why is just armstrong accused of doping?

[Miguel_garcia83]

if UCI punished rumsas because they found substances in his wifes car i dont know why they dont do the same with armstrong when we know that his doctor is famous for prescribing EPO
why rumsas was punished and armstrong is not??
why festina was punished and armstrong is not??
why millar was punished and armstrong is not??

Why were they all punished and the rest of the peloton was not? Because punishment is meted out after an infraction. Each of those you mentioned had incriminating evidence against them. The rest of the peloton, including Armstrong, did not. So these parties had to suffer the consequences.

Imagine what life would be like if police just started arresting people right and left and giving the explanation that many people are dealing drugs in this neighborhood. Therefore, we're just going to arrest everyone to play it safe.[/QUOTE]
is it an evidence finding finding substances in your wifes or your team masseaurs team but its not an evidence to have a doctor that prescribes EPO and who knows what else???

 

[wheresullrich?]

Why were they all punished and the rest of the peloton was not? Because punishment is meted out after an infraction. Each of those you mentioned had incriminating evidence against them. The rest of the peloton, including Armstrong, did not. So these parties had to suffer the consequences.

Imagine what life would be like if police just started arresting people right and left and giving the explanation that many people are dealing drugs in this neighborhood. Therefore, we're just going to arrest everyone to play it safe.

is it an evidence finding finding substances in your wifes or your team masseaurs team but its not an evidence to have a doctor that prescribes EPO and who knows what else???[/QUOTE]
Is the sole reason you think he's guilty of doping because he happens to know our EPO prescribing doctor?
If so I think it's a little quick to judge
Armstrong seems like a guy in control of his life ( unlike Jan ullrich can I point out) if he didnt want to use performance enhancing drugs he has a strong enough character to say no (unlike jan- sorry to be so harsh of him I cant help it I'm a lance fan!)

Just happening to know someone-whoever! does not mean you do what they do.

If this was the case you could say Armstrong was mates with Millar he's takin EPO too. You could also say Basso's takin EPO cos he's mates with Armstrong -could you imagine this would go on forever! Every cyclist in the world would be on EPO and even if many are I think some are strong enough to resist

 

[Miguel_garcia83]

is it an evidence finding finding substances in your wifes or your team masseaurs team but its not an evidence to have a doctor that prescribes EPO and who knows what else???

Is the sole reason you think he's guilty of doping because he happens to know our EPO prescribing doctor?
If so I think it's a little quick to judge
Armstrong seems like a guy in control of his life ( unlike Jan ullrich can I point out) if he didnt want to use performance enhancing drugs he has a strong enough character to say no (unlike jan- sorry to be so harsh of him I cant help it I'm a lance fan!)

Just happening to know someone-whoever! does not mean you do what they do.

If this was the case you could say Armstrong was mates with Millar he's takin EPO too. You could also say Basso's takin EPO cos he's mates with Armstrong -could you imagine this would go on forever! Every cyclist in the world would be on EPO and even if many are I think some are strong enough to resist[/QUOTE]
could you say rumsas is taking EPO because police caught his wife with the car full of substances? os festinas? or whatever?

 

[grattorney]

is it an evidence finding finding substances in your wifes or your team masseaurs team but its not an evidence to have a doctor that prescribes EPO and who knows what else???

Presumably, a wife is a wife only to her husband, and a team masseur is only a masseur to a specific team. As such, finding illegal drugs on the wife of a cyclist is fairly good circumstantial evidence that the cyclist was taking. Similarly, finding illegal drugs on a team masseur is decent (but not great) circumstantial evidence that somebody on the team is taking. Absent other evidence, however, it would be difficult to prove with that general evidence that a specific person on the team was taking.

On the other hand, A doctor (presumably) has many patients. Simply because one patient receives a specific "treatment" from that doctor in no way supports the proposition that all patients associated with that doctor received the same treatment.

 

[wheresullrich?]

Is the sole reason you think he's guilty of doping because he happens to know our EPO prescribing doctor?
If so I think it's a little quick to judge
Armstrong seems like a guy in control of his life ( unlike Jan ullrich can I point out) if he didnt want to use performance enhancing drugs he has a strong enough character to say no (unlike jan- sorry to be so harsh of him I cant help it I'm a lance fan!)

Just happening to know someone-whoever! does not mean you do what they do.

If this was the case you could say Armstrong was mates with Millar he's takin EPO too. You could also say Basso's takin EPO cos he's mates with Armstrong -could you imagine this would go on forever! Every cyclist in the world would be on EPO and even if many are I think some are strong enough to resist

could you say rumsas is taking EPO because police caught his wife with the car full of substances? os festinas? or whatever?[/QUOTE]
I didnt say that I said knowing someone alone is not a good reason-no drugs have been found in lance's wifes care his team is not under the suspicion that festina was and as for the whatever you cant condem someone by who they know if you could then if lance is guilty, Basso's guilty, CSC are guilty etc etc (it goes on and on the possibilities but what about the truth???) just because they are friends with lance? no! so why if hes friends with someone who likes a bita EPO is he guilty?

 

[Miguel_garcia83]

Presumably, a wife is a wife only to her husband, and a team masseur is only a masseur to a specific team. As such, finding illegal drugs on the wife of a cyclist is fairly good circumstantial evidence that the cyclist was taking. Similarly, finding illegal drugs on a team masseur is decent (but not great) circumstantial evidence that somebody on the team is taking. Absent other evidence, however, it would be difficult to prove with that general evidence that a specific person on the team was taking.

On the other hand, A doctor (presumably) has many patients. Simply because one patient receives a specific "treatment" from that doctor in no way supports the proposition that all patients associated with that doctor received the same treatment.

do you really believe what you just said??

 

[Miguel_garcia83]

could you say rumsas is taking EPO because police caught his wife with the car full of substances? os festinas? or whatever?

I didnt say that I said knowing someone alone is not a good reason-no drugs have been found in lance's wifes care his team is not under the suspicion that festina was and as for the whatever you cant condem someone by who they know if you could then if lance is guilty, Basso's guilty, CSC are guilty etc etc (it goes on and on the possibilities but what about the truth???) just because they are friends with lance? no! so why if hes friends with someone who likes a bita EPO is he guilty?[/QUOTE]

basso is guilty???i didnt know that armstrong had studied medicine and was personal bassos doctor, thanks for telling me, i didnt know that
its not about who you know, its about someones personals doctor, thats is famous for prescribing EPO, not for being friends and play pool and have some beers on saturday nights

 

[meehs]

I didnt say that I said knowing someone alone is not a good reason-no drugs have been found in lance's wifes care his team is not under the suspicion that festina was and as for the whatever you cant condem someone by who they know if you could then if lance is guilty, Basso's guilty, CSC are guilty etc etc (it goes on and on the possibilities but what about the truth???) just because they are friends with lance? no! so why if hes friends with someone who likes a bita EPO is he guilty?

basso is guilty???i didnt know that armstrong had studied medicine and was personal bassos doctor, thanks for telling me, i didnt know that
its not about who you know, its about someones personals doctor, thats is famous for prescribing EPO, not for being friends and play pool and have some beers on saturday nights

I could be wrong but isn't it true that one rider (Simeoni) is making the accusation that Ferrari has perscribed EPO? You guys are treating it as though it is a proven fact. Yeah, we know he has suggested it's use could enhance performance and we all have heard his statement: "EPO is not unsafe, it the abuse of EPO that is. Drinking ten litres of orange juice is also unsafe" (I'm paraphrasing so that might not be his exact statement). But the allegations against him for perscribing EPO are just that, allegations. At least as far as I know. Unless maybe Ferrari perscribed EPO to some of you guys?

 

[grattorney]

do you really believe what you just said??

It is not a matter of what I believe, it is a matter of what evidence proves. Guilt by association typically doesn't work by itself. It might be relevant to the debate, but is in no way enough to prove a fact by itself.

Is it relevant to the "is LA doping" debate whether a doctor he has seen is accused of prescribing EPO? Maybe. Does it prove by itself that LA dopes. Hell no. Not even close.

 

[Miguel_garcia83]

It is not a matter of what I believe, it is a matter of what evidence proves. Guilt by association typically doesn't work by itself. It might be relevant to the debate, but is in no way enough to prove a fact by itself.

Is it relevant to the "is LA doping" debate whether a doctor he has seen is accused of prescribing EPO? Maybe. Does it prove by itself that LA dopes. Hell no. Not even close.

its not a doctor he has seen, its his doctor, anyway, simeoni has been saying interesting things at firenzes court, about ferrari and armstrong, simeoni is a witness

if that doesnt prove arsmtrong dopes, we cant say rumsas did, nor festina, nor millar, nor vandenbroucke, nor anybody

 

[Beastt]

its not a doctor he has seen, its his doctor, anyway, simeoni has been saying interesting things at firenzes court, about ferrari and armstrong, simeoni is a witness

if that doesnt prove arsmtrong dopes, we cant say rumsas did, nor festina, nor millar, nor vandenbroucke, nor anybody

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]

its not a doctor he has seen, its his doctor, anyway, simeoni has been saying interesting things at firenzes court, about ferrari and armstrong, simeoni is a witness

if that doesnt prove arsmtrong dopes, we cant say rumsas did, nor festina, nor millar, nor vandenbroucke, nor anybody

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.

The 32-year-old American's links with notorious sports doctor Michele Ferrari, who once described EPO as "no harmful than orange juice", are also put under the spotlight.

Ferrari has been investigated in Italy for sporting fraud and the distribution of illegal substances since 2001. The Italian, who has "advised" a number of elite athletes and cyclists, is said to have played a significant role in Armstrong's transformation from cancer survivor to five-time Tour winner.

...

EPO is a naturally-occurring hormone which is also made synthetically, mainly to treat anemia. It boosts the volume of red blood cells, allowing more oxygen to be carried to the muscles.

Ferrari is known widely as an expert on the drug and how to use it, ideally without being caught, to its maximum potential.

http://www.active.com/story.cfm?story_id=10844&sidebar=676&category=tdf2004_peloton

Three Italians will appear in the court of Bologna today on charges of distributing illegal doping products. Pharmacist Massimo Guandalini, and sports doctors Alberto Maria Bergossi and Roberto Corsetti will face judge Massimo Poppi as a result of a three year investigation carried out by the Italian narcotics squad. The three have admitted partial responsibility in the affair.

Dr Michele Ferrari is also involved in this case, but he will be tried through conventional means, and is expected to front up on September 21. He is suspected of administering EPO and other prohibited substances to a large number of high profile athletes, including Ivan Gotti, Mario Cipollini, Paolo Savoldelli, Pavel Tonkov, Abraham Olano, and Axel Merckx.

Former Tour de France winner and World Champion Greg Lemond was quoted in Tuesday's "Le Monde" as saying that in 1993-1994, Ferrari took "10% of the profits of the riders he treated. Under these conditions, a doctor thinks more of earning money than of the health of his patient."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/2001/mar01/mar15news.shtml

 

[limerickman]

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

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]

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

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]

Believe me, if the good doctor is dirty, I hope they nail him to the wall.

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]

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.

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]

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?

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

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.