[cavalierfc.tumblr.com]

There’s a lot of misinformation out there following Lance Armstrong’s decision to accept a life ban rather than contest charges of doping. Let’s correct some of it, and show you the man behind all of the myths. As we go along, you’ll see that allegations against Armstrong have been there not just since he began winning the Tour de France, but that he’s been associated with people around doping almost since he began competing in organised sport. Be warned: This is a very long read. I intended it to be as concise as possible, and for that reason I’ve been unable to shorten it.

---

Cool. Does it somewhere give proof he ever failed a drug test?

"he’s been associated with people around doping almost since he began competing in organised sport"

All my friends in high school smoked pot. I did not. Ever. So, I was around people who did these things.

BIG FRIGGIN WHOOP.

Quote
chopper
Cool. Does it somewhere give proof he ever failed a drug test?

"he’s been associated with people around doping almost since he began competing in organised sport"

All my friends in high school smoked pot. I did not. Ever. So, I was around people who did these things.

BIG FRIGGIN WHOOP.

This... squared...

---

Paul F.
-----
A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca c. 5 BC - 65 AD
----
Good is the enemy of Excellent. Talent is not necessary for Excellence.
Persistence is necessary for Excellence. And Persistence is a Decision.
--
Eureka, CA

"Carmichael’s response to Lance Armstrong’s acceptance of is ban is simple: He believes that Lance was the best athlete, but at no point does he say that Armstrong never doped - he only made a statement that he’d never seen him do so. The lack of a specific denial there is key and follows a very clear theme - Armstrong would never say that he’d never doped. Instead, he would say one of two themes, that he’d either never tested positive (note here: this isn’t correct, and we’ll go over that later), or that he’d never been caught."

This is why I believe Lance doped. He has never denied doping, always evading the question.

Put yourself in a similar situation and answer the question yourself:

"Were you speeding?" "I wasn't caught speeding."
"Did you steal that Picasso?" "Nobody saw me steal anything."
"Have you even been in a Turkish prison?"
"Have you even seen a grown man naked?"

I may have gone on a tangent there…

I'm not a cyclist and I really don't have a dog in this fight in the way of actually caring about this apparent outcome, but I am perplexed by a few things.

* Given his huge visibility, how did he evade direct detection for so long? Not tattle; talk is cheap, but DETECTION. Plenty of people in the sport must have incentives to be "the one" who dethrones somebody like that with their expertise.

* If doping occurred, clearly it led to tremendous success. There are enormous incentives for this to spread to other competitors, other sports, other applications/industries altogether. How were the details of the drug and/or procedures he followed kept so secret that others could not replicate them (and thus, his success) AND that the rules could not be changed to detect them?

* Do I understand correctly that even stored samples of his juices do not indicate the presence of illicit materials or procedures using today's technology?

* What assurance is there that the person who "inherits" the titles, who at the time was not under the degree of scrutiny that Armstrong was, also did not dope? Have their juices been subject to the same testing?

There comes a point where, if someone under a sufficiently high degree of scrutiny is not demonstrated to have broken a rule, that one might just have to conclude that a rule has not been broken. Vendetta-level remediation so long after the fact which ultimately succeeds simply because the accused stops fighting back seriously undermines the entire sport to being just a bunch of designer druggies on machines. If the rules or procedures need to be changed, change them, but that's a different situation than persecuting somebody for being at the edge of the set of rules that existed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2012 12:22PM by tenders.

Quote

If you’ve read this far, congratulations. You’re probably in one of three mindsets:

1. Stunned at the extent of what has gone on and amazed. ...

2. Completely disagreeing with everything I’ve shown you here, and labelling me a hater. If so, you’re looking for something you’ll never find. Enjoy your yellow wristbands, post on Lance’s facebook about how he’s an idol and role model. People who saw his behaviour will disagree, and they’ve a little more experience than you.

3. Thinking ‘I knew this already’. ...

---

Quote
Lew Zealand
"Carmichael’s response to Lance Armstrong’s acceptance of is ban is simple: He believes that Lance was the best athlete, but at no point does he say that Armstrong never doped - he only made a statement that he’d never seen him do so. The lack of a specific denial there is key and follows a very clear theme - Armstrong would never say that he’d never doped. Instead, he would say one of two themes, that he’d either never tested positive (note here: this isn’t correct, and we’ll go over that later), or that he’d never been caught."

This is why I believe Lance doped. He has never denied doping, always evading the question.

Put yourself in a similar situation and answer the question yourself:

"Were you speeding?" "I wasn't caught speeding."
"Did you steal that Picasso?" "Nobody saw me steal anything."
"Have you even been in a Turkish prison?"
"Have you even seen a grown man naked?"

I may have gone on a tangent there…

That isn't definitive. That's intelligent. In a legal environment it's best to not lead in any direction. Whatever you say, one way or the other, your opponent will gear up to prosecute you based on what you say. The less you say, the less your opponent has to work with.

Thanks for posting. None of this is any sort of surprise. It reminds me of the 'roid' use in US professional sports as well. Or the use of speed before steroirds were developed.

It's always there. It's known but ignored.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2012 12:24PM by cbelt3.

There is another problem with trying to test Lance Armstrong for doping. He DID use EPO, but it was approved as part of his recovery from cancer treatment. He had to. He would have died otherwise.

Chemically enhanced, or not, he is a freak of nature, and clearly a super villain for having avoided detection for so long.

---

**************************************
Nothing to see here, move along.

Quote
Lew Zealand
This is why I believe Lance doped. He has never denied doping, always evading the question.

That always struck me as odd as well. But what really did it for me was that he testified under oath that he did dope.

Quote
tenders
* Given his huge visibility, how did he evade direct detection for so long? Not tattle; talk is cheap, but DETECTION. Plenty of people in the sport must have incentives to be "the one" who dethrones somebody like that with their expertise.

"The Clear"

Quote

* If doping occurred, clearly it led to tremendous success. There are enormous incentives for this to spread to other competitors, other sports, other applications/industries altogether. How were the details of the drug and/or procedures he followed kept so secret that others could not replicate them (and thus, his success) AND that the rules could not be changed to detect them?

Others did, through every sport. Even olympic athletes. And why couldn't they be detected? Again, The Clear. Plus I imagine there was a pretty high price tag to entry.

Quote

* Do I understand correctly that even stored samples of his juices do not indicate the presence of illicit materials or procedures using today's technology?

Again, doesn't matter - The Clear.

Quote

* What assurance is there that the person who "inherits" the titles, who at the was not under the degree of scrutiny that Armstrong was, also did not dope? Have their juices been subject to the same testing?

Everyone on the podium with him for his Tour victories has also been found guilty of doping.

Quote

There comes a point where, if someone under a sufficiently high degree of scrutiny is not demonstrated to have broken a rule, that one might just have to conclude that a rule has not been broken.

He testified, in court, under oath, that he took "The Clear" which allowed him to not test positive. Sorry, but that doesn't somehow mean he didn't do it. But your logic appears to be the same as Lance's. The rules were that if you test positive, you get in trouble. So he played by those rules and made sure he didn't test positive.

I suppose you think Josh Powell was a great guy since they've never found his wife's body. The fact he doused his house in gas, locked his kids in side and burned the house down probably is meaningless to you since Susan's body is still missing.

---

Help MacInTouch: Buy from Amazon? use this link [amazon.com]
Mac News & Info: [macintouch.com] [macnn.com] [tuaw.com]
Mac Benchmarks: [barefeats.com]
Used Mac Stuff [FS/T]: [macswap.org] LowEndMac Swap List
Mac Software Updates: [macupdate.com]
Fonts: [dafont.com] [fontspace.com]
Online Computer Store With Mac Support: [macsales.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2012 12:26PM by M A V I C.

Quote
vision63

Quote
Lew Zealand
"Carmichael’s response to Lance Armstrong’s acceptance of is ban is simple: He believes that Lance was the best athlete, but at no point does he say that Armstrong never doped - he only made a statement that he’d never seen him do so. The lack of a specific denial there is key and follows a very clear theme - Armstrong would never say that he’d never doped. Instead, he would say one of two themes, that he’d either never tested positive (note here: this isn’t correct, and we’ll go over that later), or that he’d never been caught."

This is why I believe Lance doped. He has never denied doping, always evading the question.

Put yourself in a similar situation and answer the question yourself:

"Were you speeding?" "I wasn't caught speeding."
"Did you steal that Picasso?" "Nobody saw me steal anything."
"Have you even been in a Turkish prison?"
"Have you even seen a grown man naked?"

I may have gone on a tangent there…

That isn't definitive. That's intelligent. In a legal environment it's best to not lead in any direction. Whatever you say, one way or the other, your opponent will gear up to prosecute you based on what you say. The less you say, the less your opponent has to work with.

I completely agree. It doesn't have a shred of legal support, by design.

.....thought this would be about LANCING.....a boil.....

---

____________________________________________________

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

it also does seem quite strange that Lance would keep a doctor around who is a known doper.

frankly, i don't care that much how people feel about lance, but i do prefer they have exposure to this kind of info as it has a hard time finding its way into the mainstream.

Quote
mattkime
frankly, i don't care that much how people feel about lance, but i do prefer they have exposure to this kind of info as it has a hard time finding its way into the mainstream.

Thanks for that. I work with a cyclist who follows the pro tours and he has mentioned and sent me a lot of the information in that article but it was nice to see it presented coherently in one location.

Quote
M A V I C
I suppose you think Josh Powell was a great guy since they've never found his wife's body. The fact he doused his house in gas, locked his kids in side and burned the house down probably is meaningless to you since Susan's body is still missing.

I have not a clue what you are talking about. Is this another local murder that made it onto cable TV?

---

"You can believe me because I never lie and I'm always right."

I think that we already saw the link that all the people who placed second to Armstrong had their own doping scandals.

Why this need to go back and retroactively punish athletes for this stuff? Why not move forward and see if it is possible to improve things in the future?

To me, this is an incredibly lazy-ass way to appear to be "doing something" about doping when in fact it doesn't do jack.

---

"You can believe me because I never lie and I'm always right."

Until such a time that it is proven that he failed a drug test, he is innocent in my book.

More than anything about all this hoopla is proof that USADA is a mafia-esque organization that should be stripped of all public money which would result in its complete dismantling.

Last I checked people were innocent until proven guilty. That doesn't mean that guilty people don't go free, but if it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt then that person should not face persecution or harm for violations that anyone can allege, substantiated or not.

There's a LOT of allegations and heresy and conjecture in this case but NO evidence and yet USADA is proceeding as if they have achieved a very high standard (that of 'beyond reasonable doubt') they have not come close to proving.

Lance Armstrong will face the court of public opinion for the rest of his life. Many will love him and many will hate him.

USADA, on the other hand, has now solidified its self-fulfilling prophesy to be investigator, prosecutor, jury, judge and executioner. I'd refuse to play in their sandbox too if I was Lance Armstrong.

~A



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2012 02:13PM by tahoedrew.

Hats off to Greg LeMond, still the only unquestioned American Tour de France winner (1989, 1990).

"More than anything about all this hoopla is proof that USADA is a mafia-esque organization that should be stripped of all public money which would result in its complete dismantling." - tahoedrew

I lean this way. I heard two of their guys on NPR and they seemed to me sort of vigilante, obsessed, self-righteous bureaucrats chasing Moby Dick.

I don't see anything new here.

The poster essentially repeats what the USADA's CEO has said in interviews: "we've got plenty of witnesses."

But we don't know exactly what those witnesses were offered (or threatened with) in exchange for their testimony.

I doubt the USADA arbitration process (where the USADA sets all the rules) would allow any questioning along those lines.

But whether or not a witness is under duress speaks directly to the credibility of their testimony.

It appears clear that the USADA was created specifically to bypass protections any accused would enjoy in a criminal (or even civil) proceeding.

Quote
chopper
Until such a time that it is proven that he failed a drug test, he is innocent in my book.

+1.

Quote
chopper
Until such a time that it is proven that he failed a drug test, he is innocent in my book.

He took a drug to clear his system and prevent him from testing positive. He's not going to fail the test.

Is his own admission, in court, under oath not enough for you? If he wasn't given immunity when testifying, this would all be a moot point.

---

Help MacInTouch: Buy from Amazon? use this link [amazon.com]
Mac News & Info: [macintouch.com] [macnn.com] [tuaw.com]
Mac Benchmarks: [barefeats.com]
Used Mac Stuff [FS/T]: [macswap.org] LowEndMac Swap List
Mac Software Updates: [macupdate.com]
Fonts: [dafont.com] [fontspace.com]
Online Computer Store With Mac Support: [macsales.com]

Quote
chopper
Cool. Does it somewhere give proof he ever failed a drug test?

Didn't 60 Minutes already prove a failed test in 2001?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2012 04:40PM by silvarios.

Quote
M A V I C
Is his own admission, in court, under oath not enough for you? If he wasn't given immunity when testifying, this would all be a moot point.

Do you have a link?

Quote
M A V I C

He took a drug to clear his system and prevent him from testing positive. He's not going to fail the test.

Is his own admission, in court, under oath not enough for you? If he wasn't given immunity when testifying, this would all be a moot point.

Link please. Without documentation, this didn't happen.

---

"So be proud to be a decent American instead of just a w'anker whipping up fear!" - Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland

Quote
Bill in NC
I don't see anything new here.

The poster essentially repeats what the USADA's CEO has said in interviews: "we've got plenty of witnesses."

But we don't know exactly what those witnesses were offered (or threatened with) in exchange for their testimony.

I doubt the USADA arbitration process (where the USADA sets all the rules) would allow any questioning along those lines.

But whether or not a witness is under duress speaks directly to the credibility of their testimony.

It appears clear that the USADA was created specifically to bypass protections any accused would enjoy in a criminal (or even civil) proceeding.

That is the part that red flags it the most for me. These guys were trying to save their own butts and were willing to say they had monkeys coming out of their rear ends. I am not saying he isn't a doper or not, the methods are suspect to me.

---

Please "Like" the Meiwah restaurant page because you love the place or you pity me [www.facebook.com]

Quote
Yoyodyne ArtWorks
Hats off to Greg LeMond, still the only unquestioned American Tour de France winner (1989, 1990).

Sorry, make that three-time Tour de France winner (1986, 1989, 1990). The second two came after he was almost killed in a hunting accident.

But you guys keep talkin' about this Armstrong fella if you like...

Just put an asterix next to his name in the recordbooks and move on. —Barry Bonds

Quote
davester

Quote
M A V I C

He took a drug to clear his system and prevent him from testing positive. He's not going to fail the test.

Is his own admission, in court, under oath not enough for you? If he wasn't given immunity when testifying, this would all be a moot point.

Link please. Without documentation, this didn't happen.

I posted it the last time you asked for it.

---

Help MacInTouch: Buy from Amazon? use this link [amazon.com]
Mac News & Info: [macintouch.com] [macnn.com] [tuaw.com]
Mac Benchmarks: [barefeats.com]
Used Mac Stuff [FS/T]: [macswap.org] LowEndMac Swap List
Mac Software Updates: [macupdate.com]
Fonts: [dafont.com] [fontspace.com]
Online Computer Store With Mac Support: [macsales.com]