UCI Lawyer says Armstrong should be cleared of EPO accusation!!
- Thread starter bobke
- Start date
Seriously. Why do you bother? It's 5 people that wouldn't be convinced even if LA admitted publicly that he doped. 5 people that if LA said tomorrow that the Earth is flat and the sun orbits it they would believe it. It is clear that the report is biased and it is clear that it has an agenda. It even attempts to exonerate UCI for the blatant and stupid error of providing Ressiot with the Armstrong codes claiming that he might have had them since 99...It's a waste of time... Let them be...limerickman said:
\limerickman said:
OK guts, time to call Lim out.
Lance had cancer treatment in 1996/1997.
He didnt call UCI about his chemotherapy of his EPO or Cisplatinum.
He says in his world famous best selling book he was on EPO as part of cancer treatment.
He was NEVER on any medication after that.
His book says it.
His doctor testified to that during the 1999 TdF.
His medical control sheets show, as he has said, he is one of the FEW riders with NO MEDICAL EXEMPTIONS! NO MEDICATIONS AT ALL!!!!!
you guys are desparate and very insulting to the cancer survivor community, to Lance and to honesty. you are pathetic, grasping, hopeless wannabees.
over and out
you are no longer worth the effort or time
Regardless of what we all post here, WADA, LNDD, The French Ministry of Sport and L'Equipe have a lot of hard questions ahead of them. They are not just going to be able to wave their hands at this and make it go away. Even if they counter against the report, there is enough damning evidence that any oversight body is going to have to call for an independent internal investigation. Also based on what Armstrong has said he is not going to let this one lie dead either. I will be very interested to see how WADA counters back.
And as far as being a blind follower of Armstrong. I do not think he is a God, he was just an incredible cyclist whose reputation deserves much better than what has happened over the last year. I also do not think **** Pound is a God, but he seems to have been acting as if he was during this affair. The sad thing is **** Pound has betrayed everything that WADA stands for. He has even gone as far as pressure a WADA accredited lab to violate the very WADA code that it was accredited to follow.
And as far as being a blind follower of Armstrong. I do not think he is a God, he was just an incredible cyclist whose reputation deserves much better than what has happened over the last year. I also do not think **** Pound is a God, but he seems to have been acting as if he was during this affair. The sad thing is **** Pound has betrayed everything that WADA stands for. He has even gone as far as pressure a WADA accredited lab to violate the very WADA code that it was accredited to follow.
[size=-1]The French sports newspaper that accused Lance Armstrong of doping stood by its reporting Thursday, a day after an investigator cleared the seven-time Tour de France champion.[/size]
[size=-1]''There is nothing to retract from the revelations,'' L'Equipe said in an editorial that concluded: ''For our part, we remain convinced of the need to battle without compromise against the mafialike tendencies that still and always threaten the sport of cycling. Both in the method and the substance, L'Equipe stands firm.''[/size]
[size=-1]The newspaper repeated its allegations of last August that tests on six of Armstrong's urine samples from the 1999 Tour had detected an ''irrefutable presence'' of the banned endurance-boosting hormone EPO.[/size]
[size=-1]The samples ''showed that the American did indeed lie by saying throughout his career, notably at the time in question, that he never took banned products,'' the newspaper said.[/size]
[size=-1]''There is nothing to retract from the revelations,'' L'Equipe said in an editorial that concluded: ''For our part, we remain convinced of the need to battle without compromise against the mafialike tendencies that still and always threaten the sport of cycling. Both in the method and the substance, L'Equipe stands firm.''[/size]
[size=-1]The newspaper repeated its allegations of last August that tests on six of Armstrong's urine samples from the 1999 Tour had detected an ''irrefutable presence'' of the banned endurance-boosting hormone EPO.[/size]
[size=-1]The samples ''showed that the American did indeed lie by saying throughout his career, notably at the time in question, that he never took banned products,'' the newspaper said.[/size]
Does it mean you don't have any other arguments that Lance doped?limerickman said:
Anyway, last year you stated that our fantastic French newspaper is always ahead of doping charges and... if it states that Lance doped then it is truth. Where is this argument now???
Admit it- L'Equipe is **** magazine that creates chep yellow propaganda.
When Armstrong won l'Aple d'Huez in 2001 here is what the editorial wrote: "Since Hannibal's elephants first opened a path across the area, there has been nothing as crushing as this man Armstrong in these mountains"guncha said:
- What a lot of you non-Europeans who have never seen a copy of l'Equipe don't realise is that the newspaper has championed Armstrong's victories just as much as it has chastised dope uses - French ones included. I have several copies at home with many triumphant messages about Armstrong and his victories. The French don't like doping full stop whether it’s an American, a Frenchman or anyone. I don't think you could say the same about the US media... now can you ?
One must remember that l’Equipe broke the story on the David Miller / COFIDIS / Philip Gaumont saga. Which was real and resulted in dope cheats being sanctioned from the sport.
The paper printed what it thought was a responsible newsworthy story. Do you honestly believe that they shouldn’t have reported it ? Did they speak with all parties before printing ? Yes. Did they print evidence to back up their claims ? Yes. Have they retracted the story now in light of the UCI independent report ? No. They stand by it. The facts are on the table, choose for yourselves.
Now I know you haven't read it because its a daily newspaper (not a magazine)and is no longer printed on yellow paper ! or were you refer to 'yellow' in the American sence of the word !guncha said:
Oh dear....
guncha said:
L'Equipe is a superb media group and a very respected organisation in terms of their syndication of editorial, journalist comment, across every media genre
including it's sport's coverage.
Perhaps you yearn for the days of TASS or Pravda?
In relation to whether Armstrong doped or not - this report doesn't exonerate him - nor does it explain his improvement when comparing results from 1993-1996 and 1999-2005.
Comment on one of the leading cycling websites in Germany:
Armstrong wins, the truth defeated
http://www.radsport-aktiv.de/sport/sportnews_38662.htm
Armstrong wins, the truth defeated
http://www.radsport-aktiv.de/sport/sportnews_38662.htm
The information that potentially could create damage to someone can be published only in those cases when the facts are 100% true. Otherwise it is not responsible action. Was L'Equipe 100% sure that Lance doped? No, they weren't! That's why they are jellow press because they didn't follow this rule.whiteboytrash said:
Yes L'equipe was 100% sure and they still are, as a lot of commentators in today's papers still are.guncha said:
Look! The idea of this report was to verify the information that was circulated around before. The idea wasn't to explain the evolution of the results of LA.limerickman said:
If you are asking me personal opinion about the causes of the improvment of LA my answer is I can't speculate about it. At the same I don't have any illusions that top athletes are clean.
I can also look very suspicious to Jan as one tour glory athlete (of course I value very highly his other victories, but TDF 1997 is his highlight). Maybe he wasn't able to reach his previous level because of dope in 1997? I can't speculate about it as well.
And of course I agree with you about book of LA- it is propaganda and it is not appropriate for TDF winner to publish stuff like that.
The truth of this is clear......Some of you have an problem with Armstrong because he took the biggest race of all time in the sport and did it better then any of your hero's.
This forum has turned into a joke.
The report is what it is. The report is not faulty, the character of those that run the sport is.
This report can be spun so many different ways, but the truth is you look like fools doing so. You simply look like fools.
No wonder Armstrong retired.
This forum has turned into a joke.
The report is what it is. The report is not faulty, the character of those that run the sport is.
This report can be spun so many different ways, but the truth is you look like fools doing so. You simply look like fools.
No wonder Armstrong retired.
guncha said:
But you didn't ask me about my view with regard to the report.
You asked me something else. You asked me -
"Does it mean you don't have any other arguments that Lance doped?"
I read what Armstrong wrote his book explaining his improvement.
I didn't buy that explanation then and I don't, now.
Having watched cycling for over 25 years, I am no closer to knowing how LA managed to improve his performances so significantly.
As a cycling fan, I would love to know how he achieved what he achieved.
But his explanation and the level of his improvement, don't tally
Granted the report wasn't speced to explain LA's improvement ; it was speced to address other issues.
The same damage you can cause by saying l'Equipe is "yellow / jellow" press ? Do you have evidence ? Have you used footnoting ? Can you site a litany of cases where l’Equipe has flouted the libel laws of France and printed lies of various sportspeople ? Not that I can see. They had a story, they had evidence, the asked all invested parties for comments. How would that be considered irresponsible reporting ?
Why do people of this forum champion the efforts that is going on in Spain but believe Armstrong is victim of a witch-hunt ? What’s the difference in the two stories ? There not a lot. Each case the rider(s) have allegedly used illegal practices to gain a sporting advantage. How do we know the names we read in the Spanish papers are correct ? how do we know Seville was really filmed at the practice ? We have to trust our media because with them what is happening in Spain would not be happening and David Miller and Philip Gaumont would still be riding. Along with Heras getting off on a handling technicality and Hamilton returning to the ProTour. The press love them or hate them have a responsibility to report what is important and from everything I have read in the Armstrong case they have done so. Can’t be helped if we don’t like the outcome from it ! Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it’s not true and doesn't constitute that the paper is gutter trash.
The price of celebrity is that Armstrong is adorned by many including l’Equipe. In 2001 I was at the Tour and saw many Americans holding onto there copies pretending to read French because it looked good and different. They loved the paper but with celebrity and notoriety you have to take the god press with the bad press.
Why do people of this forum champion the efforts that is going on in Spain but believe Armstrong is victim of a witch-hunt ? What’s the difference in the two stories ? There not a lot. Each case the rider(s) have allegedly used illegal practices to gain a sporting advantage. How do we know the names we read in the Spanish papers are correct ? how do we know Seville was really filmed at the practice ? We have to trust our media because with them what is happening in Spain would not be happening and David Miller and Philip Gaumont would still be riding. Along with Heras getting off on a handling technicality and Hamilton returning to the ProTour. The press love them or hate them have a responsibility to report what is important and from everything I have read in the Armstrong case they have done so. Can’t be helped if we don’t like the outcome from it ! Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it’s not true and doesn't constitute that the paper is gutter trash.
The price of celebrity is that Armstrong is adorned by many including l’Equipe. In 2001 I was at the Tour and saw many Americans holding onto there copies pretending to read French because it looked good and different. They loved the paper but with celebrity and notoriety you have to take the god press with the bad press.
guncha said:
I think one of the main problems is that it's the wrong discussion. In 99.9% the problem is not the athletes, it's the people that are in charge at body's like the UCI, WADA etc. I am pretty sure that L'equipe got the information to use the LA samples as a weapon in the powerstruggle inside the UCI (the Schenk/Verbrugghe conflict), the Schenk camp wanted to hurt Verbrugghe (who was/is very close with LA) and (but that's pure speculation!) the Verbrugghe camp hit back with asking the Spanish government to do something against doping in Spain (you might not remember but Schenk was supporting the Spanish candidate in the UCI presidential elections, Verbrugghe supported Mquaid- Verbrugghe even postponed a meeting which supposed to be held in Madrid during the world's and went back to Switzerland to hold the meeting.). There is a lot going on, a lot of things where we have little information of. I don't know exactly which role WADA is playing in the whole story, but i think they do play a role.wolfix said:
So what we have here is a report which (in my view!) isn't independent, but WADA isn't independent in the whole story as well. I think the whole thing is very very sad for the sport.
You can find a lot of information about the powerstruggle inside the UCI if you Google a bit (for instance cyclingnews September 15, but there are a lot of good stories about it in German, Schenk is German).
La retired, the Saiz/Fuentes case is on the table now and the wrong people are still in charge at the various organisations. Last is what worries me the most, as long as they are in charge we will have more Saiz/Fuentes stories...
Seriously. How do you know that? I mean you 've never heard of this guy in you life (probably), he writes a report that is repetitive, badly constructed and in bad English (for a lawyer) ,where a lot of the statements are his interpretations/conjectures and not facts, where he goes in great lengths to try and absolve UCI of any wrongdoing when is well documented that they opened the door to Ressiot and you rash to believe it...wolfix said:
I'm not saying that you shouldn't do but don't criticise others who don't or who choose to believe L'Equipe because you are doing exactly the same thing as them only you chose the other side of the fence... You said that you were on the fence on that one btw. With all due respect (and I mean that) you were not. You probably had one foot on the fence and the other in the LA side and you were waiting for something that would allow you to put both feet back on the ground and become a 100% believer in the miracle again. And I don't have a problem with that. But you are no better than anybody else who is on the opposite side.
Similar threads
