I don't believe Lance Armstrong and I never will...

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

There is a possiblity you are right and there is a possiblity that Armstrong is telling the truth and he doesn't want to fight it in court because he is tired

I wonder if there is anything he could take to wake him up a bit.

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

Cycling teams are lead by Directors, supported by Doctors and other people by and large more versed in the subject of biology, drugs and drug taking than Lance could ever hope to be. I doubt he was the point man. The face, the road dog, the foot soldier, yes, maybe. But the guy at the top? I dunno.

The 3 doctors have already been charged by USADA and similary waived their right to arbitration.

The DS is up next.

petemadoc

I don't believe that DDD is a real person and I never will.....

I'm pretty sure he's a brick wall :roll:

or maybe just a troll, I can't work it out.

Koncordski

DonDaddyD wrote:

Spider-man did something similar, he made a deal with the devil to save his Aunt May's life he had to give up his love to Mary Jane. Perhaps Lance made the same kind of deal with some super evil doctor: Save him from cancer but he has to suffer humiliation beyond anything that has been seen before.

Here we are.

Seriously, are you on crack?

petemadoc

Koncordski wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Spider-man did something similar, he made a deal with the devil to save his Aunt May's life he had to give up his love to Mary Jane. Perhaps Lance made the same kind of deal with some super evil doctor: Save him from cancer but he has to suffer humiliation beyond anything that has been seen before.

Here we are.

Seriously, are you on crack?

Ha ha, hilarious! His posts are so long I missed this bit.

Coach H

DonDaddyD wrote:

Cycling teams are lead by Directors, supported by Doctors and other people by and large more versed in the subject of biology, drugs and drug taking than Lance could ever hope to be. I doubt he was the point man. The face, the road dog, the foot soldier, yes, maybe. But the guy at the top? I dunno.

Still not read the 200 public pages then :roll: . In terms of the actual mechanics of doping, it is laid out pretty clearly that Ferrari was 'the guy at the top'. As for the overall leader it is also clearly laid out that, even though you 'dunno' , Armstrong set the policy for all. Remember that some of the evidence records doping BEFORE the Hog and that it was Armstrong that brought him in.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

Spider-man did something similar, he made a deal with the devil to save his Aunt May's life he had to give up his love to Mary Jane. Perhaps Lance made the same kind of deal with some super evil doctor: Save him from cancer but he has to suffer humiliation beyond anything that has been seen before.

Here we are.

You do know that he was reportedly doping 'pre-cancer'. He'd already made that deal with the devil.

jzed

DDD - everyone knows Lance was a control freak. Would he really have allowed anyone else to be at the top? You really should read the report. Its only 200 pages, with 1.5 spacing.

Interesting read on Livestrong:

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-ad ... l?page=all

Always assumed they ploughed all the money into cancer research.....

jedster

The other positive think abut this coming out is taht it looks bad enough that heads may roll at the UCI - they were at best wilfully blind and more likely knowingly avoided taking action on this

I don't know how anyone confronted with this report cant come away pretty convinced that
a) Armstrong was a long term drug cheat
b) he applied pressure on others to do the same
c) his tactics in protecting his position make him a pretty despicable human being

Now I'm not saying I can be sure all this is "beyond reasonable doubt", I'm not a lawyer and I ahvent see allthe evidence but "pretty convinced". Yep.

Revealling my ignorance, I had realised the testimony that he had already taken lots of performance enhancing drugs BEFORE his cancer diagnosis.

Anonymous

apparently the likes of which, wait for it....are carcinogenic. Oh the irony of it all! (HGH in particular)

JZed - the money was ONLY ever to raise awareness* of cancer, with a bit (up until about 5-7 years ago) going to research.

*By 'raise awareness' I mean fly by private jet/chauffeur driven car and stay in luxury hotels in lovely parts of the world to raise more donations

Anonymous

Oh wait, and on those 'cancer awareness' talks and trips, he essentially was telling the cancer suffers that they would/were dying because they didn't "wish" enough for the cancer to be gone, even though it is clinically proven that 'determination' has not been correlated in any way to cancer survival rates.

Anonymous

applied pressure? Forced. Read Brian Smith's testimony. He said no. 2 weeks later, contract terminated.

DonDaddyD

Rolf,

Truth is Lance probably did cheat. But the rest of the accusations are one sided because we haven't, and probably never will, hear the other side. We cannot take the 'reasoned decision' as a complete, entirely truthful and accurate account. But what we can speculate is that clearly there was practices of wrong doing and Lance was likely to be involved - we cannot confirm how much.

IMO, this has yet to do any good for cycling, it has the potential to if it doesn't stop at USPostal and leads to reform changes throughout the sport - other teams and those in charge. Right now all the this does is cast doubt on the young riders who came up at the end of Lance's reign. Such as what did Bruyneel give Contador? Andy and Frank Schleck? Cadek Evans?

Where is the line between a generation of dopers and a generation of clean riders? There clearly isn't one. So for this report to have purpose it needs to go right through the sport and clean house.

PBo

Remember when Dubya stole the White House the first time?

IIRC at the end, the final appeal for a recount was basically thrown out on the grounds of "the people don't like the uncertainty of not knowing the proper result, we need to have a president, so we'll stop messing around anymore and just let George Junior have it".

Clearly I'm over simplifying it - but at the time I found it hard to believe that they kind of gave up trying to find the truth, just because it was damaging the faith of the people in the system.

All the "it's not good for cycling, it was ages ago, why not go after everyone, they were all on it, the evidence is not enough" responses seem similar to me.

there was a case to be made and answered about one of the most sophisticated cheating operations seen in a sport. Doesn't matter whether it was Lance or someone else. they needed bringing to book.

All this "we'll never know, because it hasn't been challenged " is just a cop out. He could have challenged it. Even if he thought the system was rigged, he still would have been able to respond with counter testimony etc. And he could then have gone to CAS. (or are they also so jealous of his 7 titles they would have rigged it too?).

but no, he's "given in". except he hasn't because he keeps releasing pathetic lawyer statements about serial perjurers, and witch hunts and tax payers money, which are all smokescreens.

Actually, you know what? The best solution IS a witch hunt!! we'll put lance on a ducking school, and if he survives, those PEDS must have caused him to develop gills, so he's guilty.

If he drowns, then I'll believe him.....

tailwindhome

NVM

It's pointless discussing this with someone who brings Spiderman to the discussion

Yes it's important to keep an open mind, just not so open that your brain falls out the back.

EKE_38BPM

What is it that they say about arguing with idiots?

DonDaddyD

What is it that they say about arguing with idiots?

You know you've turned out to be a right prat to be honest.

AND

NVM

It's pointless discussing this with someone who brings Spiderman to the discussion

Yes it's important to keep an open mind, just not so open that your brain falls out the back.

What is incorrect with this assertion:

Truth is Lance probably did cheat. But the rest of the accusations are one sided because we haven't, and probably never will, hear the other side. We cannot take the 'reasoned decision' as a complete, entirely truthful and accurate account. But what we can speculate is that clearly there was practices of wrong doing and Lance was likely to be involved - we cannot confirm how much.

As Greg, a lawyer, put forwarded earlier. The claimant always puts forth a weighted argument in their favour. After a long judicial process the truth is found somewhere in the middle. I'm not so blind as these fools who have taken every account in the 'Reason Decision' as a full account of the absolute truth. It is not. At the same time I have changed my position on Lance and accepted that he probably did take performance enhancing drugs and was involved in wrong doing. What that is, no matter what the USDA claim, I will never ever truly know. Do you?

IMO, this has yet to do any good for cycling, it has the potential to if it doesn't stop at USPostal and leads to reform changes throughout the sport - other teams and those in charge. Right now all the this does is cast doubt on the young riders who came up at the end of Lance's reign. Such as what did Bruyneel give Contador? Andy and Frank Schleck? Cadek Evans?

Where is the line between a generation of dopers and a generation of clean riders? There clearly isn't one. So for this report to have purpose it needs to go right through the sport and clean house.

What good has it done for Cycling, TWH? If it stops at Lance and USPostal will it eliminate doubt cast on other riders.

Tell me where I am wrong as oppose to slaming e because I choose to remain objective

Hoopdriver

DonDaddyD wrote:

What is it that they say about arguing with idiots?

You know you've turned out to be a right prat to be honest.

AND

NVM

It's pointless discussing this with someone who brings Spiderman to the discussion

Yes it's important to keep an open mind, just not so open that your brain falls out the back.

What is incorrect with this assertion:

Truth is Lance probably did cheat. But the rest of the accusations are one sided because we haven't, and probably never will, hear the other side. We cannot take the 'reasoned decision' as a complete, entirely truthful and accurate account. But what we can speculate is that clearly there was practices of wrong doing and Lance was likely to be involved - we cannot confirm how much.

As Greg, a lawyer, put forwarded earlier. The claimant always puts forth a weighted argument in their favour. After a long judicial process the truth is found somewhere in the middle. I'm not so blind as these fools who have taken every account in the 'Reason Decision' as a full account of the absolute truth. It is not. At the same time I have changed my position on Lance and accepted that he probably did take performance enhancing drugs and was involved in wrong doing. What that is, no matter what the USDA claim, I will never ever truly know. Do you?

IMO, this has yet to do any good for cycling, it has the potential to if it doesn't stop at USPostal and leads to reform changes throughout the sport - other teams and those in charge. Right now all the this does is cast doubt on the young riders who came up at the end of Lance's reign. Such as what did Bruyneel give Contador? Andy and Frank Schleck? Cadek Evans?

Where is the line between a generation of dopers and a generation of clean riders? There clearly isn't one. So for this report to have purpose it needs to go right through the sport and clean house.

What good has it done for Cycling, TWH? If it stops at Lance and USPostal will it eliminate doubt cast on other riders.

Tell me where I am wrong as oppose to slaming e because I choose to remain objective

By your line of argument no one could ever be guilty of anything. Why bother having courts or enquiries at all? Why bother with science since nothing can ever be proven? We can all just float along on a cloud of unknowing, granting each side to every argument a perfect unreasoned merit no matter how irrational it may seem because we wish to remain 'objective'. That is not objective, that is being blinkered and silly.

DonDaddyD

By your line of argument no one could ever be guilty of anything. Why bother having courts or enquiries at all? Why bother with science since nothing can ever be proven?

No that is not what I am saying at all.

We can all just float along on a cloud of unknown e,ting each side to every argument a perfect unreasoned merit no matter how irrational it may seem because we wish to remain 'objective'. That is not objective, that is being blinkered and silly.

. We should, where possible, listen to each side of the argument. In this instance we don't know both sides so it is likely the unquestioned truth will never be known. The best anyone can say is it is probable that he took drugs and it is likely he was involved in wrong doing. I am no longer saying he did not cheat, take drugs or innocent of what he is accused of. At the same time I am not saying he absolutely did commit the crime. WHAT I am basically saying now - in laymen turns - is that on the balance of evidence as it stands(it may still change) it is probable that he did take performance enhancing drugs and it is likely he was involved in wrong doing. Judgement is passed within the boundaries of the law and rules this case adheres to.

If you cannot say 100% then you cannot pass judgement as an absolute.

Anonymous

I think probable is an understatement. I am quite happy to be in the 'beyond all reasonable doubt' camp, and to be honest, given the stories around the covered up positives, I would be happy to place my life on the fact that he did.


Purely from an objective perspective, obviously

Hoopdriver

DonDaddyD wrote:

By your line of argument no one could ever be guilty of anything. Why bother having courts or enquiries at all? Why bother with science since nothing can ever be proven?

No that is not what I am saying at all.

We can all just float along on a cloud of unknown e,ting each side to every argument a perfect unreasoned merit no matter how irrational it may seem because we wish to remain 'objective'. That is not objective, that is being blinkered and silly.

. We should, where possible, listen to each side of the argument. In this instance we don't know both sides so it is likely the unquestioned truth will never be known. The best anyone can say is it is probable that he took drugs and it is likely he was involved in wrong doing. I am no longer saying he did not cheat, take drugs or innocent of what he is accused of. At the same time I am not saying he absolutely did commit the crime. WHAT I am basically saying now - in laymen turns - is that on the balance of evidence as it stands(it may still change) it is probable that he did take performance enhancing drugs and it is likely he was involved in wrong doing. Judgement is passed within the boundaries of the law and rules this case adheres to.

If you cannot say 100% then you cannot pass judgement as an absolute.

It seems to me I described your position absolutely, although I expect that in back and white your position loos a bit fragile and so you disliked the description.

If you cannot pass a judgement unless you have 100% certainty, then we might as well forget the courts. Short of having video of a crime in the act of commission, multiple videos in fact, taken from a variety of angles and with full metadata to prove there had not been any tampering, how could you ever hope to have a conviction in your world? Even then there could b questions of identity, the possibility of disguises, twins, dopplegangers and on and on this could go, with you ultimately conceding a probability the defendant was guilty but still with an agnostic viewpoint as to actual proven guilt. This is silly.

tailwindhome

DDD, it's got to the point that no one on this forum can have any reasonable discussion with you on any topic.

Is it trolling or do you genuinely believe what you spout?

I don't know

Either way I'm out.

DonDaddyD

Why are you acting like its your time of the month?

I've acknowledged what the report is saying and the evidence is weighted heavily at the fact that Armstrong cheated amongst other things. It would be. I'm keen to see if Armstrong has anything to say. I want to wait until the UCI responds.

What we have heard/read is one side of a case, you shouldn't cast judgement until all available information/evidence has been heard.

People do this all the time, when Contador's test was revealed as positive everyone was so sure he cheated and that 'something he ate' was a weak excuse. Then more info came out that it wasn't enough to enhance performance and the dodgy meat argument became more plausible.

Going one step further, everyone shouted me down that the police couldn't possibly be wrong about Mark Duggan, that he shot at the police. After ALL the evidence was rrviewed of turned out that those grumble bums weren't as right as they thought.

So on this Armstrong thing, yes, it seems he was a bullying career ruining cheat. But the whole truth or as much as we are going to know hasn't come out yet.

Hoopdriver

DonDaddyD wrote:

Why are you acting like its your time of the month?

I've acknowledged what the report is saying and the evidence is weighted heavily at the fact that Armstrong cheated amongst other things. It would be. I'm keen to see if Armstrong has anything to say. I want to wait until the UCI responds.

What we have heard/read is one side of a case, you shouldn't cast judgement until all available information/evidence has been heard.

People do this all the time, when Contador's test was revealed as positive everyone was so sure he cheated and that 'something he ate' was a weak excuse. Then more info came out that it wasn't enough to enhance performance and the dodgy meat argument became more plausible.

Going one step further, everyone shouted me down that the police couldn't possibly be wrong about Mark Duggan, that he shot at the police. After ALL the evidence was rrviewed of turned out that those grumble bums weren't as right as they thought.

So on this Armstrong thing, yes, it seems he was a bullying career ruining cheat. But the whole truth or as much as we are going to know hasn't come out yet.

My time of the month?

You're unbelievably crude

As Tail Wind says, there's no point in furthering this.

I too am out

DonDaddyD

Hoopdriver wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Why are you acting like its your time of the month?

I've acknowledged what the report is saying and the evidence is weighted heavily at the fact that Armstrong cheated amongst other things. It would be. I'm keen to see if Armstrong has anything to say. I want to wait until the UCI responds.

What we have heard/read is one side of a case, you shouldn't cast judgement until all available information/evidence has been heard.

People do this all the time, when Contador's test was revealed as positive everyone was so sure he cheated and that 'something he ate' was a weak excuse. Then more info came out that it wasn't enough to enhance performance and the dodgy meat argument became more plausible.

Going one step further, everyone shouted me down that the police couldn't possibly be wrong about Mark Duggan, that he shot at the police. After ALL the evidence was rrviewed of turned out that those grumble bums weren't as right as they thought.

So on this Armstrong thing, yes, it seems he was a bullying career ruining cheat. But the whole truth or as much as we are going to know hasn't come out yet.

My time of the month?

Actually that was aimed at tailwindhome.

Bottomline you want me to agree with you, to say that without doubt he cheated and is guilty of the other accusations. To simply and blindly believe the 'reasoned decision'. I will not. What I see are accusations put forward and I haven't denied or ignored the validity of the 'reasoned decision'. At this stage I am not saying Lance did not take performance enhancing drugs. He probably did and it is probable that he is guilty of the other stuff he is accused of. That said, I simply choose to remain objective because there is often distance to travel between accusation and actual truth.

waddlie

Beyond reasonable doubt.

On the balance of probabilities.

That's all I'm saying.

DonDaddyD

The eloquent difference between a criminal and civil case in the UK.

If the two were jutifications that could be used in the same case to pass judgement, then I'd say it was the latter, not the former.

On the balance of probabilities he appears to be guilty. Because the case wasn't fought in court I cannot say 'beyond reasonable doubt' as Armstrong's account was never heard.

And that, my assertion above, is not wrong.

waddlie

So you think, on the balance of probabilities, he's guilty?

Just trying to clarify because I seem to be missing the point by a country mile.

DonDaddyD

Waddlie wrote:

So you think, on the balance of probabilities, he's guilty?

Just trying to clarify because I seem to be missing the point by a country mile.

What I am saying this:

Truth is Lance probably did cheat. But the rest of the accusations are one sided because we haven't, and probably never will, hear the other side. We cannot take the 'reasoned decision' as a complete, entirely truthful and accurate account. But what we can speculate is that clearly there was practices of wrong doing and Lance was likely to be involved - we cannot confirm how much he was involved.

I think people are getting upset because I won't take the 'reasoned decision' as gospel.

waddlie

Ok.

Struggling to understand the following timeline:

"I don't believe he cheated and never will."

USADA release information.

"I now believe he probably cheated, but not the other stuff about being an all round overlord bumhole."

How are you deciding what evidence to believe and what to discard?