meanwhile

It's hardly just Landis. There are at least five witnesses including some of LA's closet friends, an EPO test, and LA's hiring of the world's most famous dope doctor...

What are you, 12?

Except five witnesses and an EPO test...

frpax

Nice pun

telebianchi

Sorry....missed your response.
Please provide proof that it has had no real cost for LA. Leaving his motivations out of it for a second, he has put time into it. If time = money, then there has been real cost to him. And anyway, why should his cancer work have cost to him to be morally redemptive?

Please provide me your measure of "normal intelligence" so I know in to which percentile of the general population I fall.

So now I'm not morally responsible? I'm not saying that LA has not skirted around questions by changing the subject, but you make it sound like LAF was set up and is run for the purpose of covering LA racing transgressions.

Wrong. I had a kick ass time participating in a two-day ride through beautiful farm and horse country. Got fed good food; drank good beer. The time and effort involved was doing something I enjoy doing and do do almost every weekend. My only extra effort was sending a couple emails and talking to friends. Oh! That was such a sacrifice for me. My personal gain (food, drink, fun, exercise, new friends, feeling good, having people think more of my because of my participation) far outweighs any extra effort I put into it.

While I don't doubt that LA's personal gains for his efforts is greater than mine, I'd also venture that what he puts into LAF is more than I put into a weekend charity bike ride.
Thank you, because I is simple minded. Geeze, even when someone agrees with you, you take an opportunity to insult.



So, you now have proof that LA has worked independently of anyone else in pro cycling to corrupt the inspectors and the UCI? Please post your sources because I am sure there are many who would be interested in reading about that. Because those people were pure as the fallen snow before LA showed up on the scene.

guadzilla

Very well put. However, I think you are fighting a losing cause by trying to convince people to see in anything other than black and white.

For some people, thinking rationally and understanding nuances such as a person that can do good and be selfish at the same time requires too much intellectual effort. And hero-worship clouds any remaining brain cells.

V.

rogwilco

Besides Landis' recent allegations about the connection of donating money and concealing positives and being warned in advance of controls which there's no real proof for yet, something that requires no proof because everyone who followed cycling could clearly see it is, that Armstrong has acted as the self-appointed leader of the peloton and viewed himself as such too at least since his post-cancer comeback. That is something he wouldn't even disagree with himself (I think he even said so directly in a recent interview, I can't remember where it was though).
He always took it upon himself to enforce cycling Omerta, single-handedly punishing cyclists who dared to open their mouths about doping practices, shunning journalists who wrote about doping, ridiculing cyclists who were outspoken about wanting cycling to be clean, complaining about doping controls both for himself and on behalf of others, etc. None of that is in any way a secret.

Armstrong is not like any other cyclist in that regard, nobody else would or could be so brazen about supporting doping (and get away with it).

StumpJumperFSR

You have to look at who the witnesses are...and the context and motive behind their statements. A lot of them were EPO users themselves no who might have something to gain from making such statements.

Contador was also linked to that dope doctor.

Say you join a nice gym, and you hire Harry McBeanz as a personal trainer. He is very good at what he does, and has a lot of knowledge as far as training regimens, etc. Now say McBeanz is arrested for selling PEDS to other guys that he was training. Does that mean you should automatically get linked to using PEDS? Absolutely not, because one, you didn't know of his illegal activities, and you weren't using PEDs.

TechKnowGN

Let me put it this way then:

I liked Michael Jacksons music. He was a screwed up alleged child molestor. Didnt make his music from the 80s and early 90s any less of an innovation.

Lance Armstrong is doing good things for cancer research. I've lost family members to the disease so to say it wouldnt be an emotional thing for me would be a lie. I gave long before he came around, thank you very much. When I said Im inspired by him, I meant a guy who went through what he did and got back on the bike not once but twice. Even if he hadnt won any of the big races, hed still be inspirational from that.

And is he the only person ever to make money on appearances talking about his life events? Tons of people who are famous go on to expensive speaking careers. Unlike most others, most of the money related to his life experiences now go to a worthwhile charity, by way of the fundraising done by others.

Also, you're putting as much bias into your "rationality" as others are. Yours is just making an assumption of guilt and therefore damning his character while others are not.

meanwhile

This is beyond silly. Armstrong's personal brand has been increased more by his association with cancer than with racing - plus his use of his cancer work as a shield has huge value to him. The time he has spent on cancer work is one of the most profitable investments any cyclists has ever made. Now, you might not agree that LA did the work for that value - I don't honestly know myself* - but to not understand that there is that benefit is a huge failure of intelligence and common sense.

*My bet is that the cancer work started out as a way of making himself feel better and avoiding dealing with the fact that he had cancer because he was a dope cheat. Then he and his managers discovered that it greatly increased his celebrity and endorsement value, and so to the current situation.

meanwhile

This, again, is silly. I have no bias one way or another - LA is nothing to me. The reasons I think he is guilty are -

- A stack of very high quality witnesses, many of who have a personal bias towards him

- A drug test

- His hiring of the world's leading dope doctor

- His public intimidation of anti-doping riders

- His use of a doping coach

- His being surrounded by doping team mates

- His hiring of an anti-dope doctor during the office season with huge PR, followed by his quiet firing before he could start meaningful work

- A taped conversation with one of his closest aids discussing his doping habits

- His following tactics in the last TDF that were exactly those required to avoid effective EPO tests

- What appear to be bribes to the UCI

- His bizarre blood test results that suggest the use of massive blood transfusions

This isn't bias, it's evidence. I don't see how the man could look any more guilty other than by wearing a jersey that says "I use dope - ask me HOW!"

meanwhile

Like what? Alienating some of the most powerful people who could help them? And what motive did his personal assistant have to discuss his doping in the call that LeMond secretly taped if he wasn't doping?

This would be a reasonable argument if Ferrari had such expertise. In fact, he is so committed to the use of EPO and other drugs - openly so, for which I respect him - that it is doubtful if any significant expertise in how a non-doped rider's body responds to training.

Homebrew01

Hey, no fair listing multiple facts in the same post !

StumpJumperFSR

And how do you explain how he has passed the thousands of drug tests he has taken. Also, how come he didn't test positive once in the 2009 Tour? If he is using EPO how come he still placed 3rd at his age? There is just no way that he wouldn't test positive once in the thousands of officially sanctioned tests. You can't include the other EPO test because it was done years after the fact, in which protocol, and the integrity of the test, was obviously broken. The test could of definitely been tainted.

Surely he would of tested positive at least once during all those tests right? What is your argument there?

You have a one-sided view of things. If you can't be objective and admit to the other facts that doesn't point to Lance then there is no point debating this.

umd

I have no axe against him, but there are many examples of riders who tested clean for a long time before eventually being caught or admitting it. Like it or not, the tests are not perfect; they are relatvely easy to fool and the doping/masking technology is far ahead of the testing technology. Not testing positive is not proof of not doping.

rogwilco

Unfortunately lack of positive tests doesn't mean lack of doping.
On the previous page I asked you if you think Pantani, Ullrich, Basso, Valverde, Riis, Zabel, Virenque, Rasmussen are/were clean too? Do you have an answer yet?

Btw, I also strongly doubt he's had anywhere close to 1000 tests (not that it would matter, especially in light of Landis' recent explanations).

StumpJumperFSR

I do not know the circumstances of those riders. A lot of them had a 'smoking gun' behind their involvement. Rasmussen, not so much, but Lance never missed a test like Rasmussen. With Lance you still don't have that positive test, or bags of blood in the doping doctor's office like Ullrich did.

So you think Landis is credible? If you think Landis is credible there is no point arguing, because Landis is about as credible as someone accusing Lance on this forum.

StumpJumperFSR

How did Lance fool a thousand tests? Tests which happen randomly, at any time. Yes a lot of people here have good points, but I think he would of tested positive at least once...he would of slipped, made some kind of miscalculation, etc. or hard evidence of doping material would of been found on him, in his car, etc. You say it's easy, but how do any of you know...you guys aren't tour riders that have to undergo as many tests as these guys do. That said maybe he did get away with it. I / we just don't know.

rogwilco

None of them ever tested positive, that's all I wanted to say, and I could make the list much, much longer too.

Of course Landis is credible, his explanations regarding the technicalities of how he dopes make sense and have already been corroborated by people who are very credible and know what they are talking about (Catlin, Ashenden).

Jed19

Marion Jones never failed a drug test either. She was tested extensively by the USOC and the governing authority for world track sports, yet she never failed a drug test. Her ex-husband CJ Hunter talked about personally injecting her with steroids, which she denied.

Ultimately she admitted using PEDs, and she was then stripped of her olympic medals.

My main point is that she passed every godamm test, until she confessed.

And another thing, I think the sh*t will hit the fan once people start receiving subpoenas, and they understand that they will end up in jail if they lie. Former US Postal riders, their wives and ex-wives, girlfriends are gonna get subpoenaed, ex-team workers, probably Johan Bruyneel etc Once these people are read the riot act by their soon-to-be-hired criminal defense lawyers, deals are gonna be made galore.

It is not gonna be pretty.

merlinextraligh

One, I bet you don't even konw who they are. Two, at least 3 of them were not cyclists, and have never been accused of doping. Three, At least two of them only testified aganist Armstrong under subpoena, and at huge personal cost. For a period of time, Frankie Andreu's career in cycling was ruined because he chose not to perjure himself when forced to testify under subepeoa.

Tell what Frankie's miotive was? What was in it for him?

And even if you can cast some doubts on sone of the witnessses, the accumulate weight becomes too much to explain away. It's difficult to conivce objective people that everyone esle is lying and only you are tell in gthe truth.

merlinextraligh

He avoided testing positive by staying ahead of the testing protocals. And when they turned back the clock by testing frozen 1999 samples with tests that weren't available in 1999, he did test positive.

There is a littany of prven dopers who never tested postive. Its a very weak argument. All you have to do is look at the people such as Ivan Basso, who never tested psotive, but were prove to have doped in Operation Puerto.

There have always been ways to beat the tests.

StumpJumperFSR

Yes, but like I said, Ulrich...they found blood bags of Ulrich's blood in the dope doctor's office. Rasmussen missed a test. Maybe Basso was proved to dope in operation Puerto...

Thing is this...they didn't find blood bags of lance's blood....Lance never missed a test on purpose or accidentally like Rasmussen said....and Lance wasn't proved to have dope in operation Puerto...

1slowbastard

Armstrong HAS hidden from testers to intentionally delay testing. But it doesn't matter, you've proven that you are incapable of rational debate on this subject. Your ability to pull numbers and facts out of your ass is impressive though.

umd

It never ceases to amaze me how poorly some people grasp logic and rational thought.

StumpJumperFSR

Until Lance tests positive and the TDF finds concrete evidence to ban him from the sport, I'd rather not crucify him. That's just not the way the world works. You can't throw a guy in jail just because you make an assumption based on subjective evidence. less than credible witnesses(a lot of them with personal vendettas), and even that 99 EPO Test, which can and was refuted LOGICALLY:

https://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cyclin...ory?id=2464102


You guys could argue logic all day...but the same people that cry logic are the same people that lack objectivity. If there is so much evidence against Lance, why is he still in the tour, and why is he still racing, unlike those that were caught....

umd

I'm not crucifying him. I have no opinion on the matter and honestly don't really care, but lack of a positive test is NOT proof of innocence.