More bad news for Lance? SI on the case.

For you confuzzled, since you demand more sophisticated answers than Dogman... Here's Dr. Michael Ashenden:

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

A smoking gun isn't even necessary to convict someone of murder.

Frankenstrock wrote:

Dogman,

This is a good place to start if you would like DIRECT links to Lance:

http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2009/11/8-things-on-lance-armstrong-from-other.html

Also, you should research the Greg Strock story.

& Enjoy the SI article, and what the Feds will add in a few months! :)

Already aware of all that. Hearsay evidence is not direct nor admissable in court. Keep trying. There is no solid evidence of "Lance" using PED's that has held up in secondary confirmation testing. Nothing!

what drug(s) did he use? when? is there verifiable evidence? are you sure?

answer those four questions

I guess most of you haven't a) overcome cancer or b) have enough talent to be the best in the world at your respective sport. Get over it, there is no proof. Who are you going to believe, Floyd Landis? The same guy who doped for years and only recently wrote a book about the "reality" of his career? Face it, the guy is an attention whore and I have no reason to believe a single word that comes out of his mouth anymore.

The government will not find proof, because there is none. Others can continue to speculate, but the fact is that pretty much all the top cyclists cheat so it's a level playing field anyway. Armstrong is legit, and has proved himself. The people who think he doped are the same people who think that "Bekele is too good, therefore he is doping". Wake up, there are some people that are just freaks and can wipe out the competition.

Dogman,

The SCA case was dismissed on an issue of contract law, not evidence for/against doping. You obviously did have not read Ashenden, Caitlin, or understand the complexities of micro-dosing with intravenous vs subcutaneous injections.

Also remember, he tested positive in '99.

Hundreds of cyclists have passed thousands of tests, and failed none... according to Bernard Kohl. Who failed 1 test.

Course you know more than all of the above, right?

forte wrote:

I respect the guy. He was the greatest tour rider of his generation. He stood as an American on the podium in Paris. But I also don't harbor illusions that any of the world's top cyclists are clean. Haven't been for decades and that's not really a problem for me.

^^^^^^^This.

I agree that the most likely outcome here is that this federal investigation fizzles out and Lance claims victory.

Nothing new to see here. They're ALL cheats. Move along...

So the logic is like this:

Because he was fortunate enough to overcome cancer with help

from excellent medical treatment, and there is widespread doping in the peloton, he is entitled to:

1) be arrogant

2) be a cheat

3) be disrespectful to the French

4) turn his back on his rivals & teammates when they get caught

5) deny the truth

It's a sad day in sport when people keep buying that logic.

Frankenstrock wrote:

Dogman,

The SCA case was dismissed on an issue of contract law, not evidence for/against doping. You obviously did have not read Ashenden, Caitlin, or understand the complexities of micro-dosing with intravenous vs subcutaneous injections.

Also remember, he tested positive in '99.

Hundreds of cyclists have passed thousands of tests, and failed none... according to Bernard Kohl. Who failed 1 test.

Course you know more than all of the above, right?

You keep adding to it. It was dismissed! EOS! BTW, his '99 test was not upheld in secondary testing. The positive test of Sample A has got to be substantiated by Sample B. That has not occured.

One more time. Show me "HARD" facts that Lance used WHAT(?) drug, When? and Where?. There is no evidence that answers those questions and is admissable in court. Did I mention that I saw Willard Scott on the grassy knoll? Therefore it must be true.

Now, about that Red Rider BB gun????? I want extra BB's too.

Barefoot guy wrote:

So the logic is like this:

Because he was fortunate enough to overcome cancer with help

from excellent medical treatment, and there is widespread doping in the peloton, he is entitled to:

1) be arrogant

2) be a cheat

3) be disrespectful to the French

4) turn his back on his rivals & teammates when they get caught

5) deny the truth

It's a sad day in sport when people keep buying that logic.

1. That's his personality, arrogance is sometimes prevalent in competitive and successful people.

2. No proof to this point.

3. They were just as disrespectful to him.

4. I would too, they cheated and should be punished. What do you expect him to do? Give them a hug and cry about it together?

5. Once again, no proof.

If you feel you're more qualified than Dr. Ashenden:

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

& Dr. Caitlin (see T/E ratios in SI article tomorrow), feel free to elaborate...

You'd best tell Novitzky, as well.

talking to Lanse supporters is like talking to the black community about OJ.

I've said this on a number of occasions and I will say it again...NOBODY that is clean can beat people that are dirty, and cycling is the dirtiest of all sports. Is Lance SOOO much better than everybody else that he can kick their a$$ even when they are drugged to the gills. C'mon guys, take off the rose colored glasses and look at what's in front of you. What drugs did he use. Don't know but he did use them. When? Always. Is there verifiable evidence? Yep...7 Tour de France titles. Am I sure? I'd bet my house on it.

firefly wrote:

what drug(s) did he use? when? is there verifiable evidence? are you sure?

answer those four questions

JimmyTheGreek wrote:

Those tests were in his pre-cancer days. He was a nobody back then and no one would have covered his *ss at that point.

\\He was a road World Champ. Maybe not a big deal to those outside the cycling world, but a pretty big deal to folks inside the cycling world.

puzzled and bewildered wrote:

talking to Lanse supporters is like talking to the black community about OJ.

I don't know who Lanse is, but I am just asking for solid facts. If you have some, I am very open to them. I am not a "Lance" supporter, but I am a "due process" supporter. I am sorry, but being an attorney, I tend to view things from a legal prospective and in this case, there is nothing that will hold up in court against "Lance." The only people testifying against him are those already busted and seeking a plea deal. Their credibility is immediately diminished by their status as a criminal.

Oh, I and I want a decoder ring.

Furman is a typical LAPD racist and was caught spreading blood stains on OJ's car. The glove didn't fit OJ's hands. LAPD was so criminal planting evidence and mishandling the evidence in the OJ case, after the trial, the LA County DA created his own FBI quality organization and staffed it with 250 college degreed detectives. That's how bad LAPD is.

You're an attorney and you don't know the SCA case was thrown out on an issue of contract law?!

Scary.

Lanse wrote:

You're an attorney and you don't know the SCA case was thrown out on an issue of contract law?!

Scary.

I am sorry! You are a horrible and uncredible witness. Did I say that anywhere? Or, did I simply re-state the fact that it was dismissed? Your credibility is now zero as someone who knows anything. Now, if you would like to talk to what I have requested--that being admissable evidence directly linking PED's and Lance then please provide it. I am sure the SI reporter would appreciate the help since they fell well short of the task.

What the big deal anyways. Armstrong can claim he's the victim of the sport. That he was forced into doping. That since everyone else does it he had to make a living. People love victims. Look at Roy Halliday, Cliff Lee, Tim Lincecum, Chriss Solinski, Derek Jeter, Nick Symmonds, and Galen Rupp and tell me they aren't the poor victims too.