# Reinstate Armstrong's Titles?



## Local Hero

*Opinion is split between the 25 surviving Tour de France champions on whether Lance Armstrong was winner of the Tour de France between 1999-2005*
Read more at Should Lance Armstrong's seven Tour de France 'wins' be reinstated? - Cycling Weekly


_Perhaps surprisingly, half said that his name should be listed as the winner of the race, with those ‘for’ including Stephen Roche, Miguel Indurain, Jan Ullrich, Oscar Pereiro and Andy Schleck, as well as Janssen, Felice Gimondi and Joop Zoetemelk. Indurain, a five-time winner between 1991-1995 said, “If nobody else can be reasonably declared the winner of the races in those years it’s clear that Armstrong won these seven Tours.”

For his part, Ullrich declared, “I don’t want wins to be awarded to me by a committee, I want my wins to have been achieved on the bike. Armstrong is the winner of those Tours, nobody else.”

Some former winners preferred to keep their thoughts to themselves, like two-time winner Bernard Thevenet (who has admitted to doping using cortisone during his career) or Eddy Merckx who had ‘no comment’ to make on his former friend, as did his former team mate Alberto Contador._


Note to regular posters: We already know *your* opinion, especially those of you who hate Armstrong or compare him to Idi Amin. There's no use in posting your boring rants in this thread. Why have some former winners said to reinstate Armstrong? Why are some saying "no comment"? The former winners are more of an authority than any of us. Let's talk about *their* opinions. Or their silence. 

Do you think the opinions on this can serve as a litmus test as to who was clean?


----------



## brianmcg

[HR][/HR]They are saying to reinstate simply because all of them were on the same stuff he was. They all knew what was going on then.


----------



## Local Hero

Are you saying it was a level playing field?


----------



## spdntrxi

it was.. 95% anyways. and the ones not doping, didn't have a chance anyways. What Lance did was wrong and how he treated people was wrong, but we all know because he is American they wanted him more then anyone else.


----------



## brianmcg

Local Hero said:


> Are you saying it was a level playing field?


I didn't say anything. You asked why they would say to reinstate and that is my best guess. I can't actually read their minds. 

As as far as what I think it's much more complicated than I care to type in a forum respones. It's been pretty much proven that all of them were doping. But it doesn't make it a level playing field in that some people will be high responders to the drugs while others would get sick and many even died.


----------



## Marc

Well, Jan Ullrich is definitely an expert on doping. So I spose his opinion counts for _something_.

A survey of bank robbers find over half believe that people who rob banks should not be charged with a crime!


----------



## MR_GRUMPY

I don't understand it......None of the photos in the article have Armstrong looking evil.
.
.


----------



## BikeLayne

I would have not taken the titles away to start with. It was all to long ago to bother with.


----------



## mrcreosote

Or just create a new title of "best doper"

Lance Armstrong (pre-confession) "I have never been caught taking drugs"
Everyone else "Well, you must be pretty good at it"


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> *Opinion is split between the 25 surviving Tour de France champions on whether Lance Armstrong was winner of the Tour de France between 1999-2005*
> Read more at Should Lance Armstrong's seven Tour de France 'wins' be reinstated? - Cycling Weekly
> 
> 
> _Perhaps surprisingly, half said that his name should be listed as the winner of the race, with those ‘for’ including Stephen Roche, Miguel Indurain, Jan Ullrich, Oscar Pereiro and Andy Schleck, as well as Janssen, Felice Gimondi and Joop Zoetemelk. Indurain, a five-time winner between 1991-1995 said, “If nobody else can be reasonably declared the winner of the races in those years it’s clear that Armstrong won these seven Tours.”
> 
> For his part, Ullrich declared, “I don’t want wins to be awarded to me by a committee, I want my wins to have been achieved on the bike. Armstrong is the winner of those Tours, nobody else.”
> 
> Some former winners preferred to keep their thoughts to themselves, like two-time winner Bernard Thevenet (who has admitted to doping using cortisone during his career) or Eddy Merckx who had ‘no comment’ to make on his former friend, as did his former team mate Alberto Contador._
> 
> Note to regular posters: We already know *your* opinion, especially those of you who hate Armstrong or compare him to Idi Amin. There's no use in posting your boring rants in this thread. Why have some former winners said to reinstate Armstrong? Why are some saying "no comment"? The former winners are more of an authority than any of us. Let's talk about *their* opinions. Or their silence.
> 
> Do you think the opinions on this can serve as a litmus test as to who was clean?


1) Haven't we talked 'did Armstrong win' and 'should he keep his titles' to death? A synopsis of the last 1,000,000 Armstrong threads:
'Armstrong really won!'
'Armstrong bad'
'Everyone was doing it'
'No, Armstrong was a jerk, too'
'You're a hater!!'
'You're a fanboy!!'
'Knock it off, or There'll be bans'
'Armstrong'd win in a clean era'
'Ha! He's a donkey who couldn't hold Lemond's jock!'
'Hater!'
'fanboy!!'
'Don't make me stop this car!'
'But, but, cancer!'
'Awareness. And travel expenses.'
'Armstrong really won' 
Repeat...

2) Why are former winners more of an authority than us? Because many of them doped and will say Armstrong's doping is no big deal? If you ask a bunch of bank robbers 'should Dilenger be allowed to keep the cash,' they'll likely say yes.

We spend a lot of time quibbling about the relative morality of doping and little time discussing the concrete reality if it. As in, PEDs can be very bad for ones' health. This creates the false illusion that doping is a matter of debatable ethics and not a medical reality. 

You don't have to have won the TdF to see that storing blood in your fridge is bad (Ricco,) steroids can wreck your health (Thomas,) getting the wrong blood bag is just plain creepy (Manzano and Hamilton).

Perhaps we should ask Tom Simpson who really had the fastest climb up Ventoux... oh, wait...


----------



## sneakyracer

Local Hero said:


> *Opinion is split between the 25 surviving Tour de France champions on whether Lance Armstrong was winner of the Tour de France between 1999-2005*
> Read more at Should Lance Armstrong's seven Tour de France 'wins' be reinstated? - Cycling Weekly
> 
> 
> _Perhaps surprisingly, half said that his name should be listed as the winner of the race, with those ‘for’ including Stephen Roche, Miguel Indurain, Jan Ullrich, Oscar Pereiro and Andy Schleck, as well as Janssen, Felice Gimondi and Joop Zoetemelk. Indurain, a five-time winner between 1991-1995 said, “If nobody else can be reasonably declared the winner of the races in those years it’s clear that Armstrong won these seven Tours.”
> 
> For his part, Ullrich declared, “I don’t want wins to be awarded to me by a committee, I want my wins to have been achieved on the bike. Armstrong is the winner of those Tours, nobody else.”
> 
> Some former winners preferred to keep their thoughts to themselves, like two-time winner Bernard Thevenet (who has admitted to doping using cortisone during his career) or Eddy Merckx who had ‘no comment’ to make on his former friend, as did his former team mate Alberto Contador._
> 
> 
> Note to regular posters: We already know *your* opinion, especially those of you who hate Armstrong or compare him to Idi Amin. There's no use in posting your boring rants in this thread. Why have some former winners said to reinstate Armstrong? Why are some saying "no comment"? The former winners are more of an authority than any of us. Let's talk about *their* opinions. Or their silence.
> 
> Do you think the opinions on this can serve as a litmus test as to who was clean?


I think hey should reinstate his 7 titles. He won on the bike and as we have seen in this tour that is not something to be taken lightly. Just surviving the tour is a feat. He raced against a lot of great cyclists who were also doping. He just had the best combination of skill, luck, practice, conditioning, technology, planing, strategy and team. Armstrong and his team did a lot of things right. They worked for it. It is not like the doping made it any easier, since others were doping too. 

Was it all morally right? That is another discussion altogether.


----------



## jajichan

Local Hero;4673689[I said:


> *]*Indurain, a five-time winner between 1991-1995 said, “If nobody else can be reasonably declared the winner of the races in those years it’s clear that Armstrong won these seven Tours.”
> 
> [/I]
> Do you think the opinions on this can serve as a litmus test as to who was clean?



Not really, as I don't think any of them were "clean" in an absolute sense. 

I think the "for" group are simply expressing a similar sentiment to Indurain, that there has to be a winner of the race and since no one else can really be declared a winner (sincethe top 10/20/50/whatever) were all likely on something, then they should just leave him. 

I disagree with him completely as I love the statement the winner-less tours leave, but eh...


----------



## spade2you

jajichan said:


> Not really, as I don't think any of them were "clean" in an absolute sense.
> 
> I think the "for" group are simply expressing a similar sentiment to Indurain, that there has to be a winner of the race and since no one else can really be declared a winner (sincethe top 10/20/50/whatever) were all likely on something, then they should just leave him.
> 
> I disagree with him completely as I love the statement the winner-less tours leave, but eh...


Why can't Big Mig just admit it? Most of his podium has admitted it already. Shouldn't this forum be very upset with Big Mig for destroying LeMond, the only clean GC rider in the last ~30 years???


----------



## Local Hero

spade2you said:


> Why can't Big Mig just admit it? Most of his podium has admitted it already. Shouldn't this forum be very upset with Big Mig for destroying LeMond, the only clean GC rider in the last ~30 years???


I sense a deathbed confession. 

BigMig: "Greg, I have a confession..."
Lemond: "No, don't. Save your strength." 
BigMig: "But I must. I have to tell the world something. I have to tell you something."
Lemond: "There is nothing you need to say. It's all in the past now."
BigMig: "No, I have to say it, I doped!"
Lemond: "I know, that's why I poisoned you."


----------



## den bakker

12345


----------



## obed

stripping or restoration is just a symbolic move... everybody knows who won, and everybody knows that every competitive rider at the time was doing the same thing.
If anything the era is a commentary on the sponsors and fans who were willing to accept it at the time. If the support and money is not there, the riders won't do it.


----------



## spade2you

Local Hero said:


> I sense a deathbed confession.
> 
> BigMig: "Greg, I have a confession..."
> Lemond: "No, don't. Save your strength."
> BigMig: "But I must. I have to tell the world something. I have to tell you something."
> Lemond: "There is nothing you need to say. It's all in the past now."
> BigMig: "No, I have to say it, I doped!"
> Lemond: "I know, that's why I poisoned you."


I'd hate to think what would happen to Armstrong. That would be some Silence of the Lambs kind of stuff!


----------



## SpeedNeeder

Should the UCI be stripped of any reference to the TdF during those years, and any moneys received from the tour be refunded to the teams and riders?


----------



## Winn

Bluenote said:


> 1) Haven't we talked 'did Armstrong win' and 'should he keep his titles' to death? A synopsis of the last 1,000,000 Armstrong threads:
> 'Armstrong really won!'
> 'Armstrong bad'
> 'Everyone was doing it'
> 'No, Armstrong was a jerk, too'
> 'You're a hater!!'
> 'You're a fanboy!!'
> 'Knock it off, or There'll be bans'
> 'Armstrong'd win in a clean era'
> 'Ha! He's a donkey who couldn't hold Lemond's jock!'
> 'Hater!'
> 'fanboy!!'
> 'Don't make me stop this car!'
> 'But, but, cancer!'
> 'Awareness. And travel expenses.'
> 'Armstrong really won'
> Repeat...


What's funny(?) is this thread will go just like this despite you showing the clear ridiculousness of further discussion.



SpeedNeeder said:


> Should the UCI be stripped of any reference to the TdF during those years, and any moneys received from the tour be refunded to the teams and riders?


That however is an unexpected and interesting question. The answer of course is that will never happen.


----------



## CliffordK

Here is the way Wikipedia lists it:









With the footnote:
B: Lance Armstrong was declared winner of seven consecutive tours from 1999 to 2005. However, in October 2012 he was stripped of all titles by the UCI due to the use of performance enhancing drugs. The tour director Christian Prudhomme had previously declared that if this happened, there would be no alternate winners for those years, but this has not yet been made official.

I think that is how I would leave it. Lance is no longer the "true" winner, but there is also no alternative winner.

Whether there are previous tour and stage winners that used drugs... probably. But it sounds like Armstrong took the drug use to a new level, and I don't believe it should be condoned by anybody.


----------



## cbk57

I say reinstate all of the stripped wins, Lance or otherwise. The only one I am not confident in reinstating is Floyd Landis as he was pretty much caught in the act. You cannot deny the history of the sport and the fact that cheating or doping has been an ongoing issue. So I would support reinstating Contadors stripped win, I am not sure there are any others if we don't include Floyd. As to Floyd, I could honestly go either way I don't care. I saw him win in Paris same as Lance and Alberto. I don't feel stripping titles has done any good. The only thing that seems to help is extensive and effective testing, with meaningful and quick penalties.


----------



## svrider

People keep talking about his titles like it's something that has to be resolved. Well, it doesn't need to be resolved. If they leave those 7 years blank the world won't stop turning. It's just a bike race. Cycling isn't going to implode if they just ignore those 7 years. It's in the past and it doesn't matter.


----------



## brianmcg

spade2you said:


> Why can't Big Mig just admit it? Most of his podium has admitted it already. Shouldn't this forum be very upset with Big Mig for destroying LeMond, the only clean GC rider in the last ~30 years???



But, as many Lance haters keep pointing out, Miguel was a nice guy so he gets a pass.


----------



## BassNBrew

On the plus side, the TdF can celebrate another 100 year anniversary.


----------



## n2deep

Absolutely,, Re-instate all seven, immediately. The only reason they are pissed off is that he out smarted them.. He passed all of the piss tests required to race, doped and still won and tested negative.. It took the full weight of the US Gov and their fleet of NFG lawyers that promiced to take everything he owned or will ever own for him to come clean Even a clean racer would capitulate under those odds. 

I'll shut up and get the popcorn.. thanks!!..


----------



## cbk57

I watched most of those years that they stripped Lance's Floyd's or Alberto's wins. I know who stood on top of the podium. Stripping those titles means nothing to me. As you say the world keeps turning. Well you can't really change the results either.


----------



## mpre53

brianmcg said:


> But, as many Lance haters keep pointing out, Miguel was a nice guy so he gets a pass.


Mig was also the kind of guy who made the Great Sphinx look like a chatterbox. There's a lot to be said in any walk of life for not letting your mouth paint a target on your back.


----------



## n2deep

The most intriguing fact in the whole Armstrong debacle is that it took the full weight of our federal government, their castle of winged monkey boy lawyers, the threat to invoke the RICO statutes and a promise to to litigate this for the next twenty years to get Armstrong to capitulate. If he did not plead guilty and make public statements/apologies, as directed. He would have lost everything including the ability to support his family.

No one, not even the man “Bill Gates” could withstand the damage these people can do to your family and bank account.

So if you can comprehend this type of pressure and the impact to your family, why would you believe everything you read and hear? Isn’t this what the government of the united states what’s you to believe

I’m not a big Armstrong Fan,, but you need to see this for what it was, Lance became the poster child for all that is wrong and god won’t let us punish a baseball player, that would be un-american?


----------



## asgelle

n2deep said:


> If he did not plead guilty ... .


I can't believe I missed this. What did he plead guilty to?


----------



## mpre53

n2deep said:


> The most intriguing fact in the whole Armstrong debacle is that it took the full weight of our federal government, their castle of winged monkey boy lawyers, the threat to invoke the RICO statutes and a promise to to litigate this for the next twenty years to get Armstrong to capitulate. If he did not plead guilty and make public statements/apologies, as directed. He would have lost everything including the ability to support his family.
> 
> No one, not even the man “Bill Gates” could withstand the damage these people can do to your family and bank account.
> 
> So if you can comprehend this type of pressure and the impact to your family, why would you believe everything you read and hear? Isn’t this what the government of the united states what’s you to believe
> 
> I’m not a big Armstrong Fan,, but you need to see this for what it was, Lance became the poster child for all that is wrong and god won’t let us punish a baseball player, that would be un-american?


You do realize that the Federal government wasted more money by prosecuting Roger Clemens for lying to a room full of liars (called the US Congress), than USADA did in the Armstrong investigation? Last time I checked, Clemens was a baseball player.

Ever hear of Barry Bonds? They prosecuted him, too. :wink:


----------



## n2deep

mpre53 said:


> You do realize that the Federal government wasted more money by prosecuting Roger Clemens for lying to a room full of liars (called the US Congress), than USADA did in the Armstrong investigation? Last time I checked, Clemens was a baseball player.
> 
> Ever hear of Barry Bonds? They prosecuted him, too. :wink:


I don't agree with the money/effort expended issue however I do stand corrected on the basebll player thing  Thanks


----------



## Local Hero

asgelle said:


> I can't believe I missed this. What did he plead guilty to?


War crimes.


----------



## mpre53

n2deep said:


> I don't agree with the money/effort expended issue however I do stand corrected on the basebll player thing  Thanks


Of the money that USADA spent investigating US Postal and Lance, how much was spent on the actual investigation, and how much was spent on defending the various actions for injunctions that Lance brought to stop it? Cause, you know, he wasn't as helpless as guys like you or me would be if the Feds decided to zero in on us. Since you seem to know, and I have to admit that I don't.


----------



## mpre53

Local Hero said:


> War crimes.


I thought it was being the Most Evil Human Being to ever live? Seeing as how someone here equated him with Idi Amin not that long ago. :lol:


----------



## deviousalex

n2deep said:


> The most intriguing fact in the whole Armstrong debacle is that it took the full weight of our federal government


The full weight of the federal government involves tanks and airplanes. Invading Iraq took the full weight of the federal government. Stripping Lance of his seven titles wasn't.


So should Landis, Rasmusen, and Contador all need to get their titles back as well?


----------



## Local Hero

deviousalex said:


> So should Landis, Rasmusen, and Contador all need to get their titles back as well?


Weren't those titles awarded to other racers?


----------



## Local Hero

mpre53 said:


> I thought it was being the Most Evil Human Being to ever live? Seeing as how someone here equated him with Idi Amin not that long ago. :lol:


I'm not sure but I think that was the same poster who claimed to have put me on ignore and then went on to respond to my posts a few hours later. 

lol


----------



## deviousalex

Local Hero said:


> Weren't those titles awarded to other racers?


Why should that be relevant? A cheater won in both situations.


----------



## Local Hero

deviousalex said:


> Why should that be relevant? A cheater won in both situations.


There are blanks during WWII, when the tour didn't actually happen. The tour happened during Armstrong's reign of terror and there are seven years of blanks. Seven years of blanks is different than the years with the names of runner ups.


----------



## sir duke

Lance should have his Tour wins reinstated.

He should also be awarded an honorary 8th 'maillot jaune' for having the decency to confess to cheating, resigning from Livestrong and never calling Betsy Andreu 'fat'. When the time comes I would also like to see him run for the presidency of the UCI. If Lance can't catch the dopers, nobody can. :thumbsup:


----------



## n2deep

mpre53 said:


> I thought it was being the Most Evil Human Being to ever live? Seeing as how someone here equated him with Idi Amin not that long ago. :lol:


Too Funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks for the laughs !!


----------



## cbk57

While Lance did win seven tours de france, that does not mean he is immune to loosing everything he owns in litigation and even possibly ending up in jail. I never did think that Lance was the nicest guy in town, it does not change the facts, he won those races, he cheated, so did everyone else involved. Lance will pay a price and is paying a price. I just think it silly to strip lance of the titles and not strip Pantani, Beyarne, Ulrick and many others who cheated. Do we go back and strip Copi for taking the brown bag of amphetamines or god knows what in the 50's. They were doing some really sick drugs in the good old days.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Where are the groupies calling for Tyler to get his Olympic medal, Floyd to get his tour, and Ricco to get his stages? 

Ricco, victim of a witch hunt? Why retro test, it was all in the past. Blah, blah


----------



## Winn

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Where are the groupies calling for Tyler to get his Olympic medal, Floyd to get his tour, and Ricco to get his stages?
> 
> Ricco, victim of a witch hunt? Why retro test, it was all in the past. Blah, blah


Good question _ Raymond Kerckhoffs _wrote the article here he may be able to tell you if you can get a hold of him. I hope you speak Dutch...


----------



## deviousalex

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Where are the groupies calling for Tyler to get his Olympic medal, Floyd to get his tour, and Ricco to get his stages?
> 
> Ricco, victim of a witch hunt? Why retro test, it was all in the past. Blah, blah


You just don't get it. Cheating is okay as long as everyone else does it! Just find another doper to get second place and you can keep your first.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Where are the groupies calling for Tyler to get his Olympic medal, Floyd to get his tour, and Ricco to get his stages?


Do you think the 25 tdf winners are Armstrong groupies? 


> Blah, blah


Oh.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Do you think the 25 tdf winners are Armstrong groupies?
> Oh.


You didn't read the article did you?..... or maybe math is not your thing. 

Looking forward to your "Reinstate Ricco" Campaign. Maybe you could make us a list of all the dopers you want to campaign for.....or is that list only one guy?


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You didn't read the article did you?..... or maybe math is not your thing.
> 
> Looking forward to your "Reinstate Ricco" Campaign. Maybe you could make us a list of all the dopers you want to campaign for.....or is that list only one guy?


Sorry, I'm going to ignore all of your personal attacks. This isn't about me or any campaign. 

This is about the former tour winners. About half of them think Armstrong should be reinstated. Some are simply silent. A minority of former tour winners think things should stay as they are. 

You attempted to make this personal and attack people by calling those who want Armstrong reinstated "groupies" -- I asked a simple question: In your opinion, are these former tour winners Armstrong groupies? 

Please answer without resorting to personal attacks. If you cannot answer without personal attacks, just stay quiet. Thanks


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> Sorry, I'm going to ignore all of your personal attacks. This isn't about me or any campaign.
> 
> This is about the former tour winners. About half of them think Armstrong should be reinstated. Some are simply silent. A minority of former tour winners think things should stay as they are.
> 
> You attempted to make this personal and attack people by calling those who want Armstrong reinstated "groupies" -- I asked a simple question: In your opinion, are these former tour winners Armstrong groupies?
> 
> Please answer without resorting to personal attacks. If you cannot answer without personal attacks, just stay quiet. Thanks


Not sure that this poll adds any understanding of previous tour winners. We already know that many of them either tested positive, or have been tied to doping.

Not surprising that many guys who doped think Armstrong should keep his titles.  Not surprising that guys who ride in the current "zero tolerance" atmosphere answered no. 

Not exactly shocking revelations, really. 
List of doping cases in cycling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stephen Roche - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miguel Indurain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Óscar Pereiro - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Felice Gimondi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes:
Stephen Roche - implicated in EPO use, by Conconi, substantiated by Italian Judicial investigation
Miguel Indurain - worked with Franceso "EPO" Conconi, widely suspected of using EPO
Jan Ullrich - positive tests / Operation Puerto
Oscar Pereiro - used a back dated TEU for asthma meds
Andy Schleck - his brother tested positive
Giomondi - positive tests
Janssen - 
Bahomontes - 
Joop Zoetemelk - positive tests

No comment:
Thevenet - has admitted doping
Merckx - multiple positives

Dopers are pro-doping! Discuss!! 

p.s. Armstrong


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Sniped


Sorry, I am going to ignore your troll nonsense, but it is good of you to acknowledged that you were trolling about 25 Tour winners being groupies and wanting Lance to be re-instated, when it was really about 1/2 that. 

Let me know how your campaign for Ricco goes. Maybe you could sell T-Shirts......or hey, how about Wristbands!?!


----------



## Winn

Bluenote said:


> Dopers are pro-doping! Discuss!!
> 
> p.s. Armstrong


Interesting thought. It does make sense when you think about it. Of course cheaters will support others that won the same way.

I wonder how long these discussions will continue. In the end it really doesn't matter though time goes on the tour continues and despite it all I enjoy watching them race.

You do make a valid point either they all get reinstated or none do.

P.S. Landis every Mennonite should get a second chance...


----------



## aclinjury

Marc said:


> Well, Jan Ullrich is definitely an expert on doping. So I spose his opinion counts for _something_.
> 
> *A survey of bank robbers find over half believe that people who rob banks should not be charged with a crime*!


Best summation of this whole rehashed topic.

In other news, out of the 25 serial murderers currently on death row surveyed, half (that would be 12.5) thinks the death penalty should be abolished.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

From now on we should get rid of juries and just let fellow crooks be the judge.


----------



## Winn

aclinjury said:


> In other news, out of the 25 serial murderers currently on death row surveyed, half (that would be 12.5) thinks the death penalty should be abolished.


You'd think that would be closer to 100%


----------



## macca33

Well this thread is so full of win, isn't it?!?!? He certainly was the best......cheat.


----------



## sir duke

Bluenote said:


> Not sure that this poll adds any understanding of previous tour winners. We already know that many of them either tested positive, or have been tied to doping.
> 
> Not surprising that many guys who doped think Armstrong should keep his titles. Not surprising that guys who ride in the current "zero tolerance" atmosphere answered no.
> 
> Not exactly shocking revelations, really.
> List of doping cases in cycling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Stephen Roche - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Miguel Indurain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Óscar Pereiro - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Felice Gimondi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Yes:
> Stephen Roche - implicated in EPO use, by Conconi, substantiated by Italian Judicial investigation


Roche was a childhood friend of Paul Kimmage but that all changed when Kimmage went on Irish t.v. to explain why he didn't want to dope...

Back in the days before 'cancer Jesus' Armstrong got fed to the lions for being a cheat a certain sports icon called Muhammad Ali got the best years of his sporting career taken away from him, (with a resultant loss of income), and narrowly escaped jail, for deciding he didn't want to go halfway around the world to kill men, women and children who had done him no harm. As I recall he didn't whine about it. I don't wish to drag politics into this but Lance has suffered less for sinning more.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> From now on we should get rid of juries and just let fellow crooks be the judge.


Why do you keep insisting that everyone was doping?


----------



## slamy

They all cheat. You can't tell me a lot of those riders now aren't cheating. Would anyone be shocked it Nibali is found to be cheating? Merckx and others used stuff too. Not epo but whatever they felt would help them win. That british rider in the 60's Tommy Simpson was on some stuff and rode himself to death on one stage. The difference between the older riders is that they didn't have as good of drugs as there are now. Hell in one of the first Tours a guy jumped on a train to get an advantage. 
Personally it doesn't matter but when I see other past champions who were busted for doping hold on to their titles, than Armstrong needs to have his. Pantani, Ullrich, Riis, Hell you know Piero was doping, he was on one of Landis's team once. You know they all shared training stuff.
How to fix it who knows. I hate it for the sport that I love. It ruins it. It's hard to believe some of the feats you see now. I am skeptical of Nibali. He's got a known cheater running the team Vinokurov. But I'm sure he served his suspension, learned his lesson and is clean now.. right? just like a drug addict who went to prison and came back clean and knows he was wrong. They never go back to old habits right? But as much as I don't like Armstrong I'd give the tours back to him, because the record book is so tainted it wouldn't matter.


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> Why do you keep insisting that everyone was doping?


Not sure how you get 'everyone was doping' from Dr. F's comment. 

Speaking specifically - the former TdF riders who said 'yes' - most of them were doping. This has been shown through positive tests, or credible non-analyticals. 

So he's correct in saying this poll asked a large number of dopers, if another doper should keep his titles. 

As a side note - we should ask Armstrong if that 47 year old Masters guy who just lapped everyone at a local race should get to keep his win / prize money / swag. Then make that binding across USA Cycling.


----------



## slamy

Don't forget about the 1988 tour winner Pedro Delgado. If I recall there was some doping issues with him also.



Bluenote said:


> Not sure that this poll adds any understanding of previous tour winners. We already know that many of them either tested positive, or have been tied to doping.
> 
> Not surprising that many guys who doped think Armstrong should keep his titles. Not surprising that guys who ride in the current "zero tolerance" atmosphere answered no.
> 
> Not exactly shocking revelations, really.
> List of doping cases in cycling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Stephen Roche - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Miguel Indurain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Óscar Pereiro - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Felice Gimondi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Yes:
> Stephen Roche - implicated in EPO use, by Conconi, substantiated by Italian Judicial investigation
> Miguel Indurain - worked with Franceso "EPO" Conconi, widely suspected of using EPO
> Jan Ullrich - positive tests / Operation Puerto
> Oscar Pereiro - used a back dated TEU for asthma meds
> Andy Schleck - his brother tested positive
> Giomondi - positive tests
> Janssen -
> Bahomontes -
> Joop Zoetemelk - positive tests
> 
> No comment:
> Thevenet - has admitted doping
> Merckx - multiple positives
> 
> Dopers are pro-doping! Discuss!!
> 
> p.s. Armstrong


----------



## Bluenote

slamy said:


> Don't forget about the 1988 tour winner Pedro Delgado. If I recall there was some doping issues with him also.


Yeah, he wasn't listed as one of the respondents to this survey, so I didn't mention him.


----------



## Bluenote

slamy said:


> They all cheat. You can't tell me a lot of those riders now aren't cheating. Would anyone be shocked it Nibali is found to be cheating? Merckx and others used stuff too. Not epo but whatever they felt would help them win. That british rider in the 60's Tommy Simpson was on some stuff and rode himself to death on one stage. The difference between the older riders is that they didn't have as good of drugs as there are now. Hell in one of the first Tours a guy jumped on a train to get an advantage.
> Personally it doesn't matter but when I see other past champions who were busted for doping hold on to their titles, than Armstrong needs to have his. Pantani, Ullrich, Riis, Hell you know Piero was doping, he was on one of Landis's team once. You know they all shared training stuff.
> How to fix it who knows. I hate it for the sport that I love. It ruins it. It's hard to believe some of the feats you see now. I am skeptical of Nibali. He's got a known cheater running the team Vinokurov. But I'm sure he served his suspension, learned his lesson and is clean now.. right? just like a drug addict who went to prison and came back clean and knows he was wrong. They never go back to old habits right? But as much as I don't like Armstrong I'd give the tours back to him, because the record book is so tainted it wouldn't matter.


This is why I think WADA should rewrite its SOL rules. 8 years for doping, 16 years for doping with conspiracy. 

Once you get far enough away from events, its hard for people to defend themselves. Supporting records disappear, witnesses forget or can't be found. Some people aren't even alive to defend themselves anymore. 

Plus rules change. If PEDs (or a specific PED), wasn't against the rules in 1920, someone using them wasn't technically cheating. Of course, we've tightened up rules against PEDs, because we've learned a lot about how bad they can be for you. 

So strip titles in a reasonable amount of time, or let sleeping dogs lie. 

Btw, had Armstrong taken his case to arbitration and challenged the SOL, he may have won. We'll never know.


----------



## deviousalex

Bluenote said:


> Btw, had Armstrong taken his case to arbitration and challenged the SOL, he may have won.


Or if he had taken the initial USADA offer he would have only lost 2-3 tour titles. Instead he was stubborn and fought till the end and lost everything.


----------



## cbk57

Lance is and was an egotistical piece of ________. However, stripping titles has been just as dumb as Lance. Totally point less and academic at best. The longer there is a gap in the winners record the more it will be discussed and never forgotten. Put a footnote under his records referencing known cheat. The history of the sport is and always will be what it was.


----------



## deviousalex

cbk57 said:


> Lance is and was an egotistical piece of ________. However, stripping titles has been just as dumb as Lance. Totally point less and academic at best. The longer there is a gap in the winners record the more it will be discussed and never forgotten. Put a footnote under his records referencing known cheat. The history of the sport is and always will be what it was.


And if you leave them there he'll still be the winner of the most TdF titles.


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderators Note*

Stay on point please, enough of the name calling. BTW- it is possible to put posters on "ignore". I would suggest a few people avail themselves of this option.


----------



## brianmcg




----------



## brianmcg




----------



## brianmcg




----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Coolhand said:


> Stay on point please, enough of the name calling.


How about the intentional twisting of posts in order to provoke conflict? 

Trolling is cool, just don't point it out.

Got it:thumbsup:


----------



## ti-triodes

deviousalex said:


> And if you leave them there he'll still be the winner of the most TdF titles.





mpre53 said:


> You do realize that the Federal government wasted more money by prosecuting Roger Clemens for lying to a room full of liars (called the US Congress), than USADA did in the Armstrong investigation? Last time I checked, Clemens was a baseball player.
> 
> Ever hear of Barry Bonds? They prosecuted him, too. :wink:


What you fail to mention is that Barry Bonds admitted using roids and he was still acquitted. The actual needles that Roger Clemens used to take his roids were brought up in his case and he was acquitted.

Strangely enough, they didn't bring in all of their teammates and threaten them with jail time if they didn't cooperate.


----------



## macca33

ti-triodes said:


> What you fail to mention is that Barry Bonds admitted using roids and he was still acquitted. The actual needles that Roger Clemens used to take his roids were brought up in his case and he was acquitted.
> 
> Strangely enough, they didn't bring in all of their teammates and threaten them with jail time if they didn't cooperate.



What amount of US Federal funds ($$$) did either of those blokes enjoy as a result of their cheating??? Serious question and perhaps, if the answer is none, the public funds received by US Postal is the reason why the US Feds chased Armstrong so hard in this case...no???


----------



## spade2you

cbk57 said:


> Lance is and was an egotistical piece of ________.


It's a bike race, not a date. More than a few people take sports entirely too personally. 

Do a few races and ya might realize it's not good vs. evil.


----------



## Bluenote

spade2you said:


> It's a bike race, not a date. More than a few people take sports entirely too personally.
> 
> Do a few races and ya might realize it's not good vs. evil.


Umh, you do realize cbk57 said Armstrong should keep his titles, right?


----------



## road addict

why have they never stripped Virenque of his mountain titles or Zabel of his sprinter titles or have they ?


----------



## mpre53

ti-triodes said:


> What you fail to mention is that Barry Bonds admitted using roids and he was still acquitted. The actual needles that Roger Clemens used to take his roids were brought up in his case and he was acquitted.
> 
> Strangely enough, they didn't bring in all of their teammates and threaten them with jail time if they didn't cooperate.


The waste of money aspect was prosecuting Clemens for perjury, in that he lied to Congress at a hearing. With all of the other problems that Congress should have been addressing, empaneling a select committee to investigate doping in the "national pasttime" should have been at the bottom of their agenda. Akin to investigating why the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. All you had to do to realize that there was wide-spread doping was watch a game. :lol:

Oh, so he lied. To a roomful of guys who lie every day of their lives. 

The problem they had with the needles was, to tie them to Clemens, they established the chain of custody through their star witness, a guy named McNamee, who had major credibility issues, and for reasons he never adequately explained, claimed that kept them after he supposedly shot HGH into Clemens' ass.. That they were the "actual needles" depends on whether you believed McNamee or not. Many people didn't, including the 12 jurors.


----------



## cbk57

I am only referring to Lance as a person. Brilliant racer and competitor, not a great human being. He just happened to win the tour 7 times. I don't recognize the ability of USADA or the UCI to brainwash me into believing otherwise.


----------



## NealH

cbk57 said:


> I am only referring to Lance as a person. Brilliant racer and competitor, not a great human being. He just happened to win the tour 7 times. I don't recognize the ability of USADA or the UCI to brainwash me into believing otherwise.



Count me 100% in agreement.


----------



## spade2you

Bluenote said:


> Umh, you do realize cbk57 said Armstrong should keep his titles, right?


Again, personality should not be part of the outcome either way.


----------



## SpeedNeeder

I usually drive 5-7 mph over the speed limit.
Because everyone else does.


----------



## cbk57

Personality was a big part of the outcome. His ego in trying a comeback which reopened the door, the way he treated others in the cover up and the denial, and an overly aggressive competitive instinct to dominate instead of duck and cover. His personality flaws are the biggest underlying factor in why his titles were stripped instead of the raw truth of the era.


----------



## atpjunkie

road addict said:


> why have they never stripped Virenque of his mountain titles or Zabel of his sprinter titles or have they ?


no they have not
they haven't stripped any of the other 'also dopers' of their titles in retro
Bjarne still has his title, as does Jan and Pantani
as does Anquetil. Did they ask Pou Pou?


----------



## CliffordK

macca33 said:


> What amount of US Federal funds ($$$) did either of those blokes enjoy as a result of their cheating??? Serious question and perhaps, if the answer is none, the public funds received by US Postal is the reason why the US Feds chased Armstrong so hard in this case...no???


The USPS is an odd public/private business. But, I agree that the doping was a slap in the face for the USPS, and thus the Federal Government.

Mark McGuire, another doper had a portion of the Federal Interstate 70 named after him. Now, renamed to the pseudonym Mark Twain.

Perhaps not federal funds, but baseball organizations do receive a lot of local government support. And, they're not necessarily kind about it. The only reason St. Louis paid to rebuild Busch Stadium was due to threats to move the franchise out of the city. And, I think the biggest effect of the new stadium was higher ticket prices. 

How much do the government incentives subsidize the player salaries, even if it is indirectly?

Anyway, Baseball certainly got a hit with a congressional inquiry.


----------



## atpjunkie

CliffordK said:


> The USPS is an odd public/private business. But, I agree that the doping was a slap in the face for the USPS, and thus the Federal Government.
> 
> Mark McGuire, another doper had a portion of the Federal Interstate 70 named after him. Now, renamed to the pseudonym Mark Twain.
> 
> Perhaps not federal funds, but baseball organizations do receive a lot of local government support. And, they're not necessarily kind about it. The only reason St. Louis paid to rebuild Busch Stadium was due to threats to move the franchise out of the city. And, I think the biggest effect of the new stadium was higher ticket prices.
> 
> How much do the government incentives subsidize the player salaries, even if it is indirectly?
> 
> Anyway, Baseball certainly got a hit with a congressional inquiry.


baseball has special anti-trust protections from the govt
because of this, they are subject to govt oversight and inquiry

for more info

Why does baseball have an antitrust exemption?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> no they have not
> they haven't stripped any of the other 'also dopers' of their titles in retro
> Bjarne still has his title, as does Jan and Pantani
> as does Anquetil. Did they ask Pou Pou?


 Jan sanctioned and his results from the period where they were able to produce evidence were stripped.

As for the others there is no process in place to strip them.....but you knew that. 

Some like to deflect the topic to others to make their hero look better, but all that really does is reinforce how poorly managed the sport was before WADA came along and how important it was to not ignore the mountain of evidence against Lance


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Jan sanctioned and his results from the period where they were able to produce evidence were stripped.
> 
> As for the others there is no process in place to strip them.....but you knew that.
> 
> Some like to deflect the topic to others to make their hero look better, but all that really does is reinforce how poorly managed the sport was before WADA came along and how important it was to not ignore the mountain of evidence against Lance


my cycling heroes ride the stones or cx. Sad all you can do is ad hom. If one thinks erasing an entire career over an admission of guilt is justice then all I am saying is it should be applied evenly. That doesn't hurt any Lance fans but it may break the hearts of all the lovers of Virenque, Pantani, Ullrich, Anquetil etc......
Yes, the sport was poorly managed before WADA....
funny all these 'clean' riders are going just as all the dirty ones of a decade ago. I guess WADA has cleaned it up and we can owe it ll to marginal gains. WADA didn't bust Lance the US Govt did. Again, it wasn't a doping bust (WADA's job) but admissions under oath from his team and him. Well, Bjarne admitted it, Anquetil admitted it, Virenque admitted it again NOTHING to do with WADA, so why not strip?
All I am doing is presenting what one could see as a 'consistent' ruling based on similar admissions.


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Jan sanctioned and his results from the period where they were able to produce evidence were stripped.


so which evidence from the period did WADA Produce on Lance?

nothing but the USADA testimony.


----------



## atpjunkie

To return to the OP
What we know
1) So a decent size chunk of former winners think he should be given his wins back
I'll wager it is because they know if the same metric was applied to them they would be erased as well

2) WADA and the UCI couldn't award his wins to anyone else because it was nearly impossible to find anyone who finished behind him without a dope scandal/admission

3) His main foil and former TdF champ says "he was the winner".


----------



## Tschai

Local Hero said:


> *
> Note to regular posters: We already know *your* opinion, especially those of you who hate Armstrong or compare him to Idi Amin. There's no use in posting your boring rants in this thread. Why have some former winners said to reinstate Armstrong? Why are some saying "no comment"? The former winners are more of an authority than any of us. Let's talk about *their* opinions. Or their silence.
> 
> Do you think the opinions on this can serve as a litmus test as to who was clean?*


*

Note to OP - those dudes' opinions mean jack squat.*


----------



## badge118

atpjunkie said:


> my cycling heroes ride the stones or cx. Sad all you can do is ad hom. If one thinks erasing an entire career over an admission of guilt is justice then all I am saying is it should be applied evenly. That doesn't hurt any Lance fans but it may break the hearts of all the lovers of Virenque, Pantani, Ullrich, Anquetil etc......
> Yes, the sport was poorly managed before WADA....
> funny all these 'clean' riders are going just as all the dirty ones of a decade ago. I guess WADA has cleaned it up and we can owe it ll to marginal gains. WADA didn't bust Lance the US Govt did. Again, it wasn't a doping bust (WADA's job) but admissions under oath from his team and him. Well, Bjarne admitted it, Anquetil admitted it, Virenque admitted it again NOTHING to do with WADA, so why not strip?
> All I am doing is presenting what one could see as a 'consistent' ruling based on similar admissions.


Well you are also responding to someone who when I pointed to the past Champs who we know doped tried to draw a line saying that doping with amphetamine isn't as bad as EPO so who cares when it comes to using the "he lied then" to break SOL.

As you said, and over on PO you KNOW this is a big sticking point of mine....for justice to be justice it needs to be applied consistently...otherwise it loses credibility in the long run. I talk to LOTs of people bother knowledgeable and not of cycling. Universally they say the same thing...

"yeah Lance doped...something should be done about it BUT don't they keep talking about coming out of the doping 'era'?" If it is an "era" that means the problem was endemic. If it was endemic then you either need to just wipe the records period or let all records stand with an *. Anything else is to, for all intents and purposes, give everyone else a pass and make a handful of riders look like sacrifices on the alter of a PR campaign."

And this is just for the "EPO era". Go before that to " old school" blood doping, steroids, speed, downers, etc. and it gets even worse because many of those people are known to have doped but we still look at them as "Champions.". It smacks of so much hypocrisy. I look at pictures of Merckx crying crocodile tears and say " the difference between him and Lance? Merckx played to pity card Lance played the don't f*** with me card.". They both doped, just one get a pass because he is the Cannibal and the other doesn't because people think he was a jerk.


----------



## badge118

Tschai said:


> Note to OP - those dudes' opinions mean jack squat.


Why? Because they were dopers too? If so why do we accept them keeping their records?


----------



## atpjunkie

badge118 said:


> Well you are also responding to someone who when I pointed to the past Champs who we know doped tried to draw a line saying that doping with amphetamine isn't as bad as EPO so who cares when it comes to using the "he lied then" to break SOL.
> 
> As you said, and over on PO you KNOW this is a big sticking point of mine....for justice to be justice it needs to be applied consistently...otherwise it loses credibility in the long run. I talk to LOTs of people bother knowledgeable and not of cycling. Universally they say the same thing...
> 
> "yeah Lance doped...something should be done about it BUT don't they keep talking about coming out of the doping 'era'?" If it is an "era" that means the problem was endemic. If it was endemic then you either need to just wipe the records period or let all records stand with an *. Anything else is to, for all intents and purposes, give everyone else a pass and make a handful of riders look like sacrifices on the alter of a PR campaign."
> 
> And this is just for the "EPO era". Go before that to " old school" blood doping, steroids, speed, downers, etc. and it gets even worse because many of those people are known to have doped but we still look at them as "Champions.". It smacks of so much hypocrisy. I look at pictures of Merckx crying crocodile tears and say " the difference between him and Lance? Merckx played to pity card Lance played the don't f*** with me card.". They both doped, just one get a pass because he is the Cannibal and the other doesn't because people think he was a jerk.


yes I understand. I too dislike people who lack a consistent line of debate. Lance was never 'busted' he was banned and stripped because he admitted it. Now other riders have admitted it (Virenque, Ullrich, Riss, Zabel...) and the TdF says "well that was too long ago"
It's a load of horse manure. As others have stated there's a difference in punishment because of his personality. I get it, he was an ass. That shouldn't change the law. I am waiting for the point if and when he comes clean and we find out how much the Tour and or WADA knew and kept quiet because he was 'good for the sport' at that time and place. Much like the juiced batters saved baseball during the post strike years.


----------



## asgelle

So not big on due process, eh?


----------



## love4himies

I too would love to hear from Lance on all he knows. Maybe he'll get desperate for money and write a book. There is no doubt the officials knew what was going on. Geesh, even the fans knew. I also think the sponsors had to know too and as long as it was kept hush-hush it was OK with them too.

I agree, badge118, do it to everybody or to nobody. 

There has been doping/cheating for as long as there has been sports and it's never going to change.


----------



## asgelle

atpjunkie said:


> Lance was never 'busted' he was banned and stripped because he admitted it.


Do you just make up crap because it suites you? This is pure fantasy.


----------



## atpjunkie

asgelle said:


> Do you just make up crap because it suites you? This is pure fantasy.


no. Find where he was busted by WADA for doping.
Other than the admission of he and his team mates they have nothing

even abc news had to use the word a'lleged' why? because it was never proven

even the retests in 2005 by a UCI appointed doping guy failed due to improper testing and handling. "The report said tests on urine samples were conducted improperly and fell so short of scientific standards that it was "completely irresponsible" to suggest they "constitute evidence of anything."

once again, I don't care for Lance. 
What I do care about
A) the UCI is tossing him solely under the bus when doping existed both before and after his tenure is nothing more than P-R and image clean up
B) using an admission of guilt to strip one rider but not any other is lopsided justice

How about Museeuw? He still has his wins and trained Nibali on riding the stones.


----------



## atpjunkie

atpjunkie said:


> n
> How about Museeuw? He still has his wins and trained Nibali on riding the stones.


and this is the rub I guess

I can watch a doped Museeuw winning Roubaix after destroying his knee
I can watch a doped Mario de Clerq win CS World Championships
I can watch a doped Mapei or Domo Farm Frites team beat the snot out of a doped George Hincpaie @ Roubaix
I can watch a doped Lance battle a doped Pantani up Mt Ventoux
I can watch a doped Lance Drop a doped Ullrich, Basso etc...
I can watch a doped Vino go off on a flyer
or a doped Pantani drop a doped Ullrich
I can watch doped pitchers throwing fastballs to doped batters
I can watch doped NFL or College footballers do battle on Saturday and Sunday
none of it makes my butt hurt


----------



## asgelle

Another dispatch from Fantasyland. At this point, I'm sure everyone realizes it was USADA who sanctioned Armstrong based on their own investigation with the evidence spelled out in the reasoned decision (none of which came from Armstrong). 

The question I have is do you really not understand this and if not, what is motivating you to continuously spread lies.


----------



## atpjunkie

asgelle said:


> So not big on due process, eh?


sure I am
sadly the same 'due process' is not being applied evenly


----------



## asgelle

atpjunkie said:


> sure I am
> sadly the same 'due process' is not being applied evenly


Of course not. Would you expect the same due process in an English and French court? How about ex post facto?


----------



## atpjunkie

asgelle said:


> Of course not. Would you expect the same due process in an English and French court? How about ex post facto?


pretty simple
if an admission of guilt is enough to erase someones entire career
then there should be a lot more blank spaces in the TdF records


----------



## badge118

atpjunkie said:


> pretty simple
> if an admission of guilt is enough to erase someones entire career
> then there should be a lot more blank spaces in the TdF records


Asgelle this is the point he is making. Other riders admitted to doping after decades of lying. Other riders have numerous people who have publically stated they know and have seen so and so dope.

For Justice in any system, US, GB, France, Mars, Juptier to matter it has to be apply without bias and uniformly under the current structure. 

The case against Lance was necessary...he needed to get slammed BUT it smacks of Watch GW Bush standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier in front of a banner that read "Mission Accomplished." 

No one is saying "Lance is a victim" what we are saying is that so many others are openly still enjoying the fruits of admitted doping. I disliked Armstrong's personality...I like Zabel's. This does not mean I can't say "since he admitted to doping why has the ASO not stripped Zabel of his green Jerseys' just like they did Armstrong's Yellow?"

It is like having two murder suspects...one comes off like a POS so you give him life...the other guys comes off contrite so you let him walk. No...you nail the contrite guy too, they both committed the same crime.


----------



## Bluenote

badge118 said:


> Asgelle this is the point he is making. Other riders admitted to doping after decades of lying. Other riders have numerous people who have publically stated they know and have seen so and so dope.
> 
> For Justice in any system, US, GB, France, Mars, Juptier to matter it has to be apply without bias and uniformly under the current structure.
> 
> The case against Lance was necessary...he needed to get slammed BUT it smacks of Watch GW Bush standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier in front of a banner that read "Mission Accomplished."
> 
> No one is saying "Lance is a victim" what we are saying is that so many others are openly still enjoying the fruits of admitted doping. I disliked Armstrong's personality...I like Zabel's. This does not mean I can't say "since he admitted to doping why has the ASO not stripped Zabel of his green Jerseys' just like they did Armstrong's Yellow?"
> 
> It is like having two murder suspects...one comes off like a POS so you give him life...the other guys comes off contrite so you let him walk. No...you nail the contrite guy too, they both committed the same crime.


I think people focus too much on the man and not enough on the agency. The USADA goes after dopers, Spain protects theirs. So it's more like saying "US murderers get caught, German murderers get let off."

The USADA came down pretty hard on Tammy Thomas (a hard luck story), Tyler Hamilton (a nice guy), etc... I think they gave overly generous deals to they guys who rolled on Armstrong - but those guys did get results stripped. Its not all about Armstrong and his personality (douchebaggery), there are other factors in play.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> so which evidence from the period did WADA Produce on Lance?


Direct witness testimony has won hundreds of thousands of cases. Cornerstone of the legal world


----------



## atpjunkie

badge118 said:


> Asgelle this is the point he is making. Other riders admitted to doping after decades of lying. Other riders have numerous people who have publically stated they know and have seen so and so dope.
> 
> For Justice in any system, US, GB, France, Mars, Juptier to matter it has to be apply without bias and uniformly under the current structure.
> 
> The case against Lance was necessary...he needed to get slammed BUT it smacks of Watch GW Bush standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier in front of a banner that read "Mission Accomplished."
> 
> No one is saying "Lance is a victim" what we are saying is that so many others are openly still enjoying the fruits of admitted doping. I disliked Armstrong's personality...I like Zabel's. This does not mean I can't say "since he admitted to doping why has the ASO not stripped Zabel of his green Jerseys' just like they did Armstrong's Yellow?"
> 
> It is like having two murder suspects...one comes off like a POS so you give him life...the other guys comes off contrite so you let him walk. No...you nail the contrite guy too, they both committed the same crime.


I like Zabel more as well. Never wanted a Trek but damn I wanted that Green Pinarello Prince. Succinctly put.


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Direct witness testimony has won hundreds of thousands of cases. Cornerstone of the legal world


and we have direct testimony on numerous riders (along with their admissions)
Where are the ------- through their names?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> Other than the admission of he and his team mates they have nothing


Are you for real?

Direct witness testimony of over a dozen witnesses? One in a million blood fluctuations in 2009? 

The evidence against lance was overwhelming, to pretend different is absurd


----------



## atpjunkie

Bluenote said:


> I think people focus too much on the man and not enough on the agency. The USADA goes after dopers, Spain protects theirs. So it's more like saying "US murderers get caught, German murderers get let off."
> 
> The USADA came down pretty hard on Tammy Thomas (a hard luck story), Tyler Hamilton (a nice guy), etc... I think they gave overly generous deals to they guys who rolled on Armstrong - but those guys did get results stripped. Its not all about Armstrong and his personality (douchebaggery), there are other factors in play.


a good addition but whether Spain or Germany punishes theirs they still have their admissions. The UCI should strike equally


----------



## Fireform

Armstrong's strenuous and unparalleled efforts to obstruct investigations and intimidate witnesses also played a role, as well they should have.


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Are you for real?
> 
> Direct witness testimony of over a dozen witnesses? One in a million blood fluctuations in 2009?
> 
> The evidence against lance was overwhelming, to pretend different is absurd


as was the Puerto evidence against.....

do you know what they call testimony in court? heresay
you typically need some evidence to substantiate it

I like how you use 'fluctuations' because they couldn't prove anything more
once again, why they used 'alleged' and 'consistent with'

do you think the editors parsed these words in this manner without good reason?

I'm more real than any 'evidence' you've ever presented


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> and we have direct testimony on numerous riders (along with their admissions)
> Where are the ------- through their names?


You do? really? Where are they? Share with this all the evidence you have that is being suppressed. 

Where are the dozens of witnesses on Jan? the German Government pursued him for a decade but Jan and Rudy were smart enough to completely separate Jan from the Telekom program. Pages and pages of the Freiburg report and barely a mention of Jan, none after 1998.They were lucky to get a 1,000,000 Euro settlement. UCI pursued him for 6 years after he retired, and 2 CAS appeals, and could only get 2 years.....Because they could not get the evidence. Are you sitting on some secret stuff? You should have helped the UCI.

Please, share with us the witnesses who will talk about Mayo, Beloki, Basso, Vino.....we are waiting. Deflect if you like about riders who never signed the WADA code (Pantani, Riis, Indurain) but we both know that there is no due process to pursue them


----------



## atpjunkie

Fireform said:


> Armstrong's strenuous and unparalleled efforts to obstruct investigations and intimidate witnesses also played a role, as well they should have.


yeah he was a bully, an a hole

so nice criminals should be let off?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> do you know what they call testimony in court? heresay


At this point it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> if an admission of guilt is enough to erase someones entire career


You do realize Lance was banned and stripped prior to going on Oprah right?


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> At this point it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about


look, I'll agree we ban Lance

now you explain why, given the same type of evidence (testimony and admissions of guilt) no one else should suffer the same ruling

logically of course


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You do? really? Where are they? Share with this all the evidence you have that is being suppressed.
> 
> Where are the dozens of witnesses on Jan? the German Government pursued him for a decade but Jan and Rudy were smart enough to completely separate Jan from the Telekom program. Pages and pages of the Freiburg report and barely a mention of Jan, none after 1998.They were lucky to get a 1,000,000 Euro settlement. UCI pursued him for 6 years after he retired, and 2 CAS appeals, and could only get 2 years.....Because they could not get the evidence. Are you sitting on some secret stuff? You should have helped the UCI.
> 
> Please, share with us the witnesses who will talk about Mayo, Beloki, Basso, Vino.....we are waiting. Deflect if you like about riders who never signed the WADA code (Pantani, Riis, Indurain) but we both know that there is no due process to pursue them


A) they admitted to using
B) there was enough testimony in Puerto (code names, etc...) to link both Basso and Ullrich

Basso even testified

Ivan Basso gives evidence in Operation Puerto trial - ESPN

Jan was that smart huh?

Pévenage confesses to Operación Puerto involvement | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> look, I'll agree we ban Lance
> 
> now you explain why, given the same type of evidence (testimony and admissions of guilt) no one else should suffer the same ruling
> 
> logically of course


Please share with us other riders who had the same level of testimony and evidence? The best the UCI could find on Basso was the period he used Fuentes. He was banned for 2 years. Same thing for Jan, best they could find was Fuentes. He was banned and his results were stripped. 

Are you sitting on a pile of super secret evidence that WADA has been ignoring? Please share with us all these witnesses who are eager to coming forward.....we are waiting.


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You do realize Lance was banned and stripped prior to going on Oprah right?


yes, because he testified to the USADA


still waiting on why no one else should be banned considering similar evidence.....

I'm fine with banning Lance, I can pedal seated all day, I lack butt hurt


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Please share with us other riders who had the same level of testimony and evidence? The best the UCI could find on Basso was the period he used Fuentes. He was banned for 2 years. Same thing for Jan, best they could find was Fuentes. He was banned and his results were stripped.
> 
> Are you sitting on a pile of super secret evidence that WADA has been ignoring? Please share with us all these witnesses who are eager to coming forward.....we are waiting.


admission of guilt = lifetime ban
both admitted using

let me guess you only think they used those specific seasons
that wouldn't qualify as 'logical'


----------



## Local Hero

There's plenty of evidence against other riders. Admissions too. 

Do they have the same level of testimony as Armstrong? No, not a single other racer had so many former teammates threatened with jail time. If USADA had turned the screws on another rider (or USADA's equivalent in another country) then we would expect to see similar evidence. 

Asking for the equivalent of a _Reasoned Decision_ against Ullrich is disingenuous. That's not to say that the equivalent evidence isn't out there or would not be found with an equivalent investigation.


----------



## asgelle

badge118 said:


> Asgelle this is the point he is making. Other riders admitted to doping after decades of lying. Other riders have numerous people who have publically stated they know and have seen so and so dope.
> 
> For Justice in any system, US, GB, France, Mars, Juptier to matter it has to be apply without bias and uniformly under the current structure.
> 
> The case against Lance was necessary...he needed to get slammed BUT it smacks of Watch GW Bush standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier in front of a banner that read "Mission Accomplished."
> 
> No one is saying "Lance is a victim" what we are saying is that so many others are openly still enjoying the fruits of admitted doping. I disliked Armstrong's personality...I like Zabel's. This does not mean I can't say "since he admitted to doping why has the ASO not stripped Zabel of his green Jerseys' just like they did Armstrong's Yellow?"
> 
> It is like having two murder suspects...one comes off like a POS so you give him life...the other guys comes off contrite so you let him walk. No...you nail the contrite guy too, they both committed the same crime.


Basically nothing you wrote is the least bit relevant. Due process, statute of limitations, jurisdictional authority. These are the things that control. People creating conspiracy theory fantasies do not convict or excuse in the real world. 

The details have been covered so often that to repeat the fabrications only makes sense if there's some ulterior motive.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> yes, because he testified to the USADA


I can only assume you are joking/trolling at this point. Lance never talked to USADA, He sued USADA, lobbied to get them defunded, obstructed their investigation and pressured witnesses to lie to them


----------



## atpjunkie

Bjarne Riss - Mr 60 %
A) Admitted to doping as a racer (including his TdF win)
B) had numerous riders on multiple teams he managed busted for doping

still in business


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> There's plenty of evidence against other riders.


You should share it with WADA, they are waiting to hear from you. Germany investigated Jan for years and had to settle for a fraction of what lance got because of lack of evidence


----------



## Local Hero

asgelle said:


> Basically nothing you wrote is the least bit relevant. Due process, statute of limitations, jurisdictional authority. These are the things that control. People creating conspiracy theory fantasies do not convict or excuse in the real world.
> 
> The details have been covered so often that to repeat the fabrications only makes sense if there's some ulterior motive.


Again, with the stroke of a pen the UCI could modify their bylaws and ban past dopers/expunge their results.


----------



## asgelle

atpjunkie said:


> The UCI should strike equally


If there's anyone still reading who thinks this guy has a shred of credibility, this should put an end to it. He clearly knows WADA is responsible for pursuing doping violations, but continues this line hoping to snag some unsuspecting newcomer who doesn't know better. 

I still wonder why.


----------



## atpjunkie

asgelle said:


> Basically nothing you wrote is the least bit relevant. Due process, statute of limitations, jurisdictional authority. These are the things that control. People creating conspiracy theory fantasies do not convict or excuse in the real world.
> 
> The details have been covered so often that to repeat the fabrications only makes sense if there's some ulterior motive.


Badge is in law enforcement
I'm gonna guess he knows 'even application' of the law


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I can only assume you are joking/trolling at this point. Lance never talked to USADA, He sued USADA, lobbied to get them defunded, obstructed their investigation and pressured witnesses to lie to them


still waiting on why other riders who admitted guilt / had evidence presented against them should maintain their placings / palmares


I already agreed Ban Him. Now explain why Zabel, Virenque et al get to keep theirs


I won't hold my breathe


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> Bjarne Riss - Mr 60 %
> still in business


Had to sell his his team because of the doping investigation by ADD. They have been interviewing riders, staff. He, unlike Lance, will likely give evidence


----------



## asgelle

atpjunkie said:


> still waiting on why other riders who admitted guilt / had evidence presented against them should maintain their placings / palmares
> 
> 
> I already agreed Ban Him. Now explain why Zabel, Virenque et al get to keep theirs
> 
> 
> I won't hold my breathe


This has been explained ad nauseum. I see no reason to repeat it again. Look it up if your genuinely interested. 

I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Again, with the stroke of a pen the UCI could modify their bylaws and ban past dopers/expunge their results.


Actually they can't, unless they want cycling out of the Olympics. 

They cannot give harsher, or more lenient , treatment. For example when UK Olympic committee tried to ban Millar and Chambers for life from the Olympics they were overruled by CAS.


----------



## Bluenote

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You should share it with WADA, they are waiting to hear from you. Germany investigated Jan for years and had to settle for a fraction of what lance got because of lack of evidence


And Spain sat on the Puerto evidence. Most of it, anyhow...


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Bluenote said:


> And Spain sat on the Puerto evidence. Most of it, anyhow...


Some areas of the Spanish government sat, while others shared evidence with Italy, US, Germany. While AEPSAD did little. The result was the head of Spain's anti doping was fired and replaced by Enrique Gómez Bastida.....the prosecutor on the Fuentes case


----------



## badge118

asgelle said:


> Basically nothing you wrote is the least bit relevant. Due process, statute of limitations, jurisdictional authority. These are the things that control. People creating conspiracy theory fantasies do not convict or excuse in the real world.
> 
> The details have been covered so often that to repeat the fabrications only makes sense if there's some ulterior motive.


It is though. The SOL was broken in the LA case because he lied and engaged in obfuscation while he raced...as did people like Riis, Zabel etc. The same jurisdictional arguments were raised by Johann in his case and dismissed and poo pooed many.

As for due process what you are saying is if I dope, hide it and lie about it but then tearfully confess before a case is brought against me I am golden. Gotcha! The confession could actually be used to start the due process, breaking the SOL using the same rationalization as was used for LA. The only difference between LA and others is that Tygart chose to go after LA and no one has chosen to go after the others. This is where the "Justice when applied unequally is not Justice comes into play."

BTW I am not saying "reinstate LAs titles!!!!!". I am saying " you either need to do that OR pursue all the other who we know benefited from doping and have yet to be punished.". Personally I prefer the later.


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Please share with us other riders who had the same level of testimony and evidence? The best the UCI could find on Basso was the period he used Fuentes. He was banned for 2 years. Same thing for Jan, best they could find was Fuentes. He was banned and his results were stripped.
> 
> Are you sitting on a pile of super secret evidence that WADA has been ignoring? Please share with us all these witnesses who are eager to coming forward.....we are waiting.


name a rider where the govt put the same amount of pressure on his team mates?

doesn't matter. admission of guilt is an admission of guilt

you are trying to split hairs because you know your premise is faulty

Lance is guilty. So are the rest.


----------



## atpjunkie

asgelle said:


> This has been explained ad nauseum. I see no reason to repeat it again. Look it up if your genuinely interested.
> 
> I won't hold my breath.


equal evidence (admissions of guilt) unequal punishment

we get it


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Had to sell his his team because of the doping investigation by ADD. They have been interviewing riders, staff. He, unlike Lance, will likely give evidence


still managing Tinkoff
you know the Team where the GC leader has a dope bust under his belt


----------



## atpjunkie

Bluenote said:


> And Spain sat on the Puerto evidence. Most of it, anyhow...


well that's because most the clients were footballers


----------



## atpjunkie

asgelle said:


> If there's anyone still reading who thinks this guy has a shred of credibility, this should put an end to it. He clearly knows WADA is responsible for pursuing doping violations, but continues this line hoping to snag some unsuspecting newcomer who doesn't know better.
> 
> I still wonder why.


from the abc news article I shared

"The global governing body of cycling today said it will officially strip Lance Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles and ban him from the sport for life, marking an epic downfall for the cyclist once lauded as the greatest of all time but now at the center of a doping scandal.

"Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling and he deserves to be forgotten in cycling," Pat McQuaid, the president of the International Cycling Union, known as UCI, said today at a news conference in Switzerland. "This is a landmark day for cycling."

The UCI's decision comes days after the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency banned Armstrong from the sport for life for alleged use of illegal performance-enhancing drugs. The USADA issued a 200-page report Oct. 10 after a wide-scale investigation into Armstrong's alleged use of performance-enhancing substances.

The agency said its investigators interviewed 26 people with direct knowledge of Armstrong's alleged doping, including 11 teammates, and collected 1,000 pages of evidence accusing him of cheating.

McQuaid accepted the USADA's sanctions and said he was "sickened" by the evidence in the report, pointing to testimony from one of Armstrong's former teammates David Zabriskie, in which he details how he was allegedly coercing into doping.

Armstrong tried to fight the USADA ban in court, but told the USADA in August that he wouldn't fight the doping charges against him. He has maintained he never cheated.

Armstrong made two appearances this weekend at the Livestrong Foundation's 15th anniversary charity gala, but did not concede much in the way of an explanation or apology for the alleged doping that cost him his medals and lucrative sponsors.

"People ask me a lot, 'How are you doing?' And I tell them, 'I've been better but I've also been worse,'" the cancer survivor said. "This mission is bigger than me. It's bigger than any individual."

Armstrong stepped down as the chairman of the Lance Armstrong Foundation, the cancer charity commonly known as Livestrong that he founded in 1997, a year after he was diagnosed with testicular cancer at age 25. He resigned last week to "spare the foundation any negative effects as a result of controversy."

Nike, Anheuser-Busch and Trek Bicycles are among the companies that severed ties with the cycling star last week in the wake of the scandal. Oakley sunglasses cut ties with Armstrong today after the UCI decision.


yup, the UCI had nothing to do with it....

you should bone up before challenging someones credibility


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> name a rider where the govt put the same amount of pressure on his team mates?
> .


Telekom. 10 year investigation by the German government. Festina. Multiple riders and staff are now convicted felons. 

You do realize that the Fed gave no information to USADA, none. They shared no evidence. 

it is clear that you have no intention of discussing this topic but are here just to spew talking points that have been discredited over and over and over


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Telekom. 10 year investigation by the German government. Festina. Multiple riders and staff are now convicted felons.
> 
> You do realize that the Fed gave no information to USADA, none. They shared no evidence.
> 
> it is clear that you have no intention of discussing this topic but are here just to spew talking points that have been discredited over and over and over


haven't you got anything better to do????

bad posted me

you're precious

Festina - Virenque, admitted guilt. Still holds Polka Dot Record
Telekom - Zabel admitted guilt, still has his green jerseys, Jan and Bjarne, admitted guilt still have their tours
Kloden paid a fine to make it go away


that's equal

still waiting on your logical explanation.....


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> yup, the UCI had nothing to do with it....


It is good you are finally coming to your senses. 

The UCI had a choice, it can accept USADA's sanction or they can appeal it to CAS. They, like most rational people, saw the evidence was overwhelming and realized they could not continue to obstruct the investigation and sanction. McQuaid folded.


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is good you are finally coming to your senses.
> 
> The UCI had a choice, it can accept USADA's sanction or they can appeal it to CAS. They, like most rational people, saw the evidence was overwhelming and realized they could not continue to obstruct the investigation and sanction. McQuaid folded.


yup the UCI sanctioned
Asgelle will not be happy with this

still waiting


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> haven't you got anything better to do????
> 
> bad posted me
> 
> you're precious
> 
> Festina - Virenque, admitted guilt. Still holds Polka Dot Record
> Telekom - Zabel admitted guilt, still has his green jerseys, Jan and Bjarne, admitted guilt still have their tours
> Kloden paid a fine to make it go away
> 
> 
> that's equal
> 
> still waiting on your logical explanation.....


You need to start paying attention. 

What evidence were they able to gather on Kloden? Please share with us the dozen direct witness, EPO positives, crazy blood values for Kloden......still waiting for this mountain of evidence you are going to provide us. German government pursued him for years and could not get the evidence to convict, the best they could get was a settlement. 

Virenque admitted to doping in one year, 98, the year he was disqualified from the Tour. He did not claim to be doping the rest of his career, in fact said if he did it was without his knowledge. 

So, should USADA have ignored over a dozen witnesses, multiple positive dope tests, and crazy blood values and let Armstrong, Bruyneel, Celyad, Marti, del Moral, and Ferrari walk? Really?

When is your campaign to get Ricco his stage wins starting?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> yup the UCI sanctioned


USADA sanctioned him. UCI chose not to fight it. Smart move. 

Still waiting for that long list of witnesses that you claim WADA is ignoring. Matlock of the message board


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> USADA sanctioned him. UCI chose not to fight it. Smart move.
> 
> Still waiting for that long list of witnesses that you claim WADA is ignoring. Matlock of the message board


we don't need witnesses

what part about 'the accused admitted to using'
are you failing to understand?


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You need to start paying attention.
> 
> What evidence were they able to gather on Kloden? Please share with us the dozen direct witness, EPO positives, crazy blood values for Kloden......still waiting for this mountain of evidence you are going to provide us. German government pursued him for years and could not get the evidence to convict, the best they could get was a settlement.
> 
> Virenque admitted to doping in one year, 98, the year he was disqualified from the Tour. He did not claim to be doping the rest of his career, in fact said if he did it was without his knowledge.
> 
> So, should USADA have ignored over a dozen witnesses, multiple positive dope tests, and crazy blood values and let Armstrong, Bruyneel, Celyad, Marti, del Moral, and Ferrari walk? Really?
> 
> When is your campaign to get Ricco his stage wins starting?


Kloden paid $250K and the German Govt stopped the investigation

KLoden then rode for that doper Lance's Team where I'm sure he was squeaky clean.
He also rode on that doper Vinokourov's team with that doper Contador (you know, involved in Puerto when he was with the Doping Team Once with great doping manage Manolo Saiz) signed later by the Doping Team Discovery and later stripped of a Tour for doping on Astana.

but he keeps racing and keeps his Palmares

yeah, that's even


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> USADA sanctioned him. UCI chose not to fight it. Smart move.
> 
> Still waiting for that long list of witnesses that you claim WADA is ignoring. Matlock of the message board


First you have reminded many this is NOT a criminal proceeding. Yes in a criminal proceeding you need more than simply a confession ( corpus delicti).

In these proceedings however such a standard may not apply. That said...

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...ed-to-be-on-French-senates-doping-report.aspx

So yeah...you admit to doping...there is evidence in a French report for many. Also your position completely avoids the point they "knew" lance doped and ultimately played hard ball to get statements in order to build their case. Prior to those Statements they did not have enough. So in essence your position is we should not even investigate dopers who confessed through crocodile tears but also give people who do so a pass when there is evidence...so long as they confess before the report is officially released like Zabel did. Gotcha.


----------



## atpjunkie

lets look at the Once / LIberty Seguros / Astana notables
DS Saiz - Arrested for Doping
Zulle - doper
Bruyneel - doper - we know he's bad
Jalabert - doper
Erik Breukink - managed doping Team Rabobank
Carlos Sastre - seemed clean, had low ratings on UCI Index of suspicion along with other clean riders like Hincapie, Zabriskie and the Schlecks. Rode for CSC under Riis
Abraham Olano - doper
Jose Azevedo - he rode for Lance, clearly a doper
Joseba Beloki - doper
Jorge Jakshe - doper (also doped with Telekom)
Alberto Contado - doper x??
Roberto Heras - Doper (also doped with Lance)
Michele Scarponi - doper, Dr Ferrari
Andrey Kashechkin - doper
Vino - doper, ironic as he may get an Olympic Gold from Jan's doping admission

oh and I'm doing this while I smoke 18 lbs of Pork shoulder, so no I don't have anything better to do


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Actually they can't, unless they want cycling out of the Olympics.
> 
> They cannot give harsher, or more lenient , treatment. For example when UK Olympic committee tried to ban Millar and Chambers for life from the Olympics they were overruled by CAS.


I'm not sure that example makes sense.


----------



## atpjunkie

badge118 said:


> First you have reminded many this is NOT a criminal proceeding. Yes in a criminal proceeding you need more than simply a confession ( corpus delicti).
> 
> In these proceedings however such a standard may not apply. That said...
> 
> Jalabert, Pantani, Ullrich and Zabel alleged to be on French senate?s doping report
> 
> So yeah...you admit to doping...there is evidence in a French report for many. Also your position completely avoids the point they "knew" lance doped and ultimately played hard ball to get statements in order to build their case. Prior to those Statements they did not have enough. So in essence your position is we should not even investigate dopers who confessed through crocodile tears but also give people who do so a pass when there is evidence...so long as they confess before the report is officially released like Zabel did. Gotcha.


well Zabel is nice
anecdotal, I met him. Total bike nut. Second time I met him he and the rest of T-Kom passed me going up Mt Palomar. I was bleeding out my eyeballs, they were @ conversational tempo and going double my speed (musta been the drugs) 
Then again I met Floyd and Zabriskie. Total characters
Lance too, with Sheryl Crow. He almost had to borrow a wheel at a cx race. Seemed nice enough. He was with Tony Cruz whose nickname is Pere Noel because in that race Tony got beat by a guy in a Santa Suit (the at-the time 40-44 Nat Champ Mark Noble). Lance wouldn't let him live it down, took Lance almost 50 minutes to drop Noble and Prenzlow. 
Oh and I met Eddy, he was nice too and Gimondi, besides being a total gentleman was still as suave as ever. Signed my Bianchi jersey. I have met Lemond as well, but he was clean......


----------



## atpjunkie

badge118 said:


> First you have reminded many this is NOT a criminal proceeding. Yes in a criminal proceeding you need more than simply a confession ( corpus delicti).
> 
> In these proceedings however such a standard may not apply. That said...
> 
> Jalabert, Pantani, Ullrich and Zabel alleged to be on French senate?s doping report
> 
> So yeah...you admit to doping...there is evidence in a French report for many. Also your position completely avoids the point they "knew" lance doped and ultimately played hard ball to get statements in order to build their case. Prior to those Statements they did not have enough. So in essence your position is we should not even investigate dopers who confessed through crocodile tears but also give people who do so a pass when there is evidence...so long as they confess before the report is officially released like Zabel did. Gotcha.


well it is kinda how our system works
low level street dealer gets harsh sentence
bank that launders money for the cartels gets a fine


----------



## badge118

atpjunkie said:


> well it is kinda how our system works
> low level street dealer gets harsh sentence
> bank that launders money for the cartels gets a fine


I wouldn't say that. They got the guy who was arguably the John Gotti of doping...the Teflon doper. However many of his contemporaries are still walking around, some still in the sport now leading teams or mentoring riders. In the real world we don't stop at Gotti in terms of "the old guard" and then focus on the young turks (new/current riders)...you still go after the rest of the "old guard" as well. Apparently the same logic doesn't apply to some in sport... /shrug.


----------



## den bakker

badge118 said:


> I wouldn't say that. They got the guy who was arguably the John Gotti of doping...the Teflon doper.


Rebellin? (yeah he was known as don teflon). 
Well it has also been used for Kloden.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> yeah, that's even


What part of witnesses and evidence do you not understand? 

You claim that there are plenty of riders that have the same level of evidence against them as Lance but you are unable to produce one example. Not one. 

Still waiting


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> What part of witnesses and evidence do you not understand?
> 
> You claim that there are plenty of riders that have the same level of evidence against them as Lance but you are unable to produce one example. Not one.
> 
> Still waiting


Why are admissions insufficient? 

Again, this is a disingenuous request. We do not see the same "level of evidence" because other riders teammates were not forced to testify and threatened with jail time. It's not because the other guys were clean. 

Why are you shifting the goalposts here?


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> What part of witnesses and evidence do you not understand?
> 
> You claim that there are plenty of riders that have the same level of evidence against them as Lance but you are unable to produce one example. Not one.
> 
> Still waiting


First I explained how Corpus Delecti may not apply.

second I pointed out how many who confessed also have evidence against them...not just the French Senate Report I noted but the Freiberg Clinic investigation. While not enough to satisfy German Criminal Law the evidence would like support sporting action.

Third the fact that NO investigation or action period is being pursued is half the point...as in my "Gotti" example. To pat yourself on the back for getting Gotti and then ignore all the other people who have admitted wrong doing and/or have evidence against them, perverts justice. You in essence say "well you confessed tearfully at the 11th hour and before that weren't a jerk about your lying and participation in Omerta so we'll just let you walk.". 

That isn't justice, that is selective prosecution.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Why are admissions insufficient?
> 
> Again, this is a disingenuous request. We do not see the same "level of evidence" because other riders teammates were not forced to testify and threatened with jail time. It's not because the other guys were clean.
> 
> Why are you shifting the goalposts here?


In Zabel's first "Admission"" he admitted to using EPO once. Do you really think that is the same level of evidence as Lance? Really? Why are you shifting the goalposts? 

Last year zabel came clean to Germany's anti doping agency and has so far had 12 hours of testimony with them.Lance sued USADA, refused to work with them, lobbied to get them defunded, and relentlessly smeared them in the press....do you really think that is the same? Really? 

Zabriski, Landis, Tyler, Betsy, Frankie, Emma, Vaughters....were threatened with jail time? Really? Why do you like to make stuff up?


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> In Zabel's first "Admission"" he admitted to using EPO once. Do you really think that is the same level of evidence as Lance? Really? Why are you shifting the goalposts?
> 
> Last year zabel came clean to Germany's anti doping agency and has so far had 12 hours of testimony with them.Lance sued USADA, refused to work with them, lobbied to get them defunded, and relentlessly smeared them in the press....do you really think that is the same? Really?
> 
> Zabriski, Landis, Tyler, Betsy, Frankie, Emma, Vaughters....were threatened with jail time? Really? Why do you like to make stuff up?


Yeah and he did his first "confession" with the Docs from Freiberg saying the ran a Team doping program but wouldn't name names...then the one last year started after the French Media leaked names that would be included as retesting positive for EPO in the French Senate report. Sorry but if you think that justifies a walk you sure as hell are being selective in who you think should be nailed and arguably yes...moving goal posts.

The outside of sporting actions you use to try and justify it are simply bull ****. Imagine this "well yeah...he ran a mob family but he gave turkeys away to the needing at Thanks giving...ran a Christmas toy drive...laid for the local church to be renovated and confessed to his crimes when he heard a grand jury might indict him. We should let him off.". All that positive stuff is irrelevant...same with the negative if it has nothing to do with his crimes.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> First I explained how Corpus Delecti may not apply.
> 
> second I pointed out how many who confessed also have evidence against them...not just the French Senate Report I noted but the Freiberg Clinic investigation. While not enough to satisfy German Criminal Law the evidence would like support sporting action.
> 
> Third the fact that NO investigation or action period is being pursued is half the point...as in my "Gotti" example. To pat yourself on the back for getting Gotti and then ignore all the other people who have admitted wrong doing and/or have evidence against them, perverts justice. You in essence say "well you confessed tearfully at the 11th hour and before that weren't a jerk about your lying and participation in Omerta so we'll just let you walk.".
> 
> That isn't justice, that is selective prosecution.


You are ignoring the fact that most of Lance's competitors have been sanctioned. For a decade rider after rider was popped. Heras, Mayo, Landis, Hamilton, Scaponi, Valverde, Vino, Ricco....the list is endless. 

Funny how I did not seem many here screaming for justice when lance was getting away with it and his competitors were dropping left and right


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Yeah and he did his first "confession" with the Docs from Freiberg saying the ran a Team doping program but wouldn't name names...then the one last year started after the French Media leaked names that would be included as retesting positive for EPO in the French Senate report. Sorry but if you think that justifies a walk you sure as hell are being selective in who you think should be nailed and arguably yes...moving goal posts.
> 
> The outside of sporting actions you use to try and justify it are simply bull ****. Imagine this "well yeah...he ran a mob family but he gave turkeys away to the needing at Thanks giving...ran a Christmas toy drive...laid for the local church to be renovated and confessed to his crimes when he heard a grand jury might indict him. We should let him off.". All that positive stuff is irrelevant...same with the negative if it has nothing to do with his crimes.


I suggest you read what I actually wrote. 

Some here like to pretend that there was equal evidence against Zabel as there was against Lance. There wasn't, not even close. 

You folks can continue to try to move goal posts to equate the two but we both know a limited admission is not 26 witnesses, multiple failed tests, and wacky blood values.


----------



## Local Hero

There seems to have been a rash of goalpost movement in this thread.


----------



## atpjunkie

Local Hero said:


> Why are admissions insufficient?
> 
> Again, this is a disingenuous request. We do not see the same "level of evidence" because other riders teammates were not forced to testify and threatened with jail time. It's not because the other guys were clean.
> 
> Why are you shifting the goalposts here?


because he knows his premise is shoddy

we have 
A) Admissions by riders and sometimes their managers (for example Ullrich and Pevange)
B) Evidence that matches the claim
in Lance's case it is 'his numbers are consistent' with doping
in Jan's case it was bags of blood

yet we have 2 greatly different judgements.

and you are quite correct, no other investigation forced team mates to testify with jail time hanging over their head


----------



## asgelle

atpjunkie said:


> from the abc news article I shared...


Instead of relying on vaguely worded secondary sources, why don't you go look at the WADA and USADA codes and the rules governing AAA. If you did, you would understand that the decision referred to by UCI was not to strip Armstrong of his results, but to follow the recommendation of USADA rather than appeal to CAS. UCI had no decision making role in stripping Armstrong. The recommendation came from USADA, and the only options UCI had were to follow the recommendation or appeal to CAS (anything else would have meant being stripped of Olympic eligibility for cycling). So the decision was either USADA's or CAS's but in no way UCI's. 

It was a nice attempt to twist the meaning of words and try to change the subject though.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> because he knows his premise is shoddy
> 
> we have
> A) Admissions by riders and sometimes their managers (for example Ullrich and Pevange)
> B) Evidence that matches the claim
> in Lance's case it is 'his numbers are consistent' with doping
> in Jan's case it was bags of blood
> 
> yet we have 2 greatly different judgements.
> 
> and you are quite correct, no other investigation forced team mates to testify with jail time hanging over their head


It is clear by now your intention is trolling, but please tell us how USADA is able to put people in Jail? 

UCI pursued Jan for years, the best they could get was the evidence of his involvement in Puerto. His results from those years were stripped, just like Lance's results were stripped from the years they have evidence for. 

Jan has never given a detailed admission, nor has Pevanage.....but you continue to pretend he has.....don't let facts get in the way of a good troll


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> please tell us how USADA is able to put people in Jail?


Let's not forget that some of the testimony was first obtained in a federal investigation. And it is, in fact, a crime to lie to a federal investigator. 



> UCI pursued Jan for years, the best they could get was the evidence of his involvement in Puerto.


So Ullrich should get a lesser ban because the investigation revealed less? 

Do you think we would have the equivalent of a reasoned decision against Ullrich if he had been subjected to the same investigation and prosecution as Armstrong? 

Your argument seems to rely on legalism and the inability of the UCI to build a case as strong as the one built by the US government. Also, you seem to have put a great deal of weight into Armstrong's confession.


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I suggest you read what I actually wrote.
> 
> Some here like to pretend that there was equal evidence against Zabel as there was against Lance. There wasn't, not even close.
> 
> You folks can continue to try to move goal posts to equate the two but we both know a limited admission is not 26 witnesses, multiple failed tests, and wacky blood values.


I am not saying the evidence is equal...BUT if you have enough evidence to meet whatever level of corpus delecti is required for a doping proceeding, then add a confession into it...one can EASILY pursue it. You only need a truck load of evidence when the accused is not cooperating or is actively fighting it. If there were even "plea bargains" for these people..."okay Riis (Zabel whoever)...you confessed so instead of an 8 year ban for an admission of habitual doping well just give you 2 or 4 years away from the sport..." It's all good. My issue is that NOTHING is being pursued. Hell Kloden had a bona fide sporting fraud criminal case which was closed when he agreed to pay 25k to charity? No sporting proceedings though.

How anyone who thinks that rules and laws should be uniformly enforced and then NOT have a problem with this kinda thing...it makes my teeth ache.


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is clear by now your intention is trolling, but please tell us how USADA is able to put people in Jail?
> 
> UCI pursued Jan for years, the best they could get was the evidence of his involvement in Puerto. His results from those years were stripped, just like Lance's results were stripped from the years they have evidence for.
> 
> Jan has never given a detailed admission, nor has Pevanage.....but you continue to pretend he has.....don't let facts get in the way of a good troll


The statements to the USADA were made AFTER USADA members had knowledge of the statements given to Federal Investigators for the Whistle Blower case. If they had lied then...they would have faced jail time. Knowing that they implicated LA once already gave the USADA confidence to say "okay, we know you know this ****. Don't fess up say hello to a LONG ban."

So a DoJ threat of arrest directly lead to statements given to the USADA.


----------



## asgelle

badge118 said:


> The statements to the USADA were made AFTER USADA members had knowledge of the statements given to Federal Investigators for the Whistle Blower case.


Many with direct knowledge have said this is not true. No one has said it is.

What has been said is that DOJ was present at some USADA interviews to see if information presented there conflicted with what was said to the Grand Jury; everyone agrees that no information flowed from DOJ to USADA.


----------



## Bluenote

badge118 said:


> I am not saying the evidence is equal...BUT if you have enough evidence to meet whatever level of corpus delecti is required for a doping proceeding, then add a confession into it...one can EASILY pursue it. You only need a truck load of evidence when the accused is not cooperating or is actively fighting it. If there were even "plea bargains" for these people..."okay Riis (Zabel whoever)...you confessed so instead of an 8 year ban for an admission of habitual doping well just give you 2 or 4 years away from the sport..." It's all good. My issue is that NOTHING is being pursued. Hell Kloden had a bona fide sporting fraud criminal case which was closed when he agreed to pay 25k to charity? No sporting proceedings though.
> 
> How anyone who thinks that rules and laws should be uniformly enforced and then NOT have a problem with this kinda thing...it makes my teeth ache.


That's a big part of the importance of the Armstrong case. It showed the willingness of the UCI to sweep doping under the rug. I think the USADA's role in uncovering hypocrisy by the UCI is much bigger than banning Armstrong. 

The UCI looked the other way for Armstrong (His positive in '99, his EPO tests, his comeback blood values). Plus, of course, his donations to the UCI and Hein's investments. The UCI slammed Floyd's character when he came forward, instead of opening an investigation. 

It took the USADA going after Armstrong to expose these things. 

If you're really for equal treatment of dopers, you should be glad about the Armstrong investigation. It showed how the UCI treated dopers who had positive tests differently (Hamilton's blood doping, versus Armstrong's comeback values).

People spend a lot of time arguing about Armstrong's titles. But little time discussing - how was the UCI so able to look the other way on Armstrong? Why has USA Cycling gotten a pass? 

Did Brunyeel really have advanced notice of tests? Was it all just McQuaid and Verbruggen? Who else was involved? Why is the Olympics so supportive of cycling, knowing all the problems in the UCI? Why hasn't Cookson done more to address the UCI's role in the Armstrong affair? Can sports really police themselves? Can country chapters really police themselves? 

Does the WADA code need a rewrite to address conflicts of interest and corruption? Does the WADA code need a rewrite to adopt minimum sentences for career doping? Does the WADA code need a rewrite to address the SOL? 

Armstrong's titles a largely symbolic, people form (have formed) their own opinions about who won those tours, no matter what the record book says. My unscientific observation is that about 50% of people think Armstrong won those years, and about 50% think an empty record book is appropriate symbolism. But either way, people's opinions are pretty set in stone - unlikely to change from debate. 

So why does this forum spend so much time debating Armstrong, and so little discussing problems with the UCI or USA Cycling?


----------



## Local Hero

asgelle said:


> Many with direct knowledge have said this is not true. No one has said it is.
> 
> What has been said is that DOJ was present at some USADA interviews to see if information presented there conflicted with what was said to the Grand Jury; everyone agrees that no information flowed from DOJ to USADA.


a distinction without a difference? 

The point is that witnesses were compelled to testify in front of a grand jury. What would have happened had they refused to testify or if they later lied to USADA?


----------



## badge118

asgelle said:


> Many with direct knowledge have said this is not true. No one has said it is.
> 
> What has been said is that DOJ was present at some USADA interviews to see if information presented there conflicted with what was said to the Grand Jury; everyone agrees that no information flowed from DOJ to USADA.


No what they said was is that Federal Investigators did not provide copies of Statements. They did however admit that USADA representatives were involved with some of the Statements in order to assist as they had professional knowledge of the doping environment. This was also kinda a quid pro quo because the USADA had suspended their investigation during the 22 month Federal Investigation (that was closed for a bit) in deference to the DoJ.

You don't need the Federal written Statement, only the general knowledge of the contents to have leverage. I do it all the time.

Hell I don't even say this is a bad thing. It is rather a good thing imo.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Let's not forget that some of the testimony was first obtained in a federal investigation. And it is, in fact, a crime to lie to a federal investigator.
> 
> So Ullrich should get a lesser ban because the investigation revealed less?


The Feds *refused* to share their evidence with USADA. Many of the witnesses were already talking to USADA long prior to the criminal case. 

Sheryl Crow testified to the Feds, refused to testify to USADA
Johan Bruyneel testified to the Feds, Refused to testify to USADA
Kevin Livingston testified to the Feds, refused to testify to USADA
Stephanie McEllvain testified to the Feds, refused to testify to USADA

Why didn't USADA use their magic super powers you claim they have? How come they did not toss them in jail? 

As far as evidence. You are very willing to sanction riders and end careers without evidence.....it does not work that way.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> a distinction without a difference?
> 
> The point is that witnesses were compelled to testify in front of a grand jury. What would have happened had they refused to testify or if they later lied to USADA?


Actually very few witnesses were compelled to testify, most did so willingly and not in front of the Grand Jury.....but don't let the facts get in the way of an agenda


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> As far as evidence. You are very willing to sanction riders and end careers without evidence.....it does not work that way.


That's not really correct. 

You're doing a weird false dichotomy thing here, as if Armstrong was the only person against whom there was evidence. You alternate that fallacy with the No True Scotsman, demanding that the evidence against other riders match the evidence again Armstrong on a 1:1 basis, eg yes there is evidence against other riders but it does not rise to the level of the evidence against ArmSatan. 

Whatever floats your boat I guess.


----------



## BacDoc

Back to the original question, Reinstate Armstrongs titles?

I say yes because it was pro cycling during the peak of the doping era.

Legal issues, USADA, FBI, CIA, testimonies, lies, truth, ethics and on and on and on.....

The facts are the best doper with the best dope training, the best rider in a field of the best riders in the world all doping. Put an asterisk on it and be done with it. All the racers knew it and now even the general public knows that most if not all pro athletes are doping.

For me , if all the racers in those tours agree that Armstrong won it then reinstate. If those riders have an issue then strip the titles. Those guys have the most blood and guts in this whole deal.

Posters on the internet will argue forever no matter what the topic is.


----------



## Local Hero

BacDoc said:


> Back to the original question, Reinstate Armstrongs titles?
> 
> I say yes because it was pro cycling during the peak of the doping era.
> 
> Legal issues, USADA, FBI, CIA, testimonies, lies, truth, ethics and on and on and on.....
> 
> The facts are the best doper with the best dope training, the best rider in a field of the best riders in the world all doping. Put an asterisk on it and be done with it. All the racers knew it and now even the general public knows that most if not all pro athletes are doping.


Yes, I am pretty sure this is the general consensus among people who don't irrationally hate Armstrong.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> That's not really correct.


Given you and your buddy have not been able to give one example to support your false claims it is clear what is correct


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

BacDoc said:


> Back to the original question, Reinstate Armstrongs titles?
> 
> I say yes because it was pro cycling during the peak of the doping era.
> 
> Legal issues, USADA, FBI, CIA, testimonies, lies, truth, ethics and on and on and on.....
> 
> The facts are the best doper with the best dope training, the best rider in a field of the best riders in the world all doping. Put an asterisk on it and be done with it. All the racers knew it and now even the general public knows that most if not all pro athletes are doping.
> 
> For me , if all the racers in those tours agree that Armstrong won it then reinstate. If those riders have an issue then strip the titles. Those guys have the most blood and guts in this whole deal.
> 
> Posters on the internet will argue forever no matter what the topic is.


What about the people who said no and were pushed from the sport, does their opinion count? 

van Hooydonk won Flanders twice before he was 25....out of the sport a few years later because he would not take EPO. Many Pro's said no and were pushed from the sport. Some of the most talented U23's said no, and were pushed from the sport......until all that was left were mostly junkies and their pushers. 

You might value the opinion of junkies and pushers but don't expect everyone to agree


----------



## atpjunkie

Local Hero said:


> a distinction without a difference?
> 
> The point is that witnesses were compelled to testify in front of a grand jury. What would have happened had they refused to testify or if they later lied to USADA?


yes, they were on record to the Grand Jury. No way they could counter their previous testimony

plus they all got a lighter penalty as well


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> What about the people who said no and were pushed from the sport, does their opinion count?
> 
> van Hooydonk won Flanders twice before he was 25....out of the sport a few years later because he would not take EPO. Many Pro's said no and were pushed from the sport. Some of the most talented U23's said no, and were pushed from the sport......until all that was left were mostly junkies and their pushers.
> 
> You might value the opinion of junkies and pushers but don't expect everyone to agree


I agree. So let's PUNISH THEM ALL

all those U23s and NEOs who never got a shot because of doping is a crying shame

so why are you satisfied with stopping @ Armstrong?

Why do other confessed dopers who ruined these young riders careers get to keep their Palmares?


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is clear by now your intention is trolling, but please tell us how USADA is able to put people in Jail?
> 
> UCI pursued Jan for years, the best they could get was the evidence of his involvement in Puerto. His results from those years were stripped, just like Lance's results were stripped from the years they have evidence for.
> 
> Jan has never given a detailed admission, nor has Pevanage.....but you continue to pretend he has.....don't let facts get in the way of a good troll


the USADA can not
the Grand Jury can

without the DOJ investigation the USADA would have had little to work with

Jan's results from 'those years' cause he was so squeaky clean all the others

I posted the link where Pevenage admitting sending Jan to Fuentes
""I organised Jan Ullrich's trips to Madrid to see Dr. Fuentes. What's the point in continuing to lie," he told French newspaper L'Equipe in a long interview published on Thursday.

"I want to make it clear that at the time, I never had the feeling that I was doing anything wrong. I knew a lot of Fuentes clients, including some good riders who rode the Tour in 2006. Everyone knew. It was a normal thing to do."

Pévenage revealed that he was caught up in the Operación Puerto investigation after mistakenly using his personal mobile telephone to call Fuentes from the 2006 Giro d'Italia.

"I used to communicate with Fuentes using a pre-paid unknown number. But at the 2006 Giro, I wanted to call him after Jan had won the stage. I didn't have any credit left and so I used my personal phone. Fuentes' phone was being tapped and so they got my number."

he didn't think he was doing anything wrong but was using a pre paid phone....


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> cause he would not take EPO. Many Pro's said no and were pushed from the sport. Some of the most talented U23's said no, and were pushed from the sport


Frankly, it's probably better that they left cycling and got real jobs.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Given you and your buddy have not been able to give one example to support your false claims it is clear what is correct


Not sure what you're talking about but I am sure you dodged my question earlier: 

Let's say two riders doped the same amount. One is fully investigated and the other is only partially investigated. There is much more evidence against the first. Ultimately, both are guilty and both confess. Should the second rider get a lesser ban because his investigation revealed less?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> the USADA can not
> the Grand Jury can
> 
> without the DOJ investigation the USADA would have had little to work with
> 
> Jan's results from 'those years' cause he was so squeaky clean all the others
> 
> I posted the link where Pevenage admitting sending Jan to Fuentes


Do you actually read what is written here? 

USADA had 26 witnesses, very few of them went in front of the Grand Jury. Most of the people who went in front of the Grand Jury refused to testify to USADA. 

As has been said over, and over, and over again.....Jan's results from the time he worked with Fuentes were stripped and he was banned for 2 years. You would like to have him stripped for other years as well but despite your claims there is insufficient evidence to support a case, how do we know this? The German government and the UCI both pursued cases against him for almost a decade.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> I agree. So let's PUNISH THEM ALL
> 
> all those U23s and NEOs who never got a shot because of doping is a crying shame
> 
> so why are you satisfied with stopping @ Armstrong?
> 
> Why do other confessed dopers who ruined these young riders careers get to keep their Palmares?


I am happy that Riis is being investigated. I think it is great the Zabel is finally cooperating. Most will agree that it is a good thing Ferrari, Marti, Del Moral, Celaya, Ricco, Bruyneel, and others are out of the sport. It was great to see Heinrich and Schmidt pursued for years by the Germans. It is nice to see Lienders currently under a criminal investigation in Belgium. 

It is disgusting that Martinelli just won the Tour, with Vino at his side. I hope the new head of the Spanish anti doping pursues Valverde, and others, more aggressively as he should be banned for life. 

Some here would like summary executions with little evidence. That may sound fun to the uninformed but a far better goal should be to build a robust process backed by due process and legal precedent. In the 10 years that WADA has been the key testing agency for cycling the sport has improved greatly.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Not sure what you're talking about but I am sure you dodged my question earlier:
> 
> Let's say two riders doped the same amount. One is fully investigated and the other is only partially investigated. There is much more evidence against the first. Ultimately, both are guilty and both confess. Should the second rider get a lesser ban because his investigation revealed less?


Team Telekom was investigated far more then lance. The UCI covered up Lance's doping for years who they targeted Ullrich and Telekom. It is unfortunate that they were unable to get the same level of evidence they had on Lance. You would like them to ignore the rules and sanction without evidence but we both know that is not how it works.


----------



## badge118

Bluenote said:


> That's a big part of the importance of the Armstrong case. It showed the willingness of the UCI to sweep doping under the rug. I think the USADA's role in uncovering hypocrisy by the UCI is much bigger than banning Armstrong.
> 
> The UCI looked the other way for Armstrong (His positive in '99, his EPO tests, his comeback blood values). Plus, of course, his donations to the UCI and Hein's investments. The UCI slammed Floyd's character when he came forward, instead of opening an investigation.
> 
> It took the USADA going after Armstrong to expose these things.
> 
> If you're really for equal treatment of dopers, you should be glad about the Armstrong investigation. It showed how the UCI treated dopers who had positive tests differently (Hamilton's blood doping, versus Armstrong's comeback values).
> 
> People spend a lot of time arguing about Armstrong's titles. But little time discussing - how was the UCI so able to look the other way on Armstrong? Why has USA Cycling gotten a pass?
> 
> Did Brunyeel really have advanced notice of tests? Was it all just McQuaid and Verbruggen? Who else was involved? Why is the Olympics so supportive of cycling, knowing all the problems in the UCI? Why hasn't Cookson done more to address the UCI's role in the Armstrong affair? Can sports really police themselves? Can country chapters really police themselves?
> 
> Does the WADA code need a rewrite to address conflicts of interest and corruption? Does the WADA code need a rewrite to adopt minimum sentences for career doping? Does the WADA code need a rewrite to address the SOL?
> 
> Armstrong's titles a largely symbolic, people form (have formed) their own opinions about who won those tours, no matter what the record book says. My unscientific observation is that about 50% of people think Armstrong won those years, and about 50% think an empty record book is appropriate symbolism. But either way, people's opinions are pretty set in stone - unlikely to change from debate.
> 
> So why does this forum spend so much time debating Armstrong, and so little discussing problems with the UCI or USA Cycling?


I am glad LA got nailed. In the end my issue is what many are dancing around and apparently could give a flying fudge about...

Justice must be blind. It must not care if you are a jerk or nice guy. It must only care if you did wrong and if you did wrong you should be pursued. If the case hits a dead end? That happens. However there are many that have simply walked...are still in positions of influence in cycling and it is, tbh sickening to watch the bull **** rationalizations to justify it.


----------



## badge118

asgelle said:


> Many with direct knowledge have said this is not true. No one has said it is.
> 
> What has been said is that DOJ was present at some USADA interviews to see if information presented there conflicted with what was said to the Grand Jury; everyone agrees that no information flowed from DOJ to USADA.


Please show me the links because there are threads here with links where people were saying "no the USADA did not get copies of the Statements they lent technical assistance" or some other such statements.

Go back to the time of the AAA proceedings. I am not going to be your research assistant.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Please show me the links because there are threads here with links where people were saying "no the USADA did not get copies of the Statements they lent technical assistance" or some other such statements.
> .





> federal investigators abruptly shut down their two-year probe into Armstrong and his business dealings, then* refused to share any of the evidence they had gathered.*


Lance Armstrong rep offered USADA 'donation' in 2004 - ESPN


----------



## Local Hero

OK, when they shut down their investigation they shut it all down. Were they sharing information along the way?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> sickening to watch the bull **** rationalizations to justify it.


It is sickening to watch. The absurd claims like saying USADA can put people in jail, or that Lance cooperated with USADA. 

Compare the cases of Ullrich and Armstrong. For a decade the UCI covered up Armstrong's doping. 


They let him give a back dated TUE in 99
The let Lance and Johan explore the UCI lab and gave guidance on the EPO test
They let two suspect EPO tests, that would be positives today, slide
When Lance samples from 99 tested positive for EPO the UCI hired a friend of Verbruggen for $100,000 (Paid for by lance) to issue a report that was mostly written by Bill Stapleton, Lance's agent
UCI actively smeared, sued, and blacklisted anyone who accues lance
UCI actively obstructed USADA's investigation. Refusing to share BioPassport testing results. 
McQuaid told witnesses not to Cooperate with the investigation
UCI actively participated in Armstrong's multiple failed legal attempts to obstruct the investigation
Etc. etc. etc.

Compare this to how they pursued Jan for close to a decade, include two appeals to CAS, until they sanctioned him 6 years after he retired. 

It is indeed sickening to watch the Bullsh** rationalizations that lance somehow was singed out when he was given a pass for a decade.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> OK, when they shut down their investigation they shut it all down. Were they sharing information along the way?


Nope. USADA sat in with several witnesses, at the request of witnesses, but the Feds did not share evidence.....even though they were mandated by law to do so. Have to wonder why they refused.


----------



## deviousalex

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is sickening to watch. The absurd claims like saying USADA can put people in jail, or that Lance cooperated with USADA.
> 
> Compare the cases of Ullrich and Armstrong. For a decade the UCI covered up Armstrong's doping.
> 
> 
> They let him give a back dated TUE in 99
> The let Lance and Johan explore the UCI lab and gave guidance on the EPO test
> They let two suspect EPO tests, that would be positives today, slide
> When Lance samples from 99 tested positive for EPO the UCI hired a friend of Verbruggen for $100,000 (Paid for by lance) to issue a report that was mostly written by Bill Stapleton, Lance's agent
> UCI actively smeared, sued, and blacklisted anyone who accues lance
> UCI actively obstructed USADA's investigation. Refusing to share BioPassport testing results.
> McQuaid told witnesses not to Cooperate with the investigation
> UCI actively participated in Armstrong's multiple failed legal attempts to obstruct the investigation
> Etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Compare this to how they pursued Jan for close to a decade, include two appeals to CAS, until they sanctioned him 6 years after he retired.
> 
> It is indeed sickening to watch the Bullsh** rationalizations that lance somehow was singed out when he was given a pass for a decade.


[*] Thomas Weisel (Postal team owner) owner gave Verbruggen pre-IPO stocks in silicon valley companies through his private equity firm. Conflict of interest much?


----------



## Germany_chris

Yes they should be given back, they shouldn't have been taken away in the first place.


----------



## spade2you

Germany_chris said:


> Yes they should be given back, they shouldn't have been taken away in the first place.


I'm more about them stripping EVERYONE. Teach those dopers a lesson. Stip Pantani and let them know that they can lose results, even after death.


----------



## Local Hero

spade2you said:


> I'm more about them stripping EVERYONE. Teach those dopers a lesson. Stip Pantani and let them know that they can lose results, even after death.


Strip Pantani and give him a lifetime ban!

...

Your plan may prevent Nibali from faking suicide.


----------



## atpjunkie

badge118 said:


> I am glad LA got nailed. In the end my issue is what many are dancing around and apparently could give a flying fudge about...
> 
> Justice must be blind. It must not care if you are a jerk or nice guy. It must only care if you did wrong and if you did wrong you should be pursued. If the case hits a dead end? That happens. However there are many that have simply walked...are still in positions of influence in cycling and it is, tbh sickening to watch the bull **** rationalizations to justify it.


this. 
and it is just rationalizing a load of crap
oh all those poor U23s and Neos.
They were farked by a culture, an entire system yet folks want to simply punish one man.
What that says to me is that the culture is still there and they are scapegoating to do nothing more than put up a ruse that they have done something about it.

"well we got the 'bad guy' everything is fine right now. 

what we are seeing is hair splitting. "Well Lance was more guilty"

last I checked guilty is guilty

the notion that Jan (or Erik) or Richard only doped 'that one time' or 'that one season' is naive at the nicest


----------



## Local Hero

Right. We cannot heap the blame for endemic doping on one doper. This is the Great Man vs. Zeitgeist argument. As usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> folks want to simply punish one man.



Pretending Lance got singled out is "Just a rationalizing load of crap" indeed. 

Basso, Ullrich, Scarponi, Ricco, Mayo, Contador, Valverde, and on and on and on. All were sanctioned while Lance was ignored for a decade. Why did you not cry about the unfairness then?......or is it only unfair when your guy gets taken down? Why didn't you launch a similar campaign for Tyler when he was banned for 8 years? Or Ricco when he was banned for life? 

The absurd talking point that lance was the only guy sanctioned is naive at best and willfully disingenuous 

Lance was sanctioned based on the rules of the sport. You claim over and over that the same level of evidence existing on other riders.....but provide nothing to support it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

......


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> We cannot heap the blame for endemic doping on one doper.


Yup, good thing that is not happening. Would be a shame for Ricco and DiLucca to take the blame for a generation of doping


----------



## Local Hero

Hey Falsetti, why is it that all of your arguments involve saying that people are fanboys, etc ? What you write would be much more convincing if you stuck to the facts, rather than making assumptions about the motivations of others on the board. It's a distraction from the conversation and your credibility. A poster's motivations are largely irrelevant to the discussion of whether Armstrong punishment is proportionate in comparison to the rest of the dopers of that era.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Hey Falsetti, why is it that all of your arguments involve saying that people are fanboys, etc ? What you write would be much more convincing if you stuck to the facts, rather than making assumptions about the motivations of others on the board. It's a distraction from the conversation and your credibility. A poster's motivations are largely irrelevant to the discussion of whether Armstrong punishment is proportionate in comparison to the rest of the dopers of that era.


Hey Local Hero, why is it you continue to post the same discredited nonsense over and over? Why do you make unsupportable blanket statements like "All of your arguments" that have no basis in fact? You have made it clear that your goal is disruption but it is a distraction from the conversation and your credibility.


----------



## cbk57

My only position in this is that Lance won the Tour 7 times. I agree he doped and got caught. However, for me that does not change the facts. It is just as much a fact that he won those races as he won them while doping. So did the others that won and got away with it. Stripping titles just does not work for me. Of the title stripped that come to mind the only one I am uncertain of is Floyd Landis since he was caught in immediate proximity to final yellow in Paris. Otherwise I would also restore Contador's title or titles as well. I don't recall if they stripped one win or more than one.


----------



## spade2you

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Pretending Lance got singled out is "Just a rationalizing load of crap" indeed.
> 
> *Basso, Ullrich, Scarponi, Ricco, Mayo, Contador, Valverde, and on and on and on. *All were sanctioned while Lance was ignored for a decade. Why did you not cry about the unfairness then?......or is it only unfair when your guy gets taken down? Why didn't you launch a similar campaign for Tyler when he was banned for 8 years? Or Ricco when he was banned for life?
> 
> The absurd talking point that lance was the only guy sanctioned is naive at best and willfully disingenuous
> 
> Lance was sanctioned based on the rules of the sport. You claim over and over that the same level of evidence existing on other riders.....but provide nothing to support it.


All of those individuals have kept their wins. Valverde was allowed to start the '09 Vuelta and keep the results. His doping was known and was conveniently start his suspension after. 

Wasn't Tyler's 8 year suspension due to multiple offenses? He sure got honest during the 8 year suspension. 

Hasn't Ricco doped DURING a suspension?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

spade2you said:


> All of those individuals have kept their wins.


Huh? 

Ulrich, Ricco, Hamilton, Landis, were not stripped? Heras kept his Vuelta? Landis kept his Tour? Tyler kept his Olympic medal? 

Really?


----------



## spade2you

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Huh?
> 
> Ulrich, Ricco, Hamilton, Landis, were not stripped? Heras kept his Vuelta? Landis kept his Tour? Tyler kept his Olympic medal?
> 
> Really?


Ulrich lost a piddly 3rd. Ricco still has most of his titles, as does DiLucca. Heras lost it, got it back, lost it. I don't know what the ultimate status will be. 

Landis lost his. American. Hamilton lost some. American. Big George lost a bunch of stuff. Basically Americans have a high rate of being stripped. Meanwhile Basso was busted immediately after the '06 Giro and still kept it. Vino kept his Vuelta. Contador still kept his prior Vuelta, Giro, and Tours.


----------



## den bakker

spade2you said:


> Ulrich lost a piddly 3rd. Ricco still has most of his titles, as does DiLucca. Heras lost it, got it back, lost it. I don't know what the ultimate status will be.
> 
> Landis lost his. American. Hamilton lost some. American. Big George lost a bunch of stuff. Basically Americans have a high rate of being stripped. Meanwhile Basso was busted immediately after the '06 Giro and still kept it. Vino kept his Vuelta. Contador still kept his prior Vuelta, Giro, and Tours.


so basically same story as Armstrong still being 1993 world champion. 
1993 +1995 stage victory tour de france
and 1995 Clásica de San Sebastián
1996 La Flèche Wallonne


----------



## Local Hero

Is there any evidence that Armstrong doped in 1993?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

den bakker said:


> so basically same story as Armstrong still being 1993 world champion.
> 1993 +1995 stage victory tour de france
> and 1995 Clásica de San Sebastián
> 1996 La Flèche Wallonne


Even though Lance admitted to doping during that period still kept his wins.....the injustice!


----------



## spade2you

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Even though Lance admitted to doping during that period still kept his wins.....the injustice!


I'm surprised you haven't made sure these were eliminated.


----------



## deviousalex

spade2you said:


> Contador still kept his prior Vuelta, Giro, and Tours.


Apart from the tour and giro he got stripped from?


----------



## spade2you

deviousalex said:


> Apart from the tour and giro he got stripped from?


Are you implying he was clean in 07-09 and/or after the Carne Astana incident? Still has 2 Tours, 2 Vueltas, and a Giro.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

spade2you said:


> Are you implying he was clean in 07-09 and/or after the Carne Astana incident? Still has 2 Tours, 2 Vueltas, and a Giro.


We get it. You think anyone who rode fast should be banned regardless if there is not evidence, positives tests, etc...... it does not work that way.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

spade2you said:


> I'm surprised you haven't made sure these were eliminated.


Yeah, I am the guy in charge of stripping titles. :idea:


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> We get it. You think anyone who rode fast should be banned regardless if there is not evidence, positives tests, etc...... it does not work that way.


Not trying to troll but since until the USADA got statements that stuck...since LA won every court case...doesn't that mean there was technically no evidence against him?


----------



## asgelle

badge118 said:


> Not trying to troll but since until the USADA got statements that stuck...since LA won every court case...doesn't that mean there was technically no evidence against him?


And there were no sanctions. (though in fact there was plenty of evidence as has been described at length.)

But I miss your point. You seem to be saying that until there was evidence, there were no sanctions. After there was evidence, there were sanctions. What's the point?


----------



## den bakker

spade2you said:


> Are you implying he was clean in 07-09 and/or after the Carne Astana incident? Still has 2 Tours, 2 Vueltas, and a Giro.


are you implying the uniballer was clean in 1993?


----------



## den bakker

atpjunkie said:


> all of them lost placings in individual races, none had their entire careers erased


Armstrong did not have his entire career erased either


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Pretending Lance got singled out is "Just a rationalizing load of crap" indeed.
> 
> Basso, Ullrich, Scarponi, Ricco, Mayo, Contador, Valverde, and on and on and on. All were sanctioned while Lance was ignored for a decade. Why did you not cry about the unfairness then?......or is it only unfair when your guy gets taken down? Why didn't you launch a similar campaign for Tyler when he was banned for 8 years? Or Ricco when he was banned for life?
> 
> The absurd talking point that lance was the only guy sanctioned is naive at best and willfully disingenuous
> 
> Lance was sanctioned based on the rules of the sport. You claim over and over that the same level of evidence existing on other riders.....but provide nothing to support it.


all of them lost placings in individual races, none had their entire careers erased

my guy? I have no guy in this debate. 

We have a bunch of riders who admitted to doping
Most have maintained most of their careers


----------



## asgelle

atpjunkie said:


> all of them lost placings in individual races, none had their entire careers erased


And who did? Or is this just the latest fabricated point of (non)dispute?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Not trying to troll but since until the USADA got statements that stuck...since LA won every court case...doesn't that mean there was technically no evidence against him?


Hahaha. 

3 positives for test in the 90s'
Positives for Cortisone in 99
6 positives for EPO in 99
2 "Suspicious EPO tests that would have failed current levels
Insane off scores and HCT in 3rd week of Tour
Dumped bags of drugs and syringes 

UCI ignored and enabled the myth for a decade.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> We have a bunch of riders who admitted to doping
> Most have maintained most of their careers


Lance maintained many of the results he got when he was admittedly doping. He also kept some of the results he bought.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

den bakker said:


> are you implying the uniballer was clean in 1993?


Even lance says he wasn't 

From his interview with Cyclingnews


> DB: Did you win that world championships in Oslo, 20 years ago, on [taps glass of water] clean?
> 
> LA: That’s the detail I can’t get into. It was still low-octane.
> 
> [Armstrong later defined "low-octane" as meaning "Cortisone, etc"– ed.]


But, but, but....he admitted, why isn't he stripped??


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Hahaha.
> 
> 3 positives for test in the 90s'
> Positives for Cortisone in 99
> 6 positives for EPO in 99
> 2 "Suspicious EPO tests that would have failed current levels
> Insane off scores and HCT in 3rd week of Tour
> Dumped bags of drugs and syringes
> 
> UCI ignored and enabled the myth for a decade.


Were any of these "positives" sanctioned? If not then by the rules they do not count as positives.

The dumped bags were addressed in civil suits...

Yadda yadda yadda. I only care about, in any facet of my life not just here, not what I know or feel to be true...especially in hind sight, only what can be proven at the time.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Were any of these "positives" sanctioned? If not then by the rules they do not count as positives.
> 
> The dumped bags were addressed in civil suits...
> .


Because the UCI and USAC ignored them. The back dated TUE is clearly sanctionable, the UCI not only did nothing but they helped lance come up with his fake excuse. USAC covered up his multiple testosterone ratio tests. 

The UCI never investigated the dumped drugs/syringes from 2000. 

The UCI would smear, sue, and harasses witnesses. It was not until USADA came along that any of the mountain of evidence was taken seriously.


----------



## asgelle

badge118 said:


> I only care about, in any facet of my life not just here, not what I know or feel to be true...especially in hind sight, only what can be proven at the time.


What a perverse point of view. You don't ever allow the possibility of investigation and thought.


----------



## badge118

asgelle said:


> What a perverse point of view. You don't ever allow the possibility of investigation and thought.


The basis of investigation is to address only what can be proved. That is the entire point of investigation...proved yes? Take action. Proved no? Move onto the next case. Almost 20 years now on the job investigating everything from petty crime, to drug trafficking. Yeah I know investigations

What is perverse is to allow what we think we "know" and "feel" to be true to be the lodestone that directs our actions. These are far more eminently fallible. All that matters is demonstrable facts and whether or not they reach a point where they actually prove a damn thing.

Eventually the USADA did that. I am glad they did. It does not change the fact that prior that point, regardless of the circumstance, the facts did not. What is disturbing and more disturbingly avoided, is that the effort needed to do this has been exerted on one man. If we are to believe the reports of the Freiberg Clinic and Operation Puerto there are similarly in-depth and complicated cases that go woefully unaddressed. This is my problem. Not that one man was pursued so vigorously but that others are not and if the others are not pursued then one must ask how we justify stripping just the one, unless convenience is now a valid answer.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> the effort needed to do this has been exerted on one man.


Who is that one man? 

While the UCI was ignoring the mountain of evidence against lance they were going after Ullrich 7 years. Is Basso that one man? How about Mayo, Heras, Scarponi? Maybe you are referring to the Telekom Doctors? It was fun watching them be dragged through the courts, their licenses revoked, their savings depleted. Maybe that one man was Willy Voet, Bruno Roussel, Jef d'Hont, all convicted criminals for the Festina Affair. 

For over a decade Lance was indeed singled out.....he was singled out for preferential treatment by the UCI while hundreds of others had their careers destroyed.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Hey Local Hero, why is it you continue to post the same discredited nonsense over and over? Why do you make unsupportable blanket statements like "All of your arguments" that have no basis in fact? You have made it clear that your goal is disruption but it is a distraction from the conversation and your credibility.


lol

I ask you politely to cool down with the personal attacks and insults and you respond with personal attacks and insults. 


Doctor Falsetti said:


> Who is that one man?
> 
> While the UCI was ignoring the mountain of evidence against lance they were going after Ullrich 7 years. Is Basso that one man? How about Mayo, Heras, Scarponi? Maybe you are referring to the Telekom Doctors? It was fun watching them be dragged through the courts, their licenses revoked, their savings depleted. Maybe that one man was Willy Voet, Bruno Roussel, Jef d'Hont, all convicted criminals for the Festina Affair.
> 
> For over a decade Lance was indeed singled out.....he was singled out for preferential treatment by the UCI while hundreds of others had their careers destroyed.


Hundreds? 

LOL


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Hundreds?
> 
> LOL


Hundreds
People : Page 1 . Dopeology

LOL

Pretending Lance was singled out is an insult to the intelligence of other posters


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Who is that one man?
> 
> While the UCI was ignoring the mountain of evidence against lance they were going after Ullrich 7 years. Is Basso that one man? How about Mayo, Heras, Scarponi? Maybe you are referring to the Telekom Doctors? It was fun watching them be dragged through the courts, their licenses revoked, their savings depleted. Maybe that one man was Willy Voet, Bruno Roussel, Jef d'Hont, all convicted criminals for the Festina Affair.
> 
> For over a decade Lance was indeed singled out.....he was singled out for preferential treatment by the UCI while hundreds of others had their careers destroyed.


There is a word for trying to compare the time effort and resources spent by sporting authorities vs LA and these others and claiming to find them equitable...laughable. Even the time and effort spent by the UCI on the others pales in comparison to that which the USADA spent.

I get it you feel that such accusations undermine the LA case. That to is laughable. Since you seem to find insulting posts appropriate I felt I had to respond in kind... You delude yourself if you see equal time and effort spent.

As I said LA as a doper should have been nailed...but it is clear to anyone with an ounce of an open mind and critical thinking skill that other got off damn light when they were just as guilty of doping. Remember all that matters in committing an offense is the offense...not the attitude and collateral action taken.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> There is a word for trying to compare the time effort and resources spent by sporting authorities vs LA and these others and claiming to find them equitable...laughable. Even the time and effort spent by the UCI on the others pales in comparison to that which the USADA spent.


I am trying to think of a nice word for those who pretend that the time, money and effort, spent to sanction lance was anything close to what was spent on Telekom/Ullrich by the German Government. Or what was spent on Festina in France.....uninformed is the best I can come up with that will not harm sensitive folks who don't like being wrong

Lance gave up and witnesses testified willingly. They never had to go to trial. USADA spent less on Lance then they did on Landis. USADA spent less on lance then they spent on Tyler. USADA spent less on lance then CONI spent on Valverde. 

The major cost factor in doping cases is court and legal costs. Appeals drive this up even more. The Armstrong case never went to trial and they mostly used in house legal.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Hundreds
> People : Page 1 . Dopeology
> 
> LOL
> 
> Pretending Lance was singled out is an insult to the intelligence of other posters


Were all of these careers ruined during Armstrong's reign of terror?


----------



## spade2you

den bakker said:


> are you implying the uniballer was clean in 1993?


Not at all. I think he had both of the boys back then, too.


----------



## spade2you

Doctor Falsetti said:


> UCI ignored and enabled the myth for a decade.


What was the UCI's punishment for assisting in the coverup?


----------



## deviousalex

Local Hero said:


> Were all of these careers ruined during Armstrong's reign of terror?


He's saying hundreds of people had their careers ruined by doping scandals while Lance got preferential treatment despite huge piles of evidence.


----------



## spade2you

deviousalex said:


> He's saying hundreds of people had their careers ruined by doping scandals while Lance got preferential treatment despite huge piles of evidence.


Didn't Hein admit that he gave guys like Lance AND Jan warning of tests? Seems that he should have been fair about warning all riders. Are Lance and Jan to blame?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

deviousalex said:


> He's saying hundreds of people had their careers ruined by doping scandals while Lance got preferential treatment despite huge piles of evidence.


He knows what I am saying but prefers to post nonsense then pretend to be insulted when someone points it out


----------



## spade2you

Doctor Falsetti said:


> We get it. You think anyone who rode fast should be banned regardless if there is not evidence, positives tests, etc...... it does not work that way.


Who did Contador ride for and with during his first 3 GT wins? Isn't it worth noting that despite being busted that he denied ever doping? 

So, why exactly are you defending a guy who rode with Lance's old crew and did the same thing. Heck, he "won" 7 GTs if he hadn't been stripped of two. Seems like the same old trick and the same old you defending anyone that isn't Lance.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

spade2you said:


> Didn't Hein admit that he gave guys like Lance AND Jan warning of tests? Seems that he should have been fair about warning all riders. Are Lance and Jan to blame?


Lance, yes.....But not Jan, in fact the opposite. Jan tested positive in a surprise, out of competition test, when OOC tests were extremely rare.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

spade2you said:


> So, why exactly are you defending a guy who rode with Lance's old crew


I am defending due process and evidence, not dopers.


----------



## asgelle

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I am defending due process and evidence, not dopers.


There also seems to be several here who rather than trying to inform and present an accurate record, seem intent on obfuscation and misdirection.


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance maintained many of the results he got when he was admittedly doping. He also kept some of the results he bought.


this speaks volumes
yes Lance bought his results, but all the other dopers didn't
I'm really sorry


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I am defending due process and evidence, not dopers.


this is funny

you are defending every doper but one

investigate any of them with equal vigor and we'd get equal testimony


----------



## Fireform

atpjunkie said:


> this is funny
> 
> you are defending every doper but one
> 
> investigate any of them with equal vigor and we'd get equal testimony


He's not doing any such thing. What bs.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> this is funny


This is funny. You are posting nonsense hoping you will get a response.......aka trolling


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> I'm really sorry


I accept your apology, now please stop with the trolling. It is makes you look silly.


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I am defending due process and evidence, not dopers.


Do you know what "due process" actually is?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Do you know what "due process" actually is?


I know what it isn't. It isn't sanctioning a rider because they rode fast or on a certain team. 

As much as I would like to see guys like Jan stripped of all of their results it is naive to pretend this will happen. The UCI and the German government spent over a decade and lots of Euros pursuing him. In the end they were not able to get the evidence needed for a lifetime ban they wanted and had to settle for 2 years and stipping some results.


----------



## den bakker

atpjunkie said:


> this is funny
> 
> you are defending every doper but one
> 
> investigate any of them with equal vigor and we'd get equal testimony


let it derp


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I know what it isn't. It isn't sanctioning a rider because they rode fast or on a certain team.
> 
> As much as I would like to see guys like Jan stripped of all of their results it is naive to pretend this will happen. The UCI and the German government spent over a decade and lots of Euros pursuing him. In the end they were not able to get the evidence needed for a lifetime ban they wanted and had to settle for 2 years and stipping some results.


I asked the question because for their to be due process...a procedure against a defendant has to actually begin. I can suspect a suspect has committed an offense but if I do not begin an investigation due process has not begun and in terms of sporting investigations this is the case for many. Kloden was named in the Freiberg thing and a criminal case was settled when he paid money to charity. Did the sporting authorities ask for the dossier to look into sporting charges no. So no investigation...due process does not apply. OP...I will grant the lack of due process there is the fault of the Spanish gov't but it should anger most if not all of US. 

These are but two examples but yeah... For many of the cases you note saying you believe in due process, this is a straw man argument because due process is not relevant to the issue and THAT is the complaint some are raising. Not that after due process some skated...that happens. Rather that the principle of due process hasn't even been applied.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> I asked the question because for their to be due process...a procedure against a defendant has to actually begin. I can suspect a suspect has committed an offense but if I do not begin an investigation due process has not begun and in terms of sporting investigations this is the case for many. Kloden was named in the Freiberg thing and a criminal case was settled when he paid money to charity. Did the sporting authorities ask for the dossier to look into sporting charges no. So no investigation...due process does not apply. OP...I will grant the lack of due process there is the fault of the Spanish gov't but it should anger most if not all of US.
> 
> These are but two examples but yeah... For many of the cases you note saying you believe in due process, this is a straw man argument because due process is not relevant to the issue and THAT is the complaint some are raising. Not that after due process some skated...that happens. Rather that the principle of due process hasn't even been applied.


You are making some big claims, about something you appear to know little about. 

Instead of 26 witnesses the German Government had one, Patrick Sinkewitz. You might not know him but I do, he is an a$$hole. None of the other staff and riders supported his claim and neither did the doctors. The best he had was his ex-girlfriend said she drove them. With a weak case the German Government dropped the case and Kloden gave a donation to the kids. 

The dossier was given to the Swiss fed (Kloden held a Swiss license as does Ullrich) and also gave it to USADA. While it makes some interesting reading there is little in there that is sanction-able. With the exception of Sinkwitz' claims the rest of it come from the 90's, before the UCI signed the WADA code. Retro testing of all the T-Mobile samples held at the clinic produced only 3 with questionable off scores. In the end the Swiss Fed could not produce enough evidence to proceed. 

You should ask the Swiss Fed if they think they spent time and money investigating Jan and Klodi. It almost bankrupted them.


----------



## atpjunkie

badge118 said:


> Do you know what "due process" actually is?


which is why I am sorry


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I know what it isn't. It isn't sanctioning a rider because they rode fast or on a certain team.
> 
> As much as I would like to see guys like Jan stripped of all of their results it is naive to pretend this will happen. The UCI and the German government spent over a decade and lots of Euros pursuing him. In the end they were not able to get the evidence needed for a lifetime ban they wanted and had to settle for 2 years and stipping some results.


this so laughable
Kloden shelled out 25,ooo Euros and essentially ended his investigation

Klöden to pay fine in Freiburg clinic doping case | Cyclingnews.com

Andreas Klöden buys out of doping investigation | Flies and Bikes

and it was showing team wide, sophisticated, and multi year doping
Freiburg Report - T-Mobile . Dopeology

and boy they sure pursued all the info from the doctor
cyclisme-dopage.com - Freiburg doctor pays fine to settle doping-related charges

that's some pretty intense investigation.
That is Spanish quality doper busting


----------



## atpjunkie

atpjunkie said:


> this so laughable
> Kloden shelled out 25,ooo Euros and essentially ended his investigation
> 
> Klöden to pay fine in Freiburg clinic doping case | Cyclingnews.com
> 
> Andreas Klöden buys out of doping investigation | Flies and Bikes
> 
> and it was showing team wide, sophisticated, and multi year doping
> Freiburg Report - T-Mobile . Dopeology
> 
> and boy they sure pursued all the info from the doctor
> cyclisme-dopage.com - Freiburg doctor pays fine to settle doping-related charges
> 
> that's some pretty intense investigation.
> That is Spanish quality doper busting


can you imagine?

USADA
"Mr Armstrong we at the USADA are doing this investigation into your doping.
We can continue or you can pay us $34,000 (exchange) and there's no admission of guilt"
Lance
"So $102,000 will cover me, George and Levi"

USADA "That is correct"

Lance "Let me get my wallet"


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> this so laughable


Laughable would be to pretend that the Germans did nothing.

If you only read English language blogs and ignore the significant German coverage then I can see how you did not know they pursued Schmid and Lothar Heinrich for 7 years. 
Straffreiheit für Dopingärzte: "Tatsächliche Anhaltspunkte" für Epo-Versorgung von Jan Ullrich - SPIEGEL ONLINE

*They suspended their licenses, forbidding them from practicing medicine
*Unlike Lance, who had 26 witnesses, the German government could hardly get any riders or staff to break the omerta
*Germany's laws did not cover doping for much of the period covered
*Statue of limitations made it impossible to go after the best evidence. 

I can understand that with your limited reading on the topic that your knowledge of it is limited but if you had read the significant German coverage during the case you would know that they hardly sat on their hands and did nothing.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> can you imagine?


Can you imagine what USADA would have done if instead of 26 witnesses they only had one? How far would their case have gone?


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Can you imagine what USADA would have done if instead of 26 witnesses they only had one? How far would their case have gone?


Again, for every doper out there we could see a dozen witnesses, had the pressure been applied to the right people.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Again, for every doper out there we could see a dozen witnesses, had the pressure been applied to the right people.


You make this claim yet can't give an example. 

Germany, Switzerland, and the UCI pursued Kloden and Ullrich for years but could not get anyone to talk.......they should have offered cookies, everyone will talk for cookies


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Can you imagine what USADA would have done if instead of 26 witnesses they only had one? How far would their case have gone?


especially one who could write a check fro 34K, not admit guilt and end the investigation


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You make this claim yet can't give an example.
> 
> Germany, Switzerland, and the UCI pursued Kloden and Ullrich for years but could not get anyone to talk.......they should have offered cookies, everyone will talk for cookies


for years.... 
Germany has been talking about re opening the Kloden case since what 2009?, last I heard (from German reports) they were still 'thinking about it' in 2012
yeah, they're a bunch of pitbulls those guys

maybe they should try grand jury testimony where lying carries huge fines and/or jail time


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> for years....
> Germany has been talking about re opening the Kloden case since what 2009?, last I heard (from German reports) they were still 'thinking about it' in 2012
> yeah, they're a bunch of pitbulls those guys
> 
> maybe they should try grand jury testimony where lying carries huge fines and/or jail time


Last you heard? Word on the street?......You didn't read the link did you? 

Landis, Tyler, VDV, JV, Dave Z, Betsy, Frankie, Micheal Berry, Tom Danielson, Levi, Swart, Emma, and others never testified in front of the grand jury. The Feds never shared their evidence. 

USDA cannot give jail time.


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Last you heard? Word on the street?......You didn't read the link did you?
> 
> Landis, Tyler, VDV, JV, Dave Z, Betsy, Frankie, Micheal Berry, Tom Danielson, Levi, Swart, Emma, and others never testified in front of the grand jury. The Feds never shared their evidence.
> 
> USDA cannot give jail time.


Landis = already busted, career ruined, holding a grudge
Tyler- see above. Got a deal from the Fed
VDV, JV, Dave Z, BArry, Danielson, Levi - all got light deals for their testimony
some were pissed
Emma and the Andreus - pissed off
what's the moral of the story? Don't be an a hole. Be a nice doper.

Grand Jury does not equal the USADA

from Tyler Hamilton interview

"Well, I just told my family for the first time four days ago about all this. It was brutal. Was the first time, really, I confided in them and then told them the whole story, you know, starting from the first time I doped till to up through the end," Hamilton told correspondent Scott Pelley.

Hamilton always denied doping until this moment. He's an Olympic gold medalist who kept the secrets of his sport for 14 years. He refused to cooperate with the federal investigation of Armstrong. But in June, he was served a subpoena which forced him to testify before the grand jury.

and yes Hamilton's testimony cut him a deal


----------



## Bluenote

atpjunkie said:


> Landis = already busted, career ruined, holding a grudge
> Tyler- see above. Got a deal from the Fed
> VDV, JV, Dave Z, BArry, Danielson, Levi - all got light deals for their testimony
> some were pissed
> Emma and the Andreus - pissed off
> what's the moral of the story? Don't be an a hole. Be a nice doper.
> 
> Grand Jury does not equal the USADA
> 
> from Tyler Hamilton interview
> 
> "Well, I just told my family for the first time four days ago about all this. It was brutal. Was the first time, really, I confided in them and then told them the whole story, you know, starting from the first time I doped till to up through the end," Hamilton told correspondent Scott Pelley.
> 
> Hamilton always denied doping until this moment. He's an Olympic gold medalist who kept the secrets of his sport for 14 years. He refused to cooperate with the federal investigation of Armstrong. But in June, he was served a subpoena which forced him to testify before the grand jury.
> 
> and yes Hamilton's testimony cut him a deal


Or maybe if you're gonna break the rules of your sport, the terms of your contract and possibly break the law - don't leave a [email protected] load of witnesses, because chances are, some will start squealing on you. People will throw their "nice" crook friends under the bus to get a deal, ya know. 

Armstrong didn't get busted because he's a a-hole, he got busted because he's an idiot, who left a zillion witnesses.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> snipedl


yeah, yeah. Everyone is a bitter hater....but none of them testified in front of the Grand Jury. 

You gotta come up with something better then they are bitter haters. That is so 2005


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You make this claim yet can't give an example.
> 
> Germany, Switzerland, and the UCI pursued Kloden and Ullrich for years but could not get anyone to talk.......they should have offered cookies, everyone will talk for cookies


I can't give one example of what, a witness to Ullrich's doping? 

I guess I'm a little mixed up on your argument here. We all accept that there were countless dopers during the era. We can assume that many of these riders did not act alone-they had help, their teammates knew, others probably stumbled upon the evidence. Yet few came forward to testify against Ullrich and many came forward to testify against Armstrong. Have both now confessed? 

And we cannot downplay the role that the federal investigation and grand jury testimony had on the witnesses. Being forced to testify once is a chip in the damn psychologically. Once it is out, it's out. And knowing the guys in black suits would be around during the USADA investigation ensured that the testimony would be consistent.


----------



## Bluenote

Doctor Falsetti said:


> yeah, yeah. Everyone is a bitter hater....but none of them testified in front of the Grand Jury.
> 
> You gotta come up with something better then they are bitter haters. That is so 2005


You forgot alcoholic prostitutes who love cancer. They're all bitter haters, alcoholic prostitues who love cancer. 

No one's ever told all of Eddy Merckx's secrets, because he was such a lovable guy. Kittens and puppies practically fall out of his ass.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> I guess I'm a little mixed up


Yeah, that is clear as I have answered your questions several times.


----------



## atpjunkie

Bluenote said:


> Or maybe if you're gonna break the rules of your sport, the terms of your contract and possibly break the law - don't leave a [email protected] load of witnesses, because chances are, some will start squealing on you. People will throw their "nice" crook friends under the bus to get a deal, ya know.
> 
> Armstrong didn't get busted because he's a a-hole, he got busted because he's an idiot, who left a zillion witnesses.


I'm sure there is a littany of witnesses to half the pro peloton doing dope. Had Lance not been petty and vindictive, if he'd just responded with "Haters gonna hate" instead of ruining people's lives...

but you do have a point, but these folks were his staff and/or his inner circle. The omerta would have held had the Fed screws not been brought down and had Floyd not opened the bag.


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> yeah, yeah. Everyone is a bitter hater....but none of them testified in front of the Grand Jury.
> 
> You gotta come up with something better then they are bitter haters. That is so 2005


Tyler testified in front of a Grand Jury

http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Hamilton,+Tyler+Affidavit.pdf

I guess he's no one

or George

CBS News reports Hincapie testified that he and Armstrong supplied each other with EPO, testosterone - VeloNews.com


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> Tyler testified in front of a Grand Jury
> 
> http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Hamilton,+Tyler+Affidavit.pdf
> 
> I guess he's no one
> 
> or George
> 
> CBS News reports Hincapie testified that he and Armstrong supplied each other with EPO, testosterone - VeloNews.com


Thanks for proving my point. USADA had 26 witnesses and you can find only 2 who testified in front of the grand jury.....one of whom never testified in front of the Grand Jury

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/s...but-reliable-witness.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



> Instead of testifying before the grand jury, Hincapie cooperated and gave sworn statements.
> 
> He then provided evidence about Armstrong and the organized doping on their teams to the antidoping agency.


Do you really think that it was threat of perjury that lead Tyler to talk to USADA? Did you even read the link you posted? It is pretty clear why Tyler talked to USADA, threats from the Feds were not it. 

Most who testified in front of the Grand jury refused to talk to USADA. Jeff Spencer, the team staffer who dumped the bags of drugs in 2000, refused to talk to USADA. Stephanie McIlvain refused to talk to USADA. Kevin Livingston refused to talk to USADA.....why didn't USADA put them in Jail?


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Thanks for proving my point. USADA had 26 witnesses and you can find only 2 who testified in front of the grand jury.....one of whom never testified in front of the Grand Jury
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/s...but-reliable-witness.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think that it was threat of perjury that lead Tyler to talk to USADA? Did you even read the link you posted? It is pretty clear why Tyler talked to USADA, threats from the Feds were not it.
> 
> Most who testified in front of the Grand jury refused to talk to USADA. Jeff Spencer, the team staffer who dumped the bags of drugs in 2000, refused to talk to USADA. Stephanie McIlvain refused to talk to USADA. Kevin Livingston refused to talk to USADA.....why didn't USADA put them in Jail?


I only listed 2 as a quick rebuttal to your NONE assertion. (which has clearly been proven to be WRONG)
No, Tyler
A) had nothing to lose at that point
B) was promised a deal on his own accusations
C) and yes the Grand Jury can still prosecute him if it finds out he lied
D) maybe it generates some $ through book sales and TV interviews

The USADA can't put anyone in jail. Lying to a grand jury can. You keep walking around that point and going back to the USADA. The reason they refused the USADA is it doesn't have the legal backbone to do anything about it.
But note: Once some evidence is entered in a Grand Jury report, if needed, that evidence can be subpoenaed. So once a rider or 2 had spilled the beans, it would be much easier to prove when another is committing perjury. Lips became much looser once folks knew there was a possibility that there had been sworn testimony involving them., even if from a closed investigation. Now add the carrot of "We'll go light on your sentence" and you can understand their motivation in talking. 
So what does this prove? That an aggressive 2 pronged attack produced the testimony they needed. That Lance's petty vindictive nature toward the Andreu's and such worked against him in the long run. Last, that no European doping investigation has even come close to this level. 

34K didn't buy anyone out of anything


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> I only listed 2 as a quick rebuttal to your NONE assertion. (which has clearly been proven to be WRONG)
> No, Tyler
> A) had nothing to lose at that point
> B) was promised a deal on his own accusations
> C) and yes the Grand Jury can still prosecute him if it finds out he lied
> D) maybe it generates some $ through book sales and TV interviews
> 
> The USADA can't put anyone in jail. Lying to a grand jury can. You keep walking around that point and going back to the USADA. The reason they refused the USADA is it doesn't have the legal backbone to do anything about it.
> But note: Once some evidence is entered in a Grand Jury report, if needed, that evidence can be subpoenaed. So once a rider or 2 had spilled the beans, it would be much easier to prove when another is committing perjury. Lips became much looser once folks knew there was a possibility that there had been sworn testimony involving them., even if from a closed investigation. Now add the carrot of "We'll go light on your sentence" and you can understand their motivation in talking.
> So what does this prove? That an aggressive 2 pronged attack produced the testimony they needed. That Lance's petty vindictive nature toward the Andreu's and such worked against him in the long run. Last, that no European doping investigation has even come close to this level.
> 
> 34K didn't buy anyone out of anything


Do you actually read what people write?

Where did I say nobody testified in front of the Grand Jury?

Do you really believe that "Once some evidence is entered in a Grand Jury report, if needed, that evidence can be subpoenaed"???? Really? Please tell us how USADA subpoenas Grand Jury testimony. Given the Feds refused to share any of their evidence the idea that USADA can get access to high confidentially Grand Jury testimony is laughable. 

USADA had 26 witnesses. So far you have shown only one USADA witness testified in front of the Grand Jury, Tyler. It is clear what motivated him to talk to USADA and it was not fear of the Feds.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yeah, that is clear as I have answered your questions several times.


It's telling that you had to clip my post and misquote me so you can respond to a fragment of what I wrote. Nice job scoring some cheap points, I guess?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> It's telling that you had to clip my post and misquote me so you can respond to a fragment of what I wrote. Nice job scoring some cheap points, I guess?


It is telling that you keep asking the same questions I have answered over and over and over. Nice job scoring some cheap points


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Ballan, Cunego, Michael Rasmussen, Mauro Santambrogio, Marco Bandiera, Pietro Caucchioli, Marzio Bruseghin, Marco Bandiera, Daniele Pietropolli, Emanuele Mori, Massimiliano Mori and Mauro Da Dalto are all on trial in Italy. Ballan has already been sanctioned.....where is their thread saying they have been singled out? 

DiLucca's doctor, Carlo Santuccione, was stripped of his license and banned for life, Rabobank Doctor Geet Lienders is currently under criminal investigation in Belgium. Where is their thread? 

Riis had to sell his team and is under investigation by ADD. Lampre manager Saronni, directeurs sportifs Maurizio Piovani and Fabrizio Bontempi, and former rider Mariano Piccoli are all on trial in Italy......why no sympathy for them?


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is telling that you keep asking the same questions I have answered over and over and over. Nice job scoring some cheap points


This reminds me of when I was in grade school and some kid on the school bus would repeat back what other kids would say. 

lol


----------



## Bluenote

atpjunkie said:


> I'm sure there is a littany of witnesses to half the pro peloton doing dope. Had Lance not been petty and vindictive, if he'd just responded with "Haters gonna hate" instead of ruining people's lives...
> 
> but you do have a point, but these folks were his staff and/or his inner circle. The omerta would have held had the Fed screws not been brought down and had Floyd not opened the bag.


You're sure? You know every doper and their situation? Or you are just making assumptions that fit the narrative that Armstrong was unfairly singled out? 

I'm not sure everyone left a zillion witnesses. Take Big Mig, who is alleged to have used EPO. He is alleged to have gotten it from Conconi. Its possible to use EPO fairly discreetly, particularly out of competition. Back in those days people weren't on the lookout for drugs in thermoses and needles in soda cans in the trash. If the allegations are true, there may only be a handful of witnesses - Big Mig and Conconi. Maybe also a runner who filled the perscriptions. 

There's a big difference between 'I think x,y,z rider is on drugs' and 'I saw x,y,z rider take what I know is EPO / steroids / amphetamines / cortisone, etc...' or, 'X,y,z rider told me they take blah, blah drugs...' Riders and teammates may suspect that someone dopes, but may never have witnessed that person inject, pills get labled 'vitamins,' etc...

Given how blatant Armstrong was about doping, in front of - a lot - of people, someone was bound to talk. As a matter of fact, several did before the Federal Investigation. Betsy Andreu, Frankie, Emma O'Reilly and Mike Anderson. But they got smeared as bitter haters. But that doesn't fit into the Armstrong singled out narrative, either...


----------



## Bluenote

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Ballan, Cunego, Michael Rasmussen, Mauro Santambrogio, Marco Bandiera, Pietro Caucchioli, Marzio Bruseghin, Marco Bandiera, Daniele Pietropolli, Emanuele Mori, Massimiliano Mori and Mauro Da Dalto are all on trial in Italy. Ballan has already been sanctioned.....where is their thread saying they have been singled out?
> 
> DiLucca's doctor, Carlo Santuccione, was stripped of his license and banned for life, Rabobank Doctor Geet Lienders is currently under criminal investigation in Belgium. Where is their thread?
> 
> Riis had to sell his team and is under investigation by ADD. Lampre manager Saronni, directeurs sportifs Maurizio Piovani and Fabrizio Bontempi, and former rider Mariano Piccoli are all on trial in Italy......why no sympathy for them?


Ricardo Ricco was investigated by Italian Police after become ill with a kidney infection from transfusing blood. Ultimately he confessed to the Italian version of the ADA and was given a 12 year ban. Where's the thread saying he got singled out? The cries for his results to be restored? 

Tammy Thomas was convicted of perjury in the Balco affair. She has a JD, but has been denied a law license because of the perjury conviction. Where's her thread? 

Ferrari was investigated and convicted of doping, to have it overturned. He's under investigation again - where's his thread? 

Joe Papp was convicted and banned for his part in doping. He testified against others - where's his thread? 

Ciprelli and Leogrande where two people Joe Papp rated out. Ciprelli, of course, is Lingo's husband. Where's their sympathy thread?

The infamous Festina Team faced criminal charges - many were convicted. Where's the outrage over that?


----------



## Local Hero

Please don't ask for a Joe Papp thread. We've heard enough from him.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Bluenote said:


> Ricardo Ricco was investigated by Italian Police after become ill with a kidney infection from transfusing blood. Ultimately he confessed to the Italian version of the ADA and was given a 12 year ban. Where's the thread saying he got singled out? The cries for his results to be restored?
> 
> Tammy Thomas was convicted of perjury in the Balco affair. She has a JD, but has been denied a law license because of the perjury conviction. Where's her thread?
> 
> Ferrari was investigated and convicted of doping, to have it overturned. He's under investigation again - where's his thread?
> 
> Joe Papp was convicted and banned for his part in doping. He testified against others - where's his thread?
> 
> Ciprelli and Leogrande where two people Joe Papp rated out. Ciprelli, of course, is Lingo's husband. Where's their sympathy thread?
> 
> The infamous Festina Team faced criminal charges - many were convicted. Where's the outrage over that?


DiLucca is banned for life. Where is the thread crying for him? 

Christian Pfannberger. Fired, Lifetime ban, results stripped.....no thread for him because nobody can spell his name?

Alberto Beltrán Niño was arrested with a bunch of drugs. They never would have got him but the police leaned on David Garcia.....why no complaints about that? It's not fair if the police help catch dopers right?

Ángel Vázquez is banned for life. The organizers of the largest GranFondo in Spain called the police and had him yanked from the race. Why no outcry for him? He was just doing.....wait for it.....what everyone else was doing


----------



## Bluenote

Doctor Falsetti said:


> DiLucca is banned for life. Where is the thread crying for him?
> 
> Christian Pfannberger. Fired, Lifetime ban, results stripped.....no thread for him because nobody can spell his name?
> 
> Alberto Beltrán Niño was arrested with a bunch of drugs. They never would have got him but the police leaned on David Garcia.....why no complaints about that? It's not fair if the police help catch dopers right?
> 
> Ángel Vázquez is banned for life. The organizers of the largest GranFondo in Spain called the police and had him yanked from the race. Why no outcry for him? He was just doing.....wait for it.....what everyone else was doing


What about Pot Belge? A whole slew of folks were arrested - some convicted - for dealing / distributing / using Pot Belge. Laurent and Fabian Roux, Freddy Sergent, Laurent Bondi and more. 

Where's the thread full of outrage for them?

Rumsas and his wife were also convicted for PEDs. No thread for them. 

Frank Vandebrouke was arrested and banned after a traffic stop and all he was trying to do was help his poor sick dog. Where's his call for 'justice?'

The way I see it, quite a few on the list were actually treated more harshly than Armstrong. They were actually convicted, spent some time in prison, banned, even black balled from the sport. Ricco got ratted out to the cops, by his Doctors after going to the ER. The cops then worked with the Italian ADA. Rumsas, Voet and VDB got nailed in traffic stops. Millar got rolled on by a team member. 

So is what Rumsas did - brought PEDs into a country any different from what Armstrong did - brought PEDs into a country? Is what Ricco did - blood doped and used EPO multiple times in his career - different from what Armstrong did - blood doped and used EPO? Is what Millar did - use EPO - different from what Armstrong did - use EPO?

So where is the outrage that those guys - who were convicted criminally - were singled out for unduly harsh treatment? Where is the call to have those guys pardoned, their results reinstated? Where are the arguments that 'everyone was doing it' and 'it was a level playing field,' and 'they got headhunted because they were jerks?'


----------



## Local Hero

Bluenote said:


> What about Pot Belge? A whole slew of folks were arrested - some convicted - for dealing / distributing / using Pot Belge. Laurent and Fabian Roux, Freddy Sergent, Laurent Bondi and more.
> 
> Where's the thread full of outrage for them?
> 
> Rumsas and his wife were also convicted for PEDs. No thread for them.
> 
> Frank Vandebrouke was arrested and banned after a traffic stop and all he was trying to do was help his poor sick dog. Where's his call for 'justice?'
> 
> The way I see it, quite a few on the list were actually treated more harshly than Armstrong. They were actually convicted, spent some time in prison, banned, even black balled from the sport. Ricco got ratted out to the cops, by his Doctors after going to the ER. The cops then worked with the Italian ADA. Rumsas, Voet and VDB got nailed in traffic stops. Millar got rolled on by a team member.
> 
> So is what Rumsas did - brought PEDs into a country any different from what Armstrong did - brought PEDs into a country? Is what Ricco did - blood doped and used EPO multiple times in his career - different from what Armstrong did - blood doped and used EPO? Is what Millar did - use EPO - different from what Armstrong did - use EPO?
> 
> So where is the outrage that those guys - who were convicted criminally - were singled out for unduly harsh treatment? Where is the call to have those guys pardoned, their results reinstated? Where are the arguments that 'everyone was doing it' and 'it was a level playing field,' and 'they got headhunted because they were jerks?'


I suppose asking "Where is the outrage over their punishment?" can be met with asking, "Where is the outrage over their crimes?"


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Didn't see anyone here crying when Edita spent months in jail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rumsas was riding on Lampre at the time. General manager Giuseppe Saronni and Directeur sportif Fabrizio Bontempi are both facing prison time in Italy.......where is the singled out/witch hunt/victim babble for them?


Because there is a difference between criminal proceedings and sporting proceedings and the issue being raised here is about ADAs and not Federal Police.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Bluenote said:


> Rumsas and his wife were also convicted for PEDs. No thread for them.


Didn't see anyone here crying when Edita spent months in jail. 









Rumsas was riding on Lampre at the time. General manager Giuseppe Saronni and Directeur sportif Fabrizio Bontempi are both facing prison time in Italy.......where is the singled out/witch hunt/victim babble for them?


----------



## Local Hero

I'm not going to lie, I haven't even heard of half of those dopers. There are many here who are better cycling fans than me :/


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> I suppose asking "Where is the outrage over their punishment?" can be met with asking, "Where is the outrage over their crimes?"


Or, instead of talking about doping as though it is a matter of morality, we could talk about the medical reality. 

Ricco - nearly died from botched transfusion. 
VDB (and others) - claim to have become addicted to pot belge. Not surprising, as the stuff contains things like cocaine and painkillers. 
Thomas - her health is ruined. 
East German athletes - some sources say as many as 90% have serious health issues. 
http://www.newsweek.com/east-germanys-steroid-shame-253840
Gaumont - died young after a career of doping
Jesus Manzano - nearly died from oxygen vector doping
Strock and Kaiter - developed health problems after being doped without their knowing it. 
Six years later, Strock case comes to court - VeloNews.com
Joe Papp (your pal) - severe bleeding after a crash, because of EPO and blood thinners
Tom Simpson - deceased

Doping is banned because it is dangerous. Teams are banned from forcing their riders to dope, because of the danger to their health. "Doctors" and trainers are banned from telling athletes that dope is as safe as orange juice, when in fact it is not. 

There isn't a lot of outrage when an individual chooses to dope and then must suffer the consequences. 

There is a lot more outrage when a team / coach / etc... coerces or forces others to dope. Or when we hear of juniors being doped.


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> I'm not going to lie, I haven't even heard of half of those dopers. There are many here who are better cycling fans than me :/


Honest question - why do you post / debate so much on the doping forum, if you admit to knowing so little about the history of doping in cycling?

Most of those guys I listed got busted in high profile cases - the Cahors affair, Rumsas and Ricco got popped during the Tdf, the Cofidis scandal, etc...


----------



## atpjunkie

Bluenote said:


> You're sure? You know every doper and their situation? Or you are just making assumptions that fit the narrative that Armstrong was unfairly singled out?
> 
> I'm not sure everyone left a zillion witnesses. Take Big Mig, who is alleged to have used EPO. He is alleged to have gotten it from Conconi. Its possible to use EPO fairly discreetly, particularly out of competition. Back in those days people weren't on the lookout for drugs in thermoses and needles in soda cans in the trash. If the allegations are true, there may only be a handful of witnesses - Big Mig and Conconi. Maybe also a runner who filled the perscriptions.
> 
> There's a big difference between 'I think x,y,z rider is on drugs' and 'I saw x,y,z rider take what I know is EPO / steroids / amphetamines / cortisone, etc...' or, 'X,y,z rider told me they take blah, blah drugs...' Riders and teammates may suspect that someone dopes, but may never have witnessed that person inject, pills get labled 'vitamins,' etc...
> 
> Given how blatant Armstrong was about doping, in front of - a lot - of people, someone was bound to talk. As a matter of fact, several did before the Federal Investigation. Betsy Andreu, Frankie, Emma O'Reilly and Mike Anderson. But they got smeared as bitter haters. But that doesn't fit into the Armstrong singled out narrative, either...


re read Tyler Hamilton's interview w/ 60 minutes
he says Lance doped, no more than anyone else. He is clear US Postal / Discovery wasn't the only team up to it, in fact he says the majority of the peloton was on the stuff. He is pretty clear that what he saw @ Postal wasn't out of the norm. Since he is a key witness in this whole thing I gotta take his word (and considering both he and Floyd continued to dope and got busted while being 'top guys' for other teams) for it.


----------



## atpjunkie

Bluenote said:


> Honest question - why do you post / debate so much on the doping forum, if you admit to knowing so little about the history of doping in cycling?
> 
> Most of those guys I listed got busted in high profile cases - the Cahors affair, Rumsas and Ricco got popped during the Tdf, the Cofidis scandal, etc...


my point is how do multi bust riders like DiLuca, Rumsas, Ricco not have their Palmares erased?
they have lifetime bans, they do not have lines (or asterix) by their names.

Once again, my issue here is, I think what cycling did was scapegoat and window dress. "We got the 'bad guy' and punished him thoroughly, ya'll can move along now, there's nothing to see here" while many more admitted and busted dopers were not punished and in fact are allowed to either continue racing or become team managers.
That tells me they are not really 'serious' about cleaning the sport up


----------



## asgelle

atpjunkie said:


> my point is how do multi bust riders like DiLuca, Rumsas, Ricco not have their Palmares erased?


After all this time, you still don't get it? Under the WADA code, which was put in place to insure uniformity, sanctions must be tied to proven offenses. In other words, results can only be stripped for races where it was proven the rider was doping (or there was some other violation) at the time of that specific race and following such a race for the period of a suspension. The rules don't allow stripping any other results. 

You don't like that, we get it. But until you're king and make the rules, the sport has to follow the WADA code. Remember what happened when British Cycling tried to ban Millar from the Olympics?


----------



## den bakker

atpjunkie said:


> my point is how do multi bust riders like DiLuca, Rumsas, Ricco not have their Palmares erased?
> they have lifetime bans, they do not have lines (or asterix) by their names.
> 
> Once again, my issue here is, I think what cycling did was scapegoat and window dress. "We got the 'bad guy' and punished him thoroughly, ya'll can move along now, there's nothing to see here" while many more admitted and busted dopers were not punished and in fact are allowed to either continue racing or become team managers.
> That tells me they are not really 'serious' about cleaning the sport up


just like Armstrong they did not have their full palmeres erased. You can keep up pretending Armstrong did but it's not true. He is still former world champion. 
Here's the link to the results at the UCI. No lines no asterix no nothing. 
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/g...bjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NTkwMzQ&LangId=1
and although you seem to like introducing rules retroactively, that is luckily rarely done.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Because there is a difference between criminal proceedings and sporting proceedings and *the issue being raised here is about ADAs and not Federal Police.*


It appears you have not read the many posts here crying about the Feds role the Armstrong case. These posters not only vastly overstate the role of the Feds but also ignores the role police had in the cases of Ballan, Cunego, Michael Rasmussen, Mauro Santambrogio, Marco Bandiera, Pietro Caucchioli, Marzio Bruseghin, Marco Bandiera, Daniele Pietropolli, Emanuele Mori, Massimiliano Mori, Mauro Da Dalto, Rumsas, Valverde, Basso, Scarponi, Ullrich, Festina, TVM, etc.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> \"We got the 'bad guy' and punished him thoroughly, ya'll can move along now, there's nothing to see here"


Have not heard anyone claim anything remotely close to this.


----------



## Local Hero

This thread took a trip down trivia alley.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> in fact he says the majority of the peloton was on the stuff. He is pretty clear that what he saw @ Postal wasn't out of the norm.


The majority of the peloton was doing transfusions? Nonsense. In 2000 the only team doing transfusions was Postal and even then it was only 3 of their riders. Telekom did not do them till 2004. 

After the busts in 1998 teams were scared to bring EPO into France, which is why the retro testing of the 1999 samples resulted in 1/3 the positives of the 1998 samples......and 50% of those positives belonged to one rider, Lance Armstrong.


----------



## Fireform

The potency of his Kool aid is amazing. He claims he was uniquely persecuted, all facts to the contrary, and the tribe takes it to their graves. He claims Lemond was "bitter", something no one else had ever suggested before, and the fanboys repeat it the rest of their sad lives.


----------



## deviousalex

Fireform said:


> The potency of his Kool aid is amazing. He claims he was uniquely persecuted, all facts to the contrary, and the tribe takes it to their graves. He claims Lemond was "bitter", something no one else had ever suggested before, and the fanboys repeat it the rest of their sad lives.


And now since he's caught he's moving his narrative to "it was a level playing field" which is also complete nonsense.


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> This thread took a trip down trivia alley.


God forbid, when discussing if Armstrong was singled out, discussion turns to others who were treated the same - or even more harshly. TdF podium placers (Rumsas) = obscure! Cofidis affair = minutia!

Facts = trivia. Knowledge = bad. 

Truthiness = good!


----------



## Fireform

Bluenote said:


> God forbid, when discussing if Armstrong was singled out, discussion turns to others who were treated the same - or even more harshly. TdF podium placers (Rumsas) = obscure! Cofidis affair = minutia!
> 
> Facts = trivia. Knowledge = bad.
> 
> Truthiness = good!


God forbid we learn that he really wasn't martyred.


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The majority of the peloton was doing transfusions? Nonsense. In 2000 the only team doing transfusions was Postal and even then it was only 3 of their riders. Telekom did not do them till 2004.
> 
> After the busts in 1998 teams were scared to bring EPO into France, which is why the retro testing of the 1999 samples resulted in 1/3 the positives of the 1998 samples......and 50% of those positives belonged to one rider, Lance Armstrong.


'on the stuff' refers to EPO and T
and yes T Kom was on it in the 90s

German Cycling Tarnished: Systematic Doping in Telekom Team - SPIEGEL ONLINE

so explain to us now the performance difference between a rider with a 49 H Crit level via EPO or Autologous blood transfusion

transfusions came back into style when EPO testing got better, they predated EPO by decades all the way back to X Country skiers and my towns own Eddie B

in fact according to Hincapie, they started doping in the 90s because they were getting killed A MSR by doped Euros


----------



## deviousalex

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/s...h-of-biogenesis-arrested-in-steroid-case.html

This guy is getting arrested by the Feds for helping Alex Rodriguez dope.


----------



## atpjunkie

deviousalex said:


> And now since he's caught he's moving his narrative to "it was a level playing field" which is also complete nonsense.


Did Bjarne dope to his TdF Win? 96
Did Jan? 97
Did Marco? 98
Floyd did in 2006, my guess is Pereiro did too
Contador in 2007 and 2009, we know he doped in 2010
Sastre is the only one who may have been clean but he rode for Riis so I doubt it
How many top 10 guys from 99 to 2005 were doped, had doping busts

I don't think Lemond was bitter, I think Lemond was right. I just don't think there was anyone clean in the era. (or today)


----------



## atpjunkie

deviousalex said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/s...h-of-biogenesis-arrested-in-steroid-case.html
> 
> This guy is getting arrested by the Feds for helping Alex Rodriguez dope.


all the way to high school

Football is so gd dirty


----------



## deviousalex

atpjunkie said:


> Did Bjarne dope to his TdF Win? 96
> Did Jan? 97
> Did Marco? 98
> Floyd did in 2006, my guess is Pereiro did too
> Contador in 2007 and 2009, we know he doped in 2010
> Sastre is the only one who may have been clean but he rode for Riis so I doubt it
> How many top 10 guys from 99 to 2005 were doped, had doping busts
> 
> I don't think Lemond was bitter, I think Lemond was right. I just don't think there was anyone clean in the era. (or today)


How many of them got the extensive knowledge about how drug tests work? How many of them had their team financiers give Hein Verbruggen stock in silicon valley IPOs? How many of them got a get out of jail free card on positive doping tests? Floyd certainly didn't.

Just because other people doped doesn't mean it was a fair playing field. It was pretty much asymmetric warfare.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> so explain to us now the performance difference between a rider with a 49 H Crit level via EPO or Autologous blood transfusion


It is pretty clear you have a limited understanding of doping and it's history so I will try to keep it simple for you.

In 2000 they introduced the test for EPO. Most thought it was going to be very effective and that they would save samples. This scared most teams, they were not willing to take EPO during the 2000 Tour as many risked being tested daily. Ferrari recognized this and got USPS on a blood doping program. 

By the 3rd week of a Grand Tour the average riders hct has dropped 12%. The 3 USPS riders who were transfusing were able to boost their depleted Hct back up to 49.99 while the rest of the peloton could do nothing

Pretending everyone was on the same program, and received the same benefit from that program, is the most absurd of many naive talking points.


----------



## atpjunkie

deviousalex said:


> How many of them got the extensive knowledge about how drug tests work? How many of them had their team financiers give Hein Verbruggen stock in silicon valley IPOs? How many of them got a get out of jail free card on positive doping tests? Floyd certainly didn't.
> 
> Just because other people doped doesn't mean it was a fair playing field. It was pretty much asymmetric warfare.


agreed
and Jan was the best doper in 97
and Pantani in 98...'
and Zabel, ad nauseum


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is pretty clear you have a limited understanding of doping and it's history so I will try to keep it simple for you.
> 
> In 2000 they introduced the test for EPO. Most thought it was going to be very effective and that they would save samples. This scared most teams, they were not willing to take EPO during the 2000 Tour as many risked being tested daily. Ferrari recognized this and got USPS on a blood doping program.
> 
> By the 3rd week of a Grand Tour the average riders hct has dropped 12%. The 3 USPS riders who were transfusing were able to boost their depleted Hct back up to 49.99 while the rest of the peloton could do nothing
> 
> Pretending everyone was on the same program, and received the same benefit from that program, is the most absurd of many naive talking points.


I'm quite aware of the doping history
the EPO test meant smart teams fled back to what Eddie B (or Lasse Viren) had discovered decades before.

this is all hair splitting
your point of argument is now "well Lance doped better"
which goes back to badges point. Robbing a bank of 10K or robbing a bank for 100K is still bank robbery
confessing to them is confessing to them

they all doped, they all need an asterix

why do you, the so called proponents against doping have issue with that?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> I'm quite aware of the doping history
> the EPO test meant smart teams fled back to what Eddie B (or Lasse Viren) had discovered decades before.
> 
> this is all hair splitting
> your point of argument is now "well Lance doped better"
> which goes back to badges point. Robbing a bank of 10K or robbing a bank for 100K is still bank robbery
> confessing to them is confessing to them
> 
> they all doped, they all need an asterix
> 
> why do you, the so called proponents against doping have issue with that?


If you know so much about doping history you would know it was not Eddie B who did the transfusions on the 84 Olympic team but Ed Burke and.....wait for it.....Dr. Falsetti. 

It is clear by now you have no intention of discussing this topic but instead will continue to ignore facts, twist what others write, and repeat the same talking points that have been exposed over and over


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> By the 3rd week of a Grand Tour the average riders hct has dropped 12%. The 3 USPS riders who were transfusing were able to boost their depleted Hct back up to 49.99 while the rest of the peloton could do nothing


Saying they "could do nothing" is inaccurate. They just didn't want it bad enough.


----------



## Bluenote

Doctor Falsetti said:


> If you know so much about doping history you would know it was not Eddie B who did the transfusions on the 84 Olympic team but Ed Burke and.....wait for it.....*Dr. Falsetti. *
> 
> It is clear by now you have no intention of discussing this topic but instead will continue to ignore facts, twist what others write, and repeat the same talking points that have been exposed over and over


Yeah, you're not the guy to argue with about the history of blood doping...


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> If you know so much about doping history you would know it was not Eddie B who did the transfusions on the 84 Olympic team but Ed Burke and.....wait for it.....Dr. Falsetti.
> 
> It is clear by now you have no intention of discussing this topic but instead will continue to ignore facts, twist what others write, and repeat the same talking points that have been exposed over and over


Eddie B was the frigging Coach, the DS. The Team was under his direction. Both he and Burke were fined. Let me guess, you think Eddie had no knowledge that 7 of his cyclists. 4 of his medalists were blood doping when it wasn't even illegal? 

so back to the point, so we're only going to punish / ban riders for their specific offenses?
Then why do we have no winners in the Tour from 1999-2005? None of those riders (except Ullrich's 3rd) were busted for doping at those 'specific' events so why is 1st place left blank? Give it to 2nd? Heck that gives Jan 4 TdFs. Now if 'admission of guilt' and blood values 'consistent with a doping program' are enough to strike a rider, then Bjarne should be removed as well. This is awesome JAN ULLRICH 5x TdF WINNER!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## atpjunkie

Local Hero said:


> Saying they "could do nothing" is inaccurate. They just didn't want it bad enough.


T Mobile 1996-1997 admitted dopers
Bjarne - EPO, Growth Hormone and Cortisone
Zabel
Aldag
Bolts
Dietz
Henn
Holm
No, no team wide systematic doping there
All under Heinrich who was there until 2007
and Sinkewitz ws his last busted rider

and this was followed by the Festina affair of 98. Yeah, no teams were dirty back then, PDM.....


----------



## atpjunkie

Bluenote said:


> Yeah, you're not the guy to argue with about the history of blood doping...


cause Kelme wasn't doping with Fuentes back in 02 and 03 ...


----------



## Bluenote

atpjunkie said:


> cause Kelme wasn't doping with Fuentes back in 02 and 03 ...


Umh, no, because you were just trying to argue the History of US blood doping with a guy named Dr. Falsetti. But clearly, the irony is lost on you...


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> cause Kelme wasn't doping with Fuentes back in 02 and 03 ...


Thanks for proving my point. 2000, USPS was doing transfusions. Nobody else was. 2nd rest day their Hct was 49.9.....while everyone else was dropping to the floor. 

The level playing field is a fantasy. You willingness to embarrass yourself to defend this fantasy is comical.


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Thanks for proving my point. 2000, USPS was doing transfusions. Nobody else was. 2nd rest day their Hct was 49.9.....while everyone else was dropping to the floor.
> 
> The level playing field is a fantasy. You willingness to embarrass yourself to defend this fantasy is comical.


No, I'm all good. I'm glad you've shown me the light
Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault, Indurain, Ullrich!!!!!!!!!!!
I always liked Jan, always pulled for him, you know when he would need to lose some weight and his preparation would come into question, now he can be held in the light of the truly great


----------



## packetloss

Marc said:


> Well, Jan Ullrich is definitely an expert on doping. So I spose his opinion counts for _something_.
> 
> A survey of bank robbers find over half believe that people who rob banks should not be charged with a crime!


You can't compare the 2. One is breaking the rules of a sport. Think Penalty box or Red Card in other sports.....


----------



## love4himies

deviousalex said:


> How many of them got the extensive knowledge about how drug tests work? How many of them had their team financiers give Hein Verbruggen stock in silicon valley IPOs? How many of them got a get out of jail free card on positive doping tests? Floyd certainly didn't.
> 
> Just because other people doped doesn't mean it was a fair playing field. It was pretty much asymmetric warfare.


But that's not Lance's fault they catered to him. Of course he was going to take what he could get. People need to take responsibility for THEIR actions and if they accepted bribes, tell secrets, then they need to own up to that. They had the choice to turn down Lance, but they too were unethical and didn't. 

Trek, the same thing. All they cared about was selling bikes and if Lemond was on his way out and Lance was the big name of the day, THEY were going to go with the big name.

Unless Lance held a gun to their heads they are responsible for the actions they took. 

AND unless bribes have made it into the media, we don't know how many bribes Hein took, or how many teams had forewarning of testers coming. We only know what we have been informed of and my guess is that there was a lot of dirty crap going on during that era.


----------



## packetloss

CliffordK said:


> Here is the way Wikipedia lists it:
> 
> View attachment 298228
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is how I would leave it. Lance is no longer the "true" winner, but there is also no alternative winner.


It's all hypocrisy. Go back 8 more years before that and you still have dopers .

They might as well not bother listing tour winners.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> But that's not Lance's fault they catered to him. Of course he was going to take what he could get. People need to take responsibility for THEIR actions and if they accepted bribes, tell secrets, then they need to own up to that. They had the choice to turn down Lance, but they too were unethical and didn't.
> 
> Trek, the same thing. All they cared about was selling bikes and if Lemond was on his way out and Lance was the big name of the day, THEY were going to go with the big name.
> 
> Unless Lance held a gun to their heads they are responsible for the actions they took.
> 
> AND unless bribes have made it into the media, we don't know how many bribes Hein took, or how many teams had forewarning of testers coming. We only know what we have been informed of and my guess is that there was a lot of dirty crap going on during that era.


It is not Lance's fault he bribed Verbruggen? Huh? 

UCI issued a fake report to cover up Armstrong's EPO positives from 1999. The report was pay for by lance and written by Bill Stapleton, Armstrong's agent. The UCI obstructed USADA's investigation for years. Telling witnesses not to talk, smearing people who told the truth, and participating in lance's various absurd legal challenges.

Please tell us which other rider received anything close to this level of "Service" from the UCI

Thanks


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is not Lance's fault he bribed Verbruggen? Huh?
> 
> UCI issued a fake report to cover up Armstrong's EPO positives from 1999. The report was pay for by lance and written by Bill Stapleton, Armstrong's agent. The UCI obstructed USADA's investigation for years. Telling witnesses not to talk, smearing people who told the truth, and participating in lance's various absurd legal challenges.
> 
> Please tell us which other rider received anything close to this level of "Service" from the UCI
> 
> Thanks


Other riders were warned of tests or high crit, no?


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> Other riders were warned of tests or high crit, no?


Which is the same as making a "donation" to make positive tests go away?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Other riders were warned of tests or high crit, no?


Was Ullrich warned of the surprise out of competition test in 2002 that cost him over $1,000,000?

Manzano said they would occasionally get advanced notice.....but guess who they got it from? Yup, USPS doctor del Moral

Did any other team owner manage the head of the UCI $$$? Lance and Verbruggen tried to buy the Tour together.....did the head of the UCI attempt any other billion dollar deals with riders?


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Was Ullrich warned of the surprise out of competition test in 2002 that cost him over $1,000,000?
> 
> Manzano said they would occasionally get advanced notice.....but guess who they got it from? Yup, USPS doctor del Moral
> 
> Did any other team owner manage the head of the UCI $$$? Lance and Verbruggen tried to buy the Tour together.....did the head of the UCI attempt any other billion dollar deals with riders?


I thought verbuggar admitted to warning several riders who were teetering on the edge of 50% hct


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is not Lance's fault he bribed Verbruggen? Huh?
> 
> UCI issued a fake report to cover up Armstrong's EPO positives from 1999. The report was pay for by lance and written by Bill Stapleton, Armstrong's agent. The UCI obstructed USADA's investigation for years. Telling witnesses not to talk, smearing people who told the truth, and participating in lance's various absurd legal challenges.
> 
> Please tell us which other rider received anything close to this level of "Service" from the UCI
> 
> Thanks


No, read what I wrote. Hein has to take responsibility for accepting the bribe. He had a choice, be corrupt or be ethical. He choose to be corrupt. 

I'm so sick of people blaming Lance for everything when most involved the choices of at least TWO people. 

Once again, the legal challenges were not determined by Lance himself, it was the court that made the final decisions. Lance is responsible for the lies and crap that spilled from his foul mouth. 

UCI is responsible for what they did, they had a choice.

Now getting back to the subject: Should Lance have his titles reinstated. No, he doped. BUT in my opinion, they should have only gone back the 8 years and had Lance appealed, that's probably as far back as they would have gone. We will never know for sure.


----------



## atpjunkie

Bluenote said:


> Which is the same as making a "donation" to make positive tests go away?


no, no, no
we call it 'free speech' now


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> I'm so sick of people blaming Lance for everything when most involved the choices of at least TWO people.


maybe I missed it but who does not believe Hein to be a first class piece of scum?


----------



## Local Hero

love4himies said:


> No, read what I wrote. Hein has to take responsibility for accepting the bribe. He had a choice, be corrupt or be ethical. He choose to be corrupt.
> 
> I'm so sick of people blaming Lance for everything when most involved the choices of at least TWO people.
> 
> Once again, the legal challenges were not determined by Lance himself, it was the court that made the final decisions. Lance is responsible for the lies and crap that spilled from his foul mouth.
> 
> UCI is responsible for what they did, they had a choice.
> 
> Now getting back to the subject: Should Lance have his titles reinstated. No, he doped. BUT in my opinion, they should have only gone back the 8 years and had Lance appealed, that's probably as far back as they would have gone. We will never know for sure.


Yes. Armstrong was the worst we know of but it was a culture of doping.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> No, read what I wrote. Hein has to take responsibility for accepting the bribe. He had a choice, be corrupt or be ethical. He choose to be corrupt.
> 
> I'm so sick of people blaming Lance for everything when most involved the choices of at least TWO people.


Huh? Who is blaming Lance for everything? 

Verbruggen is a crooked joke. McQuaid was tossed out last year. Bruyneel, Marti, Ferrari, del Moral, Celya, all sanctioned. I don't see anyone claiming it is all Lance's fault.


----------



## Winn

Bluenote said:


> 1) Haven't we talked 'did Armstrong win' and 'should he keep his titles' to death? A synopsis of the last 1,000,000 Armstrong threads:
> 'Armstrong really won!'
> 'Armstrong bad'
> 'Everyone was doing it'
> 'No, Armstrong was a jerk, too'
> 'You're a hater!!'
> 'You're a fanboy!!'
> 'Knock it off, or There'll be bans'
> 'Armstrong'd win in a clean era'
> 'Ha! He's a donkey who couldn't hold Lemond's jock!'
> 'Hater!'
> 'fanboy!!'
> 'Don't make me stop this car!'
> 'But, but, cancer!'
> 'Awareness. And travel expenses.'
> 'Armstrong really won'
> Repeat...





Winn said:


> What's funny(?) is this thread will go just like this despite you showing the clear ridiculousness of further discussion.


Well I Had hopes but it looks like page 1 nailed it on this one. Anyway carry on trolls and feeders of trolls


----------



## love4himies

den bakker said:


> maybe I missed it but who does not believe Hein to be a first class piece of scum?


I was responding to a post. I don't think anybody thinks Hein is anywhere close to an angel.


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> I was responding to a post. I don't think anybody thinks Hein is anywhere close to an angel.


still looking for your point then. Trying to bribe is less bad when the other person accepts?


----------



## atpjunkie

Local Hero said:


> Yes. Armstrong was the worst we know of but it was a culture of doping.


once again worst bank robber and a roomful of bank robbers


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Was Ullrich warned of the surprise out of competition test in 2002 that cost him over $1,000,000?
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> once again this line of logic is "Well he was a better criminal than the rest of them"
> 
> that doesn't remove the fact they were all criminals.
> As I have shown T Kom had a teamwide, organized doping program years before Lance and USPS existed.
> Their TdF Winner admitted to doping, had numerous team mates testify to the doping culture of the team and had blood records 'consistent with some one on a doping program'
> 
> he kept his palmares and was not banned from cycling
> 
> under his direction he has had numerous riders busted for doping (Hamilton , Basso) which enforces the idea that banning him would be a good idea. Rasmussen testified to the team wide systematic doping @ CSC and said Riis was quite involved. Saxo Tinkoff is still having run ins. The Tour doesn't recognize Bjarne but the UCI says 'too much time has passed' and so we have not only a doping rider, but a now turned doping DS still in the business. So how do I discern from this that the UCI is 'serious' about changing the culture? Plenty of us (including you) have shown the UCI being complicit in the deal. corrupt to the highest levels. Do you know what corrupt organizations do when they are typically busted? Toss one sacrificial lamb to the lions and move on business as usual. What has happened in regards to the behaviors and evidence presented s this is exactly what has happened.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> As I have shown


You have not shown anything.....you just keep repeating the same nonsense even though you have been shown over and over how wrong it is. 

Repeating the same thing over and over does not mean you are right, it means you are ignoring the posts that show how wrong your talking points are


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You have not shown anything.....you just keep repeating the same nonsense even though you have been shown over and over how wrong it is.
> 
> Repeating the same thing over and over does not mean you are right, it means you are ignoring the posts that show how wrong your talking points are


are you that obtuse
Bjarne - admitted to doping Lance - admitted to doping
T Kom - multiple riders testifying to team wide doping
Postal / Discovery - multiple riders testifying to team wide doping
Bjarne - Blood Values consistent with doping program
Lance - Blood Values consistent with doping program
Bjarne, still has Tour Palmares and still involved with cycling (and doping)
Lance - has line through name and is banned for life


you guys are right, it isn't a level playing field


----------



## atpjunkie

atpjunkie said:


> are you that obtuse
> Bjarne - admitted to doping Lance - admitted to doping
> T Kom - multiple riders testifying to team wide doping
> Postal / Discovery - multiple riders testifying to team wide doping
> Bjarne - Blood Values consistent with doping program
> Lance - Blood Values consistent with doping program
> Bjarne, still has Tour Palmares and still involved with cycling (and doping)
> Lance - has line through name and is banned for life
> 
> 
> you guys are right, it isn't a level playing field


and once again, I'm okay with the lifetime ban. We need more of them if we are serious about the problem


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You have not shown anything.....you just keep repeating the same nonsense even though you have been shown over and over how wrong it is.
> 
> Repeating the same thing over and over does not mean you are right, it means you are ignoring the posts that show how wrong your talking points are


and all you have ever shown is Lance was a cheater amongst cheats


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> are you that obtuse


Are you that obtuse? 

As has been pointed out to you multiple times, over and over, there is no procedure in place to sanction Riis, Indurain, Pantani, Merckx, etc. While they represent a great way for the groupies to deflect from lance the fact is they never signed the WADA code. You may want to shoot them but there is no legal process in place to do so.

On a positive note, it has been pointed out over and over and over that Riis is under investigation by ADD. Riders and team staff have testified. Riis was forced to sell his team because of it. The head of the UCI has called for him to testify in front of the CIRC. Maybe he will try to save himself, or maybe he will remain quite as he knows they have big SOL issues


----------



## Bluenote

atpjunkie said:


> So how do I discern from this that the UCI is 'serious' about changing the culture? Plenty of us (including you) have shown the UCI being complicit in the deal. corrupt to the highest levels.


No one is saying that you should, or that you can. Certainly I have never heard Dr. Falsetti say 'oh, Armstrong is gone, the UCI / Cycling / etc... are all cleaned up now...'

Clearly, the USADA reasoned decision raised serious concerns about corruption at the UCI. McQuaid and Hein are out, but there are still questions about who else was involved, how were McQuaid and Hein able to get so much power, etc...

Personally, I'm in wait and see mode (but not optimistic). Will the truth and reconciliation really address corruption at the UCI, or will it only focus on riders? If guys like Riis , Brunyeel and Armstrong spill to T&R how / who they worked with at the UCI, and the UCI takes action, that would be huge. 



atpjunkie said:


> Do you know what corrupt organizations do when they are typically busted? Toss one sacrificial lamb to the lions and move on business as usual. What has happened in regards to the behaviors and evidence presented s this is exactly what has happened.


This is a nice narrative, except it is not reflective of reality here.

There are 2 agencies involved here - the USADA and the UCI. The USADA - not the UCI - sanctioned Armstrong, Brunyeel, Hincape, Zabriski, etc... 

The USADA's reasoned decision also exposed allegations of corruption at the UCI.

So if the USADA was somehow trying to cover for the UCI and pin it all on Armstrong, they did - like the worst cover up in history. Y'know, by cataloging all the evidence they had against the UCI and putting it on the world wide web for all to see. 

Through this thread, you try to take a generic narrative 'Armstrong was the sacrificial lamb, he was singled out, etc...' and try to apply it, even though it doesn't begin to fit the facts. 

I think you believe this view of the world 'corrupt organizations are never cleaned up, they just kill a few lambs here and there,' and that you are blinded to the contrary facts. 

*I don't disagree with your cynicism.* I don't disagree that there is a lot of corruption in the world and that it is very hard to combat. I just think that here the lamb isn't Armstrong, it's McQuaid. I think there is a good chance that the UCI will try and pin all the corruption issues on Hein and McQuaid and we'll never know who / how / how long / etc... was really behind all the corruption.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> Do you know what corrupt organizations do when they are typically busted? Toss one sacrificial lamb to the lions and move on business as usual. .


Are you referring to how the UCI pursued Ullrich for 7 years and 2 CAS appeals? They did that to deflect attention from Pat and Hein's corruption? Interesting conspiracy theory, not sure if many will buy it though


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Are you that obtuse?
> 
> As has been pointed out to you multiple times, over and over, there is no procedure in place to sanction Riis, Indurain, Pantani, Merckx, etc. While they represent a great way for the groupies to deflect from lance the fact is they never signed the WADA code. You may want to shoot them but there is no legal process in place to do so.
> 
> On a positive note, it has been pointed out over and over and over that Riis is under investigation by ADD. Riders and team staff have testified. Riis was forced to sell his team because of it. The head of the UCI has called for him to testify in front of the CIRC. Maybe he will try to save himself, or maybe he will remain quite as he knows they have big SOL issues


and you fall back on the groupie / fanboy crap. Once again the sound of an empty chamber.
Lance means nothing to me
The bike riders I follow have names like Albert, Stybar, Pauwels, Compton, and Voss. I have never owned a Trek, my helmets are Bell, my glasses are Native. The only cyclist autographs I have are Lemond, Merckx and Gimondi. I am not fixated on any one man and his behavior. I would prefer the whole sport cleaned up and not just one or 2 'bad apples'. Yes Riis is under investigation, he sold the team yet continues to manage. He continues to be involved and to this day riders on teams he manages, despite their supposed anti-dope stance keep getting popped. 
If they are going to say "it's just for instances where we have a specific bust" then claim some winners for the 99-05 TdFs. If their justice is 'only those who were caught @ that race' then by all means, give the victories to Jan, to Basso, to Beloki and to Kloden otherwise they are being punished (by this line of logic) for things they didn't commit. If they strip Lance and leave it blank, they are saying, "Well they were all dirty" and I understand their logic, but then their dispensation of penalties and bans does not match that line of thinking, they are incongruous. So it looks to me more like a tightrope walk, trying to appear like they are serious about the issue, but not actually being so.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> If they strip Lance and leave it blank, they are saying, "Well they were all dirty" and I understand their logic, but then their dispensation of penalties and bans does not match that line of thinking, they are incongruous. So it looks to me more like a tightrope walk, trying to appear like they are serious about the issue, but not actually being so.


Again, despite your claims you clearly have limited understanding of the process. The "They" who stripped Lance are not the same "They" who left it blank. USADA sanctioned lance, the UCI confirmed it. It is the ASO, the owner of the Tour, who left 1st place blank. It is their race, they can do whatever they like. 

You have spent several days ranting about USADA and the UCI but fail to realize that leaving the years blank was the choice of the ASO.

We get it, you are not a Lance fan  .....but you clearly are a fan of the nonsense talking points he uses to try to minimize his doping and paint himself as a victim.


----------



## goloso

Doctor Falsetti said:


> On a positive note, it has been pointed out over and over and over that Riis is under investigation by ADD. Riders and team staff have testified. Riis was forced to sell his team because of it. The head of the UCI has called for him to testify in front of the CIRC. Maybe he will try to save himself, or maybe he will remain quite as he knows they have big SOL issues


Bo Hamburger (fellow Dane) said on Mike Creed's podcast that once the ADD is done with him he will be out of cycling forever hence the sale of the team.


----------



## den bakker

goloso said:


> Bo Hamburger (fellow Dane) said on Mike Creed's podcast that once the ADD is done with him he will be out of cycling forever hence the sale of the team.


many danes are pissed of it. should just let the past be the past. Unfair singling out of Riis. Not that they are fanboys as they point out, just looking for fair justice.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> A It is the ASO, the owner of the Tour, who left 1st place blank. It is their race, they can do whatever they like.


Can they strip the other past dopers?


----------



## den bakker

Local Hero said:


> Can the strip the other past dopers?


oh this sounds like a delicious one for a lawyer to look into.


----------



## HFroller

A nice quote from the book "Het feest van list en bedrog" by Herman Chevrolet (my translation). 

"A year before (= in 1994) Van Hooydonck already told BRT (the Flemish public broadcaster) that EPO was the reason for the remarkable success of the Italians. The cycling world reacted furiously. Hein Verbruggen called him a frustrated rider who couldn't accept that he couldn't win anymore. Italian riders threatened him with a court case and added that they were prepared to prove their innocence by submitting to doping tests at any moment. Van Hooydonck knew why: EPO couldn't be detected. So he apologized. The only rider who supported him was Lance Armstrong. The American (...) told him: "Finally somebody who wants to tell it." "

The strange thing is - I believe Armstrong was sincere.
The choice was simple: EPO or zero. 
I don't want to condone his behavior. I prefer the courage of Van Hooydonck, who decided he had enough of it in 1996 (I think).
But the decision to strip Armstrong of his titles makes me uncomfortable.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

HFroller said:


> I prefer the courage of Van Hooydonck, who decided he had enough of it in 1996


Van Hooydonck was clear about the Armstrong fraud. 

"Everything that happened between 1999 and 2005, the Tour is shattered. The doping ghost must have been even worse than when I was riding"

He has also been clear that others need to be out of the sport as well, pointing out Vino, Riis, Stephans, and Anderson. Riis is on his way out but I do not see a process to remove Vino.


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Van Hooydonck was clear about the Armstrong fraud.
> 
> "Everything that happened between 1999 and 2005, the Tour is shattered. The doping ghost must have been even worse than when I was riding"
> 
> He has also been clear that others need to be out of the sport as well, pointing out Vino, Riis, Stephans, and Anderson. Riis is on his way out but I do not see a process to remove Vino.


hopefully Van Hooydonck will get his wishes


----------



## atpjunkie

BTW I think it is also ridiculous that the Hog got an 8 year (which will most likely be reduced) suspension
If you are going to do lifetime bans, why not spread them out to the guys who helped enable it?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> BTW I think it is also ridiculous that the Hog got an 8 year (which will most likely be reduced) suspension
> If you are going to do lifetime bans, why not spread them out to the guys who helped enable it?


Agreed, which is why USADA appealed that decision to CAS, I think they will win


----------



## sir duke

atpjunkie said:


> BTW I think it is also ridiculous that the Hog got an 8 year (which will most likely be reduced) suspension
> If you are going to do lifetime bans, why not spread them out to the guys who helped enable it?


No question. I find the Hog every bit as culpable as Lance. (and just as distasteful personality-wise). He needs to be gone for good. How he ever avoided a bust and jail time speaks volumes about the policing of the sport. Vino is the Kazakhstan golden boy, he's in deep at a national political level, so as long as there is a Team Astana he's going to be running it.


----------



## atpjunkie

sir duke said:


> No question. I find the Hog every bit as culpable as Lance. (and just as distasteful personality-wise). He needs to be gone for good. How he ever avoided a bust and jail time speaks volumes about the policing of the sport. Vino is the Kazakhstan golden boy, he's in deep at a national political level, so as long as there is a Team Astana he's going to be running it.


agreed which again shows the lack of level enforcement from country to country
Spain is a joke, as is Italy in most cases
Germany - if a check can stop an investigation well that speaks volumes
as you stated Kazakhstan

again no other country has drawn in so much national resource / effort as the US. No other country put the screws to witnesses and no other country is willing to drop the ban hammer as they did. 
The fact that Riis is allowed within 3K of a professional cyclist says it all


----------



## den bakker

atpjunkie said:


> agreed which again shows the lack of level enforcement from country to country
> Spain is a joke, as is Italy in most cases
> Germany - if a check can stop an investigation well that speaks volumes
> as you stated Kazakhstan
> 
> again no other country has drawn in so much national resource / effort as the US. No other country put the screws to witnesses and no other country is willing to drop the ban hammer as they did.
> The fact that Riis is allowed within 3K of a professional cyclist says it all


do you even read
a 
single 
post 
in 
the 
threads
you 
spam
? 

Wait never mind, here ya go. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R5A0pg4oN8


----------



## atpjunkie

do
you 
disagree
that 
most other
countries
sweep much
of their
doping
under the
rug?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> agreed which again shows the lack of level enforcement from country to country
> Spain is a joke, as is Italy in most cases
> Germany - if a check can stop an investigation well that speaks volumes
> as you stated Kazakhstan
> 
> again no other country has drawn in so much national resource / effort as the US. No other country put the screws to witnesses and no other country is willing to drop the ban hammer as they did.
> The fact that Riis is allowed within 3K of a professional cyclist says it all



Yeah, yeah, we get it.....reading just isn't your thing.


----------



## Fireform

So what? I guess you think we should follow suit?


----------



## deviousalex

Guys...guys...guys...the solution has been in front of our faces the whole time!

Let's just give all the doped up tour wins to the primary doctor. They were the one who engineered the success the rider was just the delivery vessel.

Michele Ferrari - TdF winner 1999-2005!


----------



## den bakker

atpjunkie said:


> do
> you
> disagree
> that
> most other
> countries
> sweep much
> of their
> doping
> under the
> rug?


I take that as a clear no to the question. 
most other? when did the US get the white high horse? one case and you're the champs? good grief. 
You keep on complaining riders are not tried for rules they cannot be tried under. Should win you some hearts in here.


----------



## mpre53

den bakker said:


> I take that as a clear no to the question.
> most other? when did the US get the white high horse? one case and you're the champs? good grief.
> You keep on complaining riders are not tried for rules they cannot be tried under. Should win you some hearts in here.


Screw due process. They're Dopers!!! :lol:


----------



## DrSmile

Lance Armstrong: 'Day-to-day life is positive - CNN.com

Discuss.


----------



## Bluenote

DrSmile said:


> Lance Armstrong: 'Day-to-day life is positive - CNN.com
> 
> Discuss.


Oooh, red meat!!

What do you think, Dr. S?


----------



## sir duke

DrSmile said:


> Lance Armstrong: 'Day-to-day life is positive - CNN.com
> 
> Discuss.


What? Did his cancer return? The title is pretty apt, maybe he's taking his first baby steps towards the truth. Don't think I'll bother, thanks.


----------



## Local Hero

sir duke said:


> What? Did his cancer return? The title is pretty apt, maybe he's taking his first baby steps towards the truth. Don't think I'll bother, thanks.


so after reading and rereading the article, what do you think?


----------



## sir duke

Local Hero said:


> so after reading and rereading the article, what do you think?


Here's the good news: I've taken you off 'ignore'.
Here's the other good news: I've put yer man Lance on 'ignore'. No point in being greedy.

If you want you can paraphrase for me, being a Lance mouthpiece that shouldn't be too difficult for ya.


----------



## Bluenote

sir duke said:


> Here's the good news: I've taken you off 'ignore'.
> Here's the other good news: I've put yer man Lance on 'ignore'. No point in being greedy.
> 
> If you want you can paraphrase for me, being a Lance mouthpiece that shouldn't be too difficult for ya.


Man, just put him back on ignore and let it go. His accusation that you're secretly reading Armstrong articles is just dumb and not worth responding to. 

Now me, I did read the article. It was 95% reheated BS and one nugget. 

The one nugget - Armstrong wants to write another book, but is struggling to find a publisher. Wonder why? I'm guessing liability issues - they're afraid they'll be sued, because Armstrong lies so much. I dunno, thats just my guess.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Bluenote said:


> Now me, I did read the article. It was 95% reheated BS


Lance Armstrong: Can the lies and bullying be forgiven? - CNN.com

Part 2 is more interesting


----------



## Bluenote

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance Armstrong: Can the lies and bullying be forgiven? - CNN.com
> 
> Part 2 is more interesting


Not really. Everything in part II has already been said - over and over. Armstrong is still an @hole / liar / bully, hasn't made monetary amends, etc...

Heck, even Betsy is so over it that she only gave a two line reply.


----------



## sir duke

Bluenote said:


> Man, just put him back on ignore and let it go. His accusation that you're secretly reading Armstrong articles is just dumb and not worth responding to.
> 
> Now me, I did read the article. It was 95% reheated BS and one nugget.
> 
> The one nugget - Armstrong wants to write another book, but is struggling to find a publisher. Wonder why? I'm guessing liability issues - they're afraid they'll be sued, because Armstrong lies so much. I dunno, thats just my guess.


If I was reading Lance articles I'd say so. I'm a big boy. I can't stop his silly accusations, everyone's allowed some fun in life and it appears he's found his niche. 95% reheated BS? That's some improvement I'd say. Nice to see Lance still sucking the publicity teat for all he's worth. What I love is how he wants forgiveness but won't come clean about his misdeeds. Dude is priceless, as well as worthless.


----------



## deviousalex

Bluenote said:


> The one nugget - Armstrong wants to write another book, but is struggling to find a publisher. Wonder why? I'm guessing liability issues - they're afraid they'll be sued, because Armstrong lies so much. I dunno, thats just my guess.


He should call it "It's not about the EPO, my journey on f*cking everyone else over"


----------



## atpjunkie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yeah, yeah, we get it.....reading just isn't your thing.


yeah, nothing says "we're serious' like 'write a check, we'll quit looking into your blood doping'
Yeah those Kazahks are really going after Vino

Spain's doping enforcement has always been a joke

I've read everything here, and nothing has shown that any of the aforementioned countries take their doping enforcement or inquiry very seriously


----------



## Fireform

atpjunkie said:


> yeah, nothing says "we're serious' like 'write a check, we'll quit looking into your blood doping'
> Yeah those Kazahks are really going after Vino
> 
> Spain's doping enforcement has always been a joke
> 
> I've read everything here, and nothing has shown that any of the aforementioned countries take their doping enforcement or inquiry very seriously


Again, so what? What is your point?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Fireform said:


> Again, so what? What is your point?


His point is to post the same nonsense over and over in the hopes that someone will respond.....so he can post the same nonsense over and over


----------

