it all seems like a witch hunt to ioan... I´m just filling in for ioan. he´s having a break now
Printable View
it all seems like a witch hunt to ioan... I´m just filling in for ioan. he´s having a break now
Damn. I had been thinking of hiring ioan as my solicitor, but on reading this thread I'm beginning to doubt his legal expertise.
Finally we can all sleep better at night. I'm not traying to defend Lance here, but it is amazing that all these years of testing nothing showed ,and now all these creepers are coming out and spilling the bins for sake of the sport(really?) or tv time ,book deals etc. Where was everyone before when they all got nice checks from federal agency sponsoring the team. I thought so, life was good and it's all about winning. We will never know the real story ,and if Lance blew competition in some high margon than I would understand big fuss, oterhwise to me looks like whole cycling circuit was big doping club and winner is one that does it better. Whole cycling circuit from A to Z should be punished equally in my opinion ,but they already are, therefore it's waste of money and time.
Well that's exactly the problem with the system when you could convict someone of murder without the actual proof just with testimonies of people who are trying to save their own backsides.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
As for cheating, they all cheated so one has to wonder why all of a sudden they are all becoming angels? Would it be because huge pressure form the USADA? Just wondering.
In the end I couldn't care less, but things need to be clear and regulated in a sensible way, not in witch hunting fashion.
How kind of you. LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Big Ben
Now bugger off and mind your own business.
I for one I am curious to see if all these wannabes will also get stripped of all their sporting achievements and their sponsorship money and so on, if after all they say the truth. I guess it won't happen as the USADA was only after Armstrong since the start of this whole thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by FIAT1
Time will tell.
I am not reading up on this but have a question:
Is the any material proof other that others testamoies ??
Yes there is
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
While I'm not surprised by the findings, I wasn't wholly aware of the full scale mass doping programme asking place. I knew there were whispers/ rumours about various things, but it's pretty sensational. As a cycling fan, it's both sad, and good. Most of the people he beat we're also doped; in fact, most of the post 1999 TdeF winners have been caught for doping. The only exceptions are 2008 Carlos Sastre, 2011 Cadel Evans, and 2012 Bradley Wiggins. I haven't counted Andy Schleck in 2010, as Bertie actually won it, but later had it taken away - similarly with Oscar Pereiro in 2006, after Floyd Landis had his taken away.
Also, don't assume cycling is the only 'dirty' sport. The are many more sports which are protected and turn a blind eye to doping, but claim they are clean. Yes, dream on....
A another forum I visit had this link to a BBC radio program, A bit long at 2 hours but very interesting listening.
BBC Radio 5 live - 5 live Sport, Peddlers - Cycling's Dirty Truth
Quote:
Hear from one of Armstrong's former team mates, Tyler Hamilton, as well as interviews with Dick Pound, the former head of WADA and Emma O'Reilly, Armstrong's former masseuse. Plus British cyclist David Millar who was banned for two years after admitting taking performance enhancing drugs and Christophe Basson, a French cyclist who was driven out of the sport by Armstrong and other riders after he spoke out against drugs
I smell a witch hunt. I've read up on it, and I'm sure that Lance Armstrong was doping -speculation on my part-, but this just screams witch hunt. Where is the proof? So far we have a bunch of disgruntled cyclists ratting out Lance. That's all well and nice, but show me the evidence! Show me the evidence! It's all well and nice that these guys are stabbing someone in the back, but where is Lance's pee-pee test failure? USADA got threatened by some higher authority (Jesus, probably) and is reacting in the most severe way possible.
Strip Lance of his titles, coerce his sponsors to drop him, and tarnish his reputation. Sickening!
read post 72 and the links in it:Quote:
Originally Posted by gloomyDAY
http://www.motorsportforums.com/chit...ml#post1073330
Positive retrospective EPO tests on blood samples taken before the EPO test was introduced in 2000.Quote:
Originally Posted by gloomyDAY
High EPO levels in a group of samples that include (but are not exclusively for) Lance from the Tour de Suisse 2001 with a refusal by Armstrong to give consent for his own sample result to be specifically made public.
Reduced reticulocyte count in samples from races in 2009 onwards in keeping with autologous blood transfusion.
Read the report. Its all in there.
He didn't test positive because as the report says, he and his team worked out how to get around the testing procedures. As EPO is only detectable for a short time after it's injected, it was just a matter of making sure you weren't tested during that time - which turned out was easy.
Plus the blood doping which went on after the EPO test was introduced is not detectable as its your own blood. It shows as highly suspicious when certain levels in the blood are high after being so far through a race and after previous low readings.
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
Well, looks like the bureaucrats have had their day in the sun.
Now, the real work begins.
Who, out of the present group of cyclists, will be able to sustain a chain of wins during a given season, muchless a TdeF win, and do it "clean". The hard part being trying this endeavor in the age of 'social media', where anyone with a smartphone and a youtube/twitter account can become an unofficial reporter.
In the report it says clearly that a retrospective retest of the 1999 samples (when EPO testing was not performed and therefore Lance and his team presumably didn't make any attempt to circumvent them) came back as positive. Once EPO testing was introduced from 2000 he and his team took steps not to get caught and therefore there aren't positive samples from that period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Thats probably the single most damning bit of evidence in the whole paper.
That will help; yes. It does seem that blood tests alone are no longer sufficient to detect doping, as there are ways around that. So it looks like cyclists and athletes in general will have to accept much closer monitoring.Quote:
Originally Posted by veeten
I think part of the issue was that the people looking for doping - namely the UCI, are the same people who are promoting cycling. Thus a conflict of interest, one shouldn't under estimate the amount of influence someone of the standing of Armstrong had at the time. Anyone standing up to him would find themselves out of a job really quickly, and few are prepared to take that risk.
It is also against the rules to fail to allow yourself to be tested.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Remember the Greek athletes Kenteris and Thanou who (repeatedly?) avoided testing and even faked a car accident
just prior the 2004 Olympics in Athens. As a result they were suspended and not allowed to compete in Athens.
Now I get it, retrospective testing of a 13 year old sample. And we are all sure that the sample wasn't tampered with? Don't know. Do you know it for sure?
Did it take science 13 years to devise a procedure that would change the outcome of the tests? Not sure about that.
Let's admit that the tests are 100% correct (which is not really possible but anyway), were all the other riders tested and retrospectively tested? Will they ban them all? It doesn't look like that to me.
What about those who doped back in the days before Lance Armstrong and were never caught and especially there are no samples to be tested retrospectively? Shall we let them keep their trophies?
Where those the retrospective testing start and where does it stop? Is it Arbitrarily defined?
It looks like game in which some people in key power positions are changing the rules of the game all the time in order to attain a predefined target, or you can just call it a witch hunt.
There are some things in the world that are useless and the USADA's hunt of Lance Armstrong is one of them. If they manage to turn him into a martyr then they will have absolutely failed at their own game.
Why? Did Lance Armstrong compete at a time when drugs were legal? Is the drugs ban retrospective or was it there at the time? What rules have been changed?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Any samples in themselves are not proof. The rest of it is and it's more than just hearsay.
There certainly was a ban on drugs before Armstrong's string of TdF wins, yet he's the one targeted out of plenty of riders. How do we call that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
Sure thing. Lance is the only cyclist from that era to be targeted for drug use. Right.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
The other riders didn't win 7 Tour de France's in a row, and they were prepared to admit it too.
In excess of 75% of podium finishers in the Tour de France in the period 1997 to 2005 (possibly to 2009) have been caught, implicated or confessed doping and have had bans, how you can say that they are singling out Lance is beyond me. Prior to that period the samples aren't available and testing was no good. Since then the testing and procedures is vastly improved and the teams and organisers are taking an active anti doping stance rather than turning a blind eye or actively promoting it.
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
Nail on head - they've proven themselves poor at doing both. They should regulate cycling, and nothing else. Others should be Promoting the different cycling disciplines - similar to the FiA with F1, WRC, WEC, WTCC, etcQuote:
Originally Posted by Mark
So how many of them have had life bans and have been trashed in public like this?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinho
Also how many of them have been done with a 13 years old sample?
For how many of them did they heard together several dozens of 'witnesses' who all have a personal issue with Armstrong?
The question isn't if Armstrong doped, they all did. The issue is with the way in which 'justice' is being done.
If you have nothing against strange justice and judgements done with and through mass media, fine, however this is not the way justice is meant to be done in modern democratic world.
The bans others received were proportionate to their offences at the time as per the rules in place. It is also proportinate to the cooperation they had when caught/investigated. Multiple cyclists at the height of their careers have had 2 year bans from their sport. A life ban from a professional elite physical sport when you are twice retired and over 40 is purely decorative. There have been at least 3 riders since this has all come out in the last couple of weeks who have confessed to using the same doping methods as detailed in USADA's report. They have been dropped by their teams and been banned. several ex riders who are now involved in teams who have been implicated by this scandal have been sacked and or banned. There is every chance of there being further criminal charges against seme of the dr's etc who are implicated in this scandal.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
The public trashing is directly proportional to the status of the athlete involved. outside of cycling who really knows much about Floyd Landis, Tyler Hamilton, Bjarne Rjiis, Marco Pantani etc. There bans and doping made little more than a few days/weeks sports page news due to their status. Lance Armstrong has a much wider appeal, due in part to his success, his cancer survival, his foundation (I can't call it a charity, have a little dig to see how much of the Livestrong money raised has actually been used in cancer research). he has courted the media to enhance his profile all his career, he has several best selling books, celebrity relationships etc beyond his sport. The media attention is therefore directly proportional to his status.
They are debating whether to reopen previous cases, look into other old sample from previous events, etc, this is the tip of a potential rewriting of the recent history of cycling. there are 2 competing voices within the UCI, whether to draw a line and do the best they can going forward to improve doping education, testing, transparency etc or whether to also dig up everything they can about the last 10-15 years.
In terms of justice, bear in mind the financial implications, the prizemoney, the sponsors bonuses received by all these riders and teams who were not only cheating, but engaging in illegal activity in some european coutries. like I said there could be criminal charges as a repercussion of all of this.
The judgements themselves were provided a. by the USADA and b. by the UCI, not by the media, althogh they have reported all the evidence. I for one welcome the tranparency allowing what is an informed decision. this is of course only available as evidence for the prosecution, but it was Armstrong himself who denied himself his opportunity to provide a defence in a bona-fide arbitration, meaning that USADA coule do nothing other than submit their report to UCI. Modern media, beyond the tabloid headlines, has allowed far greater ability for us to actually review the same evidence as the decision makes. should people not wish to and only rely on the headlines written by those who did read it, then that is up to them.
whether Lance has been targetted, or suffered more than others is certainly up for debate, but I feel given the rewards he made from a career of cheating and then lying about it (including under oath) the attention he has received has been proportionate. It is probably the only way that cycling can rid itself of the image and rumours going forward, by taking the full action they can against as many of the protaganists from the period in question.
I only hope that Lance does either choose to provide a reasoned evidence based defence, or comes clean. the only the way the 2nd will happen is through another book, which will sell millions and will probably recoup whatever he has to repay or loses from sponsors.
as an aside, I still think the physical acheivement in his 7 tour "wins" is incredible. he was far from the only doper, and he still beat them all, repeatedly
Lance made it a public issue that he wasn't doping and still refuses to admit it. So it should be made public and a big thing made of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Justice is supposed to be the same in every possible world. You do the crime, you do the time. Simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Ioan. I've seen a lot of posts from you that made me laugh, but for all the 10 years I've been in here, I can't remember you talking trash like you have done in this thread. Do you want to found the Curch of the Seventh Win Apologists? Are you paid by the Liestrong Foundation or by Armstrongs Demand Media spin-doctors?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Of course Armstrong gets a harder punishment than others. Just as you get a harder punishment for blackmailing someone as opposed to shop-lifting.
Whether the sample is 13 years old or 13 minutes doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. It still proves that he doped and he stated under oath that he didn't and he filed bogus lawsuits against people, who said he did. He pressured other riders to take part in Michele Ferrari's organized doping system. He harrassed riders, who dared to break the Omertá. He didn't just dope, he furthered it. That deserves jail-time, not just a lifetime ban.
He (ab)used the hero status he gained from seven fraudulent Tour de France wins to setup a bogus charity of which he extracted a lot of money from. He used it as a shield against all allegations.
Justice was attempted to be done, but Birotte was forced to drop the lawsuit, because the Washington regime was afraid of taking down a 'national hero' in an election year.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
How democratic was Lance's world? He was proved guilty of doping three times:Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
- 1999 he was positive for corticostereoids, but the UCI covered it up by accepting a back-dated prescription from the team doctor. He didn't have a TUE, so he was positive despite the forged prescription.
- He tested positive for EPO in the 2001 Tour de Suisse. Not long after the UCI received a 25.000$ donation from Armstrong and the test was covered up
- 6 of his 1999 urine samples were tested positive for EPO. Again the UCI refused to ban him.
How many more proof do you need? And Armstrong is facing a ****storm because it isn't the mere doping. Just look at this little laundry list:
- defrauded SCA by suing them to pay several million buck in bonuses for his TdF wins, even though they were achived in a fraudulent manner.
- pressured Trek into forcing Greg Lemond out of business after the latter had accused Armstrong of doping.
- assulted and harrassed Hamilton when he learned that he would testify against him in the Feds investigation
- terrorized Levy Leipheimers wife after learning that Leipheimer would testify
- slandered Frankie Andreu and his wife after those two testified against him in the SCA lausuit.
- bullied Christophe Bassons out of the sport
- Harrassed Fillipo Simeoni during the 18th stage of the 2004 TdF in plain view of the cameras
- Filed a bogus lawsuit against Simeoni, because the latter had accused Armstrong of being a client of Michele Ferrari, which was proven to be true now.
- tried to blackmail Barrack Obama into attending a Livestrong event in 2005 (Selen Roberts' Sen. Kerry's eyewitness account)
That man isn't a hero - he's bloody psychopath.
Several have spoken up way before the USADA case. Bassons did and was bullied out of the sport. Simeoni did and both Armstrong and the UCI retalliated severely. Frankie and Betsy Andreu did and and were harrassed and slandered by Armstrong. Floyd Landis confessed already two years ago - ask him how much good it did him. Leipheimer, Hincapie and Co. would have said anything hadn't they been subpoenaed during the Federal investigation. That was before the USADA case. The fact is, until recently breaking the Omertá was career suicide and Armstrong was its fierced enforcer.Quote:
Originally Posted by FIAT1
That's male bovine excrement. First of all not everyonbe was doping. Christophe Bassons for instance didn't. And not everyone took every drug this side of Agent Orange, like Armstrong did. Not everyone had the luxury of a complicit gouverning body that covered up doping positives.Quote:
Originally Posted by FIAT1
The whole thing of 'they all did it, so it was a level playing field is bull$hit. Zabel for instance went on Terrorkoms doping program in 1996, but had to stop after a week, because he suffered severe adverse reaction, so basically he couldn't dope with EPO, like most others because his body couldn't cope with it.
Did you really write that after what you've described in the Assange thread where you've decided he's innocent purely through what you've read in the mass media?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
There are quite a few parallels with the Savile case here - (what Savile did was an order of magnitude worse of course), that things were either covered up or ignored for many years.
Lance Armstrong is going to give an exclusive interview to Oprah Winfrey. Wow, she'll really get to the truth with her tough no-holds-barred interview technique. Thank goodness he's not British otherwise he'd have to go head to head with Fearne Cotton....
Or Phillip Schofield, who'd probably show Armstrong a list of drugs people on the internet have said he took.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
This was very awful for me.As I was a great fan to him.But when I came to know the sad news then I really get surprised.
they should dismantle that bike and shove it right up his ass.
Quite surprised to hear that from you Unc's. As a 'good ole boy", I thought you would stick your head in the sand as I found a lot of Texans doing when I was in Austin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
Surprised but impressed :up: