General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Re: Armstrong cleared of doping charge

Started by Silver0l · · Last activity · 3 posts · 268 views

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
31 May 2006
Last activity
1 June 2006
Original author
Silver0l
Posts
3
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
268
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–3 of 3
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
    [email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Lance Armstrong has been cleared of using EPO. And the doping agency
    that brought the claim may be criminally investigated. Vindication
    must be sweet.

    Read the article.

    This report is complete [censored].

    They were absolutely not interested in knowing if Armstrong doped or not,
    they just wanted to know who broke the law of silence (apparently the WADA)!

    They don't say that Armstrong didn't dope, they just say that it should not
    have been known!!!

    Simply unbelievable. And they talk about being tough on doping!

    But very understandable, when one knows that Vrijman was asked by his friend
    Verbruggen / UCI to do this "investigation"! Verbruggen has been very well
    known to protect doping, having made pro cycling one of the dirtiest sports
    with regard to doping.

    Only a real police investigation could reveal the truth, and certainly not
    UCI or one of its mandated "experts"!

    Would you have asked Al Capone to investigate and report about the mafia?

    -- Olivier

  2. Evidence is valid only if evidence has been authenticated.

    In this case, in order to substantiate such an irresponsible claim, one
    would need to have proof ... positive proof... that there was no
    possiblity that the specimens could have been adulterated or
    mislabeled. There were certainly a great many people with a motive to
    adulterate or mislable the specimens in question. Without a strict
    protocol for collecting, archiving, storing, thawing, testing,
    reporting...over an 8 year period...the allegations were outrageously
    irresponsible.

    Look again at Pound's initial reactions...in the first 24 hours that
    the story broke. He was positively giddy; positively gloating.

    This proves that there were people up to the highest levels in sports
    who had a strong bias against Armstrong and that there were people down
    to the level of laboratory employees who were entirely capable of
    sabotage.

    Recall again the Los Angeles police "Ramparts" scandal. Evidence was
    planted in literally hundreds of cases in which the LA police were
    convinced of the guilt of the suspects, but had insufficient proof to
    convict. So they fabricated evidence. With no motive beyond wanting
    someone they believed to be guilty to be convicted and punished.
    People do these things without needing to be bribed and without any
    criminal intent, beyond their personal motivation to see a guilty
    person convicted and punished. Tampering with evidence. Without a
    strict protocol and without proof that the protocol was observed from
    beginning to end over the entire 8 years, the "evidence" is worthless.

    And it is outrageous that these charges were ever deemed to be
    credible, much less conclusive.

    - Larry Weisenthal

  3. On Wed, 31 May 2006 15:52:21 -0700, [email hidden] (Larry Weisenthal)

    Quoted message said:

    Evidence is valid only if evidence has been authenticated.

    The ends never justifies the means. In the case of an ethical dispute this
    becomes only more important. The high road might be lonely but it's the
    only way to travel.

    --Mike

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.