Lance Armstrong-Where's the evidence?

ginsterdrz

I'm sat right on the fence.

I admire Armstrong for his achievements and raising the profile of cycling outside Europe and turning it into a World wide sport.

I'm not naive enough to believe doping goes on BUT.........

We're weeks on from USADA'S accusations and 'unofficial' defrocking of Armstrong and no one has actually put a shred of factual scientific evidence on the table yet.

I'm not interested in hearsay from others, I just want cold hard scientific facts and figures so I can believe either way.

Innocent until proven guilty?

So far I've heard accusations and seen finger pointing, nothing else.

It's about time someone stepped up to the bar and gave us some evidence, right?

ratsbeyfus

here's some

http://downthebackstretch.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/its-all-about-blood.html

Richrd2205

I'm not sure I understand you: are you asking for legally admissible proof, or scientific proof? & do you need USADA to provide it, or are you happy to go digging?
USADA will provide it. Due process takes time, so getting it right is more important than getting it quick.
You appear to want it quick and right. Which is setting the bar so high that most would fall beneath it.
Then you claim to be sat on the fence....
There's plenty of scientific stuff out there, just go look. The legally admissible stuff can be inferred from stuff that's around. Again, go look.
If you want the case file in its mind numbing detail, then wait.
I fail to see the complication. Nor the reason to sit on any fence; proverbial or otherwise. You have created a conflict by not understanding process, then are holding others to account for it....

rick_chasey

I suggest you google this and search the forum.

There's plenty there, so there's no need for ANOTHER thread like this.

ocdupalais

Richrd2205 wrote:

I'm not sure I understand you: are you asking for legally admissible proof, or scientific proof? & do you need USADA to provide it, or are you happy to go digging?
USADA will provide it. Due process takes time, so getting it right is more important than getting it quick.
You appear to want it quick and right. Which is setting the bar so high that most would fall beneath it.
Then you claim to be sat on the fence....
There's plenty of scientific stuff out there, just go look. The legally admissible stuff can be inferred from stuff that's around. Again, go look.
If you want the case file in its mind numbing detail, then wait.
I fail to see the complication. Nor the reason to sit on any fence; proverbial or otherwise. You have created a conflict by not understanding process, then are holding others to account for it....

I'd say you understand the OP real good.

iainf72

USADA's evidence was in a form ready for an arbitration hearing. They're putting it into a format which the UCI / other parties can use.

It will be released within the next 2 weeks

There will be a lot of eye witness evidence which isn't hearsay.

iainf72

If this profile had been submitted to me for review by me as a member of the Passport Panel(biological passports which are used by the UCI, cycling's governing body, and the IAAF), it would have been assessed as an anti-doping rule violation particularly in view of the timing of the disturbances leading into the 2009 Tour.

On the Parisotto blog.

Blimey

ratsbeyfus

iainf72 wrote:

If this profile had been submitted to me for review by me as a member of the Passport Panel(biological passports which are used by the UCI, cycling's governing body, and the IAAF), it would have been assessed as an anti-doping rule violation particularly in view of the timing of the disturbances leading into the 2009 Tour.

On the Parisotto blog.

Blimey

Trouble is that Parisotto's evidence is displayed in one of the worst excel pre-loaded graphing-wizard types imaginable. Might as well have written the whole article using Wordart. pffft.

No_Ta_Doctor

ratsbeyfus wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

If this profile had been submitted to me for review by me as a member of the Passport Panel(biological passports which are used by the UCI, cycling's governing body, and the IAAF), it would have been assessed as an anti-doping rule violation particularly in view of the timing of the disturbances leading into the 2009 Tour.

On the Parisotto blog.

Blimey

Trouble is that Parisotto's evidence is displayed in one of the worst excel pre-loaded graphing-wizard types imaginable. Might as well have written the whole article using Wordart. pffft.

If only he was a BR poster. He'd be knocking out some stunning graphs.

ratsbeyfus

Actually think that compilation of the USADA report is going to be delayed as Travis et al can't get their head around how to do bullet points consistently with Word 2010.

No_Ta_Doctor

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Actually think that compilation of the USADA report is going to be delayed as Travis et al can't get their head around how to do bullet points consistently with Word 2010.

Who can?

mfin

I reckon he's innocent and so many people have just made up detailed stories and testimony that only corroborate each other by utter utter wild fluke. Aaaaaand all the evidence is also completely made up too. I reckon this is true because Lance is such a nice bloke and obviously would never ever cheat at anything, in fact, I think he's probably the nicest human being on the planet and certainly the best and most honourable sportsman in history.

fishycrotch

these are the hard facts. He is the most tested cyclist/athlete EVER. the only positive drugs test was for a doctor prescribed Skin cream. He is being convicted on testimony of others who have probably doped themselves and are keeping their reputation by grassing
I do not blame him for walking away. After spending your working days endlessly training and fighting cancer, why waste any more time fighting a battle which people have alredy decided the outcome of no matter what you do????

Gazzetta67

fishycrotch wrote:

these are the hard facts. He is the most tested cyclist/athlete EVER. the only positive drugs test was for a doctor prescribed Skin cream. He is being convicted on testimony of others who have probably doped themselves and are keeping their reputation by grassing
I do not blame him for walking away. After spending your working days endlessly training and fighting cancer, why waste any more time fighting a battle which people have alredy decided the outcome of no matter what you do????

Fact is all that just came out your Shyter !!!!

mfin

fishycrotch wrote:

He is the most tested cyclist/athlete EVER.

Not true.

fishycrotch wrote:

the only positive drugs test was for a doctor prescribed Skin cream.

Not true. Neither was it the only positive OR that the one you state was for a Skin cream, that was the spin on it, but that is far from fact.

fishycrotch

Ah "you came out your shyter' - that is the most robust form of scientific evidence....but is it submissable in court??? You show me the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE mfin, I believe thats what was asked for. Not your opinion on my ahole. but thanks anyway

fishycrotch

Can you cycle faster??? I mean seriously. Give the guy a break. Sitting on you pious high horse when this guy has done nothing but be better that science 'predicted' a human should be able to be?
Im sorry but do you know the ins an outs of the genetic mutations caused by cancer therapy/treatment and how it may affect blood doping tests. Cause if you dont, I would suggest you bow out this conversation and leave it to the big boys who are actually able to evaluate and understand biology and research methodology.

Pat Murray

fishycrotch wrote:

these are the hard facts. He is the most tested cyclist/athlete EVER. the only positive drugs test was for a doctor prescribed Skin cream. He is being convicted on testimony of others who have probably doped themselves and are keeping their reputation by grassing
I do not blame him for walking away. After spending your working days endlessly training and fighting cancer, why waste any more time fighting a battle which people have alredy decided the outcome of no matter what you do????

You sir, have won troll of the year

thomthom

fishycrotch wrote:

Can you cycle faster??? I mean seriously. Give the guy a break. bla bla bla...

You mean a break from bullying, terrorising, threatening people to silence and destroying the careers of those who dared to go against Lance and his drug addiction, against his criminal accomplices to save a sport they actually cared about?

Richrd2205

A catcher thread... You never know where Poe's law might apply here, so with due caution....

fishycrotch wrote:

He is the most tested cyclist/athlete EVER

No he isn't. Even Kristin Armstrong has been tested more. This is from UCI figures, so fairly objective

the only positive drugs test was for a doctor prescribed Skin cream.

This isn't right either. That positive was from a back-dated TUE, which isn't right in anyone's book & it isn't the only positive. There's an EPO positive too. & an alleged other one in 2001. & an analytic positive from USADA. Most positives per test EVER might be true, however....

He is being convicted on testimony of others who have probably doped themselves and are keeping their reputation by grassing

Well, this one's fun.... Testimony is admissible. Judges have got reasonably good over the past 400+ years at spotting stich-ups & BS & there are some pretty good systems in place to prevent miscarriages. Y'know, sometimes courts (& para-legal arbitration bodies) even look at motives to lie & examine it. So this comment is wrong on so many levels that it's worth thinking about:

it' s not just on testimony (see above) Doping means you don't know about doping? How does that work? If it means that lying means you will always lie, then see "most tested athlete" above If 10+ people have congruent testimony & no way to organise testimony in advance, but they doped, they're still liars, right?

A final point on this one.... If I didn't get on with my neighbour & he died one night. He was shot with a (mythical) ice bullet, from a (mythical) ice gun, so there are no forensics. 10 people place me with a gun in my hand firing and killing. These folk don't get on & have had no opportunity to organise testimony, but their testimony matches very pretty much exactly. They are all drug dependant. They claim I was their dealer, but that's just a lie, right? Should I be convicted. Imagine that it is someone you love who died. You want me to go free, right? Or not... Is it as black and white as you claim above?

I do not blame him for walking away. After spending your working days endlessly training and fighting cancer, why waste any more time fighting a battle which people have alredy decided the outcome of no matter what you do????

OK, this is a substitution heuristic, aided by the (created by selective reading) availability bias. Having just had a loved one die from cancer, I can tell you that you are so f**king wrong as to be really quite offensive. But I'll ignore that & answer your question. The reason to fight is that it is the only way to clear your name. Even if you don't trust an independent panel, there are levels of appeal. Up to & including CAS. The real question is "why not fight"? Seriously, you've fought everything & you suddenly stop, but that's 'cos of cancer & training? C'mon...
Not fighting allows me to put my PR out there, which folk insist on believing, whilst avoiding testifying about stuff. Let's be honest, perjury is a far more serious crime than this is, so avoiding legal process really helps me here & might keep the details from the public domain...
'Cos that helps people who don't think critically support me: if I took the other path, they'd start to struggle...
You, sir, are being exploited & are defending the person who is exploiting you... It's OK, you are almost certainly doing it from a strong sense of justice and admiration, which are really positive traits. I admire your commitment. I have, however, used Google to check a few facts &, whilst sharing your belief that the underdog should be protected, believe that you are wrong. Not just wrong, but that you are being f**ked & are f**king others by perpetuating lies as "facts"
Please stop.... Search engines can really help here. If you challenge anything I've said, please ask & we can compare evidence. I don't believe that there is too much that's subjective in my post, but where there is, it isn't critical, so feel free to challenge & we can agree a work round, yes? You are a decent person who wants the truth to come out, right? Let's work this out objectively....
Kind regards

Richrd2205

OK, it was Poe's law....

andrewjoseph

fishycrotch wrote:

... it to the big boys who are actually able to evaluate and understand biology and research methodology.

Like Ashenden you mean? Have you read any of his thoughts on this?

mfin

fishycrotch wrote:

Ah "you came out your shyter' - that is the most robust form of scientific evidence....but is it submissable in court??? You show me the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE mfin, I believe thats what was asked for. Not your opinion on my ahole. but thanks anyway

I didn't say shyter or reference your ahole, that was someone else.

I stated two things you stated as facts. And they aren't facts.

If you can't be bothered to look into why they aren't facts then you're not actually interested in looking into the subject at all.

Unless in your reply above you actually meant you weren't interested in facts relating to your wrong-facts and what you wanted was other scientific evidence. Of which there is PLENTY. BUT... when you see the 'PLENTY' you'll then say it isn't hard scientific evidence as 'if it was' it would have resulted in charges years ago.

Also, corroborated eyewitness testimony from so so many sources also is hard evidence Im afraid.

Oh well 'happy not reading and forming an educated opinion' eh.

--- PART TWO, you'll like this ---

Tell you what I'll make it easier for you. We'll pick one of your hard facts...

"Never tested positive"

Right, lets be clear here, this is "Never tested positive", thats your wording, so we'll go with your wording.

Now, "Never tested positive" means "never tested postive" NOT "never tested positive AND convicted on the back of it"

So… you gather up some expert analysis you can reference to back up why he purely "never tested positive" and I'll gather up some expert analysis on why he has "tested positive" (many times).

I bet you you can find no expert analysis which backs up your assumption that "never tested positive" is a fact.

mfin

OK, this is a substitution heuristic, aided by the (created by selective reading) availability bias. Having just had a loved one die from cancer, I can tell you that you are so f**king wrong as to be really quite offensive. But I'll ignore that & answer your question. The reason to fight is that it is the only way to clear your name. Even if you don't trust an independent panel, there are levels of appeal. Up to & including CAS. The real question is "why not fight"?

This is a KEY thing not many people are talking about in the 'Im sick of this Im walking away cos the whole case is loaded and unfair' context.

LA saying this is a direct negative attack on USADA.
But, just as importantly he implies CAS is untrustworthy too.

The arguments he uses, are they one of someone who is innocent or someone who is guilty... well, it doesn't matter one jot, cos its evidence and testimony that matter... but, if I was answering the question its hardly the response of someone innocent.

When he glued together 'im tired' he just couldn't help adding on the 'its unfair' or 'never tested positive' bits.

USADA and CAS aren't unfair, and 'never tested positive' to ANYONE who reads up on doping and the testing will end up seeing that that is not only no defence at all, but a joke.

speshsteve

best troll post in a while, very good

The Kennington Kaiser

Post of the f*ckin day. Chapeau, sir.

Richrd2205 wrote:

A catcher thread... You never know where Poe's law might apply here, so with due caution....

fishycrotch wrote:

He is the most tested cyclist/athlete EVER

No he isn't. Even Kristin Armstrong has been tested more. This is from UCI figures, so fairly objective

the only positive drugs test was for a doctor prescribed Skin cream.

This isn't right either. That positive was from a back-dated TUE, which isn't right in anyone's book & it isn't the only positive. There's an EPO positive too. & an alleged other one in 2001. & an analytic positive from USADA. Most positives per test EVER might be true, however....

He is being convicted on testimony of others who have probably doped themselves and are keeping their reputation by grassing

Well, this one's fun.... Testimony is admissible. Judges have got reasonably good over the past 400+ years at spotting stich-ups & BS & there are some pretty good systems in place to prevent miscarriages. Y'know, sometimes courts (& para-legal arbitration bodies) even look at motives to lie & examine it. So this comment is wrong on so many levels that it's worth thinking about:

it' s not just on testimony (see above) Doping means you don't know about doping? How does that work? If it means that lying means you will always lie, then see "most tested athlete" above If 10+ people have congruent testimony & no way to organise testimony in advance, but they doped, they're still liars, right?

A final point on this one.... If I didn't get on with my neighbour & he died one night. He was shot with a (mythical) ice bullet, from a (mythical) ice gun, so there are no forensics. 10 people place me with a gun in my hand firing and killing. These folk don't get on & have had no opportunity to organise testimony, but their testimony matches very pretty much exactly. They are all drug dependant. They claim I was their dealer, but that's just a lie, right? Should I be convicted. Imagine that it is someone you love who died. You want me to go free, right? Or not... Is it as black and white as you claim above?

I do not blame him for walking away. After spending your working days endlessly training and fighting cancer, why waste any more time fighting a battle which people have alredy decided the outcome of no matter what you do????

OK, this is a substitution heuristic, aided by the (created by selective reading) availability bias. Having just had a loved one die from cancer, I can tell you that you are so f**king wrong as to be really quite offensive. But I'll ignore that & answer your question. The reason to fight is that it is the only way to clear your name. Even if you don't trust an independent panel, there are levels of appeal. Up to & including CAS. The real question is "why not fight"? Seriously, you've fought everything & you suddenly stop, but that's 'cos of cancer & training? C'mon...
Not fighting allows me to put my PR out there, which folk insist on believing, whilst avoiding testifying about stuff. Let's be honest, perjury is a far more serious crime than this is, so avoiding legal process really helps me here & might keep the details from the public domain...
'Cos that helps people who don't think critically support me: if I took the other path, they'd start to struggle...
You, sir, are being exploited & are defending the person who is exploiting you... It's OK, you are almost certainly doing it from a strong sense of justice and admiration, which are really positive traits. I admire your commitment. I have, however, used Google to check a few facts &, whilst sharing your belief that the underdog should be protected, believe that you are wrong. Not just wrong, but that you are being f**ked & are f**king others by perpetuating lies as "facts"
Please stop.... Search engines can really help here. If you challenge anything I've said, please ask & we can compare evidence. I don't believe that there is too much that's subjective in my post, but where there is, it isn't critical, so feel free to challenge & we can agree a work round, yes? You are a decent person who wants the truth to come out, right? Let's work this out objectively....
Kind regards

Vino'sGhost

No tA Doctor wrote:

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Actually think that compilation of the USADA report is going to be delayed as Travis et al can't get their head around how to do bullet points consistently with Word 2010.

Who can?

Not me,

meggiedude

The Kennington Kaiser wrote:

Post of the f*ckin day. Chapeau, sir.

Richrd2205 wrote:

A catcher thread... You never know where Poe's law might apply here, so with due caution....

+1
Very "wordy" - but articulate.
There's a little nuggett in here, that's always got me when I heard he was not going to contest
Why would a man that has fought and beat the big "C", and battled in the worlds most demanding races suddenly walk away from this case, when he has the best chance to clear his name once and for all.
By not attending he is forever leaving that possibility that to some he is innocent and being stitched up, despite all the mountains of evidence and testimonies against him. Clever move really.

Anyway - when we see the evidence maybe we can make out own minds up, but there's always be a few who think he is innocent come what may, even if the evidence is plainly set in front of them.

Mikey23

My last word on the subject ...
Rather like creationism v evolution, flat earth v round earth. The evidence is available for anyone who chooses to look with an open mind. When the USADA evidence is available it will be subjected to rigorous inspection. When it becomes publically available it will do little to alter the opinion of those who choose to think otherwise. there are those who choose to believe what they choose to believe and for very good reason. Which is really sad i think. Poor old Lance... is he an all American superhero who heroically overcame cancer, won all those titles and does all those good works? Or is he just another liar and thief? I know what I believe...

ocdupalais

Richrd2205 wrote:

Poe's law....

"Poe's law"!?!

Yeah, right... :roll:

No_Ta_Doctor

fishycrotch wrote:

Im sorry but do you know the ins an outs of the genetic mutations caused by cancer therapy/treatment and how it may affect blood doping tests. Cause if you dont, I would suggest you bow out this conversation and leave it to the big boys who are actually able to evaluate and understand biology and research methodology.

This is the most splendid comment I have ever read.

I have an image now of Lance accidentally pricking himself on a radioactive EPO syringe in a freak cancer healthcare accident, awaking after a feverish night to find he had haemoglobin producing superpowers.