Lance positive? - Page 3

and there was me thinking he donates all his money to charity.

silly me.

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it" - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

But whatever hearsay is is largely irrelevant because ulitmately its still Andrieu's wife word against Lance's. Thats my point. there is no absolute proof.Thats all I'm saying. LA aint god. He's a supreme athlete whether he dopes or doesn't dope. Is he nice or isn't he. I don't know I've never met the guy. At the superficial level I watch the sport and partake at he seems ok. He makes it exciting. I daresay most sportsmen at that level are major Ar**h*les. that doesn't make them any less impressive as athletes. It just makes them impressive athletes who happen to be ah*les.

I'm not a Lance fan per se. I just don't think one should decry his acheivements or accuse him of things which noone has actually been able to prove. J**ze what is it with you people. Nobody told me this was the spanish inquisition!

As for your views. Well you're entitled to them. I find it interesting that you require little absolute evidence to find someone guilty. Thank goodness you aren't the law.

I certainly don't understand why you would get "flamed" because of your views on Lance. Why? You're entitled to your opinion just as well as anyone else. I doubt anyone's caring about your opinion any more than you do theirs.

Since we're discussing definitions here however... perhaps you should read up on the one for "moron"

"1usually offensive : a person affected with mild mental retardation2: a very stupid person"

That's a pretty interesting classification you seem to grouping some people in, specifically myself since I've taken a break from cycling. Here's a news flash for you, I'm far from stupid. Here's another one...I'm not a Lance lover, or hater.

What is pretty moronic is that in an attempt to further your own opinion, you attempt to classify those with a different opinion by implying that you're in some way superior to them. If you haven't grown out of that behavior by now then I'd suggest that perhaps you're not as intellectually mature as you profess to be.


For the record:

My only other post to this was in agreement with the gentleman that pointed out the bias of this forum at one time. At that time you couldn't read a racing thread without it turning into a pro/con lance thread and frankly it just became very disinteresting to read. It seems to have changed some which I think is an improvement (not that you care about that).

I couldn't care less about the Lance doped/didn't dope argument. Fact is I was convinced long ago that the majority of them do so it's a moot point for discussion anyway.

Then it should have been obvious to a highly intelligent person as yourself that I was not refering to you... Hence you have probably wasted your time trying to find a smart retort to statements that were not directed at you.
Unless you consider yourself an LA fan boy in which case I wont retract nothing. You are a moron.

No, you dumbshit. I already told you that you obviously don't know what the word hearsay means. It's evidently something that you picked up from your fanboy talking points. Using words that you don't know the meaning of makes you a dumbshit. Betsy Andreu's testimony is not hearsay. She was in the room when Armstrong admitted PED use. It is also backed up by three others in the room that heard Armstrong admit to PED use.
I find it interesting that you are a moron who does not know what the hell he is talking about but pats himself on the back about how superior he is to other people who do know what they are talking about. A triumph in ignorance I guess. There is a ton of evidence that Armstrong doped. The amount is overwhelming. There is no way a rational person can look at the evidence and not conclude that he doped. Read From Lance to Landis sometime and get a clue.

Armstrong tested positive six times for EPO. He was offered the opportunity to have the samples retested last year. He refused because he knew exactly what they would show.

In a court of law Armstrong would be convicted easy. There is no reasonable doubt that he did not dope, let alone the preponderance of the evidence standard.

__________________
"You are like the wind and I like the lion. You form the tempest. The sand stings my eyes and the ground is parched. I roar in defiance but you do not hear. But between us there is a difference. I, like the lion, must remain in my place. While you like the wind will never know yours." -- Mulay Hamid El Raisuli, Lord of the Riff, Sultan to the Berbers, Last of the Barbary Pirates

Oh that's nice, I'm the only person in this thread that mentioned anything about taking any sort of sabattical so yeah, I'm pretty sure you were. I addressed both of your implications. Why backpedal?

I type fast, I can afford the little bit of time it took...so no worries there.


No, I don't consider myself an LA fan boy, which I addressed earlier. Although I don't.. I also don't consider anyone that is a moron, nor the "haters" which you seem to identify with so well. As I said before, you're grouping a very large number of people and assigning a label to them although you know nothing about them...and in my opinion that's pretty moronic in itself.

I sounds much like a case of "you don't agree with me, so therefore you must be a moron". Yeah that's some high-level thinking you're doing there, congrats.

I just listened to the interview she did on the radio. She stumbled a little here and there, but it didn't sound like she stumbled through a made-up story. She was pretty convincing actually.

It would have been very interesting to see the outcome had the evidence been applicable to the law suit in question.

1) Has it occured to you that I may have read your post and liked the expression without actually disagreeing with what you had written?
2) I didnt classify you. You classified yourself.
3) I didnt refer to you personally, I didnt quote you, I didnt mention your nick, I just happened to use a expression that you used as well. True I may have read it on your post. As luck had it I had a discussion at a dinner last night with a Maths professor who is on a one year's sabbatical and it came up in the conversation. So it may had been on my mind since last night or I may have glanced it as I was scrolling down this topics' posts. I dont remember. And its not my problem. Its your. I cant recall what you ve written, I didnt pay attention to it, if I answered to anyone in particular this was nonns and simply because he has posted the same nonsense before. And I am annoyed because for three years there were 10-12 regulars here posting and talking about cycling and now we are seeing the long departed Armstrong posse all of a sudden reappearing and blabbering the same nonsense as 3-4 years ago. And I mostly replied to all of them and to people like them who havent graced us yet (where is mussette any1?) with their presence and thats because:
a) They dont give a shιt about cycling
b) They believe everything that comes out of LA's mouth and they have to make you see their point eventhouth not only it doesnt make sense, it spits in the face of Logic.
So I ve spent 10min of my life explaining my self to you. It s up to you to be convinced or not. I dont care either way.

No actually it didn't, because it didn't hit me that way at all.
I appreciate it.

In my mind, this is the most damning piece of evidence for Armstrong having doped. He's one of the most litigious contemporary athletes, but he's not going to sue those who say, print or otherwise publish allegations that he doped? Makes no sense whatsoever.

In other words, what's been printed is true. See: The case that Armstrong soundly lost in France - not to stop publication of the first book, but to add a disclaimer that Armstrong and his attorneys penned to be printed in the book. Why not sue to stop publication?

Why didn't he sue L'Equipe, a world well-known and respected sport newspaper after that: on the front page it was stated Armstrong' lie?
Why didn't sue Walsh and Ballester for their 2 books?
Why didn't sue Pr. Mondenard for his recent new book named "The big fraud" about Lance Armstrong?

Should we believe that all the people who have written or stated that Lance doped in countries with libel laws were all stupid? None of them had feared to be sued by a whealthier man?

At the last conference http://www.playthegame.org/conferenc...entations.html
Ashenden has spoken about UCI corruption he referred to the "donation" of Lance to UCI. Just have a look there http://www.playthegame.org/uploads/m...sting_syst.pdf

Attached Thumbnails

   

__________________
6 +2 (according Ashenden) samples with EPO should have banned Lance Armstrong to start next TDF !

Goodness me - talk about aggression. Ref point a and point b above. You make a sweeping assumption. I've loved cycling since I was a boy (sadly I'm a bit older than that now-joints creak etc.).
Ref point b. Maybe others do. I believe the things I see him do. I have been mildly amused by some of his interviews in this years tour - nothing more. I'm not an LA groupy. Neither you nor I have any way of knowing for sure whether the guy speaks with forked tongue or not.

I was having a discussion, you are the one who seems to be jumping ugly on anyone who fails to get the point you're ramming down their throats. My point is I'm open minded and without incontrovertible proof as to the fact that the guy dopes I'm not willing to declare him guilty.

FACT: If everyone was certain of the so called evidence then they they would have used it because the guy has made enemies as most successful people ultimately do.

When the Lance Haters (that was said tongue in cheek btw) ask why he didn't sue the various papers that made the comments. I could equally well ask why the evidence hasn't been taken and used against him and why it hasn't been used to strip him of his record. The answer is that its not good enough for some reason. Note I haven't said he hasn't doped. I just haven't been prepared to accept that anyone has proved that he has.

As to whether I posted nonsense at some point in the past I have no idea. I suspect that what you mean is that I had the same attitude at some point in the past. I have no doubt you will quote me on something I posted. I would suspect that my attitude hasn't changed that much. Mind you it might have as that was then and this is now.

As for classifications. The Lance posse. I'm not part of any Lance posse. In the same way that I don't believe the so called evidence I don't believe in total innocence either. I just don't believe in rubbishing a person until there is total incontrovertible proof and the situation has been dealt with in the proper way.

I said before Is Lance doping or isn't he doping I don't know. That he is a great athlete (doping or no doping) is the truth. He is a multiple times winner and one has to assume that others in the peloton were doping also. That he's a nice person I have no idea. I've never met the guy. Barack Obama is a winner. I've never met the guy he might be a total pill*ck for all I know.

There are many great athletes in the Tour de France pack. The one in the best shape will win (however that shape was achieved). If they doped and they don't get caught then we wont know. If they doped in the past it doesn't mean they doped now.

I hope for a great race. I hope for a great winner. A great winner will show their authority at some point. If its Cadel brilliant. If its Armstrong brilliant. If its Menchov brilliant (if its any of ther member of the pack brilliant). If its an exciting race I actually don't give a stuff who wins. Do I happen to like
LA yes. I think his record is pretty impressive. I'd like to see the old guy win. I'd love to see him being charitable after a win and say he'd ride for x years subsequently in support of Contador or Lepheimer (but lets be honest that wont happen). Like all top athletes he's selfish (very few aren't or they wouldn't be top athletes). As for the race I wish Astana weren't so very strong - it would open it out.

As for whether I dont grace this forum. I come in and out. I frequently lurk. I contribute or attempt to if something interests me. Your response style was precisely the reason I stopped posting - I don't like aggressive. Seemingly you like the clique of regulars and don't like anyone else having an opinion. Why don't you start a non public forum where you can all convene.

Apologies to the other regulars who don't appear to be hyper sensitve souls.

Look I was trying to have a conversation. I didn't expect you to get the hump. I'm sorry that I've spoilt your day week month. I am entitled to my opinion though. I didn't realise the subject I posted on was off limits. I'm not prepared to have a heart attack or cause anyone else to do so to continue it. Have a good day and be happy with your opinion.

BTW just because I disagree with you on this doesn't mean that I disagree with you on everything else. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me a moron. I haven't attempted to insult you intelligence. I've never met you you might be a very nice guy for all I know.

Cheers and enjoy Le Tour. May the rider with the best chemical cocktail flowing through their veins win.

Goodness me - talk about aggression. Ref point a and point b above. You make a sweeping assumption. I've loved cycling since I was a boy (sadly I'm a bit older than that now-joints creak etc.).
Ref point b. Maybe others do. I believe the things I see him do. I have been mildly amused by some of his interviews in this years tour - nothing more. I'm not an LA groupy. Neither you nor I have any way of knowing for sure whether the guy speaks with forked tongue or not.

I was having a discussion, you are the one who seems to be jumping ugly on anyone who fails to get the point you're ramming down their throats. My point is I'm open minded and without incontrovertible proof as to the fact that the guy dopes I'm not willing to declare him guilty.

FACT: If everyone was certain of the so called evidence then they they would have used it because the guy has made enemies as most successful people ultimately do.

When the Lance Haters (that was said tongue in cheek btw) ask why he didn't sue the various papers that made the comments. I could equally well ask why the evidence hasn't been taken and used against him and why it hasn't been used to strip him of his record. The answer is that its not good enough for some reason. Note I haven't said he hasn't doped. I just haven't been prepared to accept that anyone has proved that he has.

As to whether I posted nonsense at some point in the past I have no idea. I suspect that what you mean is that I had the same attitude at some point in the past. I have no doubt you will quote me on something I posted. I would suspect that my attitude hasn't changed that much. Mind you it might have as that was then and this is now.

As for classifications. The Lance posse. I'm not part of any Lance posse. In the same way that I don't believe the so called evidence I don't believe in total innocence either. I just don't believe in rubbishing a person until there is total incontrovertible proof and the situation has been dealt with in the proper way.

I said before Is Lance doping or isn't he doping I don't know. That he is a great athlete (doping or no doping) is the truth. He is a multiple times winner and one has to assume that others in the peloton were doping also. That he's a nice person I have no idea. I've never met the guy. Barack Obama is a winner. I've never met the guy he might be a total pill*ck for all I know.

There are many great athletes in the Tour de France pack. The one in the best shape will win (however that shape was achieved). If they doped and they don't get caught then we wont know. If they doped in the past it doesn't mean they doped now.

I hope for a great race. I hope for a great winner. A great winner will show their authority at some point. If its Cadel brilliant. If its Armstrong brilliant. If its Menchov brilliant (if its any of ther member of the pack brilliant). If its an exciting race I actually don't give a stuff who wins. Do I happen to like
LA yes. I think his record is pretty impressive. I'd like to see the old guy win. I'd love to see him being charitable after a win and say he'd ride for x years subsequently in support of Contador or Lepheimer (but lets be honest that wont happen). Like all top athletes he's selfish (very few aren't or they wouldn't be top athletes). As for the race I wish Astana weren't so very strong - it would open it out.

As for whether I dont grace this forum. I come in and out. I frequently lurk. I contribute or attempt to if something interests me. Your response style was precisely the reason I stopped posting - I don't like aggressive. Seemingly you like the clique of regulars and don't like anyone else having an opinion. Why don't you start a non public forum where you can all convene.

Apologies to the other regulars who don't appear to be hyper sensitve souls.

Look I was trying to have a conversation. I didn't expect you to get the hump. I'm sorry that I've spoilt your day week month. I am entitled to my opinion though. I didn't realise the subject I posted on was off limits. I'm not prepared to have a heart attack or cause anyone else to do so to continue it. Have a good day and be happy with your opinion.

BTW just because I disagree with you on this doesn't mean that I disagree with you on everything else. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me a moron. I haven't attempted to insult you intelligence. I've never met you you might be a very nice guy for all I know.

Cheers and enjoy Le Tour. May the rider with the best chemical cocktail flowing through their veins win.

Thank you for the references and so forth you posted. I'll probably end up tryign to get the books.

Look I agree that this doesn't look good for LA. But I've also explained why LA might not want to. BTW its perfectly reasonable that LA would not know exactly what has been contributed. Does he write all his own checks? I know many wealthy people who make contributions to things and they have not a clue. They're simply asked if they want to contribute and is x alright. The sums are so small in comparison to their wealth that its like yeah whatever. If they have to sign checks they don't always look at them. Thats not an excuse for Armstrong its just something I've seen.

As for him suing publications he might of course not want to because he is doping. I don't know. Noone has got beyond a few stories and so forth. Thats trial by press. Look he probably has doped (mebbe he still is). I hope not because it wonuld diminish what he's achieved and I still would like some heroes in a sport I enjoy. Mercx, Anquetil, Hinault, Lemond are heroes but one cant be sure that they didn't dope. Fignon has admitted that he did. I hope it didn't contribute to his cancer.

If LA doped and it is proven through the proper channels then I will be the first to come on here and say you were right. I have no problem with having to be right. If I'm wrong I admit it.

The fact is noone has managed to make a convincing enough case to have him treated like Ricco/Pantani/Vinoukorov and the others caught doping. There are extremely powerful authorities on the other side trying to catch him. As for bribes etc. LA is not rich enough to bribe the cycling authorities. The fun they could have if he tried it would be enough to get him into serious trouble. Te poeple who claim he doped are suggesting a conspiracy theory of awesome proprotions. I have a real problem with the fact that something that big would be able to take place without it being discovered. I suspect the biggest problem about the people chasing LA is that they're well intentioned but amateurish

It would at least stop pointless threads like this

__________________
Steve
CyclingForums.com