Oh dear...

TinyExplosions

it's started...

fish-head

F'kin' Nora!

Chips Lovell

If it's true, he's an idiot.

L'Equipe also mentioned today that 10 riders had shown 'abnormal' blood values. I'm not sure, but it mightn't lead to suspensions on this alone, since as far as I can recall, you need a pattern across several blood tests to establish something.

niceonetom

anyone have 6 days?

i'm not surprised, but i'm still disappointed.

TinyExplosions

Not surprised, but am disappointed. Now it's confirmed, Prudhomme really has no choice other than to remove Liquigas doesn't he? Given the hard line he took on Astana.

Fion_McCool

The BBC are reporting that the head of AFLD said that "There are not just traces of EPO, there is EPO" in Beltran's urine and that the police have raided the team hotel.

I wonder if the entire Liquigas team will be expelled from the tour like Cofidis and Astana last year ?

cantalach

Fion_McCool wrote: »

I wonder if the entire Liquigas team will be expelled from the tour like Cofidis and Astana last year ?

The deal that all teams had to sign with ASO was that if a rider was caught, the whole team would be expelled without waiting for confirmation by analysis of the B sample. The ASO could also fine the team up to €100,000 (though, presumably, this would wait for analysis of the B sample). I don't see that Prudhomme will have any choice but to follow that through. All here.

Caroline_ie

You'd think they'd know better by now ... for F's sake ...

Brian?

Typical.

Its another guy in his mid thirties being caught though, I'd be more disapointed if it was one of the newer generation of cyclists, they seem to have learned a bit of a lesson.

The whole team will be gone, has to be. Time to check my fantasy TDF.

Chips Lovell

Damn, had two Licky Gas guys in my team. There's two of my transfers gone for next week.

Not great news for the team. Guess who they've hired for next year???

TinyExplosions

el tonto wrote: »

Damn, had two Licky Gas guys in my team. There's two of my transfers gone for next week.

Not great news for the team. Guess who they've hired for next year???

It was Basso wasn't it

Diarmuid

As I mentioend in a previous thread I wasn't holding my breath for a clean tour. I wonder, as a previous teammate, will Lance come out in his defence. (that's a rhetorical question tbh)

Chips Lovell

TinyExplosions wrote: »

It was Basso wasn't it

Bingo

Diarmuid wrote: »

I wonder, as a previous teammate, will Lance come out in his defence. (that's a rhetorical question tbh)

Funny how they all test positive when they leave Postal/Discovery.

Chips Lovell

Headline of the week: Wanqueur du Jour

doozerie

el tonto wrote: »

Funny how they all test positive when they leave Postal/Discovery.

Presumably by that you are implying that Armstrong is guilty by association? If so, then why not suggest that the leaders of all of the other teams that Beltran rode for were doping too? And if the team leaders of those teams were the reason for Beltran doping, as opposed to him just making the choice himself perhaps without the knowledge of any other members of his team, then presumably every one of his team mates on each team was doping too under pressure from the team leaders? So why be so selective about only Armstrong being guilty by association?

Accusing Armstrong of doping has become an international sport in its own right. A lot of people will remain convinced of his guilt regardless of what happens. Personally, I continue to consider him innocent of doping until some real evidence proves otherwise. And if such evidence exists then I have no doubt that it will surface at some point given such widespread animosity towards Armstrong and the strong desire of many people to prove him as a cheat.

Diarmuid

doozerie wrote: »

Presumably by that you are implying that Armstrong is guilty by association?

If this was the only circumstantial evidence against Armstrong (+ Discovery) then ok, fair enough. However it's just another event to add to a long list of suspicious "associations" and events.

doozerie wrote: »

I continue to consider him innocent of doping until some real evidence proves otherwise.

Well then you will always consider him innocent as you are never going to find him with a syringe in his bum at this stage of his career. However when I look at the whole story around Armstrong (and plenty of other top rides of the 90's, if not all) then I cannot believe that he didn't dope.

However I guess we should start another thread if we want to continue this discussion.

doozerie

Diarmuid wrote: »

Well then you will always consider him innocent as you are never going to find him with a syringe in his bum at this stage of his career. However when I look at the whole story around Armstrong (and plenty of other top rides of the 90's, if not all) then I cannot believe that he didn't dope.

Armstrong's performances are always given as some kind of "proof" that he was cheating. Strangely though you don't hear the same view being repeatedly expressed about other riders who achieved great things, such as Moser, Mercx, Hinault, Indurain, etc., or even Stephen Roche and Sean Kelly. Those names are still held up as heroes of the sport, while Armstrong's name is met with suspicion and is some kind of dirty word to a lot of people.

The reasons behind such hypocrisy might make a more interesting discussion, because until proof is found of Armstrong having doped any discussion of his supposed guilt is going to be based on something other than real facts and will therefore turn into nothing more than a pointless shouting match.

FrankGrimes

doozerie wrote: »

Indurain, etc., or even Stephen Roche and Sean Kelly. Those names are still held up as heroes of the sport, while Armstrong's name is met with suspicion and is some kind of dirty word to a lot of people.

I meet all those names with suspicion and am sure there are plenty of others that do also.

Still, disappointed to hear this news - it's such a shame that this is still going on but it seems there is a significant group of riders/teams that will just keep on doping until they are caught.

Diarmuid

FrankGrimes wrote: »

I meet all those names with suspicion and am sure there are plenty of others that do also.

Me too.

Armstrong probably gets the worst of it a) it's recent news and b) he won a record breaking number of TdF races at the height of EPO doping

tunney

doozerie wrote: »

Armstrong's performances are always given as some kind of "proof" that he was cheating. Strangely though you don't hear the same view being repeatedly expressed about other riders who achieved great things, such as Moser, Mercx, Hinault, Indurain, etc., or even Stephen Roche and Sean Kelly. Those names are still held up as heroes of the sport, while Armstrong's name is met with suspicion and is some kind of dirty word to a lot of people.

Eh where have you been?

One of those names that we might hold dear to our hearts is credited with bringing EPO into the pro peleton.

doozerie

FrankGrimes wrote: »

I meet all those names with suspicion and am sure there are plenty of others that do also.

I'm sure that there are people that are suspicious about some/all of those names, and I would include myself amongst those people. However, it usually is limited just to suspicion and, due to the lack of proof, stops short of people screaming from the rooftops that all of these riders are guilty. Armstrong's name receives the latter treatment despite the lack of proof, hence the hypocrisy of those that choose to drag his name through the mud every time a rider is found to have been doping.

If Armstrong is truly guilty, then there must be a lot of people in the world of cycling who are covering up for him. It will remain yet another conspiracy theory until one or more of these numerous people come forward with proof of his guilt, but in the meantime lots of people will somehow continue to "know", presumably 'cos they can feel it in their waters, that Armstrong is guilty.

doozerie

tunney wrote: »

Eh where have you been?

One of those names that we might hold dear to our hearts is credited with bringing EPO into the pro peleton.

Clearly I've been somewhere where this news hasn't reached yet. If you can point me at a source that provides reliable evidence to support such a claim then I would be very interested to read further.

Diarmuid

doozerie wrote: »

If Armstrong is truly guilty, then there must be a lot of people in the world of cyclinr who are covering up for him.

Are you not suspicious as to why Armstrong would come out in support various past associates?

but in the meantime lots of people will somehow continue to "know", presumably 'cos they can feel it in their waters, that Armstrong is guilty.

I'm not claiming I know but looking at evidence I feel there is a very strong probability that he did.

Having never tested positive is not proof that you are clean. Bjarne Riis was never caught doping, but he admitted to taking EPO for 5 years!

You are entitled to believe that Armstrong won his seven consecutive TdF titles clean, so to, am I (and plenty others) entitled to believe he did not.

Clearly I've been somewhere where this news hasn't reached yet

I'm not aware of this rumour.

doozerie

Diarmuid wrote: »

Are you not suspicious as to why Armstrong would come out in support various past associates?

Certainly I am suspicious when further evidence is uncovered, but when that evidences leads to nothing then I treat it as what it really is, just speculation and unproven claims. If proof was revealed that Armstrong was doping, then I would accept it.

Diarmuid wrote:

I'm not claiming I know but looking at evidence I feel there is a very strong probability that he did.

Having never tested positive is not proof that you are clean. Bjarne Riis was never caught doping, but he admitted to taking EPO for 5 years!

You are entitled to believe that Armstrong won his seven consecutive TdF titles clean, so to, am I (and plenty others) entitled to believe he did not.

If a rider is to be considered guilty despite having ever failed a doping test, and despite any other proof having been provided of his guilt, then what is the point of tests in the first place? You may as well label all riders as drug cheats and just get rid of the sport at the professional level.

Fion_McCool

cantalach wrote: »

The deal that all teams had to sign with ASO was that if a rider was caught, the whole team would be expelled without waiting for confirmation by analysis of the B sample. The ASO could also fine the team up to €100,000 (though, presumably, this would wait for analysis of the B sample). I don't see that Prudhomme will have any choice but to follow that through. All here.

Well Liquigas were still there again today !

There appears to be a very nice "get-out" clause mentioned in the article above... " "If a rider tests positive during the Tour, or if a positive test prior to the Tour is made public during the event, and if there is a verified complicity of the team staff, the team will be asked to leave the Tour and to pay a fine of 100,000 Euro. To me, that is completely legitimate," said Boyer. "In the event of a positive doping case where the rider acted on his own, there will be no fine and the team will be allowed to stay."

So the organisers must also find proof positive that the whole team was involved before they can be ejected.

Given that Team Liquigas signed Ivan Basso last year, even though his 2 year ban for attempted drugtaking will not end until 24th of October 2008, it looks as if they are not taking the anti-doping message seriously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Basso

Perhaps it is no surprise that this year's first positive test came from that team.

Until such time as the tour organisers adopt a ruthless zero tolerance stance, with ejection of the whole team for individual drug cheating, every win and extraordinary athletic performance will be open to question and cycnicism.

TinyExplosions

While I think there needs to be a hard line taken, and the fairest thing would be to eject Liquigas, I do think that they would have to be sure the team was complicit. They've very quickly suspended Beltran, and say they had no idea. Couple that with the fact that he wasn't sharing a room with anyone means it is possible that he was acting alone. My gut feeling atm is that Liquigas should stay, but I do think, particularly with the hard line taken with astana that the ASO should remove them

I also don't think that signing Basso can be taken as a sign that they support doping -look at Garmin and David Millar.

FrankGrimes

Doozerie, when I saw the attitude coming from David Millar whenever he was asked about doping back in 2003 I just had a gut feeling he was doping. His sending a solicitor's letter to Paul Kimmage threatening him with legal action if he printed anything suggesting he was doping was for me just convinced me even more that he was a cheat.

Millar may well have gone on to never fail a test or have any syringes found in his room, so with your logic I would be wrong to suspect him as he hadn't failed any tests.

As an aside, I'm glad Millar has finally grown up and admitted what he's done and accepted responsibility for it and his recent follow-up interview with Kimmage showed he has clearly matured. As a result, I wish him well.

Fion_McCool

TinyExplosions wrote: »

While I think there needs to be a hard line taken, and the fairest thing would be to eject Liquigas, I do think that they would have to be sure the team was complicit. They've very quickly suspended Beltran, and say they had no idea. Couple that with the fact that he wasn't sharing a room with anyone means it is possible that he was acting alone. My gut feeling atm is that Liquigas should stay, but I do think, particularly with the hard line taken with astana that the ASO should remove them

I also don't think that signing Basso can be taken as a sign that they support doping -look at Garmin and David Millar.

This ongoing drug taking by those at the pinnacle of the sport is having a devastating effect on cycling in general. They are devaluing their own victories and achievements as well as causing a trickle down negative effect on the public perception of the sport.

What mother would want her son (or daughter) to join a sport where, to reach the top, he/she must become a laboratory rat for the latest "undetectable" performance enhancing drug ?

The public tuning in to the TdF want to see a cycle competition, not a cheating competition or a pharmacological competition between the team doctors.

Therefore IMHO a vicious line must be taken in order to clean up the act, with automatic expulsion of the whole team if any individual cyclist takes drugs. It may be unfair, but the public perception that teams are getting off lighter for drug taking/cheating than they did last year is very bad for the sport.

TinyExplosions

Fion_McCool wrote: »

This ongoing drug taking by those at the pinnacle of the sport is having a devastating effect on cycling in general. They are devaluing their own victories and achievements as well as causing a trickle down negative effect on the public perception of the sport.

What mother would want her son (or daughter) to join a sport where, to reach the top, he/she must become a laboratory rat for the latest "undetectable" performance enhancing drug ?

As I've said before, I don't think you can say that cycling is the only sport with a drug problem. I think any professional sport has a degre off performance enhancing drug use -look at Athletics and Major League Baseball for two examples. Professional sports where people are paid to be at the top will lead to some taking more risks than others, simply to get the payout at the end. Note that I'm not trying to excuse cycling, just saying that I think it's not the only sport at it

Fion_McCool wrote: »

The public tuning in to the TdF want to see a cycle competition, not a cheating competition or a pharmacological competition between the team doctors.

Therefore IMHO a vicious line must be taken in order to clean up the act, with automatic expulsion of the whole team if any individual cyclist takes drugs. It may be unfair, but the public perception that teams are getting off lighter for drug taking/cheating than they did last year is very bad for the sport.

I don't think that kicking the entire team out will solve anything, particularly if Liquigas had nothing to do with Beltran's actions. If a team is complicit, then by all means kick them out, and ban them for a number of years, but if they are truly blameless, maybe removing them is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. How to tell the difference, well that I just don't know.

For example, I like the steps Garmin and Columbia are taking, and agree with David Harmon on Eurosport when he said that the new generation of cyclists are taking doping seriously, and racing clean, and I think that the standards being set by Garmin and Columbia in the blood passports etc will be the thing that saves cycling by making it next to impossible to dope as any changes in your bloodwork will be noticed.

Having said all that, I can be naive at times, and this could well be one of them!

doozerie

FrankGrimes wrote: »

Doozerie, when I saw the attitude coming from David Millar whenever he was asked about doping back in 2003 I just had a gut feeling he was doping. His sending a solicitor's letter to Paul Kimmage threatening him with legal action if he printed anything suggesting he was doping was for me just convinced me even more that he was a cheat.

Millar may well have gone on to never fail a test or have any syringes found in his room, so with your logic I would be wrong to suspect him as he hadn't failed any tests.

I didn't say that suspicions are "wrong", in fact as I mentioned above I too have suspicions about some riders. What I do say though is that no rider should be labeled as guilty without proof, and as demonstrated by more than one poster here Armstrong is a good example of a case where people have condemned him as a cheat without any proof. He has successfully defended himself against accusations in the past, yet people still refer to those failed accusations as some kind of proof of his guilt (again, some of the posts above being examples).

FrankGrimes wrote:

As an aside, I'm glad Millar has finally grown up and admitted what he's done and accepted responsibility for it and his recent follow-up interview with Kimmage showed he has clearly matured. As a result, I wish him well.

I wish him well too, although his over zealous labeling of those found doping as some kind of evil within cycling gets my goat a bit. It is not even in question that the dopers need to be found out and severely penalised (perhaps including a lifetime ban in all such cases, although personally I am not convinced that is the right course to take), but it wasn't that long ago that Millar was in that camp himself so if he feels that strongly about it as his rants suggest then maybe he should quit the sport himself as a former contributor to the problem. I think that Millar might have some more growing up to do yet, but hopefully his current team have already started to make a difference by demonstrating how good programmes can be put in place to monitor riders effectively for drug usage.

Chips Lovell

doozerie wrote: »

If so, then why not suggest that the leaders of all of the other teams that Beltran rode for were doping too?

Well after Discovery, his team leader was Danilo Di Luca. I don't have to suggest he was doping. He was suspended for doping.

doozerie wrote: »

Personally, I continue to consider him innocent of doping until some real evidence proves otherwise.

Six of his samples form the 1999 Tour (which was before an EPO test was devised) retrospectively tested positive. Frankie Andreu and his wife Betsey both testified that Armstrong told doctors when he was being treated for cancer that he'd used EPO, steroids and HGH.

doozerie wrote: »

Strangely though you don't hear the same view being repeatedly expressed about other riders who achieved great things, such as Moser, Mercx, Hinault, Indurain, etc., or even Stephen Roche and Sean Kelly.

Moser was a self confessed blood doper. An Italian judge in 2004 ruled that Roche and other team mates had received EPO during his second spell at Carrera.

doozerie

el tonto wrote: »

Well after Discovery, his team leader was Danilo Di Luca. I don't have to suggest he was doping. He was suspended for doping.

Which proves what exactly? That everyone that Beltran ever rode with, or for, was/is doping? Or are you just selectively choosing Armstrong again?

el tonto wrote:

Six of his samples form the 1999 Tour (which was before an EPO test was devised) retrospectively tested positive. Frankie Andreu and his wife Betsey both testified that Armstrong told doctors when he was being treated for cancer that he'd used EPO, steroids and HGH.

Oh, so you read the Wiki page on Armstrong too? On the face of it, it appears to be one of the better written Wiki pages in that it provides a list of allegations against Armstrong but also provides further info, with references, on how each one was shot down or disproved (which you have chosen not to mention in your post above). Armstrong claimed that the latter allegation was the result of confusion on the part of Betsy Andreu when she had misheard a conversation about the drugs he was talking for his cancer treatment. It seems clear which version of events you believe, but these are again unproven allegations and unless you refute a person's right to be deemed innocent until proven guilty the existence of the allegations proves nothing.

As for the former allegation, there is more information about this here where it states that the samples testing positive is not in doubt but it was never proven that the samples were those of Armstrong. You'll probably be encouraged to hear though that Beltran's samples were claimed to be amongst some of the others that tested positive in the same tests, but again it was never proven that these were really samples from Beltran (i.e. could have been samples from any rider in the Tour that year). Plenty of fuel for conspiracy theories there though, which the lack of proof no doubt won't prove an obstacle to.

el tonto wrote:

Moser was a self confessed blood doper. An Italian judge in 2004 ruled that Roche and other team mates had received EPO during his second spell at Carrera.

Interesting, although links to further information would be more interesting. Still doesn't prove Armstrong's guilt, of course.

Chips Lovell

doozerie wrote: »

Which proves what exactly? That everyone that Beltran ever rode with, or for, was/is doping? Or are you just selectively choosing Armstrong again?

You're the one who brought up the issue of other team leaders he rode for.

doozerie wrote: »

Oh, so you read the Wiki page on Armstrong too....

No actually. David Walsh's last book, "From Lance to Landis" is pretty good on this subject. I'd recommend reading it.

doozerie wrote: »

Armstrong claimed that the latter allegation was the result of confusion on the part of Betsy Andreu when she had misheard a conversation about the drugs he was talking for his cancer treatment.

Frankie Andreu remembered it too. As did Stephanie McIllvain. She subsequently denied this in court, but had been tellling others beforehand what she heard.

doozerie wrote: »

it was never proven that the samples were those of Armstrong.

Damien Ressiot linked the numbers on the tests with rider names by getting the test forms from the UCI

doozerie wrote: »

Interesting, although links to further information would be more interesting.

There's a short story about the Roche thing in the Indo here. Matt Rendell's book about Pantani has a lot of intersting stuff about the Carrera doping programme. Moser thing mentioned here.

doozerie wrote: »

Still doesn't prove Armstrong's guilt, of course.

Yet you were the one who brought it up? You asked why no one else's performances were questioned. Plenty have been. The difference here is mentioning doping in connection to Armstrong seems to draw a hysterical reaction from some quarters that you simply don't get when other riders names are mentioned.

niceonetom

el tonto wrote: »

The difference here is mentioning doping in connection to Armstrong seems to draw a hysterical reaction from some quarters that you simply don't get when other riders names are mentioned.

that's what it comes down to in this thread anyway. armstrong is such a hero to many that he's viewed as being almost superhuman, and (on the surface anyway) his story is pure hollywoood gold. but, doozerie, all our heroes are flawed human beings, we can still love them anyway... ali beat his wife, best pissed it all away and elvis died on the crapper, but yet they are loved.

there's no need to start kicking over tables and demanding satisfaction like an italian who's just heard his mother insulted, you have no vested interest in the lance legend. clean or dirty, his achievements are immense.


oh and bin liquigas mr. prudhomme. collective responsibility ftw.

TinyExplosions

niceonetom wrote: »

there's no need to start kicking over tables and demanding satisfaction like an italian who's just heard his mother insulted

Brilliant -have to remember that one for future use!

FrankGrimes

Tiny, I get your points that doping is also rife in some other sports (imo it has ruined athletics too) and that kicking out the full team is harsh, but no other sport has a history of doping to the extent that cycling does (e.g. you'd be hard-pressed to find a similar number of athletes that died from overuse of EPO when it first came out in the early 90s to the number of young amateur cyclists that died). It's pretty clear that several teams in cycling have been complicit passively or actively in fostering a drug culture in their teams - there's several cases that showed this and plenty of other cases where many of us have strong suspicions.

The fact that it was often led and driven by the teams contributed to the creation of the code of omerta that led to so many cyclists being afraid to speak out against doping. So I think the teams deserve everything they get and the public perception of cycling, and in particular of the feeble policy against doping for most of the last 20 years, means the only way to correct it is to use extreme measures.

The sheer level of silence from the peleton for many years on this along with the disgust any riders like Kimmage (and a good few others, there's one lad I can't remember his name, maybe Casper, that was vilified and hounded when he spoke out) received when they spoke out against doping to me suggests an extremely high level of solidarity amongst pro cyclists. Previously that was used to get everyone to keep their mouth shut so the masses could keep on doping. Imagine if that same solidarity was now turned on its head whereby every cyclist knew that if he doped and was caught he might not just be ruining his own career but would also be affecting the livelihoods of his teammates. More riders would think twice and would not base their decision whether to dope or not purely on selfish grounds.

In my opinion cycling needs that level of extreme punishment for doping as doping has extremely undermined the sport.

doozerie

el tonto wrote: »

You're the one who brought up the issue of other team leaders he rode for.

Yes, I did, and in fact I also mentioned all of his team mates on those teams. I did so in order to ask why you singled out Armstrong as being guilty when, by your reasoning for reinforcing your view of Armstrong being guilty (his association with Beltran), you presumably consider all of Beltran's former team mates and team leaders to be guilty too. That is a significant number of riders, do you consider all of them guilty of doping too?

el tonto wrote:

No actually. David Walsh's last book, "From Lance to Landis" is pretty good on this subject. I'd recommend reading it.

Frankie Andreu remembered it too. As did Stephanie McIllvain. She subsequently denied this in court, but had been tellling others beforehand what she heard.

And yet nothing has ever been proved. Armstrong has been made pretty wealthy by the amount of compensation that he has earned in court from successfully defending himself against these accusations. Presumably you are one of the many people that believe that they know better than the courts concerned.

el tonto wrote:

Damien Ressiot linked the numbers on the tests with rider names by getting the test forms from the UCI

He couldn't prove the link of the numbers to specific riders names, which is why the accusation against Armstrong never stuck, so Ressiot's accusation is nothing more definitive than just that - an accusation.

el tonto wrote:

There's a short story about the Roche thing in the Indo here. Matt Rendell's book about Pantani has a lot of intersting stuff about the Carrera doping programme. Moser thing mentioned here.

Thanks for the links. It's a shame that a technicality prevented Roche from being pursued as the judge that made the claim would presumably be very cautious about making such a claim about Roche without some decent evidence to base it upon. It would have been interesting to see the outcome had it gone to court and the evidence examined more publicly.

el tonto wrote:

Yet you were the one who brought it up? You asked why no one else's performances were questioned. Plenty have been. The difference here is mentioning doping in connection to Armstrong seems to draw a hysterical reaction from some quarters that you simply don't get when other riders names are mentioned.

I didn't ask why other riders performances aren't questioned - they clearly are questioned, quite often, and rightly so. What I did ask is why Armstrong is the one that is blatantly branded as guilty while other riders are just considered suspicious - they seem to be given the benefit of the doubt, which is only right, while Armstrong frequently isn't. As I mentioned earlier, that is pure hypocrisy.

To my knowledge, no other rider has been accused of, or charged with, doping as often as Armstrong. Yet, he has won each of his court cases to date. There is clearly no shortage of people that are willing to challenge him in court but he has yet to be found guilty. Perhaps some credible proof of him doping will be brought to light in the future, which will stand up in court, but in the meantime if the courts and/or cycling authorities can't find him guilty who else can justify applying that label to him?

doozerie

niceonetom wrote: »

that's what it comes down to in this thread anyway. armstrong is such a hero to many that he's viewed as being almost superhuman, and (on the surface anyway) his story is pure hollywoood gold. but, doozerie, all our heroes are flawed human beings, we can still love them anyway... ali beat his wife, best pissed it all away and elvis died on the crapper, but yet they are loved.

there's no need to start kicking over tables and demanding satisfaction like an italian who's just heard his mother insulted, you have no vested interest in the lance legend. clean or dirty, his achievements are immense.

As you say, I have no vested interested in Armstrong. Other than respect for his achievements I'm not sure that I even like the guy as a human being. But Armstrong himself is not the real issue here. The real issue is the ease with which people apply the label of "guilty" to a rider when no-one has managed to provide proof of his guilt.

As demonstrated in this thread (in this post), that kind of thinking leads to the extreme view that the results of drug tests in cycling are not to be trusted at all i.e. all of the riders are guilty until they can prove their innocence. If people really believe this, then cycling as a professional sport has no future.

Oh, and as for kicking over tables, none of my posts have been fueled by anger or frustration. Mostly I am just incredulous at some of the views expressed and have been trying to generate discussion on the reasoning behind those views being formed. My efforts has mainly been met with responses along the lines of "I know he's guilty 'cos, like, HE'S GUILTY" (it's much more convincing in a louder voice, apparently). It has become such a mantra to some people, in relation to Armstrong, that they don't seem to ever actually stop and look at why they came to this conclusion and whether there might be any reasonable doubt about it.

Chips Lovell

doozerie wrote: »

And yet nothing has ever been proved. Armstrong has been made pretty wealthy by the amount of compensation that he has earned in court from successfully defending himself against these accusations. Presumably you are one of the many people that believe that they know better than the courts concerned.

Le Monde invited Armstrong to sue them. He didn't. David Walsh's book has been out over a year. He's taking his time to sue him too.

doozerie wrote: »

He couldn't prove the link of the numbers to specific riders names, which is why the accusation against Armstrong never stuck, so Ressiot's accusation is nothing more definitive than just that - an accusation.

He had the doping control forms as well as the test results, so he did link names to numbers. Even if he didn't manage to get the forms from the UCI, it would have been bad for Armstrong, as on the first day of testing during that Tour, all four samples were positive for EPO.

doozerie wrote: »

What I did ask is why Armstrong is the one that is blatantly branded as guilty while other riders are just considered suspicious - they seem to be given the benefit of the doubt, which is only right, while Armstrong frequently isn't. As I mentioned earlier, that is pure hypocrisy.

Eh, no. For example, even before he copped to it last year, I had yet to come across anyone who didn't think Bjarne Riis was doped to the gills in 1996. It was simply assumed, based purely on peleton gossip, that he had. He had the nickname "Mr 60 Per Cent" for years.

doozerie wrote: »

Yet, he has won each of his court cases to date.

He's settled out of court a few times too.

niceonetom

doozerie wrote: »

...My efforts has mainly been met with responses along the lines of "I know he's guilty 'cos, like, HE'S GUILTY" (it's much more convincing in a louder voice, apparently).

you see, you're responding to accusations that are of you're own invention.

read Diarmud's post (that you quoted at me) again.

see where it says : "I'm not claiming I know but looking at evidence I feel there is a very strong probability that he did."? (a perfectly reasonable opinion, and one i happen to share btw).

what you appear to be hearing is ""I know he's guilty 'cos, like, HE'S GUILTY" (your own misunderstanding of what has been said).

see the disconnect?

Chips Lovell

niceonetom wrote: »

you see, you're responding to accusations that are of you're own invention.

i.e. Straw man

doozerie

el tonto wrote: »

Le Monde invited Armstrong to sue them. He didn't. David Walsh's book has been out over a year. He's taking his time to sue him too.

And opting not to sue someone is some sort of proof of guilt?

el tonto wrote:

He had the doping control forms as well as the test results, so he did link names to numbers. Even if he didn't manage to get the forms from the UCI, it would have been bad for Armstrong, as on the first day of testing during that Tour, all four samples were positive for EPO.

Saying/posting something repeatedly doesn't make it any more true than the first time it was said/posted. Here is a quote from my previous response to that same statement by you: "As for the former allegation, there is more information about this here where it states that the samples testing positive is not in doubt but it was never proven that the samples were those of Armstrong."

el tonto wrote:

Eh, no. For example, even before he copped to it last year, I had yet to come across anyone who didn't think Bjarne Riis was doped to the gills in 1996. It was simply assumed, based purely on peleton gossip, that he had. He had the nickname "Mr 60 Per Cent" for years.

Yes, there was suspicion about Riis for years, but people had the decency to label it as suspicion rather than having the arrogance to claim that they knew he was guilty in the absence of real proof. Although clearly not everyone believes in a person's basic right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

el tonto wrote:

He's settled out of court a few times too.

So settling out of court is proof of guilt now? Someone should tell the legal system 'cos that news doesn't seem to have reached them yet.

doozerie

niceonetom wrote: »

you see, you're responding to accusations that are of you're own invention.

read Diarmud's post (that you quoted at me) again.

see where it says : "I'm not claiming I know but looking at evidence I feel there is a very strong probability that he did."? (a perfectly reasonable opinion, and one i happen to share btw).

what you appear to be hearing is ""I know he's guilty 'cos, like, HE'S GUILTY" (your own misunderstanding of what has been said).

Oh, I'm inventing accusations? I thought I was referring to a post that suggested that all riders should be deemed guilty until proved innocence. Hang on, I'll just have a quick read back through...

...yup, there it is.

niceonetom wrote:

see the disconnect?

Eh, no. You might have to type it really s l o w l y and IN CAPITALS 'cos I'm not too bright.

doozerie

The Straw Man was here? Well he was taking a risk - considering the number of pitch forks and torches being bandied about in here he was likely to go up in flames along with any rider who has, or indeed hasn't, failed a drugs test. We've already lost common sense, please let's save the Straw Man.

niceonetom

doozerie wrote: »

Oh, I'm inventing accusations? I thought I was referring to a post that suggested that all riders should be deemed guilty until proved innocence. Hang on, I'll just have a quick read back through...

...yup, there it is.



Eh, no. You might have to type it really s l o w l y and IN CAPITALS 'cos I'm not too bright.

where does it say "that all riders should be deemed guilty until proved innocence"? or anything like that? is this still the post we're discussing?

btw the only capitals i used are direct quotes form you.

we'll try again shall we:

diarmuid says-
I'm not claiming I know but looking at evidence I feel there is a very strong probability that he did.

---

disconect

---

doozerie hears:
I know he's guilty 'cos, like, HE'S GUILTY
(your words doozerie).

c a n y o u s e e i t n o w?

doozerie

niceonetom wrote: »

where does it say "that all riders should be deemed guilty until proved innocence"? or anything like that?

Right here:

Having never tested positive is not proof that you are clean.

That statement suggests that riders must find some (new?) means of proving that they are clean as, according to that view, clean results from the existing tests and controls seem to count for nothing i.e. the onus is on the rider to prove he/she is clean rather than the onus being on the sport to prove that they are doping.

The actual situation at the moment is that all riders are under suspicion (which is why the existing drug tests exist), but no rider can be found guilty of doping until sufficient credible evidence is gathered to support such a claim. And this is the only fair approach, in sport as it is when applied within society for social laws/rules.

niceonetom

Having never tested positive is not proof that you are clean.

is a true statement. it just is. you may not like it. but it is.

now you have taken it upon yourself to read that as meaning:

all riders should be deemed guilty until proved innocence{sic}

which is not implicit in the statement at all.

again (or is it still?) you are inaccurately paraphrasing someone whom you disagree with in order to make their argument suit your counterargument.

Diarmuid

doozerie wrote: »

Oh, I'm inventing accusations? I thought I was referring to a post that suggested that all riders should be deemed guilty until proved innocence. Hang on, I'll just have a quick read back through...

...yup, there it is.

Well you need to read it again!

I said that based on the evidence, I believed that it was beyond a reasonable doubt that Armstrong was doping. You may not, that's fine. However I, and it seems others here, believe you are being naive.

doozerie wrote:

That statement suggests that riders must find some (new?) means of proving that they are clean as, according to that view, clean results from the existing tests and controls seem to count for nothing i.e. the onus is on the rider to prove he/she is clean rather than the onus being on the sport to prove that they are doping.

This statement means exactly what it says. "Having never tested positive is not proof that you are clean"

If there is nothing else in a riders past to implicate or associate him with doping then I think it's reasonable to assume that he is clean. However, if he has a mountain of evidence to implicate him in doping, then I cannot make the same assumptions.

I find it strange that you can disregard Armstrong's associations with Ferrari so easily. (just to pick on one of the allegations) Do you think that he retained his services (of all the doctors available to him) because of his bedside manner?

Chips Lovell

doozerie wrote: »

And opting not to sue someone is some sort of proof of guilt?

Never said it was. But you knew that anyway and are now just moving the goalposts. You're the one who said he "has been made pretty wealthy by the amount of compensation that he has earned in court from successfully defending himself against these accusations". I'm pointing out he has sued neither Le Monde for his story or Walsh for his book. In other words, your point was irrelevant.

doozerie wrote: »

Saying/posting something repeatedly doesn't make it any more true than the first time it was said/posted. Here is a quote from my previous response to that same statement by you: "As for the former allegation, there is more information about this here where it states that the samples testing positive is not in doubt but it was never proven that the samples were those of Armstrong."

It is true. Ressiot matched the name with the sample numbers. Even the article you link to says this: "Ressiot says he first learned of retroactive testing on 1999 Tour samples back in January. It took months to get the sample numbers and match them, he said, a problem compounded by the fact that, according to Ressiot, the lab didn't produce its results until August 22nd. Already in possession of the sample numbers and corresponding identifiers, Ressiot made his match and the paper went to press."

doozerie wrote: »

Yes, there was suspicion about Riis for years, but people had the decency to label it as suspicion rather than having the arrogance to claim that they knew he was guilty in the absence of real proof. Although clearly not everyone believes in a person's basic right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Right. So all the chat about Riis was characterised by some sort of reserve in the absence of real proof, but Armstrong somehow was different? I'm glad you noticed this subtle difference when no one else has. Tell me this, Rasmussen hasn't been proven to haved doped, just having not being been where he said he was last year. That hasn't stopped everyone thinking that he's a doper. Do you think he too has been dealt with unfairly.

doozerie

Diarmuid wrote: »

This statement means exactly what it says. "Having never tested positive is not proof that you are clean"

The issue with this statement is the suggestion that a rider has to prove that he/she is clean. In no other sport, and not even within society, does a person have to prove their innocence. Instead, they are deemed innocent until they can be proved guilty. You seem happy to throw away that fundamental right within cycling, which I find bizarre.

Diarmuid wrote: »

I find it strange that you can disregard Armstrong's associations with Ferrari so easily. (just to pick on one of the allegations) Do you think that he retained his services (of all the doctors available to him) because of his bedside manner?

I believe in a person's right to be considered innocent until reliable evidence proves them otherwise, even in the area of professional cycling. No-one has ever gathered enough evidence against Armstrong to prove him guilty, therefore he remains not guilty. And it's not for lack of trying that sufficient evidence has not been gathered against him. The continuing failure to prove him guilty is either because sufficient evidence does not exists (i.e. he is not guilty), or because numerous people are complicit in a conspiracy to protect his guilt. It doesn't matter in either case though, as the courts and cycling authorities to date have found him innocent and unless you personally have further evidence against him that they don't have available to them then you have no justification in labeling him as guilty.

doozerie

el tonto wrote: »

Never said it was. But you knew that anyway and are now just moving the goalposts. You're the one who said he "has been made pretty wealthy by the amount of compensation that he has earned in court from successfully defending himself against these accusations". I'm pointing out he has sued neither Le Monde for his story or Walsh for his book. In other words, your point was irrelevant.

Which point was irrelevant?

el tonto wrote:

It is true. Ressiot matched the name with the sample numbers. Even the article you link to says this: "Ressiot says he first learned of retroactive testing on 1999 Tour samples back in January. It took months to get the sample numbers and match them, he said, a problem compounded by the fact that, according to Ressiot, the lab didn't produce its results until August 22nd. Already in possession of the sample numbers and corresponding identifiers, Ressiot made his match and the paper went to press."

Where in that quote does it say that Ressiot proved the link between the sample numbers and Armstrong? "made his match" does not mean that he proved the link, it means that, in his opinion, the link is correct. That does not constitute proof. Maybe if the issue had been pursued then the link could have been proved, but they chose not to pursue it therefore it falls into the category of unproven allegation.

el tonto wrote:

Right. So all the chat about Riis was characterised by some sort of reserve in the absence of real proof, but Armstrong somehow was different? I'm glad you noticed this subtle difference when no one else has.

What you refer to as a "subtle difference" is that Riis was not labeled as guilty, just as "suspicious". The difference between those two labels is far from subtle.

el tonto wrote:

Tell me this, Rasmussen hasn't been proven to haved doped, just having not being been where he said he was last year. That hasn't stopped everyone thinking that he's a doper. Do you think he too has been dealt with unfairly.

He lied to avoid drug tests/checks, and he has been proven to have lied, therefore they have good reason to penalise him. Even in athletics, failing to attend a drugs test is deemed as having failed the test, so penalising an athlete under these circumstances is a well established practice and athletes/cyclists are well aware of it. The severity of the penalty might be debatable, but not the fact that some penalty was appropriate.