Lance positive? - Page 2

QikSmurf · #16 07-10.-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by nonns

Lance doping/not doping.
It has been said that all the top finishers in cycling are doping. That may be but it begs the question that if they are then they're all competing on an equal footing and by definition are therefore not cheating. It could be further argued that taking the juice doesn't make them racehorses without doing the work therefore those doping are even more motivated than the rest.

The truth is that whilst doping may be rife we don't actually know who is doing it. Has Lance doped? Well if he had I am inclined to believe that the samples every one refers to would have been hauled out regardless - Lances name would have been total mud. The samples have been alluded to but never used. This is simply not credible if they are Lances and if they are +ve. There must be room for singificant doubt about these samples or he would have been given a very hard time. Is there achance that they are Lances and that they are positive - yeah I guess so but there must also be a view that either due process wasn't followed to the extent that there is a strong likelihood thta they could have been tampered with or that the results could be refuted that the sample results are not credible. Do you ruin someones career for this.

The value of the samples for those who have a bone to pick with Lance have been utilised anyway. The question "Do you beat your wife?" has been asked of Lance and like everyone else who's asked that question his answer damns him both ways.

I have no idea what Lance is like an whether he dopes. He's probably not a very nice person. His focus is so intense on what he does that I suspect he is pretty selfish. He is however an outstanding and exceptional individual and is inspirational for many. There is no formal proof that he is guilty of doping. He does good work for charity. He is helping to make the sport exciting. The American riders have helped to make cycling a great sport and race its profile.

I beelive that until a person is tried in court and found guilty they are innocent. Everything else is hearsay and rumour. The most destructive, valueless and foul forces that one can encounter in modern society.

I hope Lance does well. If he could win an 8th Tour de France that would be great. if he finishes highly placed that impressive also. If he's found doping and its proved beyond reasonable doubt then he should take his medicine like everyone else. I will be equally happy to see Cadel come out as a winner or Dave Millar or Sastre or Contador or Lepheimer or or or. I want to see great racing.

As for all the other riders. People come out with statements that x or y is clean. if Kohl is right none of them are clean. Why don't the same people start rumours ab out Evans or Sastre or Lepheimer or Menchov or others. Is Dave Millar Clean? I hope so but we can't be sure. Its all very well for Lemond ot cliam to be clean. We'll never know. As for Mercx who the heck knows. I suspect they were no cleaner than the rest either.

Personally I intend to enjoy the sport at the level I see it which is what are the riders doing on the day. History, rumour and all the rest well gee thats b*ll.

One of the best posts I have read in years.

Well done and well put!

poulidor · #17 07-10.-2009

Well stated but that is like to say the earth is flat because I don't have see it from space.

Because Lance never sued L'Equipe, Ressiot, LNDD or Ashenden, we can reasonably believe that there were EPO in Lance's 1999 urines. Besides there is other evidences and clues like actovegin and serynges, astonishing come-back and transformation after cancer, witnesses and legal testimonies,...

Why didn't sue a newspaper in France, that have one of the strongest law against defamation, if he was clean?

nonns · #18 07-10.-2009

Because it doesn't matter who he sues the speculation will never go away.

Suing is expensive and requires effort and energy and is a huge destraction from his key focuses. I wouldn't sue if in his shoes because it would be one of the most useless expensive time consuming wastes of time I could think of.

If he wins the B*llsh*t goes on and on and if he loses he's just as damned as before but mebbe he's now firmed up the general view of people against him. If he ignores it then he is saying its b*ll and that he doesnt think its worth bothering with. He diminishes it and doesn't waste his time with nonsense - fight the battles you can win.

defamatory stories are defamatory stories. Does Lance beat his wife. Lance said no but none belives him. If he said yes then everybody would say see we told you so. The guy can't win.

Bro Deal · #19 07-10.-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by nonns

defamatory stories are defamatory stories. Does Lance beat his wife. Lance said no but none belives him. If he said yes then everybody would say see we told you so. The guy can't win.

Bad analogy. We have evidence that Armstrong doped--lots of it. We have no evidence that he beat his wife. Artificial EPO was found in his urine. Witnesses heard him admit to PED use. Teammates have said he encouraged dope use. His personal assistant found steroids in his bathroom. Et cetera. Et cetera. Armstrong doped.

nonns · #20 07-10.-2009

Nope what you are claiming is proof is in fact heresay and nowt more. Proof is when they can slap it on a table otherwise it is little more than their word against his. If two people say Evans dopes does that make it true?

Proof will be when they do a test and declare the result as they have for Vinokourov or Basso or Hamilton or any of the others.

Until that point there is rumour finger pointing and b*ll leavings and that is all.

That said there is nothing Ican say to convince you so you beleive what you believe and I will sit on the fence. I still maintain it doesn't actually matter. I prefer to believe that they're all doping. Its still quite a spectacle.

Bro Deal · #21 07-10.-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by nonns

Nope what you are claiming is proof is in fact heresay and nowt more. Proof is when they can slap it on a table otherwise it is little more than their word against his. If two people say Evans dopes does that make it true?

Proof will be when they do a test and declare the result as they have for Vinokourov or Basso or Hamilton or any of the others.

Until that point there is rumour finger pointing and b*ll leavings and that is all.
That said there is nothing Ican say to convince you so you beleive what you believe and I will sit on the fence. I still maintain it doesn't actually matter. I prefer to believe that they're all doping. Its still quite a spectacle.

You might want to pull your nose out of the Armstrong talking points and actually figure out what hearsay means. First hand witnesses that heard Armstrong admit to the use of PEDs are not hearsay. An assistant that found steroids in his bathroom is not hearsay. Six positives for EPO in restrospectively tested urine is not hearsay. The two scientists who developed the test for EPO have both said (looking at the details of the EPO positives) that there is no question that Armstrong doped.

You are not sitting on the fence. That is a bull**** statement to try to appear objective. You are steadfastly refusing to believe any evidence, no matter how damning.

Gotta love this other BS move where you try to claim that you believe that they are all doping but at the same time you are steadfastly denying that Armstrong dopes. This is what I call The Armstrong Theory of Immaculate Doping: The belief that everyone dopes but somehow all the evidence that Armstrong doped can be dismissed as "hearsay."

nonns · #22 07-11.-2009

Show me the evidence that these first hand witnesses actually exist as witnesses and actually heard. Show me the pictures. Show me the PROOF. Hey Brodeal I've heard that LA dopes I heard it from a person who heard it from a person who mentioned it to a newspaper who heard it from a person who who who.....Does this make it true? Have I got pictures of the syringes well no but I know somewho has a dog which confessed to a rabbit which I saw whilst smoking weed and that rabbit was closely related to someone who saw them. This evidence was corroborated by an ex Tour de France pro who never amounted to much who interviewed LA oh and years later by a hugely successful pro who might also have been on the juice who is jealous about having his 3 record wins as the first American Tour de France winner beaten by a jumped up upstart.....

C'mon

Perhaps he did and perhaps he didn't but incontrovertible proof.....c'mon. Nobody has anything that they're confident enough about gettting him on that they're prepared to risk it. Does that make it clear that he hasn't doped NO. Nor does it mean he has. At the moment unless you were in that room you have nothing more than hearsay and vicious nasty an destructive rumours to go on. Even Kohl got caught and is in deep trouble (whils the confesses and names names). Old samples are being looked at. Perhaps Lance is going to actually be proven to have doped. A bunch of people all of whom could have a bone to pick are not useful witnesses.

Given the mistakes that the legal system makes and the mistakes even that evidence has been known to result in. I prefer to actually wait till someone is proved beond reasonable doubt. If Lance is called to explain himself. Uncontrovertible proof is provided he is banned from the sport stripped of his titles and so forth I will say fine he was a doper and a cheat and he deserves everything he gets as a professional sportsman because he didn't play fair.

In the meantime I follow him and hope he does well because he's contributed hugely to the sport and to charity also. He might be an arrogant SOB but he's done a lot of good also and he's exciting to watch so all kudos to the guy.

I'm also more convinced than ever that the mind plays a huge part in contributing to victories and superlative achievements. LA has stared death in the face. He has absolute determination that has to be a huge incentive for him. I think he's simply more focussed than most perhaps to the point of obsessive compulsive disorder.

nonns · #23 07-11.-2009

As for the samples. Well why have they not been used?
The newspapers/magazines. Why has LA not sued them. I answered that one previously. Its LA's word against theirs. He stands only to lose by suing. he chosen the optimal strategy - sensible.

If he's doping he'll get caught one day. Kohl got caught even though he says they miss everyone. Kohl is milking this for all he's worth. He cheated he got away with it. They caught him . Somethings working. If you believe that a single individual like LA has managed to manipulate himself to be above the sport. I would be inclined to say that you're his ultimate fans and that you endow him with qualities which are simply astonishing.

Perhaps he needs a little shrine?

If

**steve** · #24 07-11.-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by nonns

As for the samples. Well why have they not been used?
The newspapers/magazines. Why has LA not sued them. I answered that one previously. Its LA's word against theirs. He stands only to lose by suing. he chosen the optimal strategy - sensible.

There is a proof shortage

stilesiii · #25 07-11.-2009

Doped or not, I think he has been good for the sport and yes an inspiration to thousands and thousands of cancer patients. At the end of the day he is a 7 time Tour de France winner, and has never been sanctioned by any official governing body for doping. We all can have an opinion, some like the guy, some hate the guy, success generally causes that dynamic. We can shoose to believe or not the evidence against him, but that doesn't change his record, and only a fool would believe that doping is a recent development in cycling. I think he should be remembered as one of the great cyclist, but I think he should be credited with figuring how to singularly focus on the Tour de France and winning it. He specialized in the Tour de France, that makes him different from the greats of the past and in my opinion, not as great as some.

I also think Contador is getting ready to hand him his @$$.

Contador has the potential to be an all time great. I hope Lance looked at how the Chicken handled AC in the alps in 07, none can match his kick, you've got to steadily pressure him. Although, I think he has grown up since then and will not waste energy like he did against the Chicken in 07.

DV1976 · #26 07-11.-2009

He is the biggest cheat sports have ever seen.
He lied, cheated, bullied, threatened to get to those 7 Tour de France titles.
He destroyed lifes and careers on a whim.
He made millions out of people's pockets asking them to believe in the "miracle".
The only reason he is noteworthy is that he managed to survive cancer and get rich because of it. People are indeed sheep it seems.
Kimmage was right. He is the cancer of cycling and I cant wait to get rid of him.
Now I may get flamed because of my views. I dont mind since most people that disagree with me are on a comeback of their own here after a three year "sabbatical" so I couldnt care less about what they think. Anyway Lance needs morons like them to get rich and "spread the message".
A word on hearsay:.
Hearsay is information gathered by Person A from Person B concerning some event, condition, or thing of which Person A had no direct experience.
Ergo if I say to Bro Deal that nonnsense is biased, Bro Deal repeats it to lim without reading any of nonnsense's posts thats hearsay.
However I am a witness to nonnsense's bias and thats not hearsay. Hence Emma O'Reily, Andrieu's wife, Andersson, etc are all witnesses and their testimony is not hearsay.

DV1976 · #27 07-11.-2009

double post

**limerickman** · #28 07-11.-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by nonns

As for the samples. Well why have they not been used?
The newspapers/magazines. Why has LA not sued them. I answered that one previously. Its LA's word against theirs. He stands only to lose by suing. he chosen the optimal strategy - sensible.

I would respectively suggest that you acquaint yerself with the draconian laws of libel, as they apply here in Europe.

Any media organisation printing lies, run the very considerable risk of being sued to oblivion.

If lies were published - Armstrong would win a case, if he brought it.

He could donate the court case awards to charity.
ahem.

TheDarkLord · #29 07-11.-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by limerickman

I would respectively suggest that you acquaint yerself with the draconian laws of libel, as they apply here in Europe.

Any media organisation printing lies, run the very considerable risk of being sued to oblivion.

If lies were published - Armstrong would win a case, if he brought it.

He could donate the court case awards to charity.
ahem.

Donating to charity??? Not bloody likely. It'll all go to his personal bank account.

**limerickman** · #30 07-11.-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by DV1976

He is the biggest cheat sports have ever seen.
He lied, cheated, bullied, threatened to get to those 7 Tour de France titles.
He destroyed lifes and careers on a whim.
He made millions out of people's pockets asking them to believe in the "miracle".
The only reason he is noteworthy is that he managed to survive cancer and get rich because of it. People are indeed sheep it seems.
Kimmage was right. He is the cancer of cycling and I cant wait to get rid of him.
Now I may get flamed because of my views. I dont mind since most people that disagree with me are on a comeback of their own here after a three year "sabbatical" so I couldnt care less about what they think. Anyway Lance needs morons like them to get rich and "spread the message".
A word on hearsay:.
Hearsay is information gathered by Person A from Person B concerning some event, condition, or thing of which Person A had no direct experience.
Ergo if I say to Bro Deal that nonnsense is biased, Bro Deal repeats it to lim without reading any of nonnsense's posts thats hearsay.
However I am a witness to nonnsense's bias and thats not hearsay. Hence Emma O'Reily, Andrieu's wife, Andersson, etc are all witnesses and their testimony is not hearsay.

He's be destroyed in a European witness box - if he tried to sue
claiming libel.

Can't comment about the US legal system, or it's libel laws.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode