Lance Retires! Is it time to absolve him of his sins?

[limerickman]

Originally Posted by Yojimbo_ .




Zoom. Know what that was? It was the entire point of the original remark going over your head.

It's not about what people believe, it's about what people can prove. And with hundreds and hundreds of negative tests nothing is going to stick whether it happened or not.

Naw mate.
Using your "logic" a lot of perceived wisdoms would be overturned for lack of proof as you put it.

I would disagree with your conclusion about mud not sticking. Mud has stuck in this case.

If he has been unjustly defamed and falsely accused there are plenty of ambulance chasing lawyers, especially on your side of the world, who would only be too happy to
take up his case pro bono in the expectation of a massive pay day for the outrageous slight heaped upon the character and reputation of the cyclist.

He'd earn even more millions in damages from libel/slander court cases which he could, ahem, donate to the victims of cancer whom he purports to support.

Anyhow I'm interested in your answer to this simple question - did Armstrong ride clean?
Yes or no answer will suffice.

 

[dhk2]

Originally Posted by Yojimbo_ .





I know that you like to get it on with chickens. Doesn't make it true though does it.

yojimbo, you missed my attempt at sarcasm. I'm totally in agreement with you that passing all the tests is objective evidence that LA didn't cheat. He met the standards, end of story.

Of course, all the passed tests in the world can't prove a negative. But if passing each and every scheduled and random drug test over many years isn't enough to prove innocence, then one has to ask what the further requirements should possibly be. If the tests aren't good enough by themselves, what else do we consider, where do we go from here?

 

[slovakguy]

Originally Posted by swampy1970 .

Ah nyvelocity.com

The website devoted to Lance rumours and cyclists "unfairly" being ticketed for actually running red lights in Central Park... A fine news source.

nyvelocity do not promote themselves as a "news source" like velonews or cyclingnews. to be honest, even you must admit to that fact. in reality they promote themselves as a snarky & satirical look at cycling. they really have no problem announcing their bias.

 

[JoelTGM]

Originally Posted by tonyzackery .





I've said it before, and it appears this comment is indeed a situation where I can say it again: "Now, I can fully understand how O.J. got off during his criminal trial"...cast a bit of reasonable doubt on the allegations, present this doubt to the right jury, and you can literally and figuratively get away with murder...
Those "articles and news stories" contain information from individuals who attest they heard LA say he personally used PEDs.
Obviously, you have decided to close your mind to the possibly LA is dirty, so be it...
It is true enough that dogma can become reality for some, and the sword cuts both ways - lest you forget...

Nope, I'm not close minded. Lance could have cheated, just like any winner of any competition, or even the losers, could have cheated. I don't know what he did because I'm not him. And I'm not sure what that part about O.J. was, was that speaking to people like me or you?

 

[Yojimbo_]

Originally Posted by dhk2 .





yojimbo, you missed my attempt at sarcasm. I'm totally in agreement with you that passing all the tests is objective evidence that LA didn't cheat. He met the standards, end of story.

Of course, all the passed tests in the world can't prove a negative. But if passing each and every scheduled and random drug test over many years isn't enough to prove innocence, then one has to ask what the further requirements should possibly be. If the tests aren't good enough by themselves, what else do we consider, where do we go from here?

Zoom to me then too. If I missed your point I apologize about the chickens.

But that does illustrate the point I want to make.

 

[Yojimbo_]

Originally Posted by limerickman .





Naw mate.
Using your "logic" a lot of perceived wisdoms would be overturned for lack of proof as you put it.

I would disagree with your conclusion about mud not sticking. Mud has stuck in this case.

If he has been unjustly defamed and falsely accused there are plenty of ambulance chasing lawyers, especially on your side of the world, who would only be too happy to
take up his case pro bono in the expectation of a massive pay day for the outrageous slight heaped upon the character and reputation of the cyclist.

He'd earn even more millions in damages from libel/slander court cases which he could, ahem, donate to the victims of cancer whom he purports to support.

Anyhow I'm interested in your answer to this simple question - did Armstrong ride clean?
Yes or no answer will suffice.

My personal belief is irrelevant. Until there is solid evidence to prove he doped, then the answer to your question is an obvious and resounding NO. I'm surprised you even have to ask.

Let me restate - personal beliefs don't count for anything without supporting and corrobating evidence. And with hundred and hundreds of tests with no positives nothing is going to stick if all they have is rumour and innuendo from people who "saw this" or spoke to someone who "knows somene who knows someone who saw this".

What do you mean about"perceived wisdoms"? I prefer to deal in facts, and facts have supporting objective evidence or they aren't facts. If there are no facts, then it's a belief, a religion, or a branch of philosophy. But it sure isn't science.

 

[tonyzackery]

Originally Posted by JoelTGM .





Nope, I'm not close minded. Lance could have cheated, just like any winner of any competition, or even the losers, could have cheated. I don't know what he did because I'm not him. And I'm not sure what that part about O.J. was, was that speaking to people like me or you?

Intentional naivete, aka playing dumb...not cute.

 

[tonyzackery]

Originally Posted by dhk2 .



The alternative story, that he was raised by a poor but supportive mother who inspired him to strive for success, that he discovered as a kid that he had one-in-a-million ability for aerobic sports and then applied amazing determination over years to reach the top.....that kind of story just doesn't happen in real life, does it?

If it sounds too good to be true...

 

[limerickman]

Originally Posted by Yojimbo_ .




My personal belief is irrelevant. Until there is solid evidence to prove he doped, then the answer to your question is an obvious and resounding NO. I'm surprised you even have to ask.

Let me restate - personal beliefs don't count for anything without supporting and corrobating evidence. And with hundred and hundreds of tests with no positives nothing is going to stick if all they have is rumour and innuendo from people who "saw this" or spoke to someone who "knows somene who knows someone who saw this".

What do you mean about"perceived wisdoms"? I prefer to deal in facts, and facts have supporting objective evidence or they aren't facts. If there are no facts, then it's a belief, a religion, or a branch of philosophy. But it sure isn't science.

Your personal belief is relevant.
Do you think that Armstrong is clean? Simple yes or no answer would suffice.

I don't want to repeat what I posted earlier but if he is clean then he could make literally millions through suing a multitude of sources for slander/libel/defamation.
If someone uttered a lie about you, wouldn't you do all in your power to prove that lie wrong??
His past record shows that he resorts to litigation to try to settle issues.

You said earlier that mud hasn't stuck in this riders case.
I'm afraid mud has stuck with this rider and it appears to be gathering as we speak.

Perceived wisdoms.
Many perceived wisdoms are not based on conclusive proof or evidence.
It doesn't make those wisdoms wrong or incorrect.

Proof and evidence carries differing degrees of weight.
Hearsay evidence is less persuasive than forensic evidence in law.
But forensic evidence doesn't invalidate hearsay evidence in law.

If the rider is clean then he's been done a terrible injustice by many of his former team mates, his former support staff, many journalists and many cycling officials and doping officials.

 

[steve]

Originally Posted by slovakguy .

nyvelocity do not promote themselves as a "news source" like velonews or cyclingnews. to be honest, even you must admit to that fact. in reality they promote themselves as a snarky & satirical look at cycling. they really have no problem announcing their bias.

They like to portray themselves as the wiki leaks of cycling, good luck to them!

 

[limerickman]

Originally Posted by steve .





They like to portray themselves as the wiki leaks of cycling, good luck to them!

Do they have a Julian Assange though/img/vbsmilies/smilies/wink.gif

 

[slovakguy]

Originally Posted by swampy1970 .

Ah nyvelocity.com

The website devoted to Lance rumours and cyclists "unfairly" being ticketed for actually running red lights in Central Park... A fine news source.

only for you, since you need to diminish nyvelocity's worth by casting asperisions about their "newsworthiness."

http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/2011/landis-emails

even though he's broke, discredited and reviled by the lance chamois sniffers, at least he's having a blast with hein, pat, and all the good folks at reymond & associes! a laugh riot.

 

[stowy]

I'd just like to add my 2 cents to this.

I'm not a lance hater, in fact i used to be a big fan of his, but I have adjusted my point of view a little recently.

I agree that he is a great figure in the sport of cycling, clearly the most accomplished tour de france rider ever, and an awesome ambasssador for the sport, as well as inspiration to cancer-sufferers worldwide as well as everyday people who hope to achieve something in their life. I really enjoyed his book 'It's not about the bike'. Even if he did dope he's clearly a very driven individual.

I think a lot of the comments on here are right in that it is unfair to accuse him of doping when we have no actual 'proof'. However, I don't think that hundreds of negative tests are proof enough that he didn't. It just means he knows how to play the system and stay ahead of the game.

Also, no-one has mentioned politics on here. Lance was the first american to win the Tour de France (correct me if i'm wrong), and was suddenly worth a great deal to american cycling as well as cycling in the english speaking world. And given his battle with cancer, he suddenly became a great spokesman and role model for a large number of people, not to mention the sponsorship opportunities.

Given all this, don't you think that the cycling bodies would have thought twice about making any dubious results public? It wouldn't just cost lance, it would affect cycling as a whole.

I think that as members of the public we'll never know the truth unless lance did dope and decides to admit it one day.

Stowy

 

[ambal]

Lance hasn't failed any tests, there is nothing to absolve him of! As if someone who has suffered cancer would risk there life by using drugs.

 

[jamie72]

Originally Posted by stowy .

Lance was the first american to win the Tour de France (correct me if i'm wrong),

Greg Lemond 1986, 89, 90. Not heard of him??? /img/vbsmilies/smilies/wink.gif

 

[Mattcreed]

Originally Posted by stowy .

I'd just like to add my 2 cents to this.

I'm not a lance hater, in fact i used to be a big fan of his, but I have adjusted my point of view a little recently.

I agree that he is a great figure in the sport of cycling, clearly the most accomplished tour de france rider ever, and an awesome ambasssador for the sport, as well as inspiration to cancer-sufferers worldwide as well as everyday people who hope to achieve something in their life. I really enjoyed his book 'It's not about the bike'. Even if he did dope he's clearly a very driven individual.

I think a lot of the comments on here are right in that it is unfair to accuse him of doping when we have no actual 'proof'. However, I don't think that hundreds of negative tests are proof enough that he didn't. It just means he knows how to play the system and stay ahead of the game.

Also, no-one has mentioned politics on here. Lance was the first american to win the Tour de France (correct me if i'm wrong), and was suddenly worth a great deal to american cycling as well as cycling in the english speaking world. And given his battle with cancer, he suddenly became a great spokesman and role model for a large number of people, not to mention the sponsorship opportunities.

Given all this, don't you think that the cycling bodies would have thought twice about making any dubious results public? It wouldn't just cost lance, it would affect cycling as a whole.

I think that as members of the public we'll never know the truth unless lance did dope and decides to admit it one day.

Stowy

I couldn't agree more with the comment above, at least somebody has the sense to see the big picture and be realistic not just defend or attack generally using little logic

 

[jhuskey]

I remember a guy named Greg Lemond that won the TDF a couple or three times and he was and is American. I remember because I am............ well old enough to remember.
He won a very close one against Fignon in one of the most exciting finishes ever.

 

[vspa]

Originally Posted by stowy .


I agree that he is a great figure in the sport of cycling, clearly the most accomplished tour de france rider ever,
---- not clearly, there are at least 2 other names in that realm ----

and an awesome ambasssador for the sport,
---- he is a bit controversial ----

as well as inspiration to cancer-sufferers worldwide as well as everyday people who hope to achieve something in their life. I really enjoyed his book 'It's not about the bike'. Even if he did dope he's clearly a very driven individual.
---- yes ----



Stowy

 

[tonyzackery]

The politics angle has been mentioned numerous times previously on this forum.
It'd been acknowledged long ago that LA was the Godfather of cycling, wielding almost insufferable power over the peloton and those involved in cycling, be it in America or abroad.
He's done some good things (on the surface), but in my impression, every venture he's been involved in has been calculated, self-serving, and with an ulterior motive.
Kinda like a gangster giving away free turkeys to the needy during the holidays all the while profiting on the sale of drugs in that same neighborhood. There are better analogies - sure, but this one kinda hits the mark.
IMO, there are many individuals in and around cycling that 'made a pact with the devil' and sold their soul for the 'midas touch' LA provided. He allowed some people to make some good money during his run, but at what cost? Those individuals are finding out now - being called in for a deposition under oath and dealing with some serious Federal Agency generated stress. I'd like to ask them, "Was it worth it?"

 

[stowy]

Sorry, should have googled that one first! /img/vbsmilies/smilies/redface.gif

But I'm damn sure no one else has won 7 in a row. Surely that puts him at the top?

Originally Posted by jamie72 .



Greg Lemond 1986, 89, 90. Not heard of him??? /img/vbsmilies/smilies/wink.gif