LA confidential

[yeloooooo]

Sorry if this has been posted before. If anyone is interested here is a full english translation of David Walsh's "LA confidential". In pdf.

They are in the BigTex sections.

http://eposino.com/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=BT

 

[thoughtforfood]

Here is an interesting bit of factual information for all of you who continue to spout the lies LA spews to this day:
"
[size=-1]First the athlete defends himself by claiming that he's been tested a huge number of times, then his lawyer claims the tests are unreliable. Not the way to build trust or credibility. Those using this particular strategy must believe it works. Lance Armstrong has made similar statements, saying in interviews that: "I am the most tested athlete in the history of sports." Unfortunately for Lance if one attempts to check this statement, you discover statistics that don't back it up.[/size]

[size=-1]Armstrong is not even the most tested cyclist in the US, and his claim is further damaged by the statistics for other sport athletes. According to the publicly available statistics on USADA's website, Armstrong has been tested 12 times since USADA was founded in 2000. His teammate, George Hincapie has been tested 13 times. Tyler Farrar has been tested 14 times, and Marty Nothstein 17. These numbers don't approach track and field where marathoner Deena Kastor has been tested 29 times, Justin Gatlin 26, and Marion Jones 22. And that is just using a random search not attempting to see who does hold the "record" for most number of USADA tests.[/size]

[size=-1]Using these stats as a guide, Armstrong would have had to have been tested more than 88 times by WADA, UCI, at the Tour or other races just to get ahead of Vino'. Those of you doing the math in your heads might conclude that it is possible for Armstrong to have been tested quite a lot during the Tour (he'd have to average nearly 13 tests a Tour over his seven year reign to build his numbers to the level of Vino's claims), but that is not the point. The point is that these guys probably have no idea how many times they have been tested, rather they are attempting to deflect accusations by using a statement that may sound plausible to many but are inaccurate but seemingly unable to be challenged because most of these statistics aren't public. We know from court documents, for example, that Floyd Landis was tested 44 times in a five-year span from 2002-2006. USADA statistics indicate that nine of those tests were USADA testing.[/size] " From http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13035.0.html

 

[DiabloScott]

Sorry if this has been posted before. If anyone is interested here is a full english translation of David Walsh's "LA confidential". In pdf.

They are in the BigTex sections.

http://eposino.com/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=BT

Where exactly did that come from? Looks like the real deal but printed on notebook paper? Did DW write in French or did he write in English and have it translated?

 

[Klodifan]

good info TFF. unfortunatly, it wont register in the brains of the la apostles

 

[mercurycu99]

<<According to the publicly available statistics on USADA's website, Armstrong has been tested 12 times since USADA was founded in 2000. >>

Uhm....I don't think this idiot with selective memory is remembering that TDF stage winners and Yellow Jersyes are tested every day. One has to look at that statistic too for a total number of tests.

mercurycu

 

[Wayne666]

<<According to the publicly available statistics on USADA's website, Armstrong has been tested 12 times since USADA was founded in 2000. >>

Uhm....I don't think this idiot with selective memory is remembering that TDF stage winners and Yellow Jersyes are tested every day. One has to look at that statistic too for a total number of tests.

mercurycu

Doesn't he address that later in the paragraph? It's largely a moot point anyway because the point is that since much of the information isn't public, Armstrong has no way of knowing if he is the most tested athlete in history or whatever but it doesn't stop him from making the claim. IOW, it's pure PR BS. Armstrong might know how many times he's been tested but he has no way of knowing how many times others have been tested.

 

[earth_dweller]

If LA said it and Bruyneel used his infallible lie-detector method of looking at him in the eyes, well then it must be true.

Of course, it was always spin with no way of proving and disproving, and IMHO a stroke of genius on the part of the LA machine. Unfortunately, supporters and fan(atics) chose to believe it as gospel.

 

[??? 3/4 ? 1/4]

So someone has created a forum just for that kind of thing???? I also don't see anything of value as the real pages have made it into english on websites many times. Nothing to see, move along.

 

[Eilert Pilarm]

just makes for a good soundbyte. and if LA had publicity experts advising him, then the ''most tested athlete'' byte was given 'thumbs way up.'

 

[tmctguer]

just makes for a good soundbyte. and if LA had publicity experts advising him, then the ''most tested athlete'' byte was given 'thumbs way up.'

the thing that always amuses me about riders who use the "i've never failed a drug test analogy" is that they are usually questioning the accuracy of lab results only when a positive test comes up. if these riders question the accuracy of tests when they turn up positive, it begs the question of whether any of the negative tests should be believed.

that is, you can't have it both ways -- either you support the test results whether they are positive or negative, or you doubt the reliability of test result whether they are positive or negative.

 

[musette]

If a negative test can't be believed, that's the obligation on the part of the testers to improve the test. If a positive test can't be believed, that has the potential to severely and inappropriately damager a cyclist's career and go against the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

It's like the classic argument against and for the death penalty. I'd rather have a million guilty defendants go free than a single wrongfully convicted defendant be subject to the dealth penalty.

 

[tmctguer]

If a negative test can't be believed, that's the obligation on the part of the testers to improve the test. If a positive test can't be believed, that has the potential to severely and inappropriately damager a cyclist's career and go against the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

It's like the classic argument against and for the death penalty. I'd rather have a million guilty defendants go free than a single wrongfully convicted defendant be subject to the dealth penalty.

Well I differ on your philosophical point about the death penalty, but i'll try to keep my reply to the cycling testing & due process comments.

First, as far as the legal process goes in these type of events, the hearings are based on the cyclist's appeal of a positive test. I disagree with your assertion that the basis of the hearing should be the lab proving the test was positive -- their test results are accepted as reasonable proof that a violation occured. That said, the labs should be prepared to explain that their tests adhered to industry and sporting body standards.

Second, I totally support the fact that it should be the cyclist who has the burden of proving his innocence. His denial of the positive test is the reason the hearing is going on to begin with. If the cyclist is really innocent, they should have a reasonable explanation to contradict the lab's scientific test results.

Third, while we are on the subject, i further agree that the case should be decided on the preponderance of the evidence (the civil court standard) rather than beyond a reasonable doubt (the criminal court standard).

i almost always lean towards the lab's findings rather than the cyclist's denial. the labs have no ulterior motive except to get accurate test results. the cyclist, on the other hand, has every reason to deny the lab's findings because of his earnings are at stake. And because of the possibility of affecting a cyclist's career's, testing methods should be constantly reviewed and improved, and labs should be held to a very high standard.

But to borrow from my earlier post, a cyclist loses credibility with me when they proclaim that years of negative tests prove they are clean, yet they speak about potential lab errors on behalf of cyclists who have tested positive. Again, you can't have it both ways.

to borrow from your justice system analogy, jails are filled with "innocent people" who sound just like all the cyclists whose positive drug tests are always a lab error, a lab conspiracy, a French conspiracy, a L'Equippe conspiracy, etc., ad nauseum.

 

[NJK]

Well I differ on your philosophical point about the death penalty, but i'll try to keep my reply to the cycling testing & due process comments.

First, as far as the legal process goes in these type of events, the hearings are based on the cyclist's appeal of a positive test. I disagree with your assertion that the basis of the hearing should be the lab proving the test was positive -- their test results are accepted as reasonable proof that a violation occured. That said, the labs should be prepared to explain that their tests adhered to industry and sporting body standards.

Second, I totally support the fact that it should be the cyclist who has the burden of proving his innocence. His denial of the positive test is the reason the hearing is going on to begin with. If the cyclist is really innocent, they should have a reasonable explanation to contradict the lab's scientific test results.

Third, while we are on the subject, i further agree that the case should be decided on the preponderance of the evidence (the civil court standard) rather than beyond a reasonable doubt (the criminal court standard).

i almost always lean towards the lab's findings rather than the cyclist's denial. the labs have no ulterior motive except to get accurate test results. the cyclist, on the other hand, has every reason to deny the lab's findings because of his earnings are at stake. And because of the possibility of affecting a cyclist's career's, testing methods should be constantly reviewed and improved, and labs should be held to a very high standard.

But to borrow from my earlier post, a cyclist loses credibility with me when they proclaim that years of negative tests prove they are clean, yet they speak about potential lab errors on behalf of cyclists who have tested positive. Again, you can't have it both ways.

to borrow from your justice system analogy, jails are filled with "innocent people" who sound just like all the cyclists whose positive drug tests are always a lab error, a lab conspiracy, a French conspiracy, a L'Equippe conspiracy, etc., ad nauseum.

Correct, take Vino as the example all he is worried about is his status in his homeland they believe no matter what. Dopers never blame dopers. LA never had a go at Ullrich and others for OP. Big name cyclists are basically just full of BS. Landis has probably blood doped so has got lucky that he only tested pos for testosterone.

 

[yeloooooo]

For those of you who havent read this book before. I recommend it. im most the way through the first of these pdf files and it provides a very interesting insight into the doping culture of cycling in general.

 

[plectrum]

Who cares if he never tested positive - Bjarne Riis never tested positive but has admitted he doped throughout 90's. The holes in the doping net are huge, Lance Armstrong or Michael Rasmussen or Contador claiming that people shouldn't suspect them because they haven't failed a dope test is pure BS. Until these cyclists submit themselves to a far more stringent testing schedule none of this should be believed.


Is it the fault of the cyclist, well to be fair it is, a large part of the responsibility to prove innocence is with the cyclist and team.

Also on the subject of innocent before guilty, it strikes me that this doesn't exist in cycling as via continuous dope testing, WADA is signifying that it is not trying to prove guilt but actually it is trying to prove innocence. There is no ultimate gain in proving guilt as then you have no sportsman and no spectacle but by proving innocence you ratify the sport and allow the spectacle to continue.

This logic firmly backs up evidence of certain doping and sports bodies destroying tests or going the extra mile to prove an innocence of an athlete as has been alledged towards Carl Lewis or LA with the saddle sore BS.

 

[plectrum]

Correct, take Vino as the example all he is worried about is his status in his homeland they believe no matter what. Dopers never blame dopers. LA never had a go at Ullrich and others for OP. Big name cyclists are basically just full of BS. Landis has probably blood doped so has got lucky that he only tested pos for testosterone.

LA respected these cyclists, this is exactly why Basso was hired - Armstrong felt most likely that he was a great natural cyclist but also one who would go the extra mile and do / take anythign to succeed. Discovery banked on OP disappearing which is seriously wrong for the sport and in some way Discovery should be punished for hiring Basso.

 

[wolfix]

In the meantime.....Lance is enjoying life, people are riding their bikes, and life moves on..........

This forum needs to re-named "The Lance Chronicles."

Every thread gets into Lance bashing........... And in most of the cases, it is the Lance bashers who are injecting it into a thread. The threads are so repetitive the forum could recycle the threads from 2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007................. And they read the same.
People need to get over their obsessiveness with Lance Armstrong. Armstrong deserves his TDF wins as much as any of the riders that have won. No one here actually knows who has doped and who hasn't doped unless they have admitted it.

 

[yeloooooo]

I would suggest you read through the document in the link provided, if that is your view, wolfix. In my opinion you would find it very interesting and informative.

You can't really be suprised that a thread on a piece of investagative journalism exposing LA's doping history, turns into a debate on this subject.

 

[Doctor.Tom.M]

I would suggest you read through the document in the link provided, if that is your view, wolfix. In my opinion you would find it very interesting and informative.

You can't really be suprised that a thread on a piece of investagative journalism exposing LA's doping history, turns into a debate on this subject.

While Wolfix has obviously been paid off by Nike and Armstrong you, my jeune freind, seem to have missed his gist.

 

[wolfix]

I would suggest you read through the document in the link provided, if that is your view, wolfix. In my opinion you would find it very interesting and informative.

You can't really be suprised that a thread on a piece of investagative journalism exposing LA's doping history, turns into a debate on this subject.

You are correct on this thread. This was a thread dedicated to something concerning LA. I jumped the gun , it is so often a thread gets swayed with the LA subject it's hard to tell which ones are LA threads and which ones are not.