What will the Lance-haters want to happen if it's true?



Pete wrote:
> You could all start by being honest with yourselves. If the soiled champion
> were from another country, say Jan Ullrich or Jalabert, and Lance had come
> in second the past seven years, the same guys who support Lance no matter
> what now would be screaming for the guy to be disqualified retroactively so
> Lance could be declared the winner. Based on all similar circumstancial and
> hard evidence, you would all be screaming bloody murder.
>
> Poulidor said why not just go back to 1903 while they are at it. Well, 6
> years ago is not the same as a century ago. Cheats have lost Olympic gold
> medals retroactively. What's so special about cycling?


The circumstantial evidence you refer to is more aptly described as
innuendo, "He won therefore he doped", while the so-called hard
evidence consists of one test that has yet to be proven reliable.

The issue for many of us has nothing to do with what country the rider
is from or what country the tests were conducted in. It doesn't even
have anything to do with the identity of the individual rider. It's
about fundamental fairness and what on the surface appears to be
nothing more than a witchhunt being conducted to grab headlines.

The fairness issue is this: There simply is no way for the accused to
have an independent test done because there is no split sample
available TO test. Evidence such as this would be next to impossible to
introduce in U.S. courts.
Is it a witchhunt? Given that the test in question was being conducted
to validate the test itself, I can't understand why they decided to
test urine samples that had been in cold storage for six years. Hasn't
anyone urinated since 1999 or does the test *only* work with samples
that old and if so, what good is the test? I guess we could always
postpone any podium ceremonies for six years.

It's true that athletes have lost Olympic medals retroactively. I can't
recall even one case though where an athlete has been stripped of their
medal for a doping violation six years after the fact when no protest
was pending, especially when the test couldn't be duplicated and
verified. I'll ask the same question you asked. What's so special about
cycling?

Regards,
Bob Hunt
 
"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> What happened to Carl Lewis? Squat, that's what.
> The cancer conglomerate won't let its poster boy get dirtied.


Ah, yes, the famous "cancer conglomerate". The Malignancy Mafia. The
Carcinoma Cartel.

Them guys.
 
Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <1125188271.6872d210ccc276c3f2f6345c23293fed@teranews>,
> "Maria Teresa Chupacabra" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Ah, yes, the famous "cancer conglomerate". The Malignancy Mafia.
>> The Carcinoma Cartel.
>>
>> Them guys.

>
> They sure collect a lot of donations.


Ah, but do they freeze 'em for six years before using 'em?!?

(Slow evening.)

Sorni
 
In article <1125188271.6872d210ccc276c3f2f6345c23293fed@teranews>,
"Maria Teresa Chupacabra" <[email protected]> writes:

> Ah, yes, the famous "cancer conglomerate". The Malignancy Mafia. The
> Carcinoma Cartel.
>
> Them guys.


They sure collect a lot of donations.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
Preston Crawford wrote:

> I'm not passing judgement one way or the other. But there is obviously a
> group who really hates Lance. So I'm wondering what they'd like to see
> happen if it turns out that Lance were guilty. Would we need to set
> aside a day to do a "redo" of all the podium ceremonies for the last 7
> years. Stage wins and everything. Go back and get everyone and put them
> in their team jerseys (Ulrich would have to wear his Bianchi jersey
> during that year's ceremonies) and we could have a do-over.
>
> That and Lance would have to give back all his Lions.
>
> Preston


Uh, Preston -- why are you keeping this argument alive? Nobody
convinces anybody of anything.

--

the black rose
Research Associate in the Field of Child Development and Human
Relations
http://community.webshots.com/user/blackrosequilts
2005 BOMs: http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/blackrosequilts/my_photos

-------- __o
----- -\<. -------- __o
--- ( )/ ( ) ---- -\<.
-------------------- ( )/ ( )
-----------------------------------------
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>> In article <1125188271.6872d210ccc276c3f2f6345c23293fed@teranews>,
>> "Maria Teresa Chupacabra" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Ah, yes, the famous "cancer conglomerate". The Malignancy Mafia.
>>> The Carcinoma Cartel.
>>>
>>> Them guys.

>>
>> They sure collect a lot of donations.

>
> Ah, but do they freeze 'em for six years before using 'em?!?


I don't know what they do with the money they get.

But they sure always want more, to "find" the cure.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
On 26-Aug-2005, Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >You could all start by being honest with yourselves. If the soiled
> >champion
> >were from another country, say Jan Ullrich or Jalabert, and Lance had
> >come
> >in second the past seven years, the same guys who support Lance no matter
> >
> >what now would be screaming for the guy to be disqualified retroactively
> >so
> >Lance could be declared the winner. Based on all similar circumstancial
> >and
> >hard evidence, you would all be screaming bloody murder.

>
> Hardly. There's a BIG difference between testing someone "real time"
> and doing it six loooooooong years later.
>
> If he had tested positive during the '99 Tour, he could have appealed,
> and taken another test which would provide either vindication or
> further damnation (even if it didn't prevent him from being pulled
> from the race before that happened).
>
> But to dig a six-year old sample out of a freezer, after who knows WHO
> had a chance to access it, and for an "anonymous test" to just
> "happen" to filter to the tabloid that has had Lance in the
> cross-hairs for most of his career all speaks of "less than certain"
> results (to be charitable).
>
> I don't care who it is - that's NOT a credible scenario with which to
> ruin someone's credibility.


I am not a Armstrong fan (since he chooses to associate with war criminals),
but on this rare occasion Hickey is right.

--
Sock Puppet

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
 
On 27-Aug-2005, Jeff Starr <[email protected]> wrote:

> I will continue to support Lance, until I'm given a real reason not
> to.


If you are looking for reasons, there is his trip to Crawford, TX.

--
Sock Puppet

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
 
On 26-Aug-2005, "Peeter" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Lance should pose for a group photo with Bobby Abreu, Andrian Beltre,
> Barry Bonds, Bret Boone, Carlos DelGado, Steve Finley, Jason Giambi,
> Brian Giles, Luis E. Gonzalez, Shawn Green, Todd Helton, Raffy
> Palmeiro, Gary Sheffield, Sammy, Jim Thome, and other HR supermen.


No Fabrizio Mazzoleni, the greatest cyclist ever?

--
Sock Puppet

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
 
Sock Puppet wrote:
> On 27-Aug-2005, Jeff Starr <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I will continue to support Lance, until I'm given a real reason not
>> to.

>
> If you are looking for reasons, there is his trip to Crawford, TX.


Gee, "Sniper Anon" goes away and "Sock Puppet" appears! Phone booth nearby?

:-D
 
On 27-Aug-2005, the black rose <[email protected]> wrote:

> Uh, Preston -- why are you keeping this argument alive? Nobody
> convinces anybody of anything.


Instead, let's discuss HELMET USE and the ECOLOGICAL IMPACT OF MOUNTAIN
BIKING!!!

--
Sock Puppet

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
 
Preston Crawford <[email protected]> wrote:

[...]
> I was joking. Poking fun at the haters. It's just a train of thought I
> was on after reading an article where the German press is calling for
> Ulrich to sue for all the money he would have made (including
> endorsements) that Lance made instead.


Which press? "BILD"?

Ingo.
 
On 2005-08-26, Pete <[email protected]> wrote:
> You could all start by being honest with yourselves. If the soiled champion
> were from another country, say Jan Ullrich or Jalabert, and Lance had come
> in second the past seven years, the same guys who support Lance no matter
> what now would be screaming for the guy to be disqualified retroactively so
> Lance could be declared the winner. Based on all similar circumstancial and
> hard evidence, you would all be screaming bloody murder.
>
> Poulidor said why not just go back to 1903 while they are at it. Well, 6
> years ago is not the same as a century ago. Cheats have lost Olympic gold
> medals retroactively. What's so special about cycling?
>
>


You might also consider that the "newspaper" probably bribed the
technician to add the drug into the sample before testing for the
drug. The french had cheated at the winter olympics at Salt Lake
City & had setup bribes for the French ice dancers to win the
world championship; one doesn't know how long the french have been
cheating.

The fact that the newspaper "doctored" the testing results is surely
a probable fact. The so-called tainted sample could even be another
person's urine; haven't seen any dna sampling to prove that the
test even were LA's sample.
 
"Blair P. Houghton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> "Should be about as easy as

> actually proving the B samples
> weren't stepped on."


"Proving" and "weren't" in the same sentence. There's the whole problem,
right?
 
Bob the Cow <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Blair P. Houghton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>> "Should be about as easy as

>> actually proving the B samples
>> weren't stepped on."

>
>"Proving" and "weren't" in the same sentence. There's the whole problem,
>right?


No. You can prove a negative. Your 8th-grade science teacher and
your sunday-school teacher was wrong.

--Blair
"There are no alligators in my pants."
 
"Blair P. Houghton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bob the Cow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>"Blair P. Houghton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> "Should be about as easy as
>>> actually proving the B samples
>>> weren't stepped on."

>>
>>"Proving" and "weren't" in the same sentence. There's the whole problem,
>>right?

>
> No. You can prove a negative.


> I suppose you can prove that.


> Your 8th-grade science teacher and
> your sunday-school teacher was wrong.


Maybe your 8th-grade science teacher and your sunday-school teacher WAS the
same person.
 

Similar threads