# Aren't we all tired of this witch hunt?



## High Gear (Mar 9, 2002)

Armstrong had never been pinched in all his years of racing. The way I look at it is, if they don't catch someone while racing, they should not be able to dig up the past. Lets all move forward and use the testing that we have at this time to test current riders and not try to persecute the old that won fayre and square in their time. Hell, if they are going to do this to Lance, they might as well go after every major Tour winner and do a complete investigation. I heard Jacques Anquetil did lots of amphetamines. Should we dig up his body and do testing?


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

High Gear said:


> Armstrong had never been pinched in all his years of racing. The way I look at it is, if they don't catch someone while racing, they should not be able to dig up the past. Lets all move forward and use the testing that we have at this time to test current riders and not try to persecute the old that won fayre and square in their time. Hell, if they are going to do this to Lance, they might as well go after every major Tour winner and do a complete investigation. I heard Jacques Anquetil did lots of amphetamines. Should we dig up his body and do testing?



There are many TDF winners who admitted (Years later) to doping and they were allowed to keep their yellow jersey.

I kind of don't get it either.


Heck, there was a ruling on Jan Ullrich not too long ago that stemmed from 2006!


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

I really don't give a crap if pro riders dope.

it's just an entertainment industry.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*I'm not tired at all!*



High Gear said:


> Armstrong had never been pinched in all his years of racing. *The way I look at it is, if they don't catch someone while racing, they should not be able to dig up the past*. Lets all move forward and use the testing that we have at this time to test current riders and not try to persecute the old* that won fayre and square in their time*. Hell, if they are going to do this to Lance, they might as well go after every major Tour winner and do a complete investigation. I heard Jacques Anquetil did lots of amphetamines. Should we dig up his body and do testing?


What legal/ethical theory is this?

Now Lance has won fair and square and he's being persecuted? Poor Lance! And he's inspired so many, and enriched himself in the process! Why not? It's America!

I don't think they'll exhume Anquetil. SOL has probably run out anyway.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

High Gear said:


> Armstrong had never been pinched in all his years of racing. The way I look at it is, if they don't catch someone while racing, ...


Couldn't make it through even two sentences without a glaring factual error, could you? (I'd argue the first is false as well, but there can be no dispute about the second.) What does that do to the rest of your argument?


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

High Gear said:


> Armstrong had never been pinched in all his years of racing. The way I look at it is, if they don't catch someone while racing, they should not be able to dig up the past. Lets all move forward and use the testing that we have at this time to test current riders and not try to persecute the old that won fayre and square in their time. Hell, if they are going to do this to Lance, they might as well go after every major Tour winner and do a complete investigation. I heard Jacques Anquetil did lots of amphetamines. Should we dig up his body and do testing?


Where were you when Jan Ulrich was receiving his retroactive suspension? I don't recall you (or anyone else for that matter) adamantly denouncing the 'witch hunt' being waged against him. :thumbsup:

Btw, am I the only one getting tired of hearing that ridiculous phrase?


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Not really, no. Not that it matters whether anyone is "tired of this". USADA is acting on information relating to someone who IS STILL COMPETING. In addition to his Doctors, DS, etc. who are also still working. But again, this isn't American Idol. It doesn't really matter what you, I, or anyone else outside the arb panel thinks.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

The thing that is getting really tiring is Armstrong continuing to lie. 

Why can't he sack up and tell the truth?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

If you want to get upset for the delays direct your venom towards the UCI for ignoring Armstrong's obvious doping for years and Armstrong for harassing anyone who told the truth

Lets not pretend Lance never doped. it started early with Chris Carmicheal and Cortisone. It is no surprise that Armstrong, Ernie Lachuga, Greg Strock, and Erich Kaiter all came down with illness strongly linked to Cortisone use. Strock and Kaiter eventually reached a financial settlement with Carmicheal
and won their lawsuit with USAC

Strock Speaks

Six years later, Strock case comes to court

During the 90's Armstrong had multiple adverse testosterone ratios,
which were ignored by USA cycling

"a 9.0-to-1 ratio from a sample collected on June 23, 1993; a 7.6-to-1
from July 7, 1994; and a 6.5-to-1 from June 4, 1996. Most people have
a ratio of 1-to-1. Prior to 2005, any ratio above 6.0-to-1 was
considered abnormally high and evidence of doping; in 2005 that ratio
was lowered to 4.0-to-1."

Sports Illustrated reports new information on Lance Armstrong - More Sports - SI.com

Anyone who knows about cancer knows that Lance's Hcg levels would have been elevated, but never showed up in any UCI tests. Wonder why?

In 1999 the UCI developed a new test for glucocorticosteroids and Lance was one of the first to test positive at the Tour. The UCI let him invent a fake, backdated, TUE and said the amount was below the limit. If you refer to the UCI banned list from 1999 to present glucocorticosteroids, the class of drug to which covers triamcinolone acétonide, do not have a threshold level. They are banned outright. Thanks UCI :thumbsup:

Just like the extremely minute presence of clenbuterol that sanctioned Contador.

Triamcinolone acétonide is not a synthetic steroid that required the t/e ratio initial test to further test if the sample contained a synthetic steroid, a la Floyd Landis. Floyd was 11:1 and well in excess of the 4:1 threshold level

Of course there are also the 1999 samples that tested positive for EPO
Michael Ashenden | NY Velocity - New York bike racing culture, news and events

Then there was the positive for EPO a the 2001 Tour de Swiss that was ignored up by the UCI in exchange for a nice "Donation"

USADA said that Armstrong blood showed clear signs of manipulation. This during the same period the UCI ignore 5 Biopassport positives

Anti-Doping Officials Step Up Cycling Oversight - WSJ.com

Lastly he has not passed "500 Tests" This was an invention by his media team. You can go on the USDA website and see that he was tested 29 times in the last 12 years and add this to the 83 times he was tested in France and it comes nowhere close to 500 test.

After decades of doping it is good to seen that someone is finally doing something


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Thanks for citing sources DF. If the UCI turned the other way it sounds like it is an issue with the UCI and their policies, not with LA. Just saying.... I'm certainly not of the he didn't dope crowd, I believe their could be a lot of evidence to the contrary which the USADA may or may not have, that remains to be seen when they release whatever they have. There is also some rumor that the Fed info can not be used in the USADA case. As I said that was rumor not fact, and I believe I read it on this somewhere on this forum. Your testing numbers seem low for his entire career as I would believe his team is considering his entire career not just the last 12 years. He also might be splitting up blood / hair / urine tests as well as whatever testing the team did. (yes I know the team's testing would be very biased) tested only 9 times per tour for a guy the French have a hard on for seems low. Just saying...my opinion nothing else. 
Set the hearing... pull the trigger... get this behind us so this forum can look to what is happening now with testing info, team info, there were two pretty big stories today and the majority of the threads on the top of the board are still LA. This forum might dry up when he fades into the sunset. You seem to imbedded in the cycling world and it would be great to hear about what is happening with today's pro cycling athletes not tri athletes.


----------



## Samadhi (Nov 1, 2011)

trailrunner68 said:


> Why can't he sack up and tell the truth?


Because, in this country he's innocent until proven guilty. He also has constitutional protections against self-incrimination. It's not up to LA to prove he's innocent, it's up to others to prove he's guilty.

This may not be a criminal matter, but the principals still apply.

All we see/hear around here is a lot of ranting and raving about what is, at the moment, merely opinion and nothing more. That may change as the USADA hearings get underway and actual facts come to light in a proper setting or they may not.

I'll wait for that.

But "sack up"? I like that


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Some of you guys must really love cancer.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*Keep telling yourself that.*



Samadhi said:


> *Because, in this country he's innocent until proven guilty. He also has constitutional protections against self-incrimination. It's not up to LA to prove he's innocent, it's up to others to prove he's guilty.*
> 
> *This may not be a criminal matter, but the principals still apply.*
> 
> ...


Actually, the same principles don't apply.

This is more like someone getting fired for misconduct like stealing.

'I have my rights!'

'Yeah, you do but don't come to work tomorrrow. If you don't like it, sue us.'


----------



## RRRoubaix (Aug 27, 2008)

Local Hero said:


> Some of you guys must really love cancer.


Don't poke them- you'll just make 'em mad!

Personally, I fear the backlash this may have on cycling. On getting sponsors and on American interest/acceptance of our "weird" sport.
Conflicted? Yes! I really don't see the upside. Cleaner sport? Nope. Punishing the perpetrator? Yes, but I don't really care.
Oh, I believe he doped alright. No, I don't think he should "get away with it", but then again, I don't care enough to drag him down. (at my _perceived_ cost) 
Worse- give the victories to who... ? Other dopers.
Bah!
Great.
Lose- lose to me.

So. I hope he beats the rap (there, I said it!) and confesses in a book later in life. Just like Bjarni.

(Yeah, I know- this apathetic view won't sit well with the dynamic duo. I don't care. I just want it over. Let's get back to racing! Enhanced or otherwise)


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> If you want to get upset for the delays direct your venom towards the UCI for ignoring Armstrong's obvious doping for years and Armstrong for harassing anyone who told the truth
> 
> Lets not pretend Lance never doped. it started early with Chris Carmicheal and Cortisone. It is no surprise that Armstrong, Ernie Lachuga, Greg Strock, and Erich Kaiter all came down with illness strongly linked to Cortisone use. Strock and Kaiter eventually reached a financial settlement with Carmicheal
> and won their lawsuit with USAC
> ...



I wonder if UCI will go down with the Armstrong ship if it's successfully torpedoed?


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*sssshhhh! bad for sponsors.*



Local Hero said:


> Some of you guys must really love cancer.


You're the one whose chief concern is that Armstrong continue to race..

Strock Speaks

GS: I have a lot of concerns. It goes back to what I said earlier. There was a point where we were getting two, three injections a day. I may never know … there is a very good chance that I may never know everything that was given to me. We are trying to find out as much as we can.

I think very few people — thankfully — are ever in a situation like that, where they don’t know everything that has ever been injected into them. Other than the cortisone and the other things we are working on at this time, there still may be stones that we’re unable to turn over, because some of that was overseas and multiple trainers…. I may never know and for that reason, I’ll always be concerned about my health.

VN: What was the initial diagnosis when you fell ill?

GS: Yeah. *Well, at one point, they were concerned because I was immunosuppressed and tested me for AIDS. Then it was thought I had lymphatic cancer and biopsies were done. And finally, they found a serious viral infection from what they later found was human parvovirus.* Like I said, it’s unusual for a young healthy male to suffer from symptoms like that. In this era I also suffered from thrush (an oral yeast infection), most often seen in those who are immunocompromised, and a very severe case of Bell’s palsy. Bell’s palsy is a facial paralysis that is not uncommon and is thought to be caused by a viral infection. 90 percent of those with it have full recovery; I didn’t. So you can see some common things affected me in uncommon ways, which is typical of an immunocompromised state such as induced by cortisone.




RRRoubaix said:


> Don't poke them- you'll just make 'em mad!
> 
> Personally, I fear the backlash this may have on cycling. On getting sponsors and on American interest/acceptance of our "weird" sport.
> Conflicted? Yes! I really don't see the upside. Cleaner sport? Nope. Punishing the perpetrator? Yes, but I don't really care.
> ...


Strock Speaks

VN: These days, the federation is talking about establishing feeder systems, finding talented riders, doing camps and developing the system by which we can again develop a whole group of talented young athletes. If you had kids….

GS: *Never. I would never encourage my son or daughter to participate in cycling*. If it was something they had to do and it was their passion, I wouldn’t stop them. I would certainly never encourage them to participate in elite athletics. At least until I was comfortable that they have taken the whole system apart and started from ground zero.

I couldn’t tell them “no” if it was something they loved, but I couldn’t encourage participation at the elite level … especially in an endurance sport and especially cycling.


VN: So where from here?

GS: *I want to get the word out.* You know, a lot of people would say that I am just after money. *But things have to change and I am in a perfect position to do that. I experienced it*. I suffered from it and, now, I am about to become a doctor.

*People might say that this is just dragging up an old issue … but I can’t believe that it’s a problem that has been solved and it has to be.*


Nah, who would say that?:mad2:


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

I'm not tired of it. I'm still looking forward with anticipation to finding out more details about how the game was played.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Sorry I thought this was about Pozzato.


----------



## nOOky (Mar 20, 2009)

Anyone that violates the rules of competition at the time of the competition should be subject to punishment for the crime.
The thing is, unless everyone is treated fairly and subject to the same scrutiny it starts to get a bit old. Winner or 13th place, they should be subject to the same scrutiny if there is good reason to believe there was cheating.
FWIW, I would be in favor or a more proactive approach, i.e. putting more effort into refining the testing for the future, rather than spending time and money and resources on the past. It should not forgive any previous transgressions or let somebody get away with something, but at some point the money and resources being spent on chasing the past does seem rather superfluous.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

nOOky said:


> *Anyone that violates the rules of competition at the time of the competition should be subject to punishment for the crime*.
> The thing is, unless everyone is treated fairly and subject to the same scrutiny it starts to get a bit old. Winner or 13th place, they should be subject to the same scrutiny if there is good reason to believe there was cheating.
> FWIW, I would be in favor or a more proactive approach, i.e. putting more effort into refining the testing for the future, rather than spending time and money and resources on the past. It should not forgive any previous transgressions or let somebody get away with something, but at some point the money and resources being spent on chasing the past does seem *rather superfluous*.


Superfluous? It wasn't like Armstrong and other riders were doing everything they could at the time of the tests to circumvent the procedures and evade detection? He didn't try to rig and even buy the whole system to get off even if he did test positive?

Nice theory! I don't think anyone has ever contemplated how far we should go back to nab cheaters and criminals.

You're breaking new ground here, keep up the good work!:skep::idea:

"I'll do or say anything, please don't destroy the myth!"


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

SicBith said:


> Thanks for citing sources DF. If the UCI turned the other way it sounds like it is an issue with the UCI and their policies, not with LA. Just saying.... I'm certainly not of the he didn't dope crowd, I believe their could be a lot of evidence to the contrary which the USADA may or may not have, that remains to be seen when they release whatever they have. There is also some rumor that the Fed info can not be used in the USADA case. As I said that was rumor not fact, and I believe I read it on this somewhere on this forum. Your testing numbers seem low for his entire career as I would believe his team is considering his entire career not just the last 12 years. He also might be splitting up blood / hair / urine tests as well as whatever testing the team did. (yes I know the team's testing would be very biased) tested only 9 times per tour for a guy the French have a hard on for seems low. Just saying...my opinion nothing else.
> Set the hearing... pull the trigger... get this behind us so this forum can look to what is happening now with testing info, team info, there were two pretty big stories today and the majority of the threads on the top of the board are still LA. This forum might dry up when he fades into the sunset. You seem to imbedded in the cycling world and it would be great to hear about what is happening with today's pro cycling athletes not tri athletes.


I agree, it would be great to get this behind us. The worst thing for the sport would be if Armstrong launched a 2-3 year long smoke and mirrors campaign like Valverde/Floyd/Contador. 

The sport has largely compartmentalized Armstrong. The vast majority understand he doped, USADA confirming this will be no surprise to most. Yes, some casual fans may turn to whatever the next bandwagon is but they would have jumped anyways


----------



## Samadhi (Nov 1, 2011)

Chris-X said:


> Actually, the same principles don't apply.
> 
> This is more like someone getting fired for misconduct like stealing.
> 
> ...


I don't know where you live Chris, but around here (CO) if your gonna fire someone for "cause" like stealing, you'd better be able to prove that person was actually stealing because if you can't, a 1st year law student could get the ex-employee a dandy settlement without any trouble whatsoever. So, burden of proof still applies. You can always simply fire someone without cause - this is an "at will" state, but as I said, if you're going to cite cause for termination you'd best be able to back that up with proof. Hell it would never get to court.

The lawyer's meeting would go just like this:

First-Year Law Student: " My client was fired for cause, "stealing", by your client. My client would like to see proof of those charges.

Ex-Employers Attorneys: (Confers briefly on phone with employer's HR department, then ...) "My client is unable to provide such proof. Would $500,000 satisfy your client."

FYLS: "My client would be satisfied with that amount, and your client will also fire the individuals involved in his firing."

EEAs: "That's very doable. Who can we make the check out to?"


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Samadhi said:


> I don't know where you live Chris, but around here (CO) if your gonna fire someone for "cause" like stealing, you'd better be able to prove that person was actually stealing *because if you can't,* a 1st year law student could get the ex-employee a dandy settlement without any trouble whatsoever. So, burden of proof still applies. You can always simply fire someone without cause - this is an "at will" state, but as I said, if you're going to cite cause for termination you'd best be able to back that up with proof. Hell it would never get to court.
> 
> The lawyer's meeting would go just like this:
> 
> ...


Yes, but the assumption by everyone including you is that he's guilty. It's obvious. Do you really think I'd be protesting so much if the evidence was equivocal?

A reminder, you were arguing that even though you believe he's guilty he shouldn't be held accountable and that you didn't care what he'd done.

You turn it around and act like I'm crazy because I think guilty people should be held accountable.

What if the company has a mountain of evidence your client was stealing?

That's a rhetorical question.


----------



## Samadhi (Nov 1, 2011)

Chris-X said:


> Yes, but the assumption by everyone including you is that he's guilty. It's obvious. Do you really think I'd be protesting so much if the evidence was equivocal?


Assumptions are simply that - assumptions. Assumptions are not proof and may or may not be based on any sort of reliable evidence. You and I can assume that LA is guilty as sin, but that doesn't really mean a thing.

If it was "obvious" the grand jury called to investigate would have brought charges and LA would be facing criminal charges right now

Actually Chris, I do believe you'd be ranting about this regardless of the "evidence". And as far as "equivocation" is concerned, we're seeing a lot more of that than actual "evidence" on this board.



> A reminder, you were arguing that even though you believe he's guilty he shouldn't be held accountable and that you didn't care what he'd done.


I don't have to "argue" that point. Yes, I think he doped. No, I don't care - he got away with it. Move on. It's an opinion, Chris, and not an argument. Another thing I don't care about is what _you_ think of that.



> You turn it around and act like I'm crazy because I think guilty people should be held accountable.


It never occurred to me that you might be crazy - at least in the clinical sense. I do think you're obsessed with LA, though. 



> What if the company has a mountain of evidence your client was stealing?


Then they should be able and required to produce said evidence.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I agree, it would be great to get this behind us. The worst thing for the sport would be if Armstrong launched a 2-3 year long smoke and mirrors campaign like Valverde/Floyd/Contador.
> 
> The sport has largely compartmentalized Armstrong. The vast majority understand he doped, USADA confirming this will be no surprise to most. Yes, some casual fans may turn to whatever the next bandwagon is but they would have jumped anyways


I would think the worst thing for the sport would not be the outcome or how long it takes to get a verdict in the LA case. I believe the worst thing is not using these funds to develop tests for transfusion, go after what the dopers are doping now. *u*k LA and his BS, it just keeps attention on him when they really could have a worst thing issue like catching Cadel, Schleck, Wiggins, Sagen, Gilbert, or any other high profile guys with testing for the only thing they can't test truly positive for... transfusions. None of those the cases you mentioned above mattered to me until the verdict came out and I would believe the same will be true of the LA case for me as well.
What's going on with the tour now? Any word on Eurocar?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

SicBith said:


> I would think the worst thing for the sport would not be the outcome or how long it takes to get a verdict in the LA case. I believe the worst thing is not using these funds to develop tests for transfusion, go after what the dopers are doping now. *u*k LA and his BS, it just keeps attention on him when they really could have a worst thing issue like catching Cadel, Schleck, Wiggins, Sagen, Gilbert, or any other high profile guys with testing for the only thing they can't test truly positive for... transfusions. None of those the cases you mentioned above mattered to me until the verdict came out and I would believe the same will be true of the LA case for me as well.
> What's going on with the tour now? Any word on Eurocar?


I agree. The best thing would be for Lance not launch some silly, years long, campaign. It will just burn his $$ and USADA's $$ and in the end he will still lose. It is unfortunate that obvious dopers like Lance can do this but for people to have faith in the process it has to be fair. 

BTW, they are very close to a transfusion test.....shhhh, don't tell anybody


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Witch hunt? Lynch mob!


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Samadhi said:


> Then they should be able and required to produce said evidence.


They are producing it right now.

edit,

In case you haven't noticed, LA has lost his job. With the massive amount of evidence against him, which you are in denial about, the burden is on him to get it back.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Samadhi said:


> I don't know where you live Chris, but around here (CO) if your gonna fire someone for "cause" like stealing, you'd better be able to prove that person was actually stealing because if you can't, a 1st year law student could get the ex-employee a dandy settlement without any trouble whatsoever. So, burden of proof still applies. You can always simply fire someone without cause - this is an "at will" state, but as I said, if you're going to cite cause for termination you'd best be able to back that up with proof. Hell it would never get to court.
> 
> The lawyer's meeting would go just like this:
> 
> ...


So you must believe Armstrong is going to get millions out of this by suing somebody?

You think Luskin is working this case on a contingency basis?


----------



## Samadhi (Nov 1, 2011)

Chris-X said:


> So you must believe Armstrong is going to get millions out of this by suing somebody?


Well, I don't know who he'd sue. If the USADA is as poorly funded as they seem to be, a civil suit for money would be pointless. You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip, as they say.

On the other hand, he may sue, simply to bring down the USADA financially and if he's as vindictive as everyone around here seems to think he is, it would make perfect sense.



> You think Luskin is working this case on a contingency basis?


Sure, why not? The lawyer who got LA off the hook AND brought down the USADA is Johnnie Cochran / Rock Star street cred. You can't buy that kind of marketability. If they play this right they could be representing top-flight athletes for the next 50 years.

And that's what this is really all about. Money. Lots of it. The "credibility" of pro cycling is merely a side show.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Samadhi said:


> Well, I don't know who he'd sue. If the USADA is as poorly funded as they seem to be, a civil suit for money would be pointless. You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip, as they say.
> 
> On the other hand, he may sue, simply to bring down the USADA financially and if he's as vindictive as everyone around here seems to think he is, it would make perfect sense.
> 
> ...


I thought you'd recognize the absurdity of Luskin taking this case on a contingency.

You have a very "fertile" imagination.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

It is fantasy that Armstrong is somehow going to sue his way out of this.

He has been entangled in this for several years and has yet to present a legitimate defense to USADA. Lots of nicknames, smears, false indignation, but nothing that is supportable to a AAA panel or a court of law.


----------



## High Gear (Mar 9, 2002)

I find it very odd that Chris-X never migrates from the doping forum. Are you a real cyclists, or are you just hellbent on seeing maybe dopers being brought to justice???


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

High Gear said:


> I find it very odd that Chris-X never migrates from the doping forum. Are you a real cyclists, or are you just hellbent on seeing maybe dopers being brought to justice???


You do?

I previously had posted in PO but avoid it now for the most part. I'm a Liberal/Democratic Socialist in case you needed to know that.

Actually I posted the following link on a hub maintenance thread because I found it helpful when I was maintaining a Campy Daytona rear hub. The cassette had some side to side play so I ordered some cartridge bearings for the freehub cassette body. Bearing 6803, they were only like $6 on ebay for a pair of them. I only replaced the outboard bearings, regreased the inside of the cassette body, regreased the pawls. The new cartridge bearing eliminated the play and cleaning/regreasing of the pawls and internals, made the freehub fairly quiet too. 

I ride about 10k miles per year, 200 a week give or take and where I live it's nice all year round although I do ride in the Northeast US in the winter when I travel. I haven't done any kind of competitive athletics since 2004 but I'm middle aged, so It's kind of passed for me. I ride fast or slow depending on how I feel and what I want to do and who I'm with. It doesn't really matter whether my world ranking is 2437th or 1859th, or if I crack the top thousand.:smilewinkgrin: Others may be more competitive. YMMV.



Chris-X said:


> CAMPAGNOLO 2006 2009 SHAMAL EURUS ZONDA HYPERON BORA NEUTRON COMPLETE HUB OVERHAUL - YouTube


I'm not hellbent on seeing dopers punished. They can do whatever they want, but the fans of the dopers really amaze me. They'll come up with any fantasyland scenario to preserve long ago discredited myths! I'm really fascinated by the stories and excuses people come up with to justify their beliefs.

It's almost as if their nonsense is secreted from from some kind of previously unknown gland that makes them take leave of their senses.

Witch hunt!!!!:lol::lol::wink::wink:


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is fantasy that Armstrong is somehow going to sue his way out of this.
> 
> He has been entangled in this for several years and has yet to present a legitimate defense to USADA. Lots of nicknames, smears, false indignation, but nothing that is supportable to a AAA panel or a court of law.



Just wait.... give it 2-3 months to brew with LA's lawyers and the result will be worked out with USADA. LA loses 1 jerseys and takes a 2 year sanction retro to 2010 for non positive as he is just done fighting a system of cheats, or he pulls a Pozzato and takes his sanction for working with MF not for doping, Johan gets off, but fired from RS as they go under, and is persona no grata in the sport, MF is already out for life so he realistically can't be touched or maybe he sets up shop in China as Switz kicks him out for being a douche, the other guys get the same as Johan.....or get ready for this..... LA pulls a Basso takes 2yr sanction and never admits to doping and in 6 months the USADA suddenly gets the new testing equipment they were looking for to find transfusion cheats, and the guys like GH,LL,DZ,CVV are never revealed to have testified. That would be the headlines in my opinion best suited for the sport and its fans.
Jenga!


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

There is at least some suggestion that Lance got his cancer due to doping. It's a shame if Livestrong gets a black eye, but that's on Lance. 

Am I tired of seeing a liar and flagrant hypocrite who has wrecked the careers of several better men and lived large on the back of his deceit get his comeuppance? Not by a long shot.


----------



## High Gear (Mar 9, 2002)

Chris-X said:


> You do?
> 
> I previously had posted in PO but avoid it now for the most part. I'm a Liberal/Democratic Socialist in case you needed to know that.
> 
> ...


OK, you talk my talk....and even work on your own bike. I still find it odd that you linger here. At first I thought you may be a non-cyclists that was getting off on poking fun at the believers.

I think we all know that 99% of pro racers have doped. Doping goes back before the days of Coppi. Then it was pain killers, amphetamines and booze. Just look at Tom Simpson and Roger Riviere. A good book that will open peoples eyes is "Breaking the chain" by Willy Voet.

Lets face it. Cycling is the hardest sport out there, especially long stage races. Personally, I don't know how they do it for that long and at that pace without cracking. 

If the USADA finds Armstrong guilty and he is stripped of his TDF wins, they will probably have to go all the way down the line to the stragglers of those seven years to find a non doping rider...sorry to say.

The point I was trying to make when I started this thread is that many, many people are sick and tired of the heat pro cyclists and our beloved sport has been getting concerning doping. Are we the doping scapegoat for all sports? I wonder what the USADA would find if they looked for steroid use in the NFL?? 

It would have been acceptable to me if this investigation had stopped at the FBI. Over and out.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

High Gear said:


> OK, you talk my talk....and even work on your own bike. I still find it odd that you linger here. At first I thought you may be a non-cyclists that was getting off on poking fun at the believers.
> 
> I think we all know that 99% of pro racers have doped. Doping goes back before the days of Coppi. Then it was pain killers, amphetamines and booze. Just look at Tom Simpson and Roger Riviere. A good book that will open peoples eyes is "Breaking the chain" by Willy Voet.
> 
> ...


Everyone, at least everyone with a clue, knows that doping is rampant in pro cycling. Everyone knows Armstrong doped. That is why Armstrong brazenly lying about it is so outrageous. It has gotten to the point where it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people that he thinks he can continue to treat everyone like rubes. 

To move forward, Armstrong has to be exposed. We cannot have young riders looking at his career as a model for how to cheat, make bank, and get away with it.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

trailrunner68 said:


> Everyone, at least everyone with a clue, knows that doping is rampant in pro cycling. Everyone knows Armstrong doped. That is why Armstrong brazenly lying about it is so outrageous. It has gotten to the point where it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people that he thinks he can continue to treat everyone like rubes.
> 
> To move forward, Armstrong has to be exposed. We cannot have young riders looking at his career as a model for how to cheat, make bank, and get away with it.


It would be great to hear their perspective. I believe most of the riders know the chances of being caught are real and carry career ending consequences and I certainly don't believe any of them see him as a role model except maybe Rico. Doesn't he have the rep of being a douche? LA just needs to be put out with the other trash. The more they put him and his string of doped success in the limelight the more damage it does to cycling. He's just the lucky one who got away...we need to accept that and move on. Although looking at the threads on this forum, it might go away with LA. Even the Ligget thread is ripe with LA BS.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

SicBith said:


> Just wait.... give it 2-3 months to brew with LA's lawyers and the result will be worked out with USADA. LA loses 1 jerseys and takes a 2 year sanction retro to 2010 for non positive as he is just done fighting a system of cheats, or he pulls a Pozzato and takes his sanction for working with MF not for doping, Johan gets off, but fired from RS as they go under, and is persona no grata in the sport, MF is already out for life so he realistically can't be touched or maybe he sets up shop in China as Switz kicks him out for being a douche, the other guys get the same as Johan.....or get ready for this..... LA pulls a Basso takes 2yr sanction and never admits to doping and in 6 months the USADA suddenly gets the new testing equipment they were looking for to find transfusion cheats, and the guys like GH,LL,DZ,CVV are never revealed to have testified. That would be the headlines in my opinion best suited for the sport and its fans.
> Jenga!


The timeline could be a bit shorter, or longer, then this. 

As I understand it Lance has to respond by July 9th. This will say if he is going to fight or not. If he fights then I think the next step is a AAA trial with a hearing in November. If he does not fight then he is sanctioned....likely stripping all of his results from 1996 to today. 

I don't disagree that a settlement would be a good option to explore, but that time has passed. Armstrong has made it clear, he is going to burn the house down. Following, harassing, and threatening participants and their families is just the start.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

High Gear said:


> OK, you talk my talk....and even work on your own bike. I still find it odd that you linger here. At first I thought you may be a non-cyclists that was getting off on poking fun at the believers.
> 
> I think we all know that 99% of pro racers have doped. Doping goes back before the days of Coppi. Then it was pain killers, amphetamines and booze. Just look at Tom Simpson and Roger Riviere. A good book that will open peoples eyes is "Breaking the chain" by Willy Voet.
> 
> ...


But that was the problem with the racing, all of Postal was making it to the final climb and no one was cracking. It was boring, stupid and ridiculous.

Even Armstrong's "crack" on the Joux-Plane wasn't much of a crack. He lost less than two minutes. I think he was realizing that he was looking too laughably dominant so he kept mentioning how he bonked.

That was how a lot of the French knew Armstrong's performances were bs, when they talked of Armstrong "not showing any weakness." Humans crack, extraterrestrials don't.

The lack of any cracking/blowing up was insulting to people who have done a decent number of endurance events.

Then we were getting these silly comments from the peanut gallery in 2007 about how Leipheimer was not attacking. They had already rode about a hundred miles over a couple of passes, but the expectation is these guys can just go on the third crazy climb of the day? Please! Maybe he was on his limit and if he went 1/10th of a mph faster he would have blown up, but this wasn't even given a passing thought by the new fans of the sport.

Then there was all this high cadence bs talk. That, and he was always talking about suffering which is more nonsense. Yeah it's hard but if you're going good you're not suffering.

Some crazy Kenyan went out in the first half of Boston in like 1:01 one year and blew up, but the guy finished the race in like 3:01.. I wish I could remember his name. Elite athletes do not do that, they'll just drop out. That is suffering. 

You might even be going so hard you start regurgitating stuff. If you're going good you just ratchet back a little, it's not big deal but Armstrong is always talking about suffering and how hard he trains, and then you hear this nonsense from the casual observer, which makes it even more annoying.



trailrunner68 said:


> Everyone, at least everyone with a clue, knows that doping is rampant in pro cycling. Everyone knows Armstrong doped. That is why Armstrong brazenly lying about it is so outrageous. It has gotten to the point where it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people that he thinks he can continue to treat everyone like rubes. To move forward, Armstrong has to be exposed. We cannot have young riders looking at his career as a model for how to cheat, make bank, and get away with it.


This pretty much sums up how I feel. You're right about young riders too. The idea that young riders don't respect Armstrong is a little naive. How Phinney's parents either let him or didn't talk him out of signing with Armstrong blows my mind.


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> If you want to get upset for the delays direct your venom towards the UCI for ignoring Armstrong's obvious doping for years and Armstrong for harassing anyone who told the truth
> 
> Lets not pretend Lance never doped. it started early with Chris Carmicheal and Cortisone. It is no surprise that Armstrong, Ernie Lachuga, Greg Strock, and Erich Kaiter all came down with illness strongly linked to Cortisone use. Strock and Kaiter eventually reached a financial settlement with Carmicheal
> and won their lawsuit with USAC
> ...


Given that these are all accurate you put your finger square on the problem i.e. the institutionalized denial and concealment by the entire sport of cycling from the governing body all the way down to individual teams. LA and others were just conforming to the norm which is adaptive in any society. The fact that the public and private reality were 180 degrees opposite is not their fault. If, as has been hypothesized and backed up by some data, 99% of the pro peloton was doping at the time, THERE WAS NO CHEATING. The fact that it was against "the rules" is almost immaterial. 

Do all the "Get Lance" crowd drive at or below the speed limit 100% of the time (ride "clean"), or do you flow with the average speed of traffic (dope)? On roads with an artificially low speed limit (to boost local revenues) if you drive the speed limit rather than flow with traffic what happens? A major Charlie Foxtrot, that's what. 

I'm all about laws and rules and following those that are just and consistent. Going after Lance at this point ISN'T about treating everyone equally. That chance has been missed and if you boot everyone who was doping, you're going to end up giving the victory to the highest placed low-placing rider who was too low to be tested. That's not equal either. It just happens to be that LA is the highest profile rider (worldwide) to be the focus of an investigation so more people (including me) are paying attention now. I would make the same arguments regarding Contador, Ulrich, et al. 

This isn't a freaking murder case. IT'S A BIKE RACE! And one in which no one "cheated" (because everyone was "cheating")!


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

OldChipper said:


> Given that these are all accurate you put your finger square on the problem i.e. the institutionalized denial and concealment by the entire sport of cycling from the governing body all the way down to individual teams. LA and others were just conforming to the norm which is adaptive in any society. The fact that the public and private reality were 180 degrees opposite is not their fault. If, as has been hypothesized and backed up by some data, 99% of the pro peloton was doping at the time, THERE WAS NO CHEATING. The fact that it was against "the rules" is almost immaterial.
> 
> Do all the "Get Lance" crowd drive at or below the speed limit 100% of the time (ride "clean"), or do you flow with the average speed of traffic (dope)? On roads with an artificially low speed limit (to boost local revenues) if you drive the speed limit rather than flow with traffic what happens? A major Charlie Foxtrot, that's what.
> 
> ...


What do you tell someone like Landis, who had his whole career and life destroyed? Sorry, even though you were doing a fraction of what Armstrong did, we used you as a scapegoat. Our bad.

To use your speeding analogy, because everyone is driving 65 in the 55 zone we should not bust the toolbag weaving through traffic while doing 85? I don't think so. With limited resources, the authorities usually concentrate on the most flagrant violators. In cycling that means Armstrong.

I like how everyone says that because everyone was doing it, it's no big thing. Well, if it's no big thing then why can't Armstrong stop lying?


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

2 or 3 or 4 or... wrongs don't make a right. 

Whether or not he wants to, Armstrong has been placed in a position where he basically has to lie. Brought about by the long-term, systematic lying of the system he was in. Of course, he also gets personal benefit out of lying, but that doesn't change the basic situation.

Does suck big-time for those few riders who were riding clean, but life sucks sometimes. Let's focus on better testing and even enforcement going forward. I'd like it even better if THE SPORT would 'fess up, say "our bad," reinstate titles where they can and do better in the future, and implement real change.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

OldChipper said:


> 2 or 3 or 4 or... wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> Whether or not he wants to, Armstrong has been placed in a position where he basically has to lie. Brought about by the long-term, systematic lying of the system he was in. Of course, he also gets personal benefit out of lying, but that doesn't change the basic situation.
> 
> Does suck big-time for those few riders who were riding clean, but life sucks sometimes. Let's focus on better testing and even enforcement going forward. I'd like it even better if THE SPORT would 'fess up, say "our bad," reinstate titles where they can and do better in the future, and implement real change.


Comedy Gold. :thumbsup:

Did he also have to pay off the UCI? Harass anyone who told the truth? 

Slowly the toxic element is being purged from the sport. Lance, Johan, and their doctor buddies loved to tell riders that it was normal to take dozens of shots, that Pro's Dope. It is good to see this is no longer mandatory


----------



## orangeclymer (Aug 18, 2009)

nuttin but mumbo gumbo from a cpl here is all..........no proof, no way to prove anything they come here and spew so they can go back and read it and feel good about themselves..:lol::ciappa:


----------



## orangeclymer (Aug 18, 2009)

Chris-X said:


> What legal/ethical theory is this?
> 
> Now Lance has won fair and square and he's being persecuted? Poor Lance! And he's inspired so many, and enriched himself in the process! Why not? It's America!
> 
> I don't think they'll exhume Anquetil. SOL has probably run out anyway.


blah blah sis boom bah!!!


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Yes we are all tired of this witch hunt !

it is about time to finally burn that witch ! I have my pitchforks and torches ready


----------



## Samadhi (Nov 1, 2011)

Salsa_Lover said:


> Yes we are all tired of this witch hunt !
> 
> it is about time to finally burn that witch ! I have my pitchforks and torches ready


I think I'd rather have the beer and jello shots concession.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Looks like some on the doping forum are not the only ones who think the LA circus is a waste or time and certainly energy.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...elevant-for-many-at-the-tour-de-france_227077


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

SicBith said:


> Looks like some on the doping forum are not the only ones who think the LA circus is a waste or time and certainly energy.
> http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...elevant-for-many-at-the-tour-de-france_227077


The memo said to pound the McGwire quote?

I'd have a lot more respect for these guys if they just said no comment.

JV especially.

He says the questions are irrelevant. The problem is that there are still legitimate questions in the minds of the fans of the sport.

"Believe!" Uh, no thanks, I'll remain a skeptic.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Chris-X said:


> He says the questions are irrelevant.


That is not at all what he said. 

"When asked by VeloNews if allegations against Armstrong were relevant to the peloton of the modern Tour de France, Vaughters was succinct.

'I don’t think it’s relevant at all. Zero relevance. It’s irrelevant to this Tour de France,' Vaughters said. 'I’m here to run a great team to do the best Tour we can after winning our first grand tour. We have to leave it at that.' "


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

SicBith said:


> Looks like some on the doping forum are not the only ones who think the LA circus is a waste or time and certainly energy.
> Analysis: Armstrong investigation is ‘irrelevant’ for many at the Tour de France


I know a few of the guys interviewed for that article and we have had similar discussions. The sport has moved on. Armstrong is largely irrelevant. As much as he likes to pretend the sport is all about him, it is not.

Regardless sanctions are not based on what anyone on the internet or who drives a team car thinks. USADA was given a clear mandate to sanction dopers in the sports that sign the WADA code. Should WADA ignore the evidence from over 10 direct witnesses? Giving Bruyneel, Marti, Ferrari, Armstrong, del Moral and Celya will do far more damage to the sport then going after them. 

We have seen repeatedly that ignoring the issue never works.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

asgelle said:


> That is not at all what he said.
> 
> "When asked by VeloNews if allegations against Armstrong were relevant to the peloton of the modern Tour de France, Vaughters was succinct.
> 
> 'I don’t think it’s relevant at all. Zero relevance. It’s irrelevant to this Tour de France,' Vaughters said. 'I’m here to run a great team to do the best Tour we can after winning our first grand tour. We have to leave it at that.' "


Yes it is. I paraphrased him and that did not distort what he said.

Saying the allegations are "not relevant at all" and that they're" irrelevant" this year is saying the allegations are irrelevant.

Do you want to have a debate about the meaning of the words "question" or "modern?"

The reason both the questions and the allegations are relevant to the modern peloton is that many people still don't believe that what they're seeing is real.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Chris-X said:


> Saying the allegations are "not relevant at all" and that they're" irrelevant" this year is saying the allegations are irrelevant.


Except you ignore the two qualifiers Vaughters put in. He said the allegations were not relevant to the current peloton and that they were not relevant to this year's Tour de France. The sport of cycling is much larger than those two things. In my mind, ignoring those two qualifiers changes the meaning of what he said.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I know a few of the guys interviewed for that article and we have had similar discussions. The sport has moved on. Armstrong is largely irrelevant. As much as he likes to pretend the sport is all about him, it is not.
> 
> Regardless sanctions are not based on what anyone on the internet or who drives a team car thinks. USADA was given a clear mandate to sanction dopers in the sports that sign the WADA code. Should WADA ignore the evidence from over 10 direct witnesses? Giving Bruyneel, Marti, Ferrari, Armstrong, del Moral and Celya will do far more damage to the sport then going after them.
> 
> We have seen repeatedly that ignoring the issue never works.


They all say it's irrelevant except when it hits them in their pocketbooks. 

I know they don't like to hear it, but the this whole thing has cast a pall over the sport and invoking the Mark McGwire bs is not helping matters for them.

Continually making less than candid remarks doesn't help their case when they start complaining about the focus on doping in cycling.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I know a few of the guys interviewed for that article and we have had similar discussions. The sport has moved on. Armstrong is largely irrelevant. As much as he likes to pretend the sport is all about him, it is not.
> 
> Regardless sanctions are not based on what anyone on the internet or who drives a team car thinks. USADA was given a clear mandate to sanction dopers in the sports that sign the WADA code. Should WADA ignore the evidence from over 10 direct witnesses? Giving Bruyneel, Marti, Ferrari, Armstrong, del Moral and Celya will do far more damage to the sport then going after them.
> 
> We have seen repeatedly that ignoring the issue never works.


In this case somehow I believe ignoring this case in general would be the only win for cycling. All those guys are scared and know the evidence against them is overwhelming. In my opinion just having your name mentioned with Bruyneel and Armstrong is a death wish for riders now. Look at all the rumor with RS and this new German team. It looks like the ship is already sinking.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

asgelle said:


> Except you ignore the two qualifiers Vaughters put in. He said the allegations were not relevant to the current peloton and that they were not relevant to this year's Tour de France. The sport of cycling is much larger than those two things. In my mind, ignoring those two qualifiers changes the meaning of what he said.


The qualifiers are hair splitting. He should have been a lawyer like his father if he wants to make these silly distinctions. It's not completely honest on his part. 

Vaughters wants the sport to have credibilty...It's lacking. Why is that?

The qualifiers are deceptive..


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Chris-X said:


> The qualifiers are deceptive..


This is Orwellian. Vaughters carefully says precisely what he means, and you find that deceptive? He answered the question as posed honestly. He chose not to further expand on all aspects of the investigation and doping in cycling, nor was he under any obligation to do so.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

asgelle said:


> This is Orwellian. Vaughters carefully says precisely what he means, and you find that deceptive? He answered the question as posed honestly. He chose not to further expand on all aspects of the investigation and doping in cycling, nor was he under any obligation to do so.


Yes, I do find it deceptive and he was not only deceptive, he was wrong. I didn't know that Armstrong, Bruyneel, Ferrari, Del Moral, and Celaya aren't relevant to the modern Tour de France.

Are the allegations relevant to Hincapie? He's still in the peloton and may be a decisive factor in the race.

Many riders who were successful in the Armstrong era are still competing. Wiggins was quoted as saying he "loves" Armstrong. 

As for this careful and precise speaking you have no problem with, what do you think about Hincapie speaking carefully and precisely that he didn't speak to 60 Minutes and he didn't know where they got the info from? Both technically and precisely true but complete bs statements nonetheless. 

You want to start arguing over the definition of "is?" You're accepting Orwellian double speak, not me.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

SicBith said:


> In this case somehow I believe ignoring this case in general would be the only win for cycling. All those guys are scared and know the evidence against them is overwhelming. In my opinion just having your name mentioned with Bruyneel and Armstrong is a death wish for riders now. Look at all the rumor with RS and this new German team. It looks like the ship is already sinking.


Letting them walk only encourages others. It is very profitable doping riders. Ferrari made over $30 million in his career. If he spends a large portion of the rest of his life in prison this would be a good thing to deter future dirt bags

The sport has distanced themselves from the train wreak, ignoring it only insure it continues.


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Regardless sanctions are not based on what anyone on the internet or who drives a team car thinks. USADA was given a clear mandate to sanction dopers in the sports that sign the WADA code. Should WADA ignore the evidence from over 10 direct witnesses?


Actually, maybe. Take for example the murder trial. You could have 100 witnesses saying they saw X kill Y, but without Y's body (or prolonged absence) or plausible reason for its absence (they saw X throw Y into a wood chipper for e.g.), there's not much of a case. 

The 10 say they saw LA dope without temporally-tied positive tests (the body), there's not much of a case (unless there are such tests that I am ignorant of). Like has been said, the "witnesses" had no way of knowing what was in the IV or syringe - could have been saline.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

OldChipper said:


> Actually, maybe. Take for example the murder trial. You could have 100 witnesses saying they saw X kill Y, but without Y's body (or prolonged absence) or plausible reason for its absence (they saw X throw Y into a wood chipper for e.g.), there's not much of a case.
> 
> The 10 say they saw LA dope without temporally-tied positive tests (the body), there's not much of a case (unless there are such tests that I am ignorant of). Like has been said, the "witnesses" had no way of knowing what was in the IV or syringe - could have been saline.


Nope. 

Your analogy is way off base. This is a civil case with a lower burden of proof then a criminal case. Lance is not going to jail, he is just having his wins stripped.m 

They also have much more evidence then just the witness testimony. Armstrong's blood values in 2010 around the time of the Tour of Flanders and the Tour were nuts. Note, the USADA review board made the specific request that the only evidence released publicly is evidence that is already in the public domain because they were concerned with Lance harassing witnesses 

Yeah, it was saline. Red saline. :thumbsup: And when they were in the room together extracting blood what was Lance doing? Why would they fly to Belgium to take a bag of Saline?

Not that it matters but if 100 people saw you kill someone you are going to jail, even if they can't find the body.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Chris-X said:


> The memo said to pound the McGwire quote?
> 
> I'd have a lot more respect for these guys if they just said no comment.
> 
> ...


hmmmm so anyone who can prove your argument irrelevant should say no comment. What if USADA when asked if LA doped said no comment? Does that work for ya.
No one cares about this LA crap. He doped... He got away with it... let it go the rest of the pro cycling world has.


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Not that it matters but if 100 people saw you kill someone you are going to jail, even if they can't find the body.


Not if I can afford good attorneys. :smilewinkgrin: Two letters for you: O and J (not that 100 people witnessed it in that case)

So if his blood values were so "nuts" then, why didn't they bust him then? Why didn't the Federal investigators find enough to indict him? I know, ooooh he intimidated them. Yeah, right. Folks who say that don't know much about federal investigators. They have waaaay more methods of intimidation than some washed up biker racer. Going to a "court" where the burden of proof is lower is weak sauce.  

Someone's life shouldn't be ruined without proof beyond a reasonable doubt (and, yes, I apply that to others who have been sanctioned for doping without similarly strong proof). But I guess we'll see if they have that.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

OldChipper said:


> Not if I can afford good attorneys. :smilewinkgrin: Two letters for you: O and J (not that 100 people witnessed it in that case)
> 
> So if his blood values were so "nuts" then, why didn't they bust him then? Why didn't the Federal investigators find enough to indict him? I know, ooooh he intimidated them. Yeah, right. Folks who say that don't know much about federal investigators. They have waaaay more methods of intimidation than some washed up biker racer. Going to a "court" where the burden of proof is lower is weak sauce.
> 
> Someone's life shouldn't be ruined without proof beyond a reasonable doubt (and, yes, I apply that to others who have been sanctioned for doping without similarly strong proof). But I guess we'll see if they have that.


OJ did not have any witness, not 100, not 10, none. 

Good question. Members of the Biopassport committee were told some riders were untouchable because they were too well funded. 5 Biopassport positives were ignored
Anti-Doping Officials Step Up Cycling Oversight - WSJ.com

The Feds drew up the charging papers. Multiple agencies agreed they had a slam dunk case, FBI, DEA, FDA. One guy dropped it. Wonder what Lance had on that one guy? Wonder why USADA is concerned about threats, harassment, and intimidation? History. 

Don't worry, USADA has more then enough evidence to prove guilt, which is why Lance's only defense is to smear people


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

SicBith said:


> No one cares about this LA crap. He doped... He got away with it... let it go the rest of the pro cycling world has.


You care. You are here posting about it.

A few years ago guys like you were denying that Armstrong was a doper. Then it became okay because it was a level playing field. Finally it did not matter because it's in the past. I think we need to face facts that some people want Armstrong to get away with it, they have always wanted him to get away with it, and they will latch on to any excuse to let him get away with it. 

The chickens have finally come home to roost. If Armstrong's defenders had not made excuses for him in the past then the problem could have been dealt with in the past. As it is, we have to deal with the mess now.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

trailrunner68 said:


> You care. You are here posting about it.
> 
> A few years ago guys like you were denying that Armstrong was a doper. Then it became okay because it was a level playing field. Finally it did not matter because it's in the past. I think we need to face facts that some people want Armstrong to get away with it, they have always wanted him to get away with it, and they will latch on to any excuse to let him get away with it.
> 
> The chickens have finally come home to roost. If Armstrong's defenders had not made excuses for him in the past then the problem could have been dealt with in the past. As it is, we have to deal with the mess now.


This exactly. 

If anyone is upset that it took so long to finally sanction lance they should look in the mirror. Fans, the UCI, the media, and sponsors. All ignored the obvious


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

SicBith said:


> hmmmm so anyone who can prove your argument irrelevant should say no comment. What if USADA when asked if LA doped said no comment? Does that work for ya.
> No one cares about this LA crap. He doped... He got away with it... let it go the rest of the pro cycling world has.


The only thing/person which can prove my argument irrelevant, is time and transparency.

I don't think no comment is a good reply at all but it's better than the nonsense these guys are spewing. 

JV could have made a general acknowledgement of the issues, deflected a little by saying they've affected most of the major sports over the last 10-20 years or so, and then noted that cycling is making the biggest effort of any prominent sport to rectify the problem with good results. He could also acknowledge that the issue has received a lot of coverage and that he can't and won't comment on it any further. 

Saying it's irrelevant is kind of an insult, especially in light of what he knows is going to be revealed.

With Vino, Kloden, all the Discovery guys in the race, Basso, Cancellera, c'mon! Leipheimer is still a contender for GC??

I find it ironic that when Decanio talked years ago, Zabriskie very freely called him a "bitter crackpot." Now when everything Decanio was talking about (shocking stuff) turns out to be true, it's all irrelevant and in the past.

A bigger problem is that the UCI should have taken the bull by the horns and spoken openly about the issues so the riders don't have to. Unfortunately the UCI is part of the problem and there needs to be a house cleaning.

For Velonews to come out with this "analysis" is a joke. 

Analysis: Armstrong investigation is ‘irrelevant’ for many at the Tour de France

These guys really have their heads in the sand.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

trailrunner68 said:


> You care. You are here posting about it.
> 
> A few years ago guys like you were denying that Armstrong was a doper. Then it became okay because it was a level playing field. Finally it did not matter because it's in the past. I think we need to face facts that some people want Armstrong to get away with it, they have always wanted him to get away with it, and they will latch on to any excuse to let him get away with it.
> 
> The chickens have finally come home to roost. If Armstrong's defenders had not made excuses for him in the past then the problem could have been dealt with in the past. As it is, we have to deal with the mess now.





Doctor Falsetti said:


> This exactly.
> 
> If anyone is upset that it took so long to finally sanction lance they should look in the mirror. Fans, the UCI, the media, and sponsors. All ignored the obvious


Yes, this it it....


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Chris-X said:


> Saying it's irrelevant is kind of an insult, especially in light of what he knows is going to be revealed.


Except, of course, Vaughters said only the charges against Armstrong are irrelevant and only with respect to this years Tour de France. And here we go again.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> This exactly.
> 
> If anyone is upset that it took so long to finally sanction lance they should look in the mirror. Fans, the UCI, the media, and sponsors. All ignored the obvious


Totally agree. I would liken it to Penn State and their monumental problems. It's becoming apparent that PSU chose not to deal with a criminal for fear of it harming their institution. The "fanboys" in and out of the sport chose not to deal with LA's criminal activity for the same reason--he was making quite a number of them no small amount of money and outing him would hurt the institution. Had they listened to l'equipe and Damien Ressiot instead of ridiculing them, this all could have been dealt with years ago. Now, it's inconvenient and "expensive" and we should all just move on. No thanks, I'll happily accept the expense to see the truth.


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

trailrunner68 said:


> A few years ago guys like you were denying that Armstrong was a doper. Then it became okay because it was a level playing field. Finally it did not matter because it's in the past. I think we need to face facts that some people want Armstrong to get away with it, they have always wanted him to get away with it, and they will latch on to any excuse to let him get away with it.


Thank you very much for saying this. It sums up the attitude of so may people who will indeed latch on to _any_ ridiculous excuse (and there are some very ridiculous excuses) in the defense of Armstrong. I find much of it quite astounding, actually.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

trailrunner68 said:


> You care. You are here posting about it.
> 
> A few years ago guys like you were denying that Armstrong was a doper. Then it became okay because it was a level playing field. Finally it did not matter because it's in the past. I think we need to face facts that some people want Armstrong to get away with it, they have always wanted him to get away with it, and they will latch on to any excuse to let him get away with it.
> 
> The chickens have finally come home to roost. If Armstrong's defenders had not made excuses for him in the past then the problem could have been dealt with in the past. As it is, we have to deal with the mess now.


You might want to do some homework before you label me a LA supporter. My position through out all this and when it first hit at the TOC has stayed consistent. I have no doubt in my mind that LA doped, proven not only by the riders he competed with who have been caught, but also by evidence supported from teammates. It's the LA tea party gang which you seem to be a member of (supported by your post) in my opinion keep LA in the limelight and see him as the white whale who must be brought down at any cost to cycling and the sponsor $$$ which keep the races in business. Good on ya...have fun watching euro league soccer on Universal.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

blackhat said:


> Totally agree. I would liken it to Penn State and their monumental problems. It's becoming apparent that PSU chose not to deal with a criminal for fear of it harming their institution. The "fanboys" in and out of the sport chose not to deal with LA's criminal activity for the same reason--he was making quite a number of them no small amount of money and outing him would hurt the institution. Had they listened to l'equipe and Damien Ressiot instead of ridiculing them, this all could have been dealt with years ago. Now, it's inconvenient and "expensive" and we should all just move on. No thanks, I'll happily accept the expense to see the truth.


Let me get this straight you are equating the UCI turning its back on LA and his doping violations to Penn State covering up Sandusky. A guy who is going to lose a few TOFs because he cheated to a guy going to jail for life for destroying little boys. I usually agree with your post, but this one is shocking.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Even Hilter is tired of this BS

Hitler reacts to LA's USADA ban - YouTube


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

SicBith said:


> Even Hilter is tired of this BS
> 
> Hitler reacts to LA's USADA ban - YouTube


Have you come up with a new username yet?


----------



## Samadhi (Nov 1, 2011)

SicBith said:


> Even Hilter is tired of this BS
> 
> Hitler reacts to LA's USADA ban - YouTube


must dispense rep .......


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Chris-X said:


> Have you come up with a new username yet?[/QUOTE
> 
> You're dishing up hangin curveballs Mr. X, but look for Chris X2 at your local forum.


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Good question. Members of the Biopassport committee were told some riders were untouchable because they were too well funded. 5 Biopassport positives were ignored
> Anti-Doping Officials Step Up Cycling Oversight - WSJ.com


EXACTLY! So who's more at fault and deserves more investigating? The doper or the governing organizations, testing entities and sponsors who systematically ignored, covered up or condoned (by their actions) the doping? 



Doctor Falsetti said:


> The Feds drew up the charging papers. Multiple agencies agreed they had a slam dunk case, FBI, DEA, FDA.


This from your friends in the FBI, DEA, FDA? Or from your imagination? Certainly the judge didn't know anyone else in law enforcement and couldn't have added blackmail, obstruction of justice and about a dozen other charges to the indictment. But I guess the all-powerful Lance probably could have beaten that too. He certainly is one bad-a$$ guy. I mean, he shouldn't have even bothered training all those years. He could just have "gotten something" on everyone else in the peloton and forced them to let him win. I mean the whole "getting something on someone" sure worked for Landis, right? Oh right, it didn't.


----------



## Rsix (Oct 18, 2005)

I'm getting pretty tired of this witch hunt. Captain Ahab must get his whale I guess......


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

Rsix said:


> I'm getting pretty tired of this witch hunt. Captain Ahab must get his whale I guess......


very tiresome. Maybe they think they can get him where others have failed. I have to see that to believe it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

David Loving said:


> very tiresome. Maybe they think they can get him where others have failed. I have to see that to believe it.


Who else failed? The UCI never even tried, they ignored his doping for years.


----------



## pro from dover (Jul 5, 2010)

Lance is a liar and a cheat. I was taught growing up that lying and cheating was not proper behavior. Period !


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

The truth needs to come out. Who cares about money being wasted. The integrity of the sport is more important than any money spent. Besides, if you really want to save taxpayers' money, then start writing to your local congressmen about how he's wasting your tax.

I hope they find LA guilty, and wipe his name from the history of the Tour. Make an example outta him. Burn the witch.


----------



## High Gear (Mar 9, 2002)

Wiggins has a few words for the forum dwellers.

Tour de France 2012: Bradley Wiggins' rant at doping question defended by Team Sky | Mail Online


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

High Gear said:


> Wiggins has a few words for the forum dwellers.
> 
> Tour de France 2012: Bradley Wiggins' rant at doping question defended by Team Sky | Mail Online


Those who are cheaters seem to respond with expletives when asked. It's a touchy subject for them cheats. I would not be surprised one bit if the Sky train is reading the manual written by the defunct US Postal train!


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

High Gear said:


> Wiggins has a few words for the forum dwellers.
> 
> Tour de France 2012: Bradley Wiggins' rant at doping question defended by Team Sky | Mail Online


Instead of a profanity laced tirade; he should have just said that he has never failed a drug test, and that the only thing he is on is his bike, six hours a day.


----------



## High Gear (Mar 9, 2002)

The Tedinator said:


> Instead of a profanity laced tirade; he should have just said that he has never failed a drug test, and that the only thing he is on is his bike, six hours a day.


Thats how you win Le Tour!


----------

