Dogman, Are you reading the print version of the SI article? 'Cause that has a little more than the teaser.
Are you seriously gonna start spouting "never tested positive" crap. 'Cause no one on earth with any common sense believes he rode clean.
Usually, the argument is that he doped but everyone doped... blah, blah, blah.
Humanity seems to be reaching its depths with all this skepticism and cynicism. If there were 1000 liars and finally one honest man comes and tells the truth, he will be lumped with the liars. I am not necessarily a fan of Lance Armstrong, but having seen his races, I cannot say I'm not inspired by his courage, his strength, his tactical awareness and strategic brain, his power, technical abilities, and all these things. In the drug storms that this sport has faced, the many positive drug tests and suspensions, Lance Armstrong astounds the cycling world through sheer dominance- without the same sort of scandals that have hit high-ranking cyclists- and yet, for whatever reason, people are hell-bent in their attempts to tarnish his reputation and destroy the sport (like Floyd Landis, who just expressed his defeatism after he failed to prove to us he wasn't the failed drug cheat he is). Of course, if LA is guilty I should just shut up right now, but if you people persist in heresay, libel, slander etc... all you are doing is destroying the collective aspirations of millions of people who believe cycling is a great sport.
Lanse wrote:
Dogman, Are you reading the print version of the SI article? 'Cause that has a little more than the teaser.
Are you seriously gonna start spouting "never tested positive" crap. 'Cause no one on earth with any common sense believes he rode clean.
Usually, the argument is that he doped but everyone doped... blah, blah, blah.
Believe me, I have read and viewed and seen about everything related to this case and I can tell you that from what I know, there is nothing that will hold up in court. All the testimony is tainted. All the alledged positive tests have not re-tested positive and therefore are dismissed. Honestly, there is nothing of substance against him. The people are this board and other similar chatrooms speak with an emotional stand, but not a legal stand. Legally, there has been nothing of substance that has been released to the public. Now, I realize that a smart prosecutor is holding a few cards close to the vest, but I am only addressing what has been released. It is important to remember that "we" are all innocent until "proven" guilty. We all may someday want the same courtesy, so please be careful who you convict in a court of public opinion rather than a court of law. You could be the LR topic someday.
Oh, and I want a new pair of glasses.
Dogman wrote:
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.
What was Betsy Andreu busted for? Or Michael Ashenden? I would think both of them would have a lot of credibility in a court of law.
Please forgive me. I mean't to say, "The people of this board..."
Not, "The people are this board..."
Please strike from the record.
poiuy wrote:
Dogman wrote: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.
What was Betsy Andreu busted for? Or Michael Ashenden? I would think both of them would have a lot of credibility in a court of law.
Actually, both of them are 2-steps removed from the process and quite easily refutable. Hell, I am not a great lawyer and I could make them look like idiots. Come on. Have you really researched their association and testimony? If not, then please go away.
Dogman wrote:
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.
This is always how I've felt about it. All of the accusations against Lance are by fired former employees and people trying to save their skin by implicating others.
The people accusing Lance in this thread are clearly driven beyond rationality in their hatred. He's definitely an arrogant dickhead at times, but that's not a reason to find him guilty of doping or to malign his reputation.
Here's what I think is amazing. After years of digging around on the guy, this is the best that they come up with? By any reasonable standard, it is weak evidence at best. Not nearly enough form civil court and certainly nothing that would pass the reasonable doubt standard.
But the hoopleheads will keep going crazy every time there's a Lance story. They are all legal/medical/biomechanical experts and they just know that he's guilty because of tainted allegations/performance/metabolism/hearsay.
Any rational person can look at this and admit that there's a chance that Lance doped, The reason why I find it unlikely is that he's been under more scrutiny than any other athlete in history. There is zero credible evidence to date that could sustain an allegation that he used peds. If there was, he'd have been in court already.
But every time there's a no substance story like this SI piece promising more salacious allegations, the letsrun Lance hater brigade will froth at the mouth. You guys are amusing with your vitriol and indignation.
Think on this a bit. Lance is the kind of guy who feeds off of this stuff. He's still making commercials and doing foundation work and hobnobbing with celebs.
He's an arrogant jerk, for sure. But if he AND everyone else is dirty like most of you see to believe, then what's the big deal? Why do you have so much invested in seeing him torn down?
Well, it appears that no one but trolls have anything more to say, so I am heading to bed. I look forward to reading all the ground-breaking information that you all will provide overnight that no prosecutor has been able to muster over the last 10-years against Lance.
BTW, I have met Lance and I really don't like him on a personal level. He is an arrogant a$$ in my opinion, but deserves the same assumption of innocence as you do until proven guilty.
Because fairness in play is an important part of being human.
And because of the Greg Strock story. Have you ever read it? Strock, diagnosed with human virus B1- which has a close correlation with testicular cancer.
If you can't look your kids in the eye and tell them what it means to "play fair", what is sport, or life for that matter, worth?
So you want Lance to play fair, but you'll do anything to take him down, huh?
You're hypocritical.
I call b.s. on you being an attorney chief. You sound like you may be a know-it-all law student, 1L or 2L, but certainly not a practicing j.d.
Dogman wrote:
Well, it appears that no one but trolls have anything more to say, so I am heading to bed. I look forward to reading all the ground-breaking information that you all will provide overnight that no prosecutor has been able to muster over the last 10-years against Lance.
BTW, I have met Lance and I really don't like him on a personal level. He is an arrogant a$$ in my opinion, but deserves the same assumption of innocence as you do until proven guilty.
So you want Lance to play fair, but you'll do anything to take him down, huh?
You're hypocritical.
-----------------------
Don't be a dunce, LA took himself down. I used to be a big fan. Saw him race in person several times. Followed his career from his triathlon days. He's the one who disappointed his fans. I would have respected him more if he was a nothing rider in the peloton who battled fair and lost.
or talking to supporters of alsal and crew
You are waiting for a positive test? Please. As Conte said, it is an absolute joke, how easy it is to beat the doping tests. Marion never tested positive.
Outside of finding vials full of blood at Lance's house, the only way to convict him of anything will be to connect the dots and trap him in a cover lie, resulting in perjury.
If you really think this man is clean, you must not follow endurance sports very closely. 7 years in a row, with a team full of drug cheats, beating the best talent on the planet that is also doped to the gills, even his inner circle (some with no legal stake in this) claims he doped, and you still believe he is clean. Yeah, right.
BTW, his dirty domestiques are enough to convince me that he does not deserve a single one of those Tour wins. He rides into Paris on their backs anyway.
If Lance was doping, everyone was doping. I will always have the utmost respect for Lance Armstrong and what he did for the sport of cycling and for his organization against cancer.
I think doping is simply part of the sport, and Lance had his system set up very well to the point where it would not be linked to him. This is probably common among top riders.
DickGregory wrote:
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
so you couldnt answer those questions. just speculation and your gut feeling
to be honest it is my opinion that he doped. watt/kg ratios from the lance era are astronomical and dominate anything contador/schleck throw down today. in measurable terms, riders today are not even in the same ballpark as those five-eight years ago. i would not be surprised in the least if he tested/tests positive, but without real evidence...
I'd like to point out that one of the authors of this hatchet piece is Selena Roberts. She has zero journalistic credibility - remember the Duke case? I wouldn't be surprised if another book was in the making for this hack.
This guy doped to the gills and with designer drugs that would probably make Conte green with envy. He has and has the absolute best that money can buy when it comes to dr's and lawyers and if he admits to doping his whole business model becomes a sham.
The riders are all dopers. Imagine asking lagat to run a 3:32 5 days straight, have a "rest" day, and then do it again and repeat for 3 weeks. Even the most gifted athletes would break down and that's where steroids come into play BIG TIME, they allow for faster recovery than normal, not to mention the blood enhancers, speed, and anything else they can get their hands on.
Dogman is an obvious troll.
Anyone who has taken the time to properly read the evidence against Lance should believe he was dirty. If they don't they really need to seek some help. The people that think Lance was clean are unable to use critical thinking. Those of you who are unsure but willing to look into the fact he might have been dirty (which he was) go to the cyclingnews.com messageboards and enter the clinic. These people know what they are talking about.