Lance positive?

nonns said:

Nope what you are claiming is proof is in fact heresay and nowt more. Proof is when they can slap it on a table otherwise it is little more than their word against his. If two people say Evans dopes does that make it true?

Proof will be when they do a test and declare the result as they have for Vinokourov or Basso or Hamilton or any of the others.

Until that point there is rumour finger pointing and b*ll leavings and that is all.
That said there is nothing Ican say to convince you so you beleive what you believe and I will sit on the fence. I still maintain it doesn't actually matter. I prefer to believe that they're all doping. Its still quite a spectacle.

You might want to pull your nose out of the Armstrong talking points and actually figure out what hearsay means. First hand witnesses that heard Armstrong admit to the use of PEDs are not hearsay. An assistant that found steroids in his bathroom is not hearsay. Six positives for EPO in restrospectively tested urine is not hearsay. The two scientists who developed the test for EPO have both said (looking at the details of the EPO positives) that there is no question that Armstrong doped.

You are not sitting on the fence. That is a bull**** statement to try to appear objective. You are steadfastly refusing to believe any evidence, no matter how damning.

Gotta love this other BS move where you try to claim that you believe that they are all doping but at the same time you are steadfastly denying that Armstrong dopes. This is what I call The Armstrong Theory of Immaculate Doping: The belief that everyone dopes but somehow all the evidence that Armstrong doped can be dismissed as "hearsay."

Show me the evidence that these first hand witnesses actually exist as witnesses and actually heard. Show me the pictures. Show me the PROOF. Hey Brodeal I've heard that LA dopes I heard it from a person who heard it from a person who mentioned it to a newspaper who heard it from a person who who who.....Does this make it true? Have I got pictures of the syringes well no but I know somewho has a dog which confessed to a rabbit which I saw whilst smoking weed and that rabbit was closely related to someone who saw them. This evidence was corroborated by an ex TdF pro who never amounted to much who interviewed LA oh and years later by a hugely successful pro who might also have been on the juice who is jealous about having his 3 record wins as the first American TdF winner beaten by a jumped up upstart.....

C'mon

Perhaps he did and perhaps he didn't but incontrovertible proof.....c'mon. Nobody has anything that they're confident enough about gettting him on that they're prepared to risk it. Does that make it clear that he hasn't doped NO. Nor does it mean he has. At the moment unless you were in that room you have nothing more than hearsay and vicious nasty an destructive rumours to go on. Even Kohl got caught and is in deep trouble (whils the confesses and names names). Old samples are being looked at. Perhaps Lance is going to actually be proven to have doped. A bunch of people all of whom could have a bone to pick are not useful witnesses.

Given the mistakes that the legal system makes and the mistakes even that evidence has been known to result in. I prefer to actually wait till someone is proved beond reasonable doubt. If Lance is called to explain himself. Uncontrovertible proof is provided he is banned from the sport stripped of his titles and so forth I will say fine he was a doper and a cheat and he deserves everything he gets as a professional sportsman because he didn't play fair.

In the meantime I follow him and hope he does well because he's contributed hugely to the sport and to charity also. He might be an arrogant SOB but he's done a lot of good also and he's exciting to watch so all kudos to the guy.

I'm also more convinced than ever that the mind plays a huge part in contributing to victories and superlative achievements. LA has stared death in the face. He has absolute determination that has to be a huge incentive for him. I think he's simply more focussed than most perhaps to the point of obsessive compulsive disorder.

As for the samples. Well why have they not been used?
The newspapers/magazines. Why has LA not sued them. I answered that one previously. Its LA's word against theirs. He stands only to lose by suing. he chosen the optimal strategy - sensible.

If he's doping he'll get caught one day. Kohl got caught even though he says they miss everyone. Kohl is milking this for all he's worth. He cheated he got away with it. They caught him . Somethings working. If you believe that a single individual like LA has managed to manipulate himself to be above the sport. I would be inclined to say that you're his ultimate fans and that you endow him with qualities which are simply astonishing.

Perhaps he needs a little shrine?

If

nonns said:

As for the samples. Well why have they not been used?
The newspapers/magazines. Why has LA not sued them. I answered that one previously. Its LA's word against theirs. He stands only to lose by suing. he chosen the optimal strategy - sensible.

There is a proof shortage :eek:

Doped or not, I think he has been good for the sport and yes an inspiration to thousands and thousands of cancer patients. At the end of the day he is a 7 time TdF winner, and has never been sanctioned by any official governing body for doping. We all can have an opinion, some like the guy, some hate the guy, success generally causes that dynamic. We can shoose to believe or not the evidence against him, but that doesn't change his record, and only a fool would believe that doping is a recent development in cycling. I think he should be remembered as one of the great cyclist, but I think he should be credited with figuring how to singularly focus on the TdF and winning it. He specialized in the TdF, that makes him different from the greats of the past and in my opinion, not as great as some.

I also think Contador is getting ready to hand him his @$$.

Contador has the potential to be an all time great. I hope Lance looked at how the Chicken handled AC in the alps in 07, none can match his kick, you've got to steadily pressure him. Although, I think he has grown up since then and will not waste energy like he did against the Chicken in 07.

He is the biggest cheat sports have ever seen.
He lied, cheated, bullied, threatened to get to those 7 TDF titles.
He destroyed lifes and careers on a whim.
He made millions out of people's pockets asking them to believe in the "miracle".
The only reason he is noteworthy is that he managed to survive cancer and get rich because of it. People are indeed sheep it seems.
Kimmage was right. He is the cancer of cycling and I cant wait to get rid of him.
Now I may get flamed because of my views. I dont mind since most people that disagree with me are on a comeback of their own here after a three year "sabbatical" so I couldnt care less about what they think. Anyway Lance needs morons like them to get rich and "spread the message".
A word on hearsay:.
Hearsay is information gathered by Person A from Person B concerning some event, condition, or thing of which Person A had no direct experience.
Ergo if I say to Bro Deal that nonnsense is biased, Bro Deal repeats it to lim without reading any of nonnsense's posts thats hearsay.
However I am a witness to nonnsense's bias and thats not hearsay. Hence Emma O'Reily, Andrieu's wife, Andersson, etc are all witnesses and their testimony is not hearsay.

double post

nonns said:

As for the samples. Well why have they not been used?
The newspapers/magazines. Why has LA not sued them. I answered that one previously. Its LA's word against theirs. He stands only to lose by suing. he chosen the optimal strategy - sensible.

I would respectively suggest that you acquaint yerself with the draconian laws of libel, as they apply here in Europe.

Any media organisation printing lies, run the very considerable risk of being sued to oblivion.

If lies were published - Armstrong would win a case, if he brought it.

He could donate the court case awards to charity.
ahem.

limerickman said:

I would respectively suggest that you acquaint yerself with the draconian laws of libel, as they apply here in Europe.

Any media organisation printing lies, run the very considerable risk of being sued to oblivion.

If lies were published - Armstrong would win a case, if he brought it.

He could donate the court case awards to charity.
ahem.

Donating to charity??? Not bloody likely. It'll all go to his personal bank account.

DV1976 said:

He is the biggest cheat sports have ever seen.
He lied, cheated, bullied, threatened to get to those 7 TDF titles.
He destroyed lifes and careers on a whim.
He made millions out of people's pockets asking them to believe in the "miracle".
The only reason he is noteworthy is that he managed to survive cancer and get rich because of it. People are indeed sheep it seems.
Kimmage was right. He is the cancer of cycling and I cant wait to get rid of him.
Now I may get flamed because of my views. I dont mind since most people that disagree with me are on a comeback of their own here after a three year "sabbatical" so I couldnt care less about what they think. Anyway Lance needs morons like them to get rich and "spread the message".
A word on hearsay:.
Hearsay is information gathered by Person A from Person B concerning some event, condition, or thing of which Person A had no direct experience.
Ergo if I say to Bro Deal that nonnsense is biased, Bro Deal repeats it to lim without reading any of nonnsense's posts thats hearsay.
However I am a witness to nonnsense's bias and thats not hearsay. Hence Emma O'Reily, Andrieu's wife, Andersson, etc are all witnesses and their testimony is not hearsay.

He's be destroyed in a European witness box - if he tried to sue
claiming libel.

Can't comment about the US legal system, or it's libel laws.

TheDarkLord said:

Donating to charity??? Not bloody likely. It'll all go to his personal bank account.

and there was me thinking he donates all his money to charity.

silly me.

DV1976 said:

He is the biggest cheat sports have ever seen.
He lied, cheated, bullied, threatened to get to those 7 TDF titles.
He destroyed lifes and careers on a whim.
He made millions out of people's pockets asking them to believe in the "miracle".
The only reason he is noteworthy is that he managed to survive cancer and get rich because of it. People are indeed sheep it seems.
Kimmage was right. He is the cancer of cycling and I cant wait to get rid of him.
Now I may get flamed because of my views. I dont mind since most people that disagree with me are on a comeback of their own here after a three year "sabbatical" so I couldnt care less about what they think. Anyway Lance needs morons like them to get rich and "spread the message".
A word on hearsay:.
Hearsay is information gathered by Person A from Person B concerning some event, condition, or thing of which Person A had no direct experience.
Ergo if I say to Bro Deal that nonnsense is biased, Bro Deal repeats it to lim without reading any of nonnsense's posts thats hearsay.
However I am a witness to nonnsense's bias and thats not hearsay. Hence Emma O'Reily, Andrieu's wife, Andersson, etc are all witnesses and their testimony is not hearsay.

But whatever hearsay is is largely irrelevant because ulitmately its still Andrieu's wife word against Lance's. Thats my point. there is no absolute proof.Thats all I'm saying. LA aint god. He's a supreme athlete whether he dopes or doesn't dope. Is he nice or isn't he. I don't know I've never met the guy. At the superficial level I watch the sport and partake at he seems ok. He makes it exciting. I daresay most sportsmen at that level are major Ar**h*les. that doesn't make them any less impressive as athletes. It just makes them impressive athletes who happen to be ah*les.

I'm not a Lance fan per se. I just don't think one should decry his acheivements or accuse him of things which noone has actually been able to prove. J**ze what is it with you people. Nobody told me this was the spanish inquisition!

As for your views. Well you're entitled to them. I find it interesting that you require little absolute evidence to find someone guilty. Thank goodness you aren't the law.

DV1976 said:

Now I may get flamed because of my views. I dont mind since most people that disagree with me are on a comeback of their own here after a three year "sabbatical" so I couldnt care less about what they think. Anyway Lance needs morons like them to get rich and "spread the message".

I certainly don't understand why you would get "flamed" because of your views on Lance. Why? You're entitled to your opinion just as well as anyone else. I doubt anyone's caring about your opinion any more than you do theirs. 🙂

Since we're discussing definitions here however... perhaps you should read up on the one for "moron"

"1usually offensive : a person affected with mild mental retardation2: a very stupid person"

That's a pretty interesting classification you seem to grouping some people in, specifically myself since I've taken a break from cycling. Here's a news flash for you, I'm far from stupid. Here's another one...I'm not a Lance lover, or hater.

What is pretty moronic is that in an attempt to further your own opinion, you attempt to classify those with a different opinion by implying that you're in some way superior to them. If you haven't grown out of that behavior by now then I'd suggest that perhaps you're not as intellectually mature as you profess to be.

For the record:

My only other post to this was in agreement with the gentleman that pointed out the bias of this forum at one time. At that time you couldn't read a racing thread without it turning into a pro/con lance thread and frankly it just became very disinteresting to read. It seems to have changed some which I think is an improvement (not that you care about that).

I couldn't care less about the Lance doped/didn't dope argument. Fact is I was convinced long ago that the majority of them do so it's a moot point for discussion anyway.

Mansmind said:

.

I couldn't care less about the Lance doped/didn't dope argument. Fact is I was convinced long ago that the majority of them do so it's a moot point for discussion anyway.

Then it should have been obvious to a highly intelligent person as yourself that I was not refering to you... Hence you have probably wasted your time trying to find a smart retort to statements that were not directed at you.
Unless you consider yourself an LA fan boy in which case I wont retract nothing. You are a moron.

nonns said:

But whatever hearsay is is largely irrelevant because ulitmately its still Andrieu's wife word against Lance's. Thats my point.

No, you dumbshit. I already told you that you obviously don't know what the word hearsay means. It's evidently something that you picked up from your fanboy talking points. Using words that you don't know the meaning of makes you a dumbshit. Betsy Andreu's testimony is not hearsay. She was in the room when Armstrong admitted PED use. It is also backed up by three others in the room that heard Armstrong admit to PED use.

nonns said:

there is no absolute proof.Thats all I'm saying. LA aint god. He's a supreme athlete whether he dopes or doesn't dope. Is he nice or isn't he. I don't know I've never met the guy. At the superficial level I watch the sport and partake at he seems ok. He makes it exciting. I daresay most sportsmen at that level are major Ar**h*les. that doesn't make them any less impressive as athletes. It just makes them impressive athletes who happen to be ah*les.

I'm not a Lance fan per se. I just don't think one should decry his acheivements or accuse him of things which noone has actually been able to prove. J**ze what is it with you people. Nobody told me this was the spanish inquisition!

As for your views. Well you're entitled to them. I find it interesting that you require little absolute evidence to find someone guilty. Thank goodness you aren't the law.

I find it interesting that you are a moron who does not know what the hell he is talking about but pats himself on the back about how superior he is to other people who do know what they are talking about. A triumph in ignorance I guess. There is a ton of evidence that Armstrong doped. The amount is overwhelming. There is no way a rational person can look at the evidence and not conclude that he doped. Read From Lance to Landis sometime and get a clue.

Armstrong tested positive six times for EPO. He was offered the opportunity to have the samples retested last year. He refused because he knew exactly what they would show.

In a court of law Armstrong would be convicted easy. There is no reasonable doubt that he did not dope, let alone the preponderance of the evidence standard.

DV1976 said:

Then it should have been obvious to a highly intelligent person as yourself that I was not refering to you...

Oh that's nice, I'm the only person in this thread that mentioned anything about taking any sort of sabattical so yeah, I'm pretty sure you were. I addressed both of your implications. Why backpedal?

Quoted post said:

Hence you have probably wasted your time trying to find a smart retort to statements that were not directed at you.

I type fast, I can afford the little bit of time it took...so no worries there.

Quoted post said:

Unless you consider yourself an LA fan boy in which case I wont retract nothing. You are a moron.

No, I don't consider myself an LA fan boy, which I addressed earlier. Although I don't.. I also don't consider anyone that is a moron, nor the "haters" which you seem to identify with so well. As I said before, you're grouping a very large number of people and assigning a label to them although you know nothing about them...and in my opinion that's pretty moronic in itself.

I sounds much like a case of "you don't agree with me, so therefore you must be a moron". Yeah that's some high-level thinking you're doing there, congrats.

Bro Deal said:

Betsy Andreu's testimony is not hearsay. She was in the room when Armstrong admitted PED use. It is also backed up by three others in the room that heard Armstrong admit to PED use.

I just listened to the interview she did on the radio. She stumbled a little here and there, but it didn't sound like she stumbled through a made-up story. She was pretty convincing actually.

It would have been very interesting to see the outcome had the evidence been applicable to the law suit in question.

Mansmind said:

Oh that's nice, I'm the only person in this thread that mentioned anything about taking any sort of sabattical so yeah, I'm pretty sure you were. I addressed both of your implications. Why backpedal?

.

1) Has it occured to you that I may have read your post and liked the expression without actually disagreeing with what you had written?
2) I didnt classify you. You classified yourself.
3) I didnt refer to you personally, I didnt quote you, I didnt mention your nick, I just happened to use a expression that you used as well. True I may have read it on your post. As luck had it I had a discussion at a dinner last night with a Maths professor who is on a one year's sabbatical and it came up in the conversation. So it may had been on my mind since last night or I may have glanced it as I was scrolling down this topics' posts. I dont remember. And its not my problem. Its your. I cant recall what you ve written, I didnt pay attention to it, if I answered to anyone in particular this was nonns and simply because he has posted the same nonsense before. And I am annoyed because for three years there were 10-12 regulars here posting and talking about cycling and now we are seeing the long departed Armstrong posse all of a sudden reappearing and blabbering the same nonsense as 3-4 years ago. And I mostly replied to all of them and to people like them who havent graced us yet (where is mussette any1?) with their presence and thats because:
a) They dont give a shιt about cycling
b) They believe everything that comes out of LA's mouth and they have to make you see their point eventhouth not only it doesnt make sense, it spits in the face of Logic.
So I ve spent 10min of my life explaining my self to you. It s up to you to be convinced or not. I dont care either way.

DV1976 said:

1) Has it occured to you that I may have read your post and liked the expression without actually disagreeing with what you had written?

No actually it didn't, because it didn't hit me that way at all.

Quoted post said:

3) I didnt refer to you personally, I didnt quote you, I didnt mention your nick, I just happened to use a expression that you used as well. True I may have read it on your post. As luck had it I had a discussion at a dinner last night with a Maths professor who is on a one year's sabbatical and it came up in the conversation. So it may had been on my mind since last night or I may have glanced it as I was scrolling down this topics' posts. I dont remember. And its not my problem. Its your. I cant recall what you ve written, I didnt pay attention to it, if I answered to anyone in particular this was nonns and simply because he has posted the same nonsense before. And I am annoyed because for three years there were 10-12 regulars here posting and talking about cycling and now we are seeing the long departed Armstrong posse all of a sudden reappearing and blabbering the same nonsense as 3-4 years ago. And I mostly replied to all of them and to people like them who havent graced us yet (where is mussette any1?) with their presence and thats because:
a) They dont give a shιt about cycling
b) They believe everything that comes out of LA's mouth and they have to make you see their point eventhouth not only it doesnt make sense, it spits in the face of Logic.
So I ve spent 10min of my life explaining my self to you. It s up to you to be convinced or not. I dont care either way.

I appreciate it. 🙂

limerickman said:

If lies were published - Armstrong would win a case, if he brought it.

In my mind, this is the most damning piece of evidence for Armstrong having doped. He's one of the most litigious contemporary athletes, but he's not going to sue those who say, print or otherwise publish allegations that he doped? Makes no sense whatsoever.

In other words, what's been printed is true. See: The case that Armstrong soundly lost in France - not to stop publication of the first book, but to add a disclaimer that Armstrong and his attorneys penned to be printed in the book. Why not sue to stop publication?