If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBC)   Armstrong stripped of Tour de France titles, Moon Landing   (cbc.ca) divider line 483
    More: News, Tour de France, UCI, Court of Arbitration for Sport, Johan Bruyneel, Contador, Andy Schleck, Floyd Landis, Pat McQuaid  
•       •       •

7319 clicks; posted to Sports » on 22 Oct 2012 at 8:44 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



483 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-22 03:38:54 PM  

debo1683: kriegfusion: Obama4Life: Nobody could win 7 consecutive Titles without a little outside help.


Unless of course the event is exactly the same or very close to the same thing over and over again.

/thinks there's too many olympic swimming events.
//Doesn't consider Phelps having more than 2 or 3 gold medals at most.

I am curious as to why you think there are too many olympic swimming events ... other than having to watch all of them on NBC during their 'wonderful' olympic coverage. I will tell you that, for example, the 100 back stroke and 200 backstroke may appear very similar to some one watching the races. But how they are swum, strategy, stroke technique, use of the walls and starts are all very different in those two races ...



I don't wish to diminish the talent of swimming the backstroke, but I can't imagine (speaking as someone not familiar with the sport, only looking at logic) the difference to be all that different. I concede that there may be differences in exactly how much energy each lap is put forth, what kind of strategy could pertain to a swimming event besides 'be faster than the other guys' or 'act like you're slower then explode in the end to surprise', and the use of walls other than to leap from can really be different. As someone once here said, a whole team of basketball players can do many more tactics, strategy and plays than a swimmer, outwit, outmaneuver, and use the court and ball in a hundred different ways, and after *many* games, at the very end, they end up with....one.....gold medal. Just one.
I simply feel when you compare events like cycling, team sports and other more sophisticated events (sophisticated in a sense that means it has more parts then say, swimming, shot put, pole vault etc), I see no reason why swimming should hold more than 2 or 3 medals at best.
I have no doubt there are small nuances in swimming events, but one would have to argue how that is somehow vastly different than nuances in other events. That's my uniformed opinion, not to take away from what was accomplished in the events, just on how they are weighted vs. other events.
 
2012-10-22 03:39:48 PM  

EyeballKid: Skarekrough: However no one gave a crap about cycling before him and no one will likely give a crap about the sport after him.

[startwithtypewriters.com image 298x449]
3 time Tour de France winner and former Taco Bell pitchman Greg Lemond may beg to differ. Just because you yourself don't remember something doesn't mean it didn't hapen.


Who? No really... Who?
 
rka
2012-10-22 03:45:09 PM  

kriegfusion: I don't wish to diminish the talent of swimming the backstroke, but I can't imagine (speaking as someone not familiar with the sport, only looking at logic) the difference to be all that different.


My nieces both swim in club and high school teams. Every so often, my wife and I will go meet them and their parents at some meet if they swing close to Colorado.

Sweet jesus, is a full swim meet repetitive and boring for just about everyone there. A full day's meet for both the girls and the boys team is just a non-stop assembly line of ... basically the same damn thing. Oh, this one is the 50m fly, but the next one is the 100m fly. TOTALLY DIFFERENT!
 
2012-10-22 03:50:06 PM  

EyeballKid: Skarekrough: However no one gave a crap about cycling before him and no one will likely give a crap about the sport after him.

[startwithtypewriters.com image 298x449]
3 time Tour de France winner and former Taco Bell pitchman Greg Lemond may beg to differ. Just because you yourself don't remember something doesn't mean it didn't hapen.


never heard of him even though I do watch TV, including alot of sports, and thats the point. The only pro-cyclist I could ever name was Lance Armstrong and now they destroyed him for something everyone else was doing too. It would be like diving trying to destroy Phelps.

Seriously cycling took out a gun and shot it's own foot when they decided to tear down Lance.
 
2012-10-22 03:50:29 PM  

rka: If someone had come to me back in the mid-90s....would I take it?


Why are you asking me?
 
2012-10-22 04:03:41 PM  

Digitalstrange: Seriously cycling took out a gun and shot it's own foot when they decided to tear down Lance.


1) "Cycling" didn't do anything. The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) started this investigation. The International Cycling Union is "cycling", and they covered Lance's ass for years. Coincidentally, in the two years in which positive tests popped up against Lance, 2001 and 2005, Lance made almost $200K in "donations" to the UCI. This would be like A-Rod making a donation to MLB after testing positive.

2) USADA governs any sport which is a signatory to the World Anti-Doping Code, including Olympic sports. Unfortunately for Lance, the UCI is a signatory to the WADA code.

3) Nobody is "tearing down" anybody. The U.S. Congress has given USADA the responsibility to investivate, adjudicate, and punish any U.S. athletes or personnel over which they have jurisdiction. Their investigation in this case was not, believe it or not, centered around Lance Armstrong. Their investigation was centered around doping for the ENTIRE US Postal Service cycling team. They aren't just going after Armstrong, and brought formal charges against 4 other team managers and doctors. 3 of those personnel are still fighting their charges and will have proceedings before an arbitrator to determine their fate.. Armstrong and one other team doctor decided not to fight the charges, and simply allowed USADA to punish them.

The misinformation around this story (mostly fed by Lance's PR team) and downright excuse-making by Lance supporters is frustrating to read.
 
2012-10-22 04:05:07 PM  
I have to ask this, to any Armstrong haters.... you DO know that steroids are used to help treat cancer right? Even EPO?
 
2012-10-22 04:08:43 PM  

steve_wmn: DeathCipris: Alright, is it just me or is ALL of this evidence against him hearsay? By people that didn't win and former butthurt teammates no less...
The evidence was so scant in fact, that federal prosecutors DROPPED the case against him due to lack of evidence.

Hearsay is when someone tells you they did something, or even worse, someone else tells you that he did something. What we have here is direct eye witness testimony, from people that saw Lance take drugs or were ordered to take drugs by Lance and Johann Bruyneel. The federal case was dropped because doping is not a federal crime in the US. The worst they were going to get him on was defrauding the Postal Service or something like that. Small potatoes for the Justice Department that still hasn't prosecuted anyone for the mortgage backed securities and derivatives fraud that brought the world economy down.


I stand corrected. The evidence presented against him are testimonies from ex-butthurt teammates and people that didn't win along with some hearsay for good measure (see issue with Dr. Ferrari). The federal government dropped the case due to lack of evidence. Plain and simple. They encountered no evidence that would be admissible in a formal court of law for blood doping/illegal substances; thus, closed the book.
I have read through most of the massive "reasoned decision" that the USADA issued and most of the evidence contained therein is ludicrous. Here is a gem straight from the report: "Jonathan Vaughters also believed Armstrong was likely using EPO-there were some tell tale signs, such as Lance carrying around a thermos."
Really? A thermos...that's a piece of evidence you are using to strip a lifetime of achievements away from a man and ruin him? Because he was carrying a thermos and you ASSUMED he is using EPO.
This isn't evidence. This is just people pointing fingers with nothing real to fall back on other than "I saw him...XYZ" Some of their evidence doesn't even match up (see also issue with 2001 race).
I think the man has done a lot of wonderful things in his life and is an inspiration to many people. Now I do hold an appreciation for Lance, but I am still objective and the evidence (or lack thereof) does not point to anything concrete and the people telling the stories have a motive. The situation reeks of politics and people that just want to "get back" at Lance.

Sources:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/!invesitgations%20and%20enterp ri se%20docs/armstrong-reasoned-decision.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_armstrong#cite_note-61 (I hate using Wikipedia but the damn LA Times article it referenced is broken)


/Can't help but think of a doctor that works on Ferrari's
//VROOM!!
 
2012-10-22 04:15:10 PM  
I would also like to add the people that testified against Lance (yes his ex-teammates), were caught and given a reduced sentence for selling someone else out...even if it wasn't true. These people had motive to name Lance, someone winning big and already the target of allegations, to save their own asses.
 
2012-10-22 04:21:05 PM  

DeathCipris: I stand corrected. The evidence presented against him are testimonies from ex-butthurt teammates and people that didn't win along with some hearsay for good measure (see issue with Dr. Ferrari). The federal government dropped the case due to lack of evidence. Plain and simple. They encountered no evidence that would be admissible in a formal court of law for blood doping/illegal substances; thus, closed the book.
I have read through most of the massive "reasoned decision" that the USADA issued and most of the evidence contained therein is ludicrous. Here is a gem straight from the report: "Jonathan Vaughters also believed Armstrong was likely using EPO-there were some tell tale signs, such as Lance carrying around a thermos."
Really? A thermos...that's a piece of evidence you are using to strip a lifetime of achievements away from a man and ruin him? Because he was carrying a thermos and you ASSUMED he is using EPO.
This isn't evidence. This is just people pointing fingers with nothing real to fall back on other than "I saw him...XYZ" Some of their evidence doesn't even match up (see also iss ...


You Lance fanboys are so sad to watch. The cognitive dissonance is just oozing from your pores. To take the direct testimony of 26 people and boil it down to one sentence about a thermos is so desperately pathetic and devoid of logic. Would you like me to post the massive metric fark ton of statements

These were his farking teammates and support staff. What did they have to be butt-hurt about? Their farking job was to see to it that Lance Armstrong won those TdFs. You obviously don't understand cycling if you think that his teammates were "butthurt" about not being able to "beat" Lance. Their job was never to beat Lance. It was to be his support. Cycling is a team sport. Why would his personal masseuse be "butt hurt"? Why would his farking BEST FRIEND, George Hincapie, (who never tested positive either, BTW) admit to doping himself and sign an affidavit saying that he saw Lance get blood transfusions and talked about doping with him? Why? For what purpose?

Finally, you simply don't understand what hearsay means. Hearsay is "I heard from so and so that Lance Armstrong did this." Hearsay is not "I farkING saw him do it with my own two eyes." That's direct witness testimony, and that's what is contained in those 26 (twenty farking six) sworn affidavits.
 
2012-10-22 04:22:48 PM  
DeathCipris, look how clever you are, you can take one sentence from a report that is over a 1000 pages in length, and condemn it all as bogus. I am impressed.
 
2012-10-22 04:25:16 PM  

DeathCipris: I would also like to add the people that testified against Lance (yes his ex-teammates), were caught and given a reduced sentence for selling someone else out...even if it wasn't true. These people had motive to name Lance, someone winning big and already the target of allegations, to save their own asses.


George Hincapie had nothing to gain by speaking out. He'd never tested positive was retiring as one of the most respected riders in the peloton.

Emma O'Reilly had nothing to gain, except the honour of Lance Armstrong calling her an alcoholic and a prostitute.

Betsy Andreue had nothing to gain from speaking out, except the honour of Lance Armstrong calling her a bitter old shrew.

... I could go on (you think Sheryl Crow would lie to Federal investigators for revenge over a failed relationship?) but the vast majority of people who confessed to the USPS would not have been banned if the omerta had held.
 
2012-10-22 04:26:44 PM  

DeathCipris: I would also like to add the people that testified against Lance (yes his ex-teammates), were caught and given a reduced sentence for selling someone else out...even if it wasn't true. These people had motive to name Lance, someone winning big and already the target of allegations, to save their own asses.


a) Unfortnuately for you and the other Lance fanboys, Armstrong was declared cancer free in Feb. 1997. He didn't win his first TdF until two years later. EPO stays in your bloodstream for about 5-6 hours.

b) Of the 26 who testified, only 11 were former teammates. Of those 11, 6 of them had ever tested positive IN THE PAST. They had already been punished. USADA had nothing at all on 5 of these guys - including George Hincapie - Armstrong's best friend who Armstrong himself has referred to as a "brother". Hincapie had never failed a test. And what of the other 15 people who aren't even athletes? People like Armstrong's masseuse? What did she stand to gain from this? They can't punish a farking massesuse for anything...
 
2012-10-22 04:28:33 PM  

6655321: RCA tried to take his patents about FM from him.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x319]

Eventually, the courts ruled in his favour.


....didn't do him much good - RCA drove him into financial ruin, and he did a swan dive out the window of his New York apartement.
 
2012-10-22 04:33:11 PM  
George Carlin, right again.
I almost got in a fight over this bit. I agreed totally at the time and still do. My dad died of cancer and I was sick of this tool years ago. Also tired of pink everything in October.
Link

Athletes are never heroes. They all dope in one way or another. ALL.
 
2012-10-22 04:41:30 PM  
Sort of surprised that no one has* at least floated the idea that his testicular cancer was brought on by testosterone abuse. Is that not remotely possible?


* = to the extent that my browser will let me search worth a damn when it's bogged down with 414 posts on a single page
 
2012-10-22 04:46:01 PM  
Dope or not, those were some of the best Tours to watch. That guy was always attacking, taking risks. Put that with Ulrich, Hamilton, Rasmussen, Kloden, the whole T-Mobile and USPS teams. Back when Levi was awesome, Vino and Robbie McEwen. I call it an even playing field. Everyone was juiced. I don't think this is a black cloud in any way. Armstrong brought excitement to the sport, hence attention and viewership in the untapped American market.

/not a LA fanboy
//just really like cycling
 
2012-10-22 04:56:23 PM  

TanHamster: Sort of surprised that no one has* at least floated the idea that his testicular cancer was brought on by testosterone abuse. Is that not remotely possible?


* = to the extent that my browser will let me search worth a damn when it's bogged down with 414 posts on a single page


It's absolutely possible, but its not something we'll ever know the answer to definitively.
 
2012-10-22 04:57:35 PM  
*sigh*
My statement was that is a PIECE of evidence used...morons...clear thinking is very apparently devoid in this thread.
Would you like more of this same style of "We assume...duh" evidence?
How bout:

"Christian Vande Velde also walked in on what he believed to be an EPO injection Dr. del Moral was giving to Kevin Livingston during the 1999
Tour." What he thinks? Seriously?

"At a team training camp in Solvang, California, Armstrong again tried to get Frankie Andreu to begin working with
Michele Ferrari, imploring Andreu, "you have to get serious."74 For Armstrong getting serious
meant, among other things, following a doping plan prescribed by Michele Ferrari." This is a leading statement with no statement of fact.

*Summarized Ferrari Section pages 23-27*
Most of the section regarding Ferrari is pretty leading, contains nothing more than opinion, a story from what would appear to be a documentary, and guilty by association. None of which are admissible in a court of law.

I say AGAIN, this is nothing more than testimonies of butthurt ex-teammates, most of whom were caught and opted for a reduced sentence by selling down Lance, and losers. If you are going to try to ruin the man, at least give him the decency of a fair trial and a jury of his peers.

Ohh and the thegoodthebadthedumb I know what hearsay is, numbnuts. I am aware that the sworn testimonies are not hearsay and I am not saying that any of the evidence IN the article is hearsay either...

I will leave you all with this...directly from the farking USADA decision.

"As a result, none of the evidence assembled by USADA has come from federal law enforcement."
 
2012-10-22 04:58:18 PM  

MakerGrey: Dope or not, those were some of the best Tours to watch. That guy was always attacking, taking risks. Put that with Ulrich, Hamilton, Rasmussen, Kloden, the whole T-Mobile and USPS teams. Back when Levi was awesome, Vino and Robbie McEwen. I call it an even playing field. Everyone was juiced. I don't think this is a black cloud in any way. Armstrong brought excitement to the sport, hence attention and viewership in the untapped American market.

/not a LA fanboy
//just really like cycling


It's easy to do when you're using the equivalent of a Game-Shark.
 
2012-10-22 04:59:47 PM  
"They were all doping" is a pretty weak excuse. Lance only raced the TdF, skipped out on the other grand tours, and doped to the gills. It was all against the rules. There were clean riders on those tours, however they were on losing teams, or were riders who dropped out b/c they couldn't keep up with a doped peleton after a fall the day before, and probably never got close to the podium. It's not a level playing field, and it would really suck to have been a clean rider in that era.
 
2012-10-22 05:02:07 PM  

DeathCipris: "As a result, none of the evidence assembled by USADA has come from federal law enforcement."


Thanks Lance. You're done for the day. Besides, being as you are completely unaffected by all this, shouldn't you be at home chilling with the fam?
 
2012-10-22 05:05:39 PM  

MakerGrey: Dope or not, those were some of the best Tours to watch. That guy was always attacking, taking risks. Put that with Ulrich, Hamilton, Rasmussen, Kloden, the whole T-Mobile and USPS teams. Back when Levi was awesome, Vino and Robbie McEwen. I call it an even playing field. Everyone was juiced. I don't think this is a black cloud in any way. Armstrong brought excitement to the sport, hence attention and viewership in the untapped American market.

/not a LA fanboy
//just really like cycling


Lemond's wins were just as good. Massive winning attacks in the mountains, battling his own teammate, beating Fignon by seconds on the very last day of the tour. They even managed to overcome the sappy soundtrack music and commentary by John Tesh that we had to endure on american TV. The fact that Phil Liggett still knew his arse from his elbow back then really helped.
 
2012-10-22 05:06:31 PM  
Since a select few are clearly having a shiat-fit that I don't believe the flimsy "evidence." I would like to note that I don't know if he is doping or not, nor do I care, but I am getting my point across that I sure as hell don't believe what the USADA is passing off as "evidence" and that the man deserves a fair trial with court-admissible evidence.
 
2012-10-22 05:08:06 PM  
DeathCipris "As a result, none of the evidence assembled by USADA has come from federal law enforcement."

You are absolutely right, federal law enforcement has nothing to do with this; because the truth is, Mr. Armstrong is not charged with any crime, just breaking the rules of the game to which he had agreed to play by. If he found he could not win while "everyone else" was doping, maybe he should have taken the higher road by exposing the cheaters and cleaning up his sport, instead he chose to take cheating to a whole other level.
 
2012-10-22 05:10:00 PM  
I hope he gets cancer and dies.

/tickets please!
 
2012-10-22 05:12:44 PM  
DeathCipris:

"I was generally aware that Lance was using testosterone throughout the time we were teammates. For instance at a race in Spain in 2000 Lance indicated to me he had taken testosterone... When I heard that drug testing officials were at the hotel, I texted Lance to warn him to avoid the place. As a result, he dropped out of the race." ... Affidavit of George Hincapie, a former Armstrong teammate and one of his closest friends in cycling.

"At the (1998) World Championships Lance and Christian (Vande Velde) and Dr. (Pedro) Celaya and I stayed at a bed and breakfast. The individual bedrooms opened into a single common area. One morning a UCI drug tester showed up to test us and began to set up in the common area. At that point, Dr. Celaya went out to the car and retrieved a liter of saline. He hid the saline under his raincoat, walked right past the UCI tester and went into Armstrong's room, closed the door and administered the saline to lower Lance's hematocrit level." ... Affidavit of Jonathan Vaughters, a former Armstrong teammate.

"Although I had some good results with Dr. (Michele) Ferrari's program, as of 2002 I had been off the doping program more than I had been on it ... Armstrong told me that if I wanted to continue to ride for the (U.S.) Postal Service team I would have to use what Dr. Ferrari has been telling me to use and would have to follow Dr. Ferrari's program to the letter. The conversation left me with no question that I was in the doghouse and that the only way forward with Armstrong's team was to get fully on Dr. Ferrari's doping program." ... Christian Vande Velde, a former teammate, discussing a 2002 meeting with Armstrong and Ferrari, the alleged mastermind of the doping regimen for Armstrong and select teammates.

"Shortly before the 2005 Tour de France I was in need of EPO and I asked Lance Armstrong if he could provide some EPO for me. Lance said that he could, and he gave me two vials of EPO while we were both in Nice, France. Lance had previously provided EPO to me on another occasion following a training camp in Santa Barbara." ... Affidavit of Hincapie.

"I returned to Girona and attempted to increase my hematocrit by using more EPO ... Johan (Bruyneel) suggested that I keep my reported whereabouts at my Girona home but that I not tell USADA and go to stay at the Hotel Fontanals Golf in Puigcerdà, Spain, where he said that Lance Armstrong had gone in the past to avoid drug testing." ... Affidavit of Tom Danielson, a former Armstrong teammate, discussing the required daily "whereabouts" logs required by USADA for its drug testers and how he avoided it in 2006

"Reticulocytes are immature red blood cells created naturally by the body. When an athlete adds additional red blood cells to his circulation by transfusing his own stored blood, the body's production of reticulocytes is suppressed ... When Prof. (Christopher) Gore compared the suppressed reticulocyte percentage in Armstrong's 2009 and 2010 Tour de France samples to the reticulocyte percentage in his other samples, Prof. Gore concluded that the approximate likelihood of Armstrong's seven suppressed reticulocyte values during the 2009 and 2010 Tours de France occurring naturally was less than one in a million." ... Page 140 of USADA "Reasoned Decision" report

I could go on...and on...and on...and on...
 
2012-10-22 05:14:22 PM  

DeathCipris: Since a select few are clearly having a shiat-fit that I don't believe the flimsy "evidence." I would like to note that I don't know if he is doping or not, nor do I care, but I am getting my point across that I sure as hell don't believe what the USADA is passing off as "evidence" and that the man deserves a fair trial with court-admissible evidence.


Armstrong himself decided to forego any opportunity to formally clear his name. That's his fault, not USADAs.
 
2012-10-22 05:16:13 PM  

damat01: DeathCipris "As a result, none of the evidence assembled by USADA has come from federal law enforcement."

You are absolutely right, federal law enforcement has nothing to do with this; because the truth is, Mr. Armstrong is not charged with any crime, just breaking the rules of the game to which he had agreed to play by. If he found he could not win while "everyone else" was doping, maybe he should have taken the higher road by exposing the cheaters and cleaning up his sport, instead he chose to take cheating to a whole other level.


Again....evidence...not people with conflicting and unverifiable stories. These people just transcribed the stories and signed off on it saying "Yup, that happened. Promise!" Even the Texas Federal Judge said, when throwing out both LA's and USADA's cases, that the whole situation smacked of a want for media attention and publicity rather than the upholding of the rules. (paraphrasing there)
Point me to some REAL evidence, something tangible or verifiable, not just someone, with a possible unseen motive, that he was doping.
 
2012-10-22 05:21:09 PM  

thegoodthebadthedumb: DeathCipris: Since a select few are clearly having a shiat-fit that I don't believe the flimsy "evidence." I would like to note that I don't know if he is doping or not, nor do I care, but I am getting my point across that I sure as hell don't believe what the USADA is passing off as "evidence" and that the man deserves a fair trial with court-admissible evidence.

Armstrong himself decided to forego any opportunity to formally clear his name. That's his fault, not USADAs.


USADA, in their decision paper, liked to lead on that it was an admission of guilt as he wouldn't have to testify under oath. I can understand where he is coming from dealing with all of it, but it is interesting he didn't put up more of a fight.
 
2012-10-22 05:25:42 PM  

DeathCipris:
Point me to some REAL evidence, something tangible or verifiable, not just someone, with a possible unseen motive, that he was doping.


Direct witness testimony is real evidence, I can assure you. You can get convicted for murder at get the death penalty with the witness testimony of one or two people. 26 people? shiat...you'd hang in a second.

But it doesn't really matter, though. Regardless of the evidence, I bet that your brain will simply not allow you to reach the conclusion that Armstrong is a cheater. And if by some miracle it does, you'll rationalize his behavior another way and continue to give him a pass.

But here it goes anyway - a scientist and doping expert explains Armstrong's 1999 TdF samples which tested positive for EPO in 2005: http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

And here's another doctor and doping expert talking about how Armstrong's 2009 samples showed signs of blood maniuplation: http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/10/news/gore-armstrongs-blood-show ed-clear-signs-of-manipulation-in-2009_256658
 
2012-10-22 05:26:46 PM  
thegoodthebadthedumb

Aside from the blood count, which this on the same page explaining the excerpt:

"In evaluating the sample data, Dr. Gore rejected four of the test results, either because the
transport time to the laboratory was too long (3), or collection occurred too soon after
competition (1) in violation of WADA's Athlete Biological Passport Guidelines. These rejected
samples included one of the six samples collected during the 2009 Tour de France."

...everything else is just "stories."
 
2012-10-22 05:27:25 PM  

DeathCipris: damat01: DeathCipris "As a result, none of the evidence assembled by USADA has come from federal law enforcement."

You are absolutely right, federal law enforcement has nothing to do with this; because the truth is, Mr. Armstrong is not charged with any crime, just breaking the rules of the game to which he had agreed to play by. If he found he could not win while "everyone else" was doping, maybe he should have taken the higher road by exposing the cheaters and cleaning up his sport, instead he chose to take cheating to a whole other level.

Again....evidence...not people with conflicting and unverifiable stories. These people just transcribed the stories and signed off on it saying "Yup, that happened. Promise!" Even the Texas Federal Judge said, when throwing out both LA's and USADA's cases, that the whole situation smacked of a want for media attention and publicity rather than the upholding of the rules. (paraphrasing there)
Point me to some REAL evidence, something tangible or verifiable, not just someone, with a possible unseen motive, that he was doping.


How about you produce one shred of evidence regarding Hincapie's or Leipheimer's "unseen motive" for their testimony? Levi was just fired from his team, both their reputations are destoryed. Why would they do that?
 
2012-10-22 05:32:19 PM  

DeathCipris: Since a select few are clearly having a shiat-fit that I don't believe the flimsy "evidence." I would like to note that I don't know if he is doping or not, nor do I care, but I am getting my point across that I sure as hell don't believe what the USADA is passing off as "evidence" and that the man deserves a fair trial with court-admissible evidence.


Trial? For what? Cycling dopers don't get trials very often you know. Court admissible evidence? Well, he could have challenged these results at an arbitration hearing but he passed on the opportunity.

Also, you watch waaaaaaaay too much bullshiat police tv if you think eyewitness testimony is not court admissible evidence. And, now that I think of it, the very foundation of Law and Order is witness testimony. Tune is and you can watch about a zillion hours of people being sentenced to real actual jails based on witness testimony.

So, your point, if you had one, is that you will accept failed drug tests and failed drug tests only. Ok, cool. Sit back and enjoy - Armstrong is gonna get his day in court. He's gonna get lots and lots of days actually. Because he's about to get the ever loving shiat sued out of him by SCA, Rupert Murdoch, and at least half a dozen other farkers. You can sit there and say 'that's not real evidence!' very loudly as his carcass is picked clean.
 
2012-10-22 05:33:11 PM  

thegoodthebadthedumb: DeathCipris:
Point me to some REAL evidence, something tangible or verifiable, not just someone, with a possible unseen motive, that he was doping.

Direct witness testimony is real evidence, I can assure you. You can get convicted for murder at get the death penalty with the witness testimony of one or two people. 26 people? shiat...you'd hang in a second.

But it doesn't really matter, though. Regardless of the evidence, I bet that your brain will simply not allow you to reach the conclusion that Armstrong is a cheater. And if by some miracle it does, you'll rationalize his behavior another way and continue to give him a pass.

But here it goes anyway - a scientist and doping expert explains Armstrong's 1999 TdF samples which tested positive for EPO in 2005: http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

And here's another doctor and doping expert talking about how Armstrong's 2009 samples showed signs of blood maniuplation: http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/10/news/gore-armstrongs-blood-show ed-clear-signs-of-manipulation-in-2009_256658


Well as another poster stated, it would be interesting to see the connection between doping and his testicular cancer. I am not above reason, good sir or madam, but I still find it hard to take 26 separate accounts with stories that don't really match. I will have to look into more later, but right now, I don't see the connection. I will read through that first article you sent.
 
2012-10-22 05:36:16 PM  
I knew this was coming , i had hoped they would stand up to the USADA and demand physical evidence to back up the circumstantial but they did not. I remain neutral on the whole matter.
 
2012-10-22 05:37:48 PM  

JohnBigBootay: DeathCipris: Since a select few are clearly having a shiat-fit that I don't believe the flimsy "evidence." I would like to note that I don't know if he is doping or not, nor do I care, but I am getting my point across that I sure as hell don't believe what the USADA is passing off as "evidence" and that the man deserves a fair trial with court-admissible evidence.

Trial? For what? Cycling dopers don't get trials very often you know. Court admissible evidence? Well, he could have challenged these results at an arbitration hearing but he passed on the opportunity.

Also, you watch waaaaaaaay too much bullshiat police tv if you think eyewitness testimony is not court admissible evidence. And, now that I think of it, the very foundation of Law and Order is witness testimony. Tune is and you can watch about a zillion hours of people being sentenced to real actual jails based on witness testimony.

So, your point, if you had one, is that you will accept failed drug tests and failed drug tests only. Ok, cool. Sit back and enjoy - Armstrong is gonna get his day in court. He's gonna get lots and lots of days actually. Because he's about to get the ever loving shiat sued out of him by SCA, Rupert Murdoch, and at least half a dozen other farkers. You can sit there and say 'that's not real evidence!' very loudly as his carcass is picked clean.


Wow....dick.
Really don't care what you think.
I am open minded, but it still seems flimsy to me. I have some reading that thegoodthebadthedumb directed me to that I will be following up on to check it out.
 
2012-10-22 05:58:43 PM  
So, are any of the individuals who are sifting through reams of report data, following up to ask what is going to be done to make sure that cycling is cleaner in the future?
 
2012-10-22 06:01:56 PM  

DeathCipris: Wow....dick.
Really don't care what you think.


Aw, is the guy who called other posters numbnuts or morons for not seeing it his way a little upset this afternoon? That's ok - I am completely unaffected and just chilling with my fam and focusing on what's really important.
 
2012-10-22 06:25:06 PM  

lohphat: notatrollorami:
Overall his presence on earth has been positive because of the amount of cancer research his cause has funded. But make no mistake if you knew him personally you would consider him a huge dick.

Where are the details of how much has been given for research. IIRC the money raised was fore "awareness" and not research.


That's a valid point. I've never considered contributing so I've never checked into that charity. It may very well be a big scam like Komen (where only a tiny portion of the money goes to anything actually useful) but I don't know.
 
2012-10-22 06:29:36 PM  

notatrollorami: lohphat: notatrollorami:
Overall his presence on earth has been positive because of the amount of cancer research his cause has funded. But make no mistake if you knew him personally you would consider him a huge dick.

Where are the details of how much has been given for research. IIRC the money raised was fore "awareness" and not research.

That's a valid point. I've never considered contributing so I've never checked into that charity. It may very well be a big scam like Komen (where only a tiny portion of the money goes to anything actually useful) but I don't know.


Armstrong is a huge cheating Dick. And no, livestrong does not do very much at all for cancer research. And Armstrong certainly receives a hefty paycheck from his livestrong efforts and questions have been raised about the muddy waters between the for profit stuff vs the non profit - but livestrong itself receives high marks from charity navigator and does good work. No sense throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
 
2012-10-22 06:29:41 PM  
Saying Lance Armstrong doped is like saying there is no god. Proof it. Oh you can't all you have is testimony years after the fact and a bunch of high priests ready to persecute the atheists who don't believe.
 
2012-10-22 06:49:00 PM  

Alone in the Snark: Therefore, nobody remembers him.


I do (and dug this out just for you). Also remember he almost died after being accidentally shot while out hunting and came back from that, a story almost as good as Lance's cancer. I also remember the duel with Laurent Fignon. But, then again, didn't Fignon later admit to using amphetamines? It's hard to say how far back it goes. It's just different drugs for different times and everyone was trying to get an edge.

i1237.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-22 06:54:40 PM  

lucksi: So what? It's not like they take away his money he made from doing drugs, now is it?


He nerds to cough up 7ml
That is just the start
 
2012-10-22 07:02:32 PM  
Somebody make another one nut joke. We can get this baby over 500!
 
2012-10-22 07:03:15 PM  

BiblioTech: I do (and dug this out just for you).


Very cool. You know, of all the people wronged by LA, Lemond is at the top of the list. The dude did not get the life he had coming to him after what he accomplished. Because, mostly, of Lance Armstrong being a vindictive raging dick. You gotta have huge ball to serially sue person after person for doing nothing more than telling the truth.
 
2012-10-22 07:07:00 PM  

expobill: lucksi: So what? It's not like they take away his money he made from doing drugs, now is it?

He nerds to cough up 7ml
That is just the start


That's just from the bonus and settlement from the bonus. then they have already requested back the tour prize money. And rupert murdoch is suing to recover his libel judgement with legal fees. Then the LA Confidentiel guys will come calling. It's gonna be a long list. Could not happen to a nicer guy.
 
2012-10-22 07:21:50 PM  
JohnBigBootay:

Glad you liked the pic. Sorry it flipped when I posted. Think that is circa 1981/1982?? Had some pics of Eric Heiden as well so that's about the right time frame.
 
2012-10-22 07:23:17 PM  
Bigjohn
Cheers, I have enjoyed your posts these weeks!
http://imageshack.us/a/img685/9845/im agexlw.jpg

Sorry on an itouch at a brewpub!
 
rka
2012-10-22 07:23:27 PM  

JohnBigBootay: expobill: lucksi: So what? It's not like they take away his money he made from doing drugs, now is it?

He nerds to cough up 7ml
That is just the start

That's just from the bonus and settlement from the bonus. then they have already requested back the tour prize money. And rupert murdoch is suing to recover his libel judgement with legal fees. Then the LA Confidentiel guys will come calling. It's gonna be a long list. Could not happen to a nicer guy.


That's an interesting twist, or could be at least.

One assumes that everyone Lance sued and won judgements against lost because they couldn't come up with enough evidence in a court of law to fight a libel rap.

None of USADA's evidence has actually been vetted in a court of law either. There are rules for admissibility and chain of evidence and whatnot in a real court that a lot of their stuff didn't need. They could basically throw everything out there and hit him with "preponderance of evidence".

Should be interesting to see if any of this stuff can stand up.
 
Displayed 50 of 483 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report