Armstong dopes AGAIN

[limerickman]

I think it is spelled "anonymous."
If he received calls from Lance, then those calls would not be anonymous.
Anyhoo...
I suspect that Dr. Steffen immediately was contacted by Armstrong's lawyers, since what he said was slanderous, untrue, and unprovable. Or maybe just his team because saying that Tyler and Lance doped...connect the dots. Well I'll do it for you.

Oh yeah, he was implying that the whole USPS 1999 team was on dope, which would mean the directeur sportif Jonathan Vaughters of TIAACREFF, his boss and employer was on dope, and oh yeah, that the whole super clean image of TIAACREFF was getting tarnished by this trash talking idiot. So needless to say it is bad publicity for the spsonsor so I am sure the corporate moguls called Vaughters and put a gag order on.

In his retraction, he confessed to everything except killing Nicole Simpson so obviously somebody was ready to go public with a lot of nasty stuff on Prentice Steffen, like he alluded to beating his drug problem etc etc earlier in life. Read between the lines.

He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword, eh?

Time to go back to being an ER doc, dude. You are so over.

The spelling is anyhow (not anyhoo) and sponsor (not whatever it was you were attempting to articulate).

On to the subject at hand.

Vaughters. I'd say he would be pretty ****** off with the fact that doping was in anyway connected with his team : a team that contains a man who Vaughters himself stated had the highest VOmax ever, in all history.
Young Ian McGregor of TIAA – CREF.
So have his team doctor talking about doping vis-a-vis Armstrong doesn't reflect well on Vaughters (even if there is no direct evidence).

In fairness to McGregor I watched him in this years Ras Tailteann and he's not a bad cyclist.
He might make it to the pro ranks here in Europe but I can't see him lighting up the cycling world, highest VOmax ever or not.

 

[whiteboytrash]

Oh yeah, he was implying that the whole USPS 1999 team was on dope, which would mean the directeur sportif Jonathan Vaughters of TIAACREFF, his boss and employer was on dope, and oh yeah, that the whole super clean image of TIAACREFF was getting tarnished by this trash talking idiot. So needless to say it is bad publicity for the spsonsor so I am sure the corporate moguls called Vaughters and put a gag order on.

In his retraction, he confessed to everything except killing Nicole Simpson so obviously somebody was ready to go public with a lot of nasty stuff on Prentice Steffen, like he alluded to beating his drug problem etc etc earlier in life. Read between the lines.

He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword, eh?

Time to go back to being an ER doc, dude. You are so over.

You haven't read the article have you ? Silly to make such statments. Steffen said the 1996 USPS team was using dope not 1999..... no Lance in 1996 but Steffen was Doctor of the team..... and he saw Hamilton take drugs at this time... you will note there is no such retraction for Hamilton.... you will also note that Steffen would of been fully aware that by speaking to lÉquipe his comments would of had this impact... how could if not after the Armstrong story was first released ? He stated Hamilton used drugs and intermated that Lance did as well but he never saw him use drugs. Retraction or no retraction its out there now.

 

[wineandkeyz]

Naw, it's the phonecalls.

Standard practice of LA team.
But don't only take my word for it.

Don't worry, we won't.

 

[bobke]

You haven't read the article have you ? Silly to make such statments. Steffen said the 1996 USPS team was using dope not 1999..... no Lance in 1996 but Steffen was Doctor of the team..... and he saw Hamilton take drugs at this time... you will note there is no such retraction for Hamilton.... you will also note that Steffen would of been fully aware that by speaking to lÉquipe his comments would of had this impact... how could if not after the Armstrong story was first released ? He stated Hamilton used drugs and intermated that Lance did as well but he never saw him use drugs. Retraction or no retraction its out there now.

He SAW Hamilton take drugs?
He "SAW"
Wow, never read that anywhere.
That would make him an accomplice wouldnt it, if he didnt turn Tyler in.
Whatever.
The retraction stands. Everything else is ****.

 

[micron]

The retraction stands. Everything else is ****.

How sad you're not talking about the innacurate drivel you habitually post

 

[jhuskey]

My turn to post in this "perpetual forum blackhole". I posted somewhere back that "Mr. Average Joe USA" would not give a Flying Rats A** whether Armstrong doped or not.
The fact is that his engagement garnered far for press that the doping allegations.
I am either living in a vacumn or I was 100% correct. Very few people ever took notice of the allegations and know no details,or ever will.
Just wanted to point that out once again.

Carry on!

 

[WINGNUTT]

He SAW Hamilton take drugs?
He "SAW"
Wow, never read that anywhere.
That would make him an accomplice wouldnt it, if he didnt turn Tyler in.

Witnessing a crime does not make you an accomplice, nor would it give rise to any legal obligation to turn him in.

 

[bobke]

Witnessing a crime does not make you an accomplice, nor would it give rise to any legal obligation to turn him in.

what would you call standing around and watching someone shoot up whether EPO or heroin? no ethical complicity? no obligation?

yawn this thread and forum have sunk way too low

 

[meehs]

My turn to post in this "perpetual forum blackhole". I posted somewhere back that "Mr. Average Joe USA" would not give a Flying Rats A** whether Armstrong doped or not.
The fact is that his engagement garnered far for press that the doping allegations.
I am either living in a vacumn or I was 100% correct. Very few people ever took notice of the allegations and know no details,or ever will.
Just wanted to point that out once again.

Carry on!

I agree jhuskey. You were indeed correct. I suppose part of the reason is that cycling isn't as big in the USA as it is in Europe. Outside of the "cycling community" in the USA, no one seems to know or care about the whole Armstrong/doping debate. I'm a fan of the sport and I know I'm gettting tired of it!

 

[Ullefan]

My turn to post in this "perpetual forum blackhole". I posted somewhere back that "Mr. Average Joe USA" would not give a Flying Rats A** whether Armstrong doped or not.
The fact is that his engagement garnered far for press that the doping allegations.
I am either living in a vacumn or I was 100% correct. Very few people ever took notice of the allegations and know no details,or ever will.
Just wanted to point that out once again.

Carry on!

It's not really Mr Average Joe USA we're really concerned about.

 

[jhuskey]

It's not really Mr Average Joe USA we're really concerned about.

I am sure you are not, but it is the world in which I exist. I doubt,although I don't know, that very many people outside th US care.

 

[Ullefan]

I am sure you are not, but it is the world in which I exist. I doubt,although I don't know, that very many people outside th US care.

Fans of cycling care. The UCI doesn't.

 

[WINGNUTT]

what would you call standing around and watching someone shoot up whether EPO or heroin? no ethical complicity? no obligation?

Now you are back peddling - he's still not an accomplice. Anyway, your posts are nonsense, so I'm not going to waste my time bickering.

 

[patch70]

He SAW Hamilton take drugs?
He "SAW"
Wow, never read that anywhere.

He was reported as saying a couple of years ago that Tyler and someone else at USPS approached him to get them some PEDs back in the mid 90's.

 

[bobke]

He was reported as saying a couple of years ago that Tyler and someone else at USPS approached him to get them some PEDs back in the mid 90's.

and now he has retracted his statements I think, no?

 

[patch70]

and now he has retracted his statements I think, no?

Different statements.
He has mainly retracted his recent statements about Armstrong (esp being a "bad guy" who "dopes" etc).
His retraction did not refer to the several year old statements about Hamilton.

 

[whiteboytrash]

He SAW Hamilton take drugs?
He "SAW"
Wow, never read that anywhere.
That would make him an accomplice wouldnt it, if he didnt turn Tyler in.
Whatever.
The retraction stands. Everything else is ****.

EPO is not an illegal drug; therefore it is not illegal to watch somerone using it. However it is against the law to traffic the drug beyond its regulation useage for the ill and it is also against the law for a doctor to administer or prescibe the drug without the knowledge of the patient.

 

[whiteboytrash]

My turn to post in this "perpetual forum blackhole". I posted somewhere back that "Mr. Average Joe USA" would not give a Flying Rats A** whether Armstrong doped or not.
The fact is that his engagement garnered far for press that the doping allegations.
I am either living in a vacumn or I was 100% correct. Very few people ever took notice of the allegations and know no details,or ever will.
Just wanted to point that out once again.

Carry on!

This is a good point. The same in Europe (outside of France) the main supporter base is frit (chips) eating, beer guzzling fat blokes in there 40's who purchase concrete and flooring products. They just don't care if the riders are doping or not.

 

[WINGNUTT]

EPO is not an illegal drug; therefore it is not illegal to watch somerone using it. However it is against the law to traffic the drug beyond its regulation useage for the ill and it is also against the law for a doctor to administer or prescibe the drug without the knowledge of the patient.

It's also illegal to use or possess a prescription drug without a prescription. By your definition marijuana, NOS, and heroin are also not illegal.

 

[VeloFlash]

The rules have no provision for sanctioning an athlete on observation evidence. They must fail a test, avoid a test, have drugs in their possession, have implements in their possession or admit to drug taking.

With the exception of the admission all other offences are circumstantial evidence. An observation if admissible would be direct evidence.

A doctor for a US 2000 Olympic swimmer (gold medallist) admitted after the Games to administering a drug to his charge on the misunderstanding it was not a forbidden substance (hgh precursor). As there was a denial and not an admission by the swimmer there was no sanction.