# Critique of LA's Atty letter to 60 minutes.



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

SF Weekly has been doing a pretty good job covering the investigation of LA. Here is their take on the letter that LA's attorneys sent to 60 minutes. It's worth a read.

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch...ping_agency_director_general_david_howman.php


Len


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

The author, Matt Smith, has written some great cycling stuff over the years.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

Len J said:


> SF Weekly has been doing a pretty good job covering the investigation of LA. Here is their take on the letter that LA's attorneys sent to 60 minutes. It's worth a read.
> 
> http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch...ping_agency_director_general_david_howman.php
> 
> ...


Typical defense strategy to throw up a bunch of smokescreens along with a few hard core accusations thrown in, for good measure. Only problem is, CBS ain't flinching.
Furthermore CBS gave LA's team the chance to respond weeks in advance. They instead lawyered up even more.


----------



## gh1 (Jun 7, 2008)

All of the LA teams responses at this point seem sophomoric and sad. The best thing for them to do at this point is to just shut up. They seem to dig the whole deeper every time they struggle. Its like legal quicksand.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

gh1 said:


> All of the LA teams responses at this point seem sophomoric and sad. The best thing for them to do at this point is to just shut up. They seem to dig the whole deeper every time they struggle. Its like legal quicksand.


 
I think you have to keep in mind who they are talking to & for...they are talking to the converted and for the sponsors. This isn't aimed at anyone paying real attention IMO.

Len


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

It's kind of fun, watching the Roman Empire crumble.


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

How many lawyers does one person need?


----------



## godot (Feb 3, 2004)

MikeBiker said:


> How many lawyers does one person need?


Is this like the equation for how many bikes one needs?
necessary_lawyers = current_lawyers + 1


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

A small town that can't support one lawyer can always support two.

Seriously, Armstrong's folks need to reevaluate their predicament. CBS is going to beat him with a club if he doesn't shut up. They have a platform, a quality reputation for reporting in their 60 Minutes show, and a LOT of facts on their side. If he doesn't watch it, they might start calling him out each Sunday until he comes on camera himself and directly answers the allegations made against him (which they have simply reported). 

I think more and more that this is going to end really bad for Armstrong. And not because he doped, but because he lied so much about it. The general public would forgive him in a heartbeat if he admitted it. They would say "so what they all doped he is still a hero." But he is going to go down as a fraud if he keeps this up.


----------



## Comer (Jan 13, 2009)

LA should fire his legal team and hire you to represent him.

I've never witnessed so many people wanting someone to go to jail and ruined as I have here with LA.

Who cares if he doped, it didn't hurt me. I was into cycling way before LA raced his first triathlon and I will be involved in cycling well after these psuedo scandals are over. Many of the people in the doping forum should worry less about who doped and ride their bike more.

I laugh when I hear the foolish statement by some of the posters on hear claiming they want it because it's best for cycling, what a joke. Professional cycling has very little to do with our lives and cycling. Plus cycling grew like crazy here because of LA winning, not doping eventhough there have always been allegations. Americans love a winner, it's that simple. If he was doping, so what. Remember everyone else was too. 

How miserable people's lives must be to want to see a cyclist, father and businessman go to jail for participating in a sport. There are many more group rides and many more people involved in cycling due to LA. Frankly, I enjoy many of these people.






Gatorback said:


> A small town that can't support one lawyer can always support two.
> 
> Seriously, Armstrong's folks need to reevaluate their predicament. CBS is going to beat him with a club if he doesn't shut up. They have a platform, a quality reputation for reporting in their 60 Minutes show, and a LOT of facts on their side. If he doesn't watch it, they might start calling him out each Sunday until he comes on camera himself and directly answers the allegations made against him (which they have simply reported).
> 
> I think more and more that this is going to end really bad for Armstrong. And not because he doped, but because he lied so much about it. The general public would forgive him in a heartbeat if he admitted it. They would say "so what they all doped he is still a hero." But he is going to go down as a fraud if he keeps this up.


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

Comer said:


> LA should fire his legal team and hire you to represent him.
> 
> I've never witnessed so many people wanting someone to go to jail and ruined as I have here with LA.
> 
> ...


I find it hard to believe all the people that still defend him and repeat the same stuff over and over in his defense.

BTW... yes most were doping BUT most weren't making positive tests go away, most don't hire PR firms to spread the myth, most don't bully others that don't dope... most don't try and ruin other peoples lives. 

And Frankly, I wonder how miserable people's lives are that they somehow can look away from all the incredible 'truths' coming out and just ignore basic right from wrong.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

pedalruns said:


> I find it hard to believe all the people that still defend him and repeat the same stuff over and over in his defense.
> 
> *BTW... yes most were doping BUT most weren't making positive tests go away, most don't hire PR firms to spread the myth, most don't bully others that don't dope... most don't try and ruin other peoples lives. *
> 
> And Frankly, I wonder how miserable people's lives are that they somehow can look away from all the incredible 'truths' coming out and just ignore basic right from wrong.


The portions of your post I have bolded and italicized are what really piss me off. Sure he doped. It was necessary to win. And probably necessary just to be competitive. They were probably all doping. Should they have done it? No. It was wrong.

But the worse crime is exactly what you mention.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

Comer said:


> LA should fire his legal team and hire you to represent him.
> 
> I've never witnessed so many people wanting someone to go to jail and ruined as I have here with LA.
> 
> ...


Comer, 
You used to frequent the Politics forum and use the same strawman techniques to advance your POV. Back then it was about how pathetic liberals were and how much better conservatives lived their lives because they could take care of themselves without relying on government handouts. 

Now you strawman argument relies on our miserable lives who don't ride our bikes enough and instead obsess on Armstrong's downfall. 

To many of us, if LA goes down, so be it. He won't be the first doper to be punished in some way shape or form and definitely won't be the last. 

Here are my reasons for wanting to see his empire crumble,
Doping ain't it. In fact doping is one of the reasons why admire him. When he came into cycling, he like many other young Americans were getting their behinds kicked by the Euros, no matter how much they trained. Lance figured it out and did exactly what he had to do to get to that top spot. In fact he beat the Euros at their own game. 
Now Lance became the peloton's new number one, but he took it further. He took it upon himself to discipline every other rider in the peloton and enforce the so called Omerta. Remember Christophe Bassons and Filippo Simeoni? He basically became mafia boss. 

The second major reason why I dislike him is --> Alberto Contador
The year is 2009 and Lance makes his comeback. He somehow silently expects Alberto to move over or at the very least share the team boss duties with him. He's all over twitter and spreading all kinds of BS one liners like "There's no I in team" etc. and many buy it. However Lance never explained to us how he shared team boss duties or how he helped other teamates achieve their personal goals during his seven year reign. 

So there you have my two major reasons for wanting to see Lance go down. If he does, I'll just smirk and say something like "karma's a b!tch". If he doesn't, well so be it. Either way I'll still ride my bike, without needing your pep talks. 

Other forum members may have different reasons.


----------



## OHroadie (Jul 12, 2010)

Give me some more LA kool-aid please. I like the guy, always have. He's a big reason why I chose to take up two wheel adventures and hang with other cyclists. It would not surprise to find that LA helped put a million new bikes on the road in the last 15 years. Which leads to more shops, more group rides, more cycling events, races which is far more than we had just 15 years ago.

Here is the thing... If you gave me a less than a 50/50 chance to live because of cancer, cut off one of my jewels and I survived with the opportunity to pursue a dream, I think I'd do just about anything to live that dream given the chance to live again. And yes, maybe there were some questionable choices along the way. Who hasn't done that?

Regardless of allegations the U.S. legal system is supposed to be innocent until PROVEN guilty. Unfortunately media outlets including the above link get the best ratings reporting the worst news. All that does is turn the tables on the accused to guilty until proven innocent.

I honestly wish the US government would make there case and get it over with so the world can move on.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

OHroadie said:


> Give me some more LA kool-aid please. I like the guy, always have. He's a big reason why I chose to take up two wheel adventures and hang with other cyclists. It would not surprise to find that LA helped put a million new bikes on the road in the last 15 years. Which leads to more shops, more group rides, more cycling events, races which is far more than we had just 15 years ago.
> 
> Here is the thing... If you gave me a less than a 50/50 chance to live because of cancer, cut off one of my jewels and I survived with the opportunity to pursue a dream, I think I'd do just about anything to live that dream given the chance to live again. And yes, maybe there were some questionable choices along the way. Who hasn't done that?
> 
> ...


Would you feel different if you found out that his original cancer was caused by PEDS?

Just asking.

Len


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

Comer said:


> LA should fire his legal team and hire you to represent him.
> 
> I've never witnessed so many people wanting someone to go to jail and ruined as I have here with LA.
> 
> ...



Yes, cheaters should get free reign to do as they please. It can only make things better. :thumbsup:


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

If you haven't seen this yet......

An Open Letter to Lance Armstrongs Attorneys.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertai...en-letter-to-lance-armstrongs-lawyers/239851/

Len


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Len J said:


> If you haven't seen this yet......
> 
> An Open Letter to Lance Armstrongs Attorneys.
> 
> ...


I don't think there's any factual basis for this, but I recently read that this letter was likely Lance's idea and his lawyers just went along with it. In other words, he's the only one who can't see how quickly the ship is sinking.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

SilasCL said:


> I don't think there's any factual basis for this, but I recently read that this letter was likely Lance's idea and his lawyers just went along with it. In other words, he's the only one who can't see how quickly the ship is sinking.


Arrogance and ignorance are a dangerous combination.

Len


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Hearsay!*

In a court of law, prosecutors are going to have to examine that "suspicious" EPO test made, but not followed through on in 2001. They're going to have to produce the "doping schedules" Hamilton said Ferrari supplied Armstrong in the next years. They're going to have to explain why Armstrong didn't test positive for EPO or steroids in the 7 years he won the TDF, and why Hamilton and Landis were. There are plenty of motives Armstrong's accusers have for bringing him down, but if they can't prove their allegations, they're just that, allegations, and Armstrong will go on his merry way. All this reminds me of the grocery store check out counter tabloids.

I have to agree with Comer.

Lance did more for the sport than any other rider in recent memory. He started a cancer foundation. Let's leave it at that, instead of denying the legitimacy of his accomplishments blaming it on doping. Yuck. Get out of the gutter, folks.

Same with Contador. What he took probably had little effect on his riding last year, nor this year. He's clean. Let him be.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Comer said:


> LA should fire his legal team and hire you to represent him.
> 
> I've never witnessed so many people wanting someone to go to jail and ruined as I have here with LA.
> 
> ...


So the Feds should not investigate Lance because he got a lot of Dentists to buy Trek's and crash on group rides. 

Does Lance get a pass on all crimes or just the doping ones? Should Federal law be changed to give special privileged to famous/rich people? How do you measure this special privilege? If you have over 1 millions twitter followers do you get to kill a hobo, or does that require 2 million?


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

Fredrico said:


> In a court of law, prosecutors are going to have to examine that "suspicious" EPO test made, but not followed through on in 2001. They're going to have to produce the "doping schedules" Hamilton said Ferrari supplied Armstrong in the next years. They're going to have to explain why Armstrong didn't test positive for EPO or steroids in the 7 years he won the TDF, and why Hamilton and Landis were. There are plenty of motives Armstrong's accusers have for bringing him down, but if they can't prove their allegations, they're just that, allegations, and Armstrong will go on his merry way. All this reminds me of the grocery store check out counter tabloids.
> 
> I have to agree with Comer.
> 
> ...


Say what you want about "proof"--but I'll bet more than 90% of people who have looked at the available evidence are convinced Armstrong doped. And they think less and less of him, like me, every time he attacks other riders who are now coming clean and/or who are willing to tell the truth when questioned by the feds. You are in an extreme minority if you think Armstrong did not dope. 

The fact something has not been "proven in court" does not make it not true.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

Fredrico said:


> In a court of law, prosecutors are going to have to examine that "suspicious" EPO test made, but not followed through on in 2001. They're going to have to produce the "doping schedules" Hamilton said Ferrari supplied Armstrong in the next years. They're going to have to explain why Armstrong didn't test positive for EPO or steroids in the 7 years he won the TDF, and why Hamilton and Landis were. There are plenty of motives Armstrong's accusers have for bringing him down, but if they can't prove their allegations, they're just that, allegations, and Armstrong will go on his merry way. All this reminds me of the grocery store check out counter tabloids.
> 
> I have to agree with Comer.
> 
> ...


If one person only says that Armstrong doped, then it's just a case of he said, she said. If a second person comes out and says the same, then it starts to become suspicious. If a third, fourth, fifth etc. person comes out and corroborates the same story then it starts to pile up as evidence. One doesn't necessarily need the proverbial smoking gun to prosecute. Witnesses (plural) can suffice. 
And don't forget, that along with former teamates we also have a former soigneur (Emma O'Reilly) who has basically said the same thing. At this point, prosecutors may not have to find anything other than to rely on witnesses, in order to build their case. 

As for motives, I have a good one for you. How about staying out of jail? Lying to a grand jury is a punishable offense. 

Lance did more for the sport... blah, blah, blah. So did Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire (did I spell that right?) with their home run records. Are you worried about the imminent extinction of baseball?

What he took had little effect on his riding last year....He's clean. This statement shows you have read very little of doping practices. There is no one magic element that does the job, but an entire list, taken at various stages of one's training or recovery.


----------



## Oasisbill (Jan 15, 2011)

So if 100 people say he doped, and then another 100 people say he didn't, does that cancel the "evidence" out? Someone "saying" someone did something isn't evidence, and we've all been accused of doing something we haven't, without evidence. I'm not saying he didn't dope btw, merely making a legal point.


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

A year or two ago, the faithful were staunch that LA did not dope. Its funny now, with the evidence continuing to pile on, how the tune has changed to attempt to rationalize it or diminish its importance. Let the humour continue!


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

I think 2 eye witnesses are enough, no ?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Oasisbill said:


> So if 100 people say he doped, and then another 100 people say he didn't, does that cancel the "evidence" out? Someone "saying" someone did something isn't evidence, and we've all been accused of doing something we haven't, without evidence. I'm not saying he didn't dope btw, merely making a legal point.


Problem is he is having trouble finding people that were actually in the room that are saying he did not dope.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Ok, point made.*



MG537 said:


> If one person only says that Armstrong doped, then it's just a case of he said, she said. If a second person comes out and says the same, then it starts to become suspicious. If a third, fourth, fifth etc. person comes out and corroborates the same story then it starts to pile up as evidence. One doesn't necessarily need the proverbial smoking gun to prosecute. Witnesses (plural) can suffice.
> And don't forget, that along with former teamates we also have a former soigneur (Emma O'Reilly) who has basically said the same thing. At this point, prosecutors may not have to find anything other than to rely on witnesses, in order to build their case.
> 
> As for motives, I have a good one for you. How about staying out of jail? Lying to a grand jury is a punishable offense.
> ...


If 6 people say, "I saw him dope!" He could get convicted by a jury. But how would they rationalize that with all the drug tests passed? Will some doctors explain how Lance doped and then beat the tests? Will prosecutors seek more people who will say the testing agencies falsified results "for the good of the sport?"

I also have a problem destroying someone's career for one infraction, as in Contador with the small amount of that steroid? in his blood. It's like the riders who were smeared for cough medicine. Also, don't forget before the late 80s, blood doping was an accepted practice, actually recommended by coaches. So is eating a nice pasta meal the night before the race, getting a solid night's sleep (sleeping pills, anyone?). How about aspirin? Hydrating with mineral laced water that prevent lactic acid build up, like what's available at the LBS, ad. infinitum? Riders who do it win. Riders who don't lose. The fine line between what's ok with nutritional substances, training, and drugs has been moved to greater and greater restrictions. We've already come to a point where riders can dope and beat the tests. Are we going to let that destroy the sport? If that happens, we're all to blame.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> I also have a problem destroying someone's career for one infraction, as in Contador with the small amount of that steroid? in his blood. It's like the riders who were smeared for cough medicine. Also, don't forget before the late 80s, blood doping was an accepted practice, actually recommended by coaches. So is eating a nice pasta meal the night before the race, getting a solid night's sleep (sleeping pills, anyone?). How about aspirin? Hydrating with mineral laced water that prevent lactic acid build up, like what's available at the LBS, ad. infinitum? Riders who do it win. Riders who don't lose. The fine line between what's ok with nutritional substances, training, and drugs has been moved to greater and greater restrictions. We've already come to a point where riders can dope and beat the tests. Are we going to let that destroy the sport? If that happens, we're all to blame.


this may come as a surprise for you but there is this list saying which drugs are illegal. It's not even hidden, it's out there in plain sight for anyone actually bothering to look. 
of course blood was been transfused before 1986 where it was banned and thus became doping.


----------



## mafpolo (Oct 10, 2008)

*Eyewitnesses*

Lying to the Grand Jury is a serious crime. Martha Stewart would have gotten a slap on the wrist if she admitted to insider trading; however, she lied to the Feds about it. I listened to a talk by our local U.S. Attorney who said, "you can talk to us, refuse to talk to us, but don't lie to us."

The two that have given testimony were probably well advised by their lawyers to "tell it all."
Hamilton refused to talk until he got his subpoena.

Then again, OJ walked in his murder trial with a decent amount of evidence against him. LA is rolling the dice.


----------



## moabbiker (Sep 11, 2002)

So I guess LA already did all he could to ruin LeMond, Landis, JV, Andreu, and Hamilton, now looking to throw punches at CBS, except he's going to get squashed this time around.


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

Lance is losing his 'good guy' image. He's (through his lawyers) is sounding like a crooked politician trying to intimidate all the accusers and change the subject.


----------



## Oasisbill (Jan 15, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Problem is he is having trouble finding people that were actually in the room that are saying he did not dope.


I agree with this, but their testimony will be counteracted by years of passed doping tests. One is hearsay and the other is science, and science usually wins. Someone filming him doing it, that's another matter.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

Oasisbill said:


> I agree with this, but their testimony will be counteracted by years of passed doping tests. One is hearsay and the other is science, and science usually wins. Someone filming him doing it, that's another matter.


Hamilton testifying as an eyewitness is not hearsay. It is direct evidence. Eyewitness testimony can be as strong, and often stronger, than "science." 

Someone catching it on film would perhaps be a smoking gun, but in most trials there is no smoking gun and guilty verdicts in such cases are achieved all the time.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

Oasisbill said:


> So if 100 people say he doped, and then another 100 people say he didn't, does that cancel the "evidence" out? Someone "saying" someone did something isn't evidence, and we've all been accused of doing something we haven't, without evidence. I'm not saying he didn't dope btw, merely making a legal point.


I am not sure you are making a legal point. People keep posting legalities and getting it all wrong.

It seems that what we will have at Lance's trial, if that happens, is Hamilton, Hincapie and others testifying that they actually saw Lance dope. This type of eyewitness testimony is direct evidence. We are not talking about people saying he doped, or people saying Lance told them he doped (although the latter is likely good evidence too). We are talking about eyewitnesses. This is the same kind of evidence as an eyewitness to a stabbing, etc. The issue people seem to get mixed up on is how believable the evidence will be to the jurors. In my book, whatever motives Hamilton and the rest of them may seem to have, testifying under oath will trump it all. Hamilton is not going to lie under oath for a book deal or whatever. The price of lying is just way, way way too high for any perceived self-interest in lying.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Oasisbill said:


> I agree with this, but their testimony will be counteracted by years of passed doping tests. One is hearsay and the other is science, and science usually wins. Someone filming him doing it, that's another matter.


You are forgetting the 3 failed tests for Testosterone, the one for Cortisone, and the 8 for EPO. The "Never failed a test" line is BS, Armstrong has failed multiple tests and the science backs that up. The science can also show that there is no tests for transfusions and the EPO test is weak at best, only valid withing 48 hours of use. 

The "Never tested positive' Defense would be shredded so fast by science it would be silly


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

Those who think a "passed" doping test is credible proof that someone did not dope at any particular time need to read up on doping practices and the testing. A passed test does not mean a person is not doping. It is very weak evidence that someone is not doping.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

SilasCL said:


> I don't think there's any factual basis for this, *but I recently read that this letter was likely Lance's idea and his lawyers just went along with it*. In other words, he's the only one who can't see how quickly the ship is sinking.


This is sad, if true. Lance has a lot of high-powered lawyers representing him. Among the skills that a good lawyer should bring to the table is the willingness and ability to say no to a client when he or she wants to do things that are not in the client's best interest and to convince the client to follow that advice. Based on Lance's public image, I have no doubt that he is a difficult client. The lawyers might not be able to control Lance. But, they should not let Lance dictate that they do things that harm him and make them look like fools.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

http://www.texasmonthly.com/2010-11-01/michaelhall.php

Another well thought out letter to Lance.

len


----------



## Tight Nipples (Feb 18, 2011)

*It's NOT about the doping...*



Fredrico said:


> If 6 people say, "I saw him dope!" He could get convicted by a jury. But how would they rationalize that with all the drug tests passed? Will some doctors explain how Lance doped and then beat the tests? Will prosecutors seek more people who will say the testing agencies falsified results "for the good of the sport?"
> 
> I also have a problem destroying someone's career for one infraction, as in Contador with the small amount of that steroid? in his blood. It's like the riders who were smeared for cough medicine. Also, don't forget before the late 80s, blood doping was an accepted practice, actually recommended by coaches. So is eating a nice pasta meal the night before the race, getting a solid night's sleep (sleeping pills, anyone?). How about aspirin? Hydrating with mineral laced water that prevent lactic acid build up, like what's available at the LBS, ad. infinitum? Riders who do it win. Riders who don't lose. The fine line between what's ok with nutritional substances, training, and drugs has been moved to greater and greater restrictions. We've already come to a point where riders can dope and beat the tests. Are we going to let that destroy the sport? If that happens, we're all to blame.



At least not entirely. It's more about what went into it...the illicit cash, the smuggling across international borders, possible bribery, tax evasion, possession of controlled substances and MOST of all, the sheer hippocracy of it all. THAT's what it's about.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

*Interesting post*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are forgetting the 3 failed tests for Testosterone, the one for Cortisone, and the 8 for EPO. The "Never failed a test" line is BS, Armstrong has failed multiple tests and the science backs that up. The science can also show that there is no tests for transfusions and the EPO test is weak at best, only valid withing 48 hours of use.
> 
> The "Never tested positive' Defense would be shredded so fast by science it would be silly


- "Dr.", aren't you the one who trumpets Michael Ashendens work on a regular basis and have asserted over & over that his "science" is perfect/sound? 
NOW, you say the test is "weak at best".  
"valid within 48 hours of use" 

Also, "no test for transfusions". Did they not use a new test procedure to find plasticizers in Contadors blood from the last TdF?


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Len J said:


> http://www.texasmonthly.com/2010-11-01/michaelhall.php
> 
> Another well thought out letter to Lance.
> 
> len


Thanks for that one! Well thought out is right imo... I like this:

“If he is guilty,” says Jonathan Bernstein, the president of Bernstein Crisis Management of Los Angeles, “I’d advise him to do a Tiger Woods, a public mea culpa. It’s better to do it proactively than to be caught. It’s much more dangerous if you’re outed by someone else than by yourself. The public is very willing to forgive humans for being human. When our icons fail in a human way, we are receptive.”

Start with the position that virtually everyone you were competing against was doping. Remind them of the years you spent riding clean, the frustration you felt as you watched lesser riders pull away from you because they had doped. Say something like “In order to compete in the sport I loved, I chose to enhance my body’s ability to process oxygen—with, by the way, the same drug that helped save me from cancer.” Emphasize that it wasn’t a moral decision, it was a tactical one. In football, offensive guards hold on almost every play; if they don’t, their quarterback gets creamed. It’s part of the game. It was the same with cyclists and EPO. It was part of the game.

Next, remind everyone of something we all know: Nobody trained harder than you. On a playing field leveled by so much doping, you were still the hardest-working cyclist in the peloton, training six, seven hours a day, even in the off-season, when so many others were sleeping in. “I wanted to be the best I could be,” you could say. “So I did what I had to do.” Doping was just one part, an inevitable part, of your intense drive to be the best.

Finally, remind everyone how, from the beginning of your comeback in 1999, you rode to inspire cancer survivors. “Everyone fights to be the best in his or her own way,” you might say. “I went too far, but that is my nature, to be ruthless against my enemies, whether in the peloton or the hospital bed.”

And then apologize. Sincerely."


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Tight Nipples said:


> At least not entirely. It's more about what went into it...the illicit cash, the smuggling across international borders, possible bribery, tax evasion, possession of controlled substances and MOST of all, the sheer hippocracy of it all. THAT's what it's about.


You just defined a top-level doping program


----------



## MattSoutherden (Jun 24, 2009)

> Lance did more for the sport than anyone else. Ever. In the world.





> Vindictively brining down LA will destroy the sport


Cycling does exist outside of the USA, ya know. 

Cheating and doping has been part and parcel of pro cycling since the year dot. The revelation that the 'best' GT rider of the last decade cheated would be, frankly, not much of a revelation.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DMFT said:


> - "Dr.", aren't you the one who trumpets Michael Ashendens work on a regular basis and have asserted over & over that his "science" is perfect/sound?
> NOW, you say the test is "weak at best".
> "valid within 48 hours of use"
> 
> Also, "no test for transfusions". Did they not use a new test procedure to find plasticizers in Contadors blood from the last TdF?


Sorry you are so confused. Perhaps if you did not try to twist what I have written

The Science is sound, the thresholds are low. This has been discussed many times. 

Please share with us a link to an approved test for transfusions. The Plasticizer test is yet to be approved.


----------



## il sogno (Jul 15, 2002)

OHroadie said:


> Give me some more LA kool-aid please. I like the guy, always have. He's a big reason why I chose to take up two wheel adventures and hang with other cyclists. It would not surprise to find that LA helped put a million new bikes on the road in the last 15 years. Which leads to more shops, more group rides, more cycling events, races which is far more than we had just 15 years ago.
> 
> Here is the thing... If you gave me a less than a 50/50 chance to live because of cancer, cut off one of my jewels and I survived with the opportunity to pursue a dream, I think I'd do just about anything to live that dream given the chance to live again. And yes, maybe there were some questionable choices along the way. Who hasn't done that?
> 
> ...


Really? If that had happened to me I'd want to live a truer, more honest life with the years I had left.


----------



## OHroadie (Jul 12, 2010)

il sogno said:


> Really? If that had happened to me I'd want to live a truer, more honest life with the years I had left.


I do see your point. This could just be speculation, though I remember reading something in one of his books talking about how the doctors gave him treatment that would lessen the damage to his body and allow him to continue racing. 

I my own opinion he could have taken advantage of the treatment to enhance his own already strong abilities. I am not a doctor, however I imagine that they had to administer testosterone just to get his levels back to normal. My belief is that whatever treatment he had not only killed the cancer, but made him physically and mentally stronger.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

OHroadie said:


> My belief is that whatever treatment he had not only killed the cancer, but made him physically and mentally stronger.


Here is what I believe is the most likely scenario:

1.) LA was using PEDS prior to his cancer......it's been preety common knowledge that the period from the late '80's thru 2005 where the wild west of drug use......testing that lagged the new PEDS, etc. He was always careful to indicate that he never used anything on the banned substance list during this time period, but there were many things that are PEDS that were ahead of the list.
2.) The PEDS may have caused his cancer.
3.) He contracted cancer
4.) His chemo and recovery reduced his (Tri developed) upper body mass enhancing his cycling potential especially climbing.
5.) He attempted to come back without using PEDS but found he couldn't compete. His "Rebirth" in Boone was where he made the decision to Begin using PEDS again rationalized because it was clear his competition was doing it.
6.) Like everything he does, he maximized it....using PEDS to increase his training time and to reduce his recovery times both in training and racing.

The rest is history.

Will we ever know the full truth?...probably not unless he writes a tell all book himself. But taking into account what his competitors were doing, what his teammates got caught doing after they left postal, what his co-workers have gone public with and now what grand jury testimony has been leaked, coupled with the inability of testing over most of his career to keep up with the technology, it's highly improbable that he didn't dope.

IMO

Len


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

Len J said:


> 1.) LA was using PEDS prior to his cancer......it's been preety common knowledge that the period from the late '80's thru 2005 where the wild west of drug use......testing that lagged the new PEDS, etc. He was always careful to indicate that he never used anything on the banned substance list during this time period, but there were many things that are PEDS that were ahead of the list.


At first he may not have used PEDS however he quickly realized how the game was played in Europe.



Len J said:


> 2.) The PEDS may have caused his cancer.


Pure speculation.


Len J said:


> 3.) He contracted cancer


Same as (2), not necessarily due to PEDS



Len J said:


> 4.) His chemo and recovery reduced his (Tri developed) upper body mass enhancing his cycling potential especially climbing.


This theory, probably forwarded by Ed Coyle, has been debunked. No biopsy of Lance's muscle tissue was ever taken and analyzed to support the fast twitch to slow twitch transformation. In fact no data exists for it to be peer reviewed. Furthermore this magical transformation from pre-cancer classics rider to post cancer GT champion was never documented or analyzed, other than in Lance's books. In fact Ed Coyle "lost the data".
Besides Lance belongs to the human species. Shouldn't magical transformations occur in other cancer survivors? Yet no such data exists.



Len J said:


> 5.) He attempted to come back without using PEDS but found he couldn't compete. His "Rebirth" in Boone was where he made the decision to Begin using PEDS again rationalized because it was clear his competition was doing it.


Lance's rationalizations are his own affair. 



Len J said:


> 6.) Like everything he does, he maximized it....using PEDS to increase his training time and to reduce his recovery times both in training and racing.


He definitely was a master of controling his own actions and those of his immediate entourage. An admirable quality of a natural born leader.
One of the most telling images I remember of him being the ultimate boss, was of the 2005 TdF. That year, one Paolo Savoldelli, was part of Lance's team Discovery. He just happened to be the recently crowned Giro d'Italia champion. Which other team would've relegated the maglia rosa to water-boy duties?


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

Of course it's speculation........what opinions about LA's doping or not doping isn't speculation.

And who brought up fast twitch vs slow twitch muscles? Not me. I was alluding to his upper body weight reduction post cancer vs pre cancer. His total weight was reduced, his power wasn't......therefor he climbed better. 

Len




MG537 said:


> At first he may not have used PEDS however he quickly realized how the game was played in Europe.
> 
> 
> Pure speculation.
> ...


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

Len J said:


> Of course it's speculation........what opinions about LA's doping or not doping isn't speculation.
> 
> And who brought up fast twitch vs slow twitch muscles? Not me. I was alluding to his upper body weight reduction post cancer vs pre cancer. His total weight was reduced, his power wasn't......therefor he climbed better.
> 
> Len


The speculation I was referring to wasn't about whether LA doped or not. It was about his PED use causing his cancer. 

Fast twitch/slow twitch transformations is just one magical transformation theory. I know you didn't put it forward. Weight reduction theory is another. Michael Ashenden's interview with nyvelocity talks about it. Here's the link if you're interested. http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
Here's an excerpt about LA's weight from that interview:
.....the lowest body weight was 75 kilos in '93, but in November after his first Tour victory, it was 79 kilos.

FYI 75-80kg is Fabian Cancellara/Tom Boonen range. Hardly the best two climbers in the pro ranks, great cyclists nonetheless.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

MG537 said:


> The speculation I was referring to wasn't about whether LA doped or not. It was about his PED use causing his cancer.
> 
> Fast twitch/slow twitch transformations is just one magical transformation theory. I know you didn't put it forward. Weight reduction theory is another. Michael Ashenden's interview with nyvelocity talks about it. Here's the link if you're interested. http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
> Here's an excerpt about LA's weight from that interview:
> ...


How is speculation about what caused his cancer different from speculation about whether he doped?

Len


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

Len J said:


> How is speculation about what caused his cancer different from speculation about whether he doped?
> 
> Len


Because on one hand we have absolutely no evidence, no connection between PED use and cancer. We have that connection between exposure to, let's say, gamma radiation and cancer but we don't have that same connection between blood doping/EPO use and cancer. 

On the other hand we have former teamates and a soigneur having said in some shape or form, that LA has some connection to doping. Furthermore we have the 1999 samples showing blood manipulation in a consistent manner. 

Paragraph 1 above describes a speculative argument. Paragraph 2 describes eye witness and scientific evidence of doping.


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

Len J said:


> Here is what I believe is the most likely scenario:
> 
> 
> 4.) His chemo and recovery reduced his (Tri developed) upper body mass enhancing his cycling potential especially climbing.
> ...


This is a legend perpetuated by the Lance PR camp. His weight pre-cancer and post-cancer is relatively the same. The difference is dope, not weight loss.

All of Dr Ed Coyles "scientific" explanations of LA's dominance is a smokescreen.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

MG537 said:


> Because on one hand we have absolutely no evidence, no connection between PED use and cancer. We have that connection between exposure to, let's say, gamma radiation and cancer but we don't have that same connection between blood doping/EPO use and cancer.
> 
> On the other hand we have former teamates and a soigneur having said in some shape or form, that LA has some connection to doping. Furthermore we have the 1999 samples showing blood manipulation in a consistent manner.
> 
> Paragraph 1 above describes a speculative argument. Paragraph 2 describes eye witness and scientific evidence of doping.


There are more than a few drugs used for PE as well as masking PEDs that have been linked to testicular cancer............prior to LAs cancer, there was much experimentation going on, no one is sure what he was using. So yes it's speculation. 

There is no conclusive evidence to this point of drug use.......the 1999 samples have not been enough to have him punished for various reasons that, while questionable, are not definitive.......so it's also speculative. The only difference IMO is the degree of speculation.

BTW, I find them more convincing, but still speculative.

I think we agree more than we disagree. 

Len


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

MG537 said:


> Because on one hand we have absolutely no evidence, no connection between PED use and cancer.


*have you ever used any performance-enhancing drugs? And Lance said yes. And the doctor asked, what were they? And Lance said, growth hormone, cortisone, EPO, steroids and testosterone.*

HGH?
*Suppression of human growth hormone may ward off cancer*

Cortisone? *Ask Greg Strock, Erich Kaiter and Ernie Lachuga*

EPO?
*Eight clinical trials have suggested that Epogen and related anemia drugs, widely used to treat the anemia caused by cancer chemotherapy, might make tumors worse or hasten the death of cancer patients.*

Steroids?* Livestrong says Steroids taken orally or through injection also increase a man's risk for cancer*

Testosterone? Even* livestrong says there is an increase possiblity of cancer. Increases Prostate Cancer Risk*

Armstrong's doping doctor, Ferrari even expressed concern that the drugs he had given him has caused, or accelerated, his cancer.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> *have you ever used any performance-enhancing drugs? And Lance said yes. And the doctor asked, what were they? And Lance said, growth hormone, cortisone, EPO, steroids and testosterone.*
> 
> HGH?
> *Suppression of human growth hormone may ward off cancer*
> ...


Thanks doc, I'll go through the links you posted and reply a little later.

Point about the "Greg Strock, Erich Kaiter and Ernie Lachuga" link. 
I read it yet it says nothing about any connections to cancer. It talks about suppression of immune system and Crohn's disease and "possible" connections but nothing on cancer. Maybe you can point out the paragraph to me, I might've missed it. 

More to follow after having read the other links.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

MG537 said:


> Thanks doc, I'll go through the links you posted and reply a little later.
> 
> Point about the "Greg Strock, Erich Kaiter and Ernie Lachuga" link.
> I read it yet it says nothing about any connections to cancer. It talks about suppression of immune system and Crohn's disease and "possible" connections but nothing on cancer. Maybe you can point out the paragraph to me, I might've missed it.
> ...


You are correct, forgot a link. You notice that that Strock article mentions that 



> human parvo virus, a usually benign infection that can cause major problems if a patient is suffering from a compromised immune system.


As mentioned in the article Cortisone is an immunosuppressant, Which can trigger the virius which lays dormant in most people



> cortisone and immune suppression, causing symptoms that mimic both diseases. Cortisone is sometimes prescribed for transplant patients to minimize the risk of rejection through its ability to suppress the immune system.


Studies have shown that there is an high prevalence of human parvovirus B19 (B19) DNA in the testes of patients with testicular germ cell tumours (85%) 

Although, to be fair, other studies question this link. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12185288

It is strange that Ernie, Lance, Erich, and Greg all came down with cancer or immune diseases that can be triggered by cortisone use. 

Most of these drugs are cellular multipliers. While being the actual cause of cancer may not be the case they certainly can accelerate the growth and spread of the disease


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are correct, forgot a link. You notice that that Strock article mentions that
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hi doc,

I went through the links you provided me with and I was wrong. I guess I should've read up on it before posting. At the very least one should admit that there are highly suspicious links between certain PED's and various forms of cancers.
Thanks for the info.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

MG537 said:


> Hi doc,
> 
> I went through the links you provided me with and I was wrong. I guess I should've read up on it before posting. At the very least one should admit that there are highly suspicious links between certain PED's and various forms of cancers.
> Thanks for the info.


An admission of mistake?? Is this still The Doping Forum???

Just kidding .... great for you to admit that you were mistaken, I tip my helmet to you!


----------

