprising in such a pro Lance book.

And yet he never got caught..........

rick_chasey

B.M.R. wrote:

I just don't know how to feel. So many people seemed sure he was cheating (on the basis of his performance?) but he never returned a positive sample. Does this whole thing call into question the point of sample checking? If there are ways around it that means someone can win a major (nay, the biggest) cycle race 7 times and never trip up over a sample, and he won them because he was doing something he shouldn't have been doing, then why isn't the doping tests catching it? And if there are documented ways round it, why aren't the tests being altered to catch these new ways?

This is quite important.

The tests make it harder to dope. They don't make it impossible. It's all about making it as difficult as possible, to put people off. It boils down to a risk profile. The cost is always high, the probability varies. You want to make that part as high as possible too.

Is dope testing catching up? Yes. In the '90s there was no EPO test, now there is, for example.

Are there documented ways around it? Yes. A few have been seen on here. Testers can only do so much.

Rather like the drug dealers in a police show, it's one thing "knowing" they all do it. It's another making it stand up in court.

Paul E

ddraver wrote:

Becoming a father did nt make you any more intelligent then....

quite or mature

mfin

B.M.R. wrote:

I just don't know how to feel. So many people seemed sure he was cheating (on the basis of his performance?) but he never returned a positive sample. Does this whole thing call into question the point of sample checking? If there are ways around it that means someone can win a major (nay, the biggest) cycle race 7 times and never trip up over a sample, and he won them because he was doing something he shouldn't have been doing, then why isn't the doping tests catching it? And if there are documented ways round it, why aren't the tests being altered to catch these new ways?

I genuinely don't know what to think. But a big part of me is thinking "why give up if you are innocent?".

If I can ask a genuine question (as I'm fairly new to understanding the pro cycling business) - A lot of people seem to have been convinced for years he was cheating, why was this? It seems to be "common knowledge" amongst the cycling fraternity, but I'm just wondering if someone could summarise the main reasons for the years of suspicion?

Like I said, it's a legitimate question as I don't know alot about the history here.

Give this a read http://news.yahoo.com/armstrong-arrogant-even-admitting-doping-asserts-former-white-084700635.html ...its by Robert Weiner, 'who was the spokesman for the Office of National Drug Policy and worked to help create WADA and USADA'

It might answer a few of your questions.

rickyrider

the article don wrote:

... looks like a blatant piece of attention seeking...

Are ANY of his posts anything else?!

Abdoujaparov

Rick Chasey wrote:

B.M.R. wrote:

I just don't know how to feel. So many people seemed sure he was cheating (on the basis of his performance?) but he never returned a positive sample. Does this whole thing call into question the point of sample checking? If there are ways around it that means someone can win a major (nay, the biggest) cycle race 7 times and never trip up over a sample, and he won them because he was doing something he shouldn't have been doing, then why isn't the doping tests catching it? And if there are documented ways round it, why aren't the tests being altered to catch these new ways?

This is quite important.

The tests make it harder to dope. They don't make it impossible. It's all about making it as difficult as possible, to put people off. It boils down to a risk profile. The cost is always high, the probability varies. You want to make that part as high as possible too.

Is dope testing catching up? Yes. In the '90s there was no EPO test, now there is, for example.

Are there documented ways around it? Yes. A few have been seen on here. Testers can only do so much.

Rather like the drug dealers in a police show, it's one thing "knowing" they all do it. It's another making it stand up in court.

Current testing is making doping less effective too.

DonDaddyD

Lance was tested as much if not more than other cyclists in his era. They were caught there, then, and some in later years. Why wasn't he? Could it be because he never actually cheated?

But once again this is the back and forth.

Pro Race grumble bums "He doped"

DDD "Prove it or I won't believe it"

Pro Race grumble bums "You're an idiot, an attention seeker and a moron"

DDD "Prove it and prove that Lance actually doped by producing evidence of a positive sample taken in the years that he competed"

Pro Race grumble bums "I am now going to say something on what little I know of your personal life, fatherhood maybe. I am going to do so because I am outraged at the fact that you have a different opinion to me"

DDD "Is there a sample?"

Pro Race grumble bums "EPO was harder to detect back then"

DDD "Do you know that he took EPO? He could have taken other types of banned substances AND they did manage to catch other cyclists"

Pro Race grumble bums "Your recent drive to close down The Crud Catcher, cleanup the Cake stop etc now looks like a blatant piece of attention seeking, just like your post here."

DDD "Ok... then....thanks for the constructive conversation"

rick_chasey

You're missing the stuff where people answer your question.

You've missed a couple of my questions for starters.

CyclingBantam

Rick Chasey wrote:

You're missing the stuff where people answer your question.

You've missed a couple of my questions for starters.

Rick, you know DDD ignores the answers he doesn't want to hear. He then turns it round to make out that everyone is against him and that ....

Wait a sec. Is DDD Lance?

cougie

DonDaddyD wrote:

Lance was tested as much if not more than other cyclists in his era. They were caught there, then, and some in later years. Why wasn't he? Could it be because he never actually cheated?

David Millar never tested positive either. He was caught with the drugs in his house. So clearly the tests dont work.

Look at Festina in 98. A sh*tload of drugs in the car - I don't think they tested positive either.

Rumsas and his car full of drugs for his sick mum.

I could go on - but I cant be ar$ed...

rick_chasey

cougie wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Lance was tested as much if not more than other cyclists in his era. They were caught there, then, and some in later years. Why wasn't he? Could it be because he never actually cheated?

David Millar never tested positive either. He was caught with the drugs in his house. So clearly the tests dont work.

Look at Festina in 98. A sh*tload of drugs in the car - I don't think they tested positive either.

Rumsas and his car full of drugs for his sick mum.

I could go on - but I cant be ar$ed...

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Where is the positive sample that proves he doped?

You get found guilty on the basis of evidence not conjecture.

I do not believe Contador willfully doped, he was suspended from professional racing because he had a banned substance in his system, not enough to enhance performance but banned nonetheless.

If Lance had produce a positive sample - that wasn't exempt due to his cancer treatments - then why has it taken this long for any 'authority' to reveal/produce it?

Why are you so hung up on the tests?

We know from other athletes the tests don't prove anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1USv6QL-Dc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntsZcWhN ... detailpage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyI6Qytesas

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/05/ ... log_217702

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Millar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Virenque

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophe_Moreau

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurent_Brochard

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

You're missing the stuff where people answer your question.

You've missed a couple of my questions for starters.

After about five pages of banging your head against the wall you will start to regret not listening to my "let people believe what they want" Zen philosophy. But then it will be too late and you will be obligated to have the last word

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You're missing the stuff where people answer your question.

You've missed a couple of my questions for starters.

After about five pages of banging your head against the wall you will start to regret not listening to my "let people believe what they want" Zen philosophy. But then it will be too late and you will be obligated to have the last word

Correct.

I however, am in a job who's market has totally and utterly tanked.

So I'm sitting infront of this computer all day with nothing to do. Boredom is a strong motivator.