I don't believe Lance Armstrong doped and never will

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

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

So are you saying that testing is meaningless?

barry_kellett99

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...

Was he not actually found to have an empty EPO container he kept as a memento of the last dose he took to remind himself why he stopped etc etc... hidden in his book case

That was enough to do him.

And he never once denied it that I know of.

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

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

Making yellow rubber bracelets?

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

So are you saying that testing is meaningless?

It has its uses - makes doping more difficult to do - less effective etc etc. That purpose remains and for that purrpose alone it's worthwhile having.

Doesn't mean a clean test is the ultimate proof innocence. Not by a long shot.

And the 'never tested positive' mantra is also just not true.

He had 6 tests from his '99 Tour test positive, but the tests were done after they were admissible. This was mainly because a test for EPO, which they tested positive for, wasn't available in '99.

He also tested positive for a substance that only later was retrospectively allowed by a doctor's note....

DonDaddyD

The guy had cancer and admitted to taking drugs banned in sport - to help him survive.

They allowed it.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

The guy had cancer and admitted to taking drugs banned in sport - to help him survive.

They allowed it.

Yeah, when he was recovering from cancer.


In 99 he wasn't allowed to take EPO whilst competing.

prawny

DonDaddyD wrote:

The guy had cancer and admitted to taking drugs banned in sport - to help him survive.

They allowed it.

I don't think cortisone helps woth cancer does it?

Jez mon

The EPO he took as part of the cancer treatment would have been lond gone from his system by 1999. The EPO he took as part of a systematic doping regime OTOH...

Gabbo

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?

Well, if his blood profile is compatible to that of an athlete who has been taking Erythropoietin (EPO), then surely that gives USADA a strong platform to stand on. Thus, guilty until proven innocent.

bompington

Gabbo wrote:

Well, if his blood profile is compatible to that of an athlete who has been taking Erythropoietin (EPO), then surely that gives USADA a strong platform to stand on. Thus, guilty until proven innocent.

But what if his blood profile is incompatible to that of an athlete who hasn't been taking EPO?

DonDaddyD

Gabbo 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?

Well, if his blood profile is compatible to that of an athlete who has been taking Erythropoietin (EPO), then surely that gives USADA a strong platform to stand on. Thus, guilty until proven innocent.

Neither America or England follow that judicial process.

This is, seriously now, the biggest issue I have with the Armstrong issue. There is a clear drug and doping testing process and that has to be followed. If the athlete has followed that process and no such evidence can be produced that he is in breach of the rules (i.e. cheated) then that person is innocent regardless of how consistently superior their performance. Anything else IMO is a unjust witch hunt.

Now if the USADA has evidence which clearly proves without any reasonably doubt that he did cheat they should have produced it instead of chasing the guy for what seems months - years (a decade?) without producing any hard evidence. I cite other banned drugs cheats: a sample is produce, an investigation , an opportunity to mount a defence and a ban all done within 2 years because the evidence is there and it cannot be defended against.

In Armstrong's case while there may have been some form of evidence it hasn't been strong enough to prove categorically that he cheated. Therefore, I cannot say he is a cheat. There are others like Linford Christie where I simply refuse to believe that he ever did.

ocdupalais

Hypothetical Scenario

Your wife is an amazing woman. She has a real aura. She always has a little gaggle of acolytes and disciples.
You feel honoured and excited to be associated with her, even though she works in PR/marketing.
Until your wife admits that she has been having an affair, technically, it's possible that all of the overwhelming evidence is a nonsense and a massive conspiracy.

Your colleague tells you that they've seen your wife holding hands with another man in the park.
Another colleague tells you that they saw your wife kissing another man in the cafe.
Your wife spends many evenings elsewhere - at her friend's house, she says.
A trusted friend claims that they saw your wife and another man check into a double room in a posh hotel.
Despite her repeated denials and forceful persuasiveness, you are still left with an overbearing sense - let's call it an instinct - that she's a lying cheater.

A man comes to you. He tells you that he is having an affair with your wife.
He says it's because she thinks you are a cretin and an intellectual minnow.
He also divulges that she thinks you are a gullible sheep; prone to believing her alibis and always one step behind.
He says she has no respect for you, despite the fact that you provided her with all the material goods she could ever want.

Stuff like this goes on for, ooh, about 13 years. You amass a mountain of evidence from a variety of sources - but so far all of it apparently inadmissible: and still no admission from your wife.
It turns out she knew you were hiring a private detective agency to track her movements because one of her associates works there and kept her abreast of their activities.

At what point, if at all, do you accept that the evidence might have a basis in fact? What are you going to do about it?
What if what she's reputedly said about you is true, and you haven't got the faculties to process all of this?

alihisgreat

DonDaddyD wrote:

Gabbo 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?

Well, if his blood profile is compatible to that of an athlete who has been taking Erythropoietin (EPO), then surely that gives USADA a strong platform to stand on. Thus, guilty until proven innocent.

Neither America or England follow that judicial process.

This is, seriously now, the biggest issue I have with the Armstrong issue. There is a clear drug and doping testing process and that has to be followed. If the athlete has followed that process and no such evidence can be produced that he is in breach of the rules (i.e. cheated) then that person is innocent regardless of how consistently superior their performance. Anything else IMO is a unjust witch hunt.

Now if the USADA has evidence which clearly proves without any reasonably doubt that he did cheat they should have produced it instead of chasing the guy for what seems months - years (a decade?) without producing any hard evidence. I cite other banned drugs cheats: a sample is produce, an investigation , an opportunity to mount a defence and a ban all done within 2 years because the evidence is there and it cannot be defended against.

In Armstrong's case while there may have been some form of evidence it hasn't been strong enough to prove categorically that he cheated. Therefore, I cannot say he is a cheat. There are others like Linford Christie where I simply refuse to believe that he ever did.

USADA were about to produce the evidence.. then Lance gave up Its no good saying that there is no evidence because they wouldn't be chasing him if there was no evidence...

and on top of that they've said the evidence will come out in the future.. but they're still pursuing others so they don't want to give it all away!

thomthom

If Hog wants to continue he'll have to take it to arbitration and we'll eventually have our evidences.

B.M.R.

mfin wrote:

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.

Thanks for posting that, very interesting reading.

slim_boy_fat

DonDaddyD wrote:

Gabbo 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?

Well, if his blood profile is compatible to that of an athlete who has been taking Erythropoietin (EPO), then surely that gives USADA a strong platform to stand on. Thus, guilty until proven innocent.

Neither America or England follow that judicial process.

This is, seriously now, the biggest issue I have with the Armstrong issue. There is a clear drug and doping testing process and that has to be followed. If the athlete has followed that process and no such evidence can be produced that he is in breach of the rules (i.e. cheated) then that person is innocent regardless of how consistently superior their performance. Anything else IMO is a unjust witch hunt.

Now if the USADA has evidence which clearly proves without any reasonably doubt that he did cheat they should have produced it instead of chasing the guy for what seems months - years (a decade?) without producing any hard evidence. I cite other banned drugs cheats: a sample is produce, an investigation , an opportunity to mount a defence and a ban all done within 2 years because the evidence is there and it cannot be defended against.

In Armstrong's case while there may have been some form of evidence it hasn't been strong enough to prove categorically that he cheated. Therefore, I cannot say he is a cheat. There are others like Linford Christie where I simply refuse to believe that he ever did.

You do get the bit that Armstrongs decision today meant that the evidence that USADA had did not get heard in public? That was his decision and his alone. If it had been upto the USADA they would have made the evidence public and let the arbitration panel decide.

rozzer32

So what if he hasn't failed a test. They ain't 100%.

If you robbed a bank and had 10 witness who saw you do it, yet your finger prints weren't at the bank, you'd still be found guilty.

RichN95.

OCDuPalais wrote:

Hypothetical Scenario

Your wife is an amazing woman. She has a real aura. She always has a little gaggle of acolytes and disciples.
You feel honoured and excited to be associated with her, even though she works in PR/marketing.
Until your wife admits that she has been having an affair, technically, it's possible that all of the overwhelming evidence is a nonsense and a massive conspiracy.

Your colleague tells you that they've seen your wife holding hands with another man in the park.
Another colleague tells you that they saw your wife kissing another man in the cafe.
Your wife spends many evenings elsewhere - at her friend's house, she says.
A trusted friend claims that they saw your wife and another man check into a double room in a posh hotel.
Despite her repeated denials and forceful persuasiveness, you are still left with an overbearing sense - let's call it an instinct - that she's a lying cheater.

A man comes to you. He tells you that he is having an affair with your wife.
He says it's because she thinks you are a cretin and an intellectual minnow.
He also divulges that she thinks you are a gullible sheep; prone to believing her alibis and always one step behind.
He says she has no respect for you, despite the fact that you provided her with all the material goods she could ever want.

Stuff like this goes on for, ooh, about 13 years. You amass a mountain of evidence from a variety of sources - but so far all of it apparently inadmissible: and still no admission from your wife.
It turns out she knew you were hiring a private detective agency to track her movements because one of her associates works there and kept her abreast of their activities.

At what point, if at all, do you accept that the evidence might have a basis in fact? What are you going to do about it?
What if what she's reputedly said about you is true, and you haven't got the faculties to process all of this?

I don't care. I've been knobbing her sister for a decade.

CyclingBantam

DDD, if you are, as it seems, insisting that the only way someone can be found guilty is that they fail a test, what about Valverde? His blood was found ready for transfusions but is that ok as he may simply have been using it as a water balloon?

You are saying there is no evidence against Lance but as many have pointed out, there is plenty, it just hasn't been disclosed yet. Do you really think, if there was no evidence Lance would cave in and accept that he has doped?

USADA have charged him, he has accepted their punishment. For all the aggressive statements in the world, he has followed a process (which he always claims has to be followed to the letter) an accepted their charges. Their charges that he doped. There is nothin more anyone has to prove. He doped and has accepted that.

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

OCDuPalais wrote:

Hypothetical Scenario

Your wife is an amazing woman. She has a real aura. She always has a little gaggle of acolytes and disciples.
You feel honoured and excited to be associated with her, even though she works in PR/marketing.
Until your wife admits that she has been having an affair, technically, it's possible that all of the overwhelming evidence is a nonsense and a massive conspiracy.

Your colleague tells you that they've seen your wife holding hands with another man in the park.
Another colleague tells you that they saw your wife kissing another man in the cafe.
Your wife spends many evenings elsewhere - at her friend's house, she says.
A trusted friend claims that they saw your wife and another man check into a double room in a posh hotel.
Despite her repeated denials and forceful persuasiveness, you are still left with an overbearing sense - let's call it an instinct - that she's a lying cheater.

A man comes to you. He tells you that he is having an affair with your wife.
He says it's because she thinks you are a cretin and an intellectual minnow.
He also divulges that she thinks you are a gullible sheep; prone to believing her alibis and always one step behind.
He says she has no respect for you, despite the fact that you provided her with all the material goods she could ever want.

Stuff like this goes on for, ooh, about 13 years. You amass a mountain of evidence from a variety of sources - but so far all of it apparently inadmissible: and still no admission from your wife.
It turns out she knew you were hiring a private detective agency to track her movements because one of her associates works there and kept her abreast of their activities.

At what point, if at all, do you accept that the evidence might have a basis in fact? What are you going to do about it?
What if what she's reputedly said about you is true, and you haven't got the faculties to process all of this?

I don't care. I've been knobbing her sister for a decade.

Ryan Giggs?

Gabbo

DonDaddyD wrote:

Gabbo 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?

Well, if his blood profile is compatible to that of an athlete who has been taking Erythropoietin (EPO), then surely that gives USADA a strong platform to stand on. Thus, guilty until proven innocent.

Neither America or England follow that judicial process.

This is, seriously now, the biggest issue I have with the Armstrong issue. There is a clear drug and doping testing process and that has to be followed. If the athlete has followed that process and no such evidence can be produced that he is in breach of the rules (i.e. cheated) then that person is innocent regardless of how consistently superior their performance. Anything else IMO is a unjust witch hunt.

Now if the USADA has evidence which clearly proves without any reasonably doubt that he did cheat they should have produced it instead of chasing the guy for what seems months - years (a decade?) without producing any hard evidence. I cite other banned drugs cheats: a sample is produce, an investigation , an opportunity to mount a defence and a ban all done within 2 years because the evidence is there and it cannot be defended against.

In Armstrong's case while there may have been some form of evidence it hasn't been strong enough to prove categorically that he cheated. Therefore, I cannot say he is a cheat. There are others like Linford Christie where I simply refuse to believe that he ever did.

His performances were indicative of someone who has been doping. His blood profiles were compatible with someone who has been taking EPO. If his blood profile contradicts what these doping agencies have seen or as they said, know, then surely the evidence that he's done something to himself is pretty clear.

If my finger prints were on the knife that murdered a woman, it'd be up to me to prove my innocence. The same applies to Lance Armstrong.

The fact of the matter is, Lance's Haematocrit levels were not conforming to the physiological expectations. If that's not evidence, then what is?

andrewjoseph

DonDaddyD wrote:

...
Neither America or England follow that judicial process.

Innocent until proven guilty is a foundation of the judicial process, agreed.

However, this is not a judicial process, it is a sports dispute, it does not follow judicial laws. the athletes signing up to this code know it is guilty until they prove their innocence.

DonDaddyD

My understanding is that Armstrong is tired of having to fight the machine. His rage has gone. Sad really. But, honestly, I've never seen such a long drawn out case. If the sample is there it's there and I'll hold my hands up. If it's conjecture and "fellow" teammates confessing that they saw him EPO-up then I'm going to ask to see a sample proving it.

rozzer32

DonDaddyD wrote:

My understanding is that Armstrong is tired of having to fight the machine. His rage has gone. Sad really. But, honestly, I've never seen such a long drawn out case. If the sample is there it's there and I'll hold my hands up. If it's conjecture and "fellow" teammates confessing that they saw him EPO-up then I'm going to ask to see a sample proving it.

Right DDD stop being so silly here.

Lets say you took EPO and I saw you do it, you never failed a test but I confessed and said I saw you take EPO.

Are you a doper or not?

raymondo60

I'm a huge Lance Armstrong fan - 'Its not about the bike' got me into Road Riding (partly) after years on the MTB. I believe it is highly likely that he used banned substances. I don't KNOW that and I never could as I wasn't around him at the time, and I'm a person that only believes what I can see and hear myself, and even then I'm not certain of anything. However, if the authorities have 'evidence' that he has broken the rules (as they claim) then why do they not reveal the evidence NOW? Rather than all this 'We'll reveal it when the time is right' stuff. This attitude, in my opinion, undermines THEIR side of the story too. I think that what Lance has done is to 'beat the system' of drug-testing, probably. Again, I don't know that - he may even be completly innocent. The important thing is that NONE of us can know what happened - we can only offer an opinion based on our own prejudices.

petemadoc

Rick Chasey wrote:

You're an idiot

I thought this had already been established a long time ago


DDD vs the roadies again ey

luckao

DonDaddyD wrote:

My understanding is that Armstrong is tired of having to fight the machine. His rage has gone. Sad really. But, honestly, I've never seen such a long drawn out case. If the sample is there it's there and I'll hold my hands up. If it's conjecture and "fellow" teammates confessing that they saw him EPO-up then I'm going to ask to see a sample proving it.

Armstrong was... raging against the machine? Maillot Jaunes on parade? He sure has been sticking it to The Man for all of these years

There's been many cases in courts around the world that have found people guilty on much less. Looks like nothing but the best is needed for Lance.

milton50

The fact that the OP entitled the thread:

I don't believe Lance Armstrong doped and never will

should give you a clue about where he is coming from and what motivations he had for starting this 'discussion'.

cougie

DonDaddyD wrote:

In Armstrong's case while there may have been some form of evidence it hasn't been strong enough to prove categorically that he cheated. Therefore, I cannot say he is a cheat. There are others like Linford Christie where I simply refuse to believe that he ever did.

Linford did test postive for Steroids in 1999. Its pointless arguing with you if you deny that too ?

http://www.uka.org.uk/e-inspire/hall-of ... -christie/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sport/411951.stm

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 11079.html

ocdupalais

Are DDD and BB the opposite of celestial twins?
Both sharing an inverse obdurate stance to one another.
Like 2 heads on either side of a coin: cast from the same worthless alloy, looking in opposite directions...