# Fox news is coming against Lance



## horvatht (Feb 27, 2012)

http://msn.foxsports.com/cycling/st...t-against-usada-goes-from-hero-to-zero-082412


----------



## whiterabbit05 (Oct 30, 2009)

Leave it to Fox.


----------



## RLucky82 (Jul 31, 2012)

Fox network is the antichrist.


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

horvatht said:


> Lance Armstrong goes from hero to zero by quitting fight against USADA - News | FOX Sports on MSN


Very Good article.. thanks for posting.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

Not a terrible article, but it's written with a very generalized and naive perspective. The entire sport of cycling is deceitful and two faced.


----------



## Flairball (Aug 1, 2012)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think USADA can strip a title it didn't bestow. I believe all they can do is recommend UCI strip the titles that they awarded. 

But I would think a responsible journalist would have investigated the USADA's authority over a matter that occurred in France, if it really did happen.


----------



## demonrider (Jul 18, 2012)

No amount of "doping" can make a deadbeat win 7 Tour de France titles. The sheer mental steel required to win just ONE tour is mind boggling, let along doing it seven times. 

I'm not American but Lance Armstrong is quite the hero just the same, why drag him through the mud now...


----------



## Rhymenocerus (Jul 17, 2010)

Why would a media outlet publish an article intended to incite outrage?! For ad revenue, thats why.

Stupid article, stupid media coverage, stupid outrage. No Lance is not magic, yes everyone was cheating, it was only a matter of time until he got caught, move on with your lives.


----------



## demonrider (Jul 18, 2012)

Flairball said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think USADA can strip a title it didn't bestow. I believe all they can do is recommend UCI strip the titles that they awarded.
> 
> But I would think a responsible journalist would have investigated the USADA's authority over a matter that occurred in France, if it really did happen.



So far it's just a "recommendation", but yeah, leave it to the tabloidish media these days to blow everything out of proportion to garner ad revenue clicks on their sites.


----------



## horvatht (Feb 27, 2012)

Hard to believe how hard they are coming against Lance. 
If there was enough evidence at the time why didn't the powers that be use it?


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

"Pain is temporyary. Quitting is forever."


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

horvatht said:


> Hard to believe how hard they are coming against Lance.
> If there was enough evidence at the time why didn't the powers that be use it?


Great question. 

USAC ignore 3 positives for Testosterone in the 90's. The UCI ignored the 1999 positive for Cortisone and the 2001 positive for EPO. 

Hinault was right when he was asked for his input today



> "This is a problem that should have been sorted out 10 or 15 years ago but which never was."


It is good that USADA took over testing and finally took care of this. The UCI is a mess


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Great question.
> 
> USAC ignore 3 positives for Testosterone in the 90's. The UCI ignored the 1999 positive for Cortisone and the 2001 positive for EPO.
> 
> ...


Who let you out of the doping forum?


----------



## Rip Van Cycle (Jun 11, 2012)

I feel a "thread move" coming on...


----------



## gte105u (Aug 12, 2012)

Seems to me all evidence at this point would be circumstantial at best. He passed so many drug tests. Looks to me like they couldn't discredit him then with hard evidence so they wait until the only evidence would be circumstantial then go at it again. He may have doped, he may not... but let him be retired.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

I make no secret of the fact that I've detested LA for a long, long time. He has an ego the size of Texas, which doesn't mesh well with others who have a certain kind of personality. I have that personality.

1. He battles cancer with the help of his wife. He beats cancer and dumps his wife.

2. He starts the Livestrong thing with the help of another woman whom he marries. Eventually, he dumps her too when she's no longer of use to him.

3. Dates Sheryl Crow. She is diagnosed with cancer. LA dumps her.

4. He dates a freaking Olsen twin, FFS.

5. This is the biggie... He builds himself up as a crusader. As a shining beacon of truth and hope, lying to everyone the whole time. Yes, he probably would have won some if not all of those 7 Tours anyway; that isn't the issue. It's the lying. Or was he lying? "I've never failed a drug test" isn't the same as saying "I've never doped". However you look at it though, his life has been one big lie and one self-aggrandizing stunt after another.

Basically, Lance Armstrong is a douc#ebag.


----------



## The Angry Roadie (Jan 31, 2012)

Trolololol


----------



## CleavesF (Dec 31, 2007)




----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

What worries me the most is that I'm agreeing with something that Fox News has written...


----------



## .je (Aug 25, 2012)

No surprise Fox is throwing this guy under the bus. They used him as a Messiah, now the wind has changed and they're using him as a pariah. Anything for headlines and noise. I dont think Fox News cares one bit about news, only numbers.

But after they strip his titles... who do they think they _should _give the titles to instead? _Clean _competitors? Good luck with that!


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

That's my problem too, why didn't they fine him and stop him 15 years ago? Frankly I think most, if not all pro's dope. I think UCI should have a monitored mandatory drug test before and after every race that ALL riders would have to participate in and not a random check. The cost of the tests would have to paid for by each team. And if someone is caught then they are fined heavily, caught twice fined even more and banned from racing for a year, caught 3 times banned for life.

Personally I think Lance was guilty now. At first I didn't think so with just one witness, but now 10 witnesses have come forward and phone documents have been presented. The reason I didn't think so was because of a conversation I had at a meeting with Chris Carmichael in the summer of 2000. I asked Chris if Lance's doping had led to his cancer, and Chris said that he had spoke to Dr Ferrari when Lance got cancer and asked if the doping could have caused the cancer, the good Doc mention that the risk to doping could lead to some side effects including cancer. Chris at that point claims he didn't know about the doping and after the conversation with the Doc instructed the entire USPS team that he would be doing random testing and any rider is found to be doping they would be kicked off the team. It was common knowledge that Carmichael and Ferrari had a close working relationship, and Carmichael knew about the Doctor's doping schemes and yet Carmichael denied that the Doctor was doing that for the team; I now think Chris Carmichael lied to us about claiming he didn't know about doping, and lied about making sure it would end. I no longer have any respect for Chris Carmichael.

Also in addition a team mate of Armstrong in the days of the Discovery Channel Team by the name of Popovych was arrested at his home when performance drugs was found in it in 2010, along with documents and e-mails showing that Armstrong was still working with Doc Ferrari up until that time when Armstrong had claimed he cut ties with the doc back in 04. So Armstrong and Carmichael have a history of lying...like I'm sure most of the pros do.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

.je said:


> But after they strip his titles... who do they think they _should _give the titles to instead? _Clean _competitors? Good luck with that!


I agree with this. ^





robdamanii said:


> What worries me the most is that I'm agreeing with something that Fox News has written...


...and this. ^


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

PlatyPius said:


> I agree with this. ^


I'm not sure if I agree with that or not. If testing was mandatory for all riders before and after every race, and assuming the testing was done without payoffs to look the other way, and the test were monitored to make sure someone else's urine is used, then I can't think of reason why pro cycling couldn't eliminate doping. If they can't eliminate the doping then they should just give up and allow it and forget about it.


----------



## bmwk100 (Apr 17, 2011)

The problem is that the cheaters and "Conte's" of the world are so far ahead of the testers. The fact that people did not test positive is not the end of the argument. Read "Game of Shadows" which shows how hard it is to break the code of these rogue scientists.


----------



## cale399 (Jul 23, 2010)

so if LA is guilty and if the UCI strips him of his titles, then why not strip Riis, Pantani, Fignon etc....
My thoughts are he prob doped but so did the others, so who do you give it to? How far back do we go in determining the previous TdF winners?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

froze said:


> I'm not sure if I agree with that or not. If testing was mandatory for all riders before and after every race, and assuming the testing was done without payoffs to look the other way, and the test were monitored to make sure someone else's urine is used, then I can't think of reason why pro cycling couldn't eliminate doping. If they can't eliminate the doping then they should just give up and allow it and forget about it.


I can think of a reason that won't happen...

Cost. It's incredibly expensive to test 150+ riders twice a day for 3 weeks.


----------



## qatarbhoy (Aug 17, 2009)

> _ "I've never failed a drug test" isn't the same as saying "I've never doped". _


Spot on. His statements are masterpieces of saying the half-truth and nothing but the half-truth.

If no clean riders can be found for those 7 Tours, or indeed any Tour they can still find evidence for, fine: no-one won. If the only clean rider was the _lanterne rouge_, give him the jerseys the cheaters stole.

If they really can't find a way to clean up the sport, scrap it. The UCI is a shambles. A lack of sponsors will ensure cycling's obscurity if they don't clean up their act too. I'll still enjoy riding my bicycle. I admit to drinking Red Bull some days, and drinking too much coffee everyday..


----------



## bmwk100 (Apr 17, 2011)

qatarbhoy said:


> Spot on. His statements are masterpieces of saying the half-truth and nothing but the half-truth.
> 
> If no clean riders can be found for those 7 Tours, or indeed any Tour they can still find evidence for, fine: no-one won. If the only clean rider was the _lanterne rouge_, give him the jerseys the cheaters stole.
> 
> If they really can't find a way to clean up the sport, scrap it. The UCI is a shambles. A lack of sponsors will ensure cycling's obscurity if they don't clean up their act too. I'll still enjoy riding my bicycle. I admit to drinking Red Bull some days, and drinking too much coffee everyday..


Well said!


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

PlatyPius said:


> 1. He battles cancer with the help of his wife. He beats cancer and dumps his wife.
> 
> 2. He starts the Livestrong thing with the help of another woman whom he marries. Eventually, he dumps her too when she's no longer of use to him.
> 
> ...


I'm not obsessed and so I have not read about these, but to me this comes across as very one sided and cheap. I'm not surprised he has had multiple girlfriends/wives... when one person in the relationship is a superstar cyclist training and traveling constantly, that seems like a recipe for issues. Maybe putting his kids through the divorce process was selfish, then again maybe it wasn't and it was in the best interest of everyone. Again, I don't know and maybe you're right, but you can put a spin on anything you want if you summarize something as complex as a relationship with a quick bullet point... and your bullet points come across quite one sided.


----------



## Mdeth1313 (Nov 1, 2001)

PlatyPius said:


> 3. Dates Sheryl Crow. She is diagnosed with cancer. LA dumps her.


I think this one is incorrect, just the order- I remember reading an article where Sheryl Crow stated they had already split when she was diagnosed and she actually said he was on his way out of town on business and was going to come back when she told him she couldn't do that.


Otherwise, can't say I disagree w/ the sentiment.


----------



## qatarbhoy (Aug 17, 2009)

I agree that the relationships issue is not relevant. 

However, the Fox article is right to highlight how Lance himself repeatedly conflates his charity work with his cycling career, as if the two are inseparable. That is really cheap and plays on people's generosity. Lance risks losing all goodwill by linking the two.

If I were more cynical, I'd wonder if his charity work was a deliberate ploy to distract from the doping allegations, but I'm not, so I don't. It's just sad that he uses it to defend himself in a completely different area of his life.

Here are some of his weasel words:

_there is zero physical evidence_ = there is other evidence.

_The only physical evidence here is the hundreds of controls I have passed with flying colors._ - I'm glossing over that they count for nothing if I've actually failed a few. Besides, _every cop show since the dawn of time_ has the bad guy get collared only to say, "Hah! But where's your _proof?_" Cue: proof. Only, Lance chose to pull the plug on the case, which suspects in criminal cases don't get to do.

_I made myself available around the clock and around the world. In-competition. Out of competition. Blood. Urine. Whatever they asked for I provided. What is the point of all this testing if, in the end, USADA will not stand by it?_ - because as any fule kno, testing is not the be-all and end-all. LA signed up to that.

_this investigation has not been about learning the truth or cleaning up cycling, but about punishing me at all costs_ - wah wah wah. St Lance of Armstrong.

_I am a retired cyclist_ -









_As respected organizations such as UCI and USA Cycling have made clear_ - UCI? Respected? Lulz.

_At every turn, USADA has played the role of a bully, threatening everyone in its way and challenging the good faith of anyone who questions its motives or its methods_ - aptly describes the alleged _modus operandi_ of LA and co., as does _they have arrogantly refused to practice what they preach_.

_The bottom line is I played by the rules that were put in place by the UCI, WADA and USADA when I raced_ - I only took what they didn't yet know about, or doped in ways they couldn't detect. Fools!

_ It’s an unfair approach, applied selectively, in opposition to all the rules. It’s just not right._ - as said by every playground bully who argues that he's not the only one and therefore shouldn't be punished.

_The idea that athletes can be convicted today without positive A and B samples, under the same rules and procedures that apply to athletes with positive tests, perverts the system _ - no, non-analytical evidence has been accepted as necessary and valid.

_I know who won those seven Tours, my teammates know who won those seven Tours, and everyone I competed against knows who won those seven Tours. We all raced together. For three weeks over the same roads, the same mountains, and against all the weather and elements that we had to confront. There were no shortcuts, there was no special treatment._ - We were all doping, and *I know where all the bodies are buried*. Take me down and I will torpedo all of you and cycling too. Consider this fair warning.

_Nobody can ever change that. Especially not Travis Tygart._ - Look, it's me, Lance Phallic-Name Armstrong Beefcake McLarge-Huge versus, er, Travis Tygart? What kind of name is that? Sounds oily, right? Political? Like the bad guy in a summer blockbuster! Who you gonna trust?

_Today I turn the page._ - Sounds like a bad Alanis Morissette lyric. Maybe Sheryl's influence?

_I will no longer address this issue, regardless of the circumstances. _ -









_I will commit myself to the work I began before ever winning a single Tour de France title: serving people and families affected by cancer, especially those in underserved communities. _ - Look at my good deeds! If I can do this, how can I possibly also ever have done something bad? People just aren't ever shades of grey!

_Going forward..._ - never trust anyone who says this.

_I am going to devote myself to raising my five beautiful (and energetic) kids, fighting cancer, and attempting to be the fittest 40-year old on the planet._ - Note to legal team: please also reference apple pie, Mom, and God bless America! Kthxbai - LA.


----------



## RIL49 (Apr 27, 2012)

Fox News is so far to the right that they are in favor of banning left brifters.


----------



## My Own Private Idaho (Aug 14, 2007)

Blah, blah, blah. Blah.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

robdamanii said:


> What worries me the most is that I'm agreeing with something that Fox News has written...


You know the truth is obvious when even Fox news can figure it out. This is a good sign that Armstrong's attempt to keep fooling the rubes wil not go according to plan.


----------



## shoegazer (Nov 2, 2007)

ril49 said:


> fox news is so far to the right that they are in favor of banning left brifters.


lmao!


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

robdamanii said:


> I can think of a reason that won't happen...
> 
> Cost. It's incredibly expensive to test 150+ riders twice a day for 3 weeks.


Cost? That cost would be paid by the teams which in turn are paid by sponsors, not UCI. And it's too bad it cost so much, you have a corrupt system so their just going to have to pay the piper to get cleaned up and keep it clean. And if the cost of that testing loses some teams along the way then oh well! Funny, no one cried about how much money Penn State is going to lose for their football program being shut out of playoffs, but we'll all cry about the cost to test all cyclists before and after all races. 

Random testing is not working, plain and simple, the riders were playing the odds game of not getting tested and thus not getting caught. Maybe instead of every rider before and after each race but maybe sort of random but 3/4th getting tested before and after each race, and the 3/4ths to get tested would be random that way a cyclist would be guaranteed to know he will get tested at any time during any event.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

froze said:


> Cost? That cost would be paid by the teams which in turn are paid by sponsors, not UCI. And it's too bad it cost so much, you have a corrupt system so their just going to have to pay the piper to get cleaned up and keep it clean. And if the cost of that testing loses some teams along the way then oh well! Funny, no one cried about how much money Penn State is going to lose for their football program being shut out of playoffs, but we'll all cry about the cost to test all cyclists before and after all races.
> 
> Random testing is not working, plain and simple, the riders were playing the odds game of not getting tested and thus not getting caught. Maybe instead of every rider before and after each race but maybe sort of random but 3/4th getting tested before and after each race, and the 3/4ths to get tested would be random that way a cyclist would be guaranteed to know he will get tested at any time during any event.


Unless I'm mistaken, that's how it's funded right now: teams pay the majority of the cost for anti-doping out of their budgets to the UCI. Do you really think sponsors are going to fork over another few million euros each for anti-doping? They're hard enough to find as is.

And frankly, cycling/anti-doping is apples to oranges compared to someone molesting kids. Not even in the same ballpark, hell, not even the same sport.

Random testing may not be working, but it's better to have than none at all. Testing each rider would be wonderful, but it's too cost prohibitive. Period.


----------



## Bikephelps (Jan 23, 2012)

Now that Lance has been stripped of his titles it will be interesting if they do drug tests on the next highest finishers in each of the Tour de France's now without a winner. If the second finisher and several subsequent finishers in each race are found "dirty" I wonder how far down the list they'll go to find a "clean" finisher?
Pee Wee Herman could be declared the winner of a past Tour de France. Oh wait, he'd probably be disqualified for a different past infraction.


----------



## qatarbhoy (Aug 17, 2009)

Bikephelps said:


> Now that Lance has been stripped of his titles it will be interesting if they do drug tests on the next highest finishers in each of the Tour de France's now without a winner. If the second finisher and several subsequent finishers in each race are found "dirty" I wonder how far down the list they'll go to find a "clean" finisher?
> Pee Wee Herman could be declared the winner of a past Tour de France. Oh wait, he'd probably be disqualified for a different past infraction.


Finding a belated 'winner' of those Tours is irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is getting to the truth, and maybe - just maybe - eradicating the doping culture that has poisoned cycling for so long by showing that no-one is too big to be challenged, even years after the event.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

When the discourse reaches the dregs where fox resides, you know the story has hit bottom.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

RIL49 said:


> Fox News is so far to the right that they are in favor of banning left brifters.


Weren't they obsolete from 91-2005?


----------



## metoou2 (Mar 18, 2009)

froze said:


> Frankly I think most, if not all pro's dope. I think UCI should have a monitored mandatory drug test before and after every race that ALL riders would have to participate in and not a random check.
> 
> The reason I didn't think so was because of a conversation I had at a meeting with Chris Carmichael in the summer of 2000. I asked Chris if Lance's doping had led to his cancer, and Chris said that he had spoke to Dr Ferrari when Lance got cancer and asked if the doping could have caused the cancer.


HUH? You had a conversation with Chris Carmichael that involved Chris admitting to you that he had quizzed the good Doctor Ferrari about a link between Lance's doping and Lances cancer. Really? You should have ran out the door screaming looking for a publisher for your "tell all" book. 
You 'now' think that Lance is a doper. You didn't come to that conclusion in 2000 during your meeting with Chris Carmichael?

Your approach of 'test everyone at every race' and continue to do so until someone is finally caught sounds like something a non-cyclist would say. Someone that doesn't really follow this sport and all of its ugly problems.

Have you ever heard of OZONE doping, micro dosing, THG, or oral testosterone? 

Di Gregorio charged with doping offence - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 

Italian investigators discover new blood doping technique | Latest News | Cycling Weekly

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/s...t-armstrongs-titles.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hp

(read page (2))


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

metoou2 said:


> HUH? You had a conversation with Chris Carmichael that involved Chris admitting to you that he had quizzed the good Doctor Ferrari about a link between Lance's doping and Lances cancer. Really? You should have ran out the door screaming looking for a publisher for your "tell all" book.
> You 'now' think that Lance is a doper. You didn't come to that conclusion in 2000 during your meeting with Chris Carmichael?
> 
> Your approach of 'test everyone at every race' and continue to do so until someone is finally caught sounds like something a non-cyclist would say. Someone that doesn't really follow this sport and all of its ugly problems.
> ...


Yes that's correct. He did not personally admit that he knew they were doping, he found out supposedly from the doctor that did the initial testing that led to finding the cancer. But looking back on it I don't believe him.

And no I did not come to that conclusion in 2000 because Chris said...er claimed, that Lance in a conversation that he had with Chris swore off the doping because he, Lance, did not want to get cancer again because he knew he wouldn't beat it a second time. And Chris was willing to turn the other cheek if Lance stayed clean and start fresh, and with the threat of random checking to be done by Chris Lance didn't want to lose his team and money on top of not wanting the cancer again. 

Again, looking back on I now think Chris lied to all of us. But in 2000 we wanted to give Chris and Lance the benefit of the doubt, and when someone says they don't want to get cancer again you kind of believe that. My wife had breast cancer back then, and I can tell you she doesn't want it again, and when you see a loved one go through that ordeal and you know the second time around could be the end all you can understand better when I believed when Lance said to Chris he didn't want it again.

By the way, there has been some speculation on the internet that Lance may had never had cancer or at least life threatening cancer, and that during that year of treatment he was seeing Dr Ferrari to get souped up. Those stories came about because Lance was healed instantly, he went from his death bed with cancer in his entire body and his brain to being negative of all traces of cancer in one day. Granted, that kind of healing does seem very strange, but I think he had the cancer and it went to his brain, how it all went away in 24 hours is baffling.

I cycle almost every day, averaging about 150 to 175 miles a week, not a lot but I'm not training to race. I use to race in the late 70's and mid 80's and even got to a CAT 3 level, I could care less about doping even though I knew guys who did...yup, even in the lower levels of racing they still doped. I never bothered nor had any interest in knowing the facts about doping. I don't follow bicycle racing on TV because as a spectator I find if boring!! Crazy as that sounds. As a participant it was far from boring, but I can't stand to watch it for more then maybe 1/2 an hour, some of that is because it drives me nuts to watch it because I can't participate, and some of it is just boring, but I feel that way about all sports including auto racing which I also use to have my hand in. Those comments, it's how I feel, and I don't care what you think of it.


----------



## cale399 (Jul 23, 2010)

qatarbhoy said:


> Finding a belated 'winner' of those Tours is irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is getting to the truth, and maybe - just maybe - eradicating the doping culture that has poisoned cycling for so long by showing that no-one is too big to be challenged, even years after the event.


why is it irrelevant....if you cheated on your (7) PhD exams and I "just" cheated on (1) that you know about or have suspicion, b/c "they" arent digging around in my files as hard as they are in yours and it was the same exam you took 10 years ago and you are stripped of your Phds and I am not!?! Is that fair to anyone? To the students we both taught and who believed they were getting these great lectures from a brainiac w/7 Phds.....if you go after one go after them ALL...for the record I think he prob used stuff...but if I am standing on top of Alp d'Huez and pull the trigger and kill a f'in Frenchman and you microseconds later do the same thing and I then go on and pop off 6 more Frenchman b/c I have a nice semi and you only brought Gen. Washington singleshoot, did you not commit murder and need to go to jail or get fried, we both did the same thing we both need the same punishment you cant say you are innocent just b/c you only did it once (Ullrich, Pantani, Riis, Fignon, Basso, and prob Leipheimer and Hincappie, yes them too throw em all under the bus if you are gonna be so pure and holier than the pope)


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

cale399 said:


> why is it irrelevant....if you cheated on your (7) PhD exams and I "just" cheated on (1) that you know about or have suspicion, b/c "they" arent digging around in my files as hard as they are in yours and it was the same exam you took 10 years ago and you are stripped of your Phds and I am not!?! Is that fair to anyone? To the students we both taught and who believed they were getting these great lectures from a brainiac w/7 Phds.....if you go after one go after them ALL...for the record I think he prob used stuff...but if I am standing on top of Alp d'Huez and pull the trigger and kill a f'in Frenchman and you microseconds later do the same thing and I then go on and pop off 6 more Frenchman b/c I have a nice semi and you only brought Gen. Washington singleshoot, did you not commit murder and need to go to jail or get fried, we both did the same thing we both need the same punishment you cant say you are innocent just b/c you only did it once (Ullrich, Pantani, Riis, Fignon, Basso, and prob Leipheimer and Hincappie, yes them too throw em all under the bus if you are gonna be so pure and holier than the pope)


Actually I find a lot of sense in what you said.


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

FOX NEWS LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh wait...its Fox SPORTS. 

[You morans]


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

RkFast said:


> FOX NEWS LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Oh wait...its Fox SPORTS.
> 
> [You morans]


If Fox news lies, then so do all the other news agencies, Fox doesn't have the sole rights to lying about the news.


----------



## qatarbhoy (Aug 17, 2009)

cale399 said:


> why is it irrelevant....if you cheated on your (7) PhD exams and I "just" cheated on (1) that you know about or have suspicion, b/c "they" arent digging around in my files as hard as they are in yours and it was the same exam you took 10 years ago and you are stripped of your Phds and I am not!?! Is that fair to anyone? To the students we both taught and who believed they were getting these great lectures from a brainiac w/7 Phds.....if you go after one go after them ALL...for the record I think he prob used stuff...but if I am standing on top of Alp d'Huez and pull the trigger and kill a f'in Frenchman and you microseconds later do the same thing and I then go on and pop off 6 more Frenchman b/c I have a nice semi and you only brought Gen. Washington singleshoot, did you not commit murder and need to go to jail or get fried, we both did the same thing we both need the same punishment you cant say you are innocent just b/c you only did it once (Ullrich, Pantani, Riis, Fignon, Basso, and prob Leipheimer and Hincappie, yes them too throw em all under the bus if you are gonna be so pure and holier than the pope)


Unlike froze I'm afraid I found this pretty much incoherent and somewhat bizarre, but if you're saying the other riders of the era need to be investigated and punished if found guilty, then yes, ideally that would also happen. The best we can hope for is to finally nail down what really happened with Lance and - as someone else has said - pretty much put an X through the whole era (and the UCI to boot).

However, I think you simply misunderstood my point, which was that we don't need to worry about whether or not we can identify clean riders from the LA years to whom we can give those 7 titles if necessary. The priority is to determine if Lance was doping or not, and if so, to strip him of those titles. Finding a 'winner' under such circumstances is a secondary issue (just ask Andy Schleck, he was hardly elated to get his Tour 'win').


----------



## RLucky82 (Jul 31, 2012)

Lance Armstrong doping campaign exposes USADA’s hypocrisy - The Washington Post

How does an agency that is supposed to regulate drug testing strip a guy of seven titles without a single positive drug test?


----------



## aliensporebomb (Jul 2, 2002)

*huh?*



PlatyPius said:


> I make no secret of the fact that I've detested LA for a long, long time. He has an ego the size of Texas, which doesn't mesh well with others who have a certain kind of personality. I have that personality.
> 
> 1. He battles cancer with the help of his wife. He beats cancer and dumps his wife.
> 
> ...


I hadn't heard the Livestrong story. 

He dated an Olsen twin? Was he out of his mind? Don't they smoke like chimneys? I could see LA tiring of that fast but...geez. 

I hadn't heard that but everything else I pretty much heard.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

aliensporebomb said:


> I hadn't heard the Livestrong story.
> 
> He dated an Olsen twin? Was he out of his mind? Don't they smoke like chimneys? I could see LA tiring of that fast but...geez.
> 
> I hadn't heard that but everything else I pretty much heard.



Lance did not dump Crow for having cancer, in fact he helped her a lot with the cancer problem with advice and where to go for the best medical treatments. The reason they dumped each other was because Sheryl Crow wanted children and Lance the Jerk Armstrong did not, and Sheryl was close to the end of her biological clock so she and he both felt they needed to move in a different direction.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

RLucky82 said:


> Lance Armstrong doping campaign exposes USADA’s hypocrisy - The Washington Post
> 
> How does an agency that is supposed to regulate drug testing strip a guy of seven titles without a single positive drug test?


Therein lies the problem. At the end of the day this why UCI is probably not going to strip Lance of his titles. UCI has that right the USDA does not.


----------



## qatarbhoy (Aug 17, 2009)

> _How does an agency that is supposed to regulate drug testing strip a guy of seven titles without a single positive drug test? _


Many cases have been proven on the basis of 'non-analytical evidence'. E.g. when 10+ other pros are lined up ready to testify that you were doping.

Also, other witnesses are prepared to testify that dope tests were in fact failed but hushed up or covered up at the time through intimidation and other means. E.g. the dodgy backdated prescription for Lance's 'saddle sores' to cover for his failed cortisone dope test.

It's been said that only an idiot would actually fail a dope test as the dopers and doping regimes are so sophisticated, so the anti-dopers have to use other forms of evidence to make a case.


----------



## Addict07 (Jun 23, 2011)

qatarbhoy said:


> Many cases have been proven on the basis of 'non-analytical evidence'. E.g. when 10+ other pros are lined up ready to testify that you were doping.
> 
> Also, other witnesses are prepared to testify that dope tests were in fact failed but hushed up or covered up at the time through intimidation and other means. E.g. the dodgy backdated prescription for Lance's 'saddle sores' to cover for his failed cortisone dope test.
> 
> It's been said that only an idiot would actually fail a dope test as the dopers and doping regimes are so sophisticated, so the anti-dopers have to use other forms of evidence to make a case.


People making the "never failed a test" argument, even if they want to ignore the ones he DID fail, should consider this: imagine being in a courtroom and the defense attorney saying, "Even though 10 eyewitnesses saw my client break into the house, the fact that he left no fingerprints should be adequate evidence to exonerate him..."


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

RLucky82 said:


> Lance Armstrong doping campaign exposes USADA’s hypocrisy - The Washington Post
> 
> How does an agency that is supposed to regulate drug testing strip a guy of seven titles without a single positive drug test?


So you're defense is his publicist - the woman who wrote his best-selling book :mad2:

I'll see you're feeble attempt and raise you another washington post article

Longtime witness against Lance Armstrong finally vindicated - The Washington Post

Bottom Line - one author has a self-serving purpose, the other doesn't. :idea:


----------



## wheelerfreak (Nov 13, 2007)

froze said:


> If Fox news lies, then so do all the other news agencies, Fox doesn't have the sole rights to lying about the news.


Truth!! I've even given up on NPR due to their obvious bias.

Now back to Lance bashing


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

wheelerfreak said:


> Truth!! I've even given up on NPR due to their obvious bias.


That's right! There is no news agency that doesn't lie, twist, or fabricate to make the news fit their particular bias. Problem is...most people don't realize this crap, they listen to their favorite news and say that new's never lies. And Americans are sleeping, oblivious to what's happening around them.

Maybe a little of reading this will shed some light about why the lying goes on: | |

Now let's see, why is there no mention in the news about Turkey's plans to invade Syria, and why Russia and China will not allow Turkey to to that...meaning just what? Think about this boys and girls. And what military alliance does Turkey belong to? Think about ratification's of this boys and girls.

The spirit was freedom and justice
And it's keepers seem generous and kind
It's leaders were supposed to serve the country
But now they won't pay it no mind
'Cause the people grew fat and got lazy
And now their vote is a meaningless joke

They babble about law and order
But it's all just an echo of what they've been told
Yeah, there's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into a noose
And it just sits there watchin'

The cities have turned into jungles
And corruption is stranglin' the land
The police force is watching the people
And the people just can't understand
We don't know how to mind our own business
'Cause the whole world's got to be just like us

America where are you now?
Don't you care about your sons and daughters?
Don't you know we need you now?
We can't fight alone against the monster...


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

froze said:


> That's right! There is no news agency that doesn't lie, twist, or fabricate to make the news fit their particular bias. Problem is...most people don't realize this crap, they listen to their favorite news and say that new's never lies. And Americans are sleeping, oblivious to what's happening around them.
> 
> Maybe a little of reading this will shed some light about why the lying goes on: | |
> 
> ...


----------

