why is just armstrong accused of doping?

Beastt

There's a huge difference between confessing that you've used banned substances and simply having a doctor who has been accussed of prescribing banned substances. As to your assertion that if a doctor has prescribed EPO to one rider, (and that still hasn't been proven), that any other rider/patient of that doctor is also receiving EPO, is just wishful thinking on the part of those who would prefer to think that Lance didn't beat their favorite honestly.

Do you suppose if your sister goes to a doctor and is prescribed birth control pills that the same doctor would prescribe them for you as well, were you to go see him? Patients always have the right to reject a doctor's advice for prescriptions.

We don't know for a fact that Dr. Ferarri has given any riders EPO.

We do know that Lance continues using Dr. Ferarri as his physician.

We don't know if Dr. Ferarri has provided EPO for Lance.

We don't know that Lance has used EPO or any other performance enhanding drug.

Some people have a very hard time understanding the difference between having proof to back allegations and having a desire to believe allegations.

grattorney

It is a matter of degree and quality of the evidence. If the police pull you over and find drugs in your car, you are in a heap of trouble because, absent special circumstances, those drugs will be deemed yours. And, quite frankly, that makes sense.

If the police pull over the taxi you are riding in and find drugs, that may raise some suspicions, but it in no way is proof by itself that the drugs are yours. Many other people rode in that same taxi.

That Lance Armstrong saw a doctor whom some people (or one person) has accused of prescribing (or advocating) EPO is pretty low quality evidence that LA himself is doping. I doubt a judge would even let a jury hear such evidence, as it is has little probative value.

antoineg

Information on Ferrari: you people who are blindly sticking your head in the sand about this doctor are self-deluders of the highest magnitude.

limerickman

Your piece doesn't mention Ferrari's involvement with Gewiss-Ballan in 1994/1995.
Gewiss- Ballan after totally dominating the Spring classics disbanded : the team sponsors pulled out of sponsoring the team after allegations of drug use
were reported.
Gewiss decided to pull their financial sponsorship in 1995.
The good doctor Ferrari was their team doctor.

grattorney

Reread those passages and those articles. It is nothing but a bunch of biased "journalism" lobbing sweeping accusations with no proof. There are no facts in these articles, only allegations and innuendo. It misquotes Ferrari and offers nothing but ipse dixit argument. Hardly persuasive.

Believe me, if the good doctor is dirty, I hope they nail him to the wall. It sounds like he will have his day in court. So be it. And If Lance Armstrong is taking EPO, I hope he is banned from the sport and all of his six titles stripped from him. The shame that will be heaped upon him will be worse.

But until that time, rely on something more substantive that this worthless stuff.

antoineg

So do you personally believe the good doctor is clean or dirty?

All of the protestations about "wait for the rock-solid evidence before you pass judgement" is fine, but remember that Millar (to name just one example) never failed a drug test, never was convicted of anything, yet was a doper.

So -- we have a situation were doping has been underway without any rock-solid evidence to "prove" it. How do you view the good doctor?

limerickman

The fact that the Italian civil courts have taken an action against Ferrari
would suggest to me that they have suficient evidence of his supplying drugs to cyclists.
No civil court would take an action against a defendant if they did not have
evidence that can be corroborated.

So at the very minimum -it looks pretty serious for Ferrari.

If Ferrari is convicted - I think Armstrong will have a very serious issue.
He will have consorted with a known cheat.

limerickman

Only a couple of the Armstrong supporters throughout this entire site have
actually stated that they believe LA is clean (Ted b, Musette and Julian
Radowsky).
They charge us doubters with the absense of physical evidence for our
"biased" "smallminded" "prejudicial views", about LA.

The rest of the pro-Armstrong people will not say that he is clean.

You don't have to have physical evidence to form a belief or an opinion :
you can read all of the data from the pro/anti side and then form an opinion.

grattorney

I do not know how Italian civil courts work, but I do know how both civil and criminal courts work in the United States. And the mere fact that a civil plaintiff or a criminal prosecutor brings a claim against somebody is, obviously, not probative of guilt. That's why, where I practice law, we have a presumption of innocence until one is proven guilty, rather than simply alleged to have been guilty.

But I also recognize that the mere fact that a civil or criminal lawsuit has been filed against somebody is enough "evidence" for some of guilt. It is a natural reaction to say, "well, if they filed a suit against him, he must be guilty." Problem is, if that were sufficient, there would be no need for trials and you would have a whole bunch of innocent people sitting in jails because the fact of the matter is that prosecutors bring claims against people all the time who are found innocent by a jury of their peers.



I will state here and now that I believe LA is clean. It is very difficult for us to prove that he is clean, because you are asking us to prove a negative ( i.e. it is much harder to prove something did not happen rather than to prove that it did happen). But here are my reasons:

I do not believe that doping can account for LA's unbelievable record. If he were doping, he would receive a performance benefit, but not one so large that it would transform him magically from an okay cyclist (according to your ilk) into a record-setting, six-time TDF winner. You do not get that kind of transformation from drugs.

Conversely, I believe there is a legitimate explanation for his meteoric rise. LA came out the other side of a successful battle against cancer a different person, both physically and more important, mentally. He rebuilt his body but also received an attitude and passion that make him different than he was pre-cancer (and that also separates him from the other riders). He has a dedication to a single race that nobody else has. So he wins it more than anybody else.

Call me naive, but I also believe that LA understands more than anybody that life is a gift and that he would not taint that gift by using drugs. What is the point of that? You cannot be both serious about living life and creating a hollow, fraudulent life for yourself at the same time. I believe in the former.

I believe LA is a very smart, very calculated indivdidual who leaves nothing to chance. If he were doping, he would not be as outspoken as he is nor would he be acting the way he is. He acts exactly how you would not act if you were trying to conceal or hide your doping. Said differently, he acts exactly as one does who has nothing to hide.

And, finally, I believe LA is clean because I have seen no credible evidence suggesting he is not. And I believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. That goes for Dr. Ferrari as well. People certainly have their suspicions about him. I recognize that. But suspicions are only that: suspicions. Until he is proven guilty by a competent court, I will continue to believe in his innocence. And, btw, even if Dr. Ferrari is proven guilty of providing EPO, I will still not believe he provided them to LA unless there is proof of it. Guilt by association doesn't work with me.

Those are my reasons. I'll say it again.

I believe Lance is clean

limerickman

The Italian state authorities are taking the case against Ferrari.
Unless they had evidence - they presumably would not have been given
authorisation by a judge to make charges against Ferrari, right ?
So it is reasonable to assume that they have some degree of evidence
to be anbe to direct a charge to be brought against Ferrari ?
As you've got some legal knowledge - this is a reasonable assumption ?

In a legal context as regards LA - the presumption of innocence lies with the defendant.
But we're not in a court of law here.
We are in a forum and people can form an opinion based on what they know.
If their knowledge is vast or miniscule - people will form an opinion and in this case some of us form the opinion that LA is not authentic.
An opinion doesn't necessarily rest on the level of evidence.
All opinions SHOULD be informed by evidence - but that is not the case here
in a forum.
My view is informed by looking at Lance Armstrongs entire career statistics,
the contemporaneous statements made pre-cancer and post cancer and
my knowledge of the sport of cycling.
Based on this accumulated knowledge, I consider LA's explanations for his
improved performance.

In the totality of all of this, I consider that what LA says to explain his improvement is outweighed by the fact that the statistical and contemporaneous statements made at different times.
This is what informs my opinion.

grattorney

I am not familiar with the Italian criminal court system. I can tell you that where I practice law (in the United States), a prosecutor does not need to get permission from the court to file charges against somebody. Rather, the prosecutor builds her case by gathering evidence. If she thinks she has enough evidence to prove guilty, then she will file charges against the defendant. The court has no role in determining whether or when to bring charges.

And I can tell you that prosecutors are people. They are not infallable and are subject to the same mistakes of judgment everybody else is. They can be swayed by public opinion, especially if they are elected by the public. I can tell you true stories of prosecutors who manufactured evidence in order to convict an innocent person (who was subsequently sentenced to death for murder). The prosecutors did this because of tremendous public pressure to find the person resonsible for a heinous murder. Fortunately, good lawyers got involved and the person's life was spared after the prosecutors admitted under oath that they manufactured the evidence.

For this reason, I do not trust prosecutors. I do not think they are all crooked or bad people either. I just want them to prove their case in court. Simply because they bring charges against somebody means nothing to me.

So, a long answer to your question, but, no, simply because a prosecuting authority brings charges against somebody does not convince me that those charges are true. I need more.


I agree with you that the court of public opinion is different than a court of law and admit that I am biased toward the latter. Nonetheless, I believe people owe it to themselves to have good reasons for their opinions. I know you feel you have those reasons. I think your reasons are not well-founded, but I will never disparage you personally for holding those opinions.

wheresullrich?

Can I just ask do you know exactly what your doctor prescribes others?!

I doubt it

Could be giving people anything you don't know

If armstrongs never had him force anything on him he won't see any problem with it will he?

would you? if your doctor gave others stuff, drugs they wanted but neva forced em on u?

Ted B

Please, do not confuse Miguel with the obvious. He already has trouble finding his way out of a paper bag.

limerickman

In defence of Lance Armstrong (for once) I do agree that some people in Europe do appear to resent the fact that an American is winning the premier
cycling event "in their backyard".

For those American posters, imagine someone from Spain dominating Baseball
or American football or Golf, wouldn't some American fans resent the presence of some for abroad winning "your" national game ?

In defence of the French though, as annoyed as some fans may be - just imagine a person from a neighbouring country coming in a dominating your sport (ie Spain's Indurain or Belgium's Merckx).

For our American posters, imagine a Canadian or a Mexican dominating your national sport.

Just some food for thought.