So they will trot out a bunch of folks who are jealous of Armstrong or just do not like him (and he is not a likeable guy). But until they actually show a failed doping test or some hard evidence I doubt the public will care. Armstrong's case that he is the most tested and probed athlete in history and has never once failed a test is a compelling rebuttal to all this stuff.
This is not like Roger Clemens where the accuser has some DNA evidence (I think, I have not followed the case all that closely).
-Jason "the worst you could say about Armstrong is that he was the best cheater in a sport where everyone cheats... whatever" Evans
At some point, shouldn't there be the statute of limitations? The amount of money and time being spent on this is getting ridiculous - they should be spending the money on better tests so that they can have more definitive answers from the testing.
I follow baseball. I don't follow cycling.
But basically, I'm very much a hard-liner against cheaters. And while I'm personally willing to give people the benefit of the doubt, it's not like a criminl court of law where you require evidence that's beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd say it's more like a civil court where the case is decided by the preponderance of the evidence. In baseball terms, I've convicted (in my mind) Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Andy Pettite, Mark McGuire, A-Roid (who just tied Lou Gehrig's grand slam record), Palmero and Manny.
I still believe in my heart that Chipper Jones, Greg Maddox and Derek Jeter were absolutely clean.I haven't seen any evidence that makes me believe that Frank Thomas or Albert Pujols were using PEDs (although I've seen a few wild claims about them).
My point is, that I think the dopers are scum. They're cheaters. If I had a HOF vote, guys like Bonds, Clemens and A-Roid -- three of the greatest players in baseball history -- would NEVER, EVER get my vote. I don't want to hear that "everybody was doing it." A lot were -- but a lot weren't (in fact the evidence of baseball's "secret" test in the early 2000s showed that at the peak, about 15 percent of the players were using something).
I don't know what the numbers are for cycling. Lance Armstrong is one of the few cyclists I've heard of. Like Jason, I'm impressed that he was never caught on a single test -- what did he know that all his competitors didn't? Frankly, I don't know enough about the cycling/doping scene to evaluate the new evience. I'm curious to know why most of you seem to think that Hincapie (who?) is credible, when Hamilton is not.
At the moment, I still give Armstrong the benefit of the doubt in my mind. It will take some significant evidence to overcome all those negative tests. As somebody pointed ou, they caught almost every other top racer at one time or another ... and they didn't catch Armstrong once? As an outsider, that's hard to swallow.
But if they do nail him, he can join the scum-pile -- I don't want to hear how everybody else was doing it (even though in cycling, unlike baseball, that might be true).
If Lance is indeed stripped of his titles, I think the public might care. Just a little.
-Jason "Lance has an army of lawyers and a pile of money-- if anyone can fight and win a battle like this, he can... though I think he may not bother" Evans
Last edited by throatybeard; 06-15-2012 at 12:53 AM.
A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
Some questions cannot be answered
Who’s gonna bury who
We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
---Over the Rhine
Well, here's the latest. Armstrong, through his lawyers, has demanded to see the evidence against him -- including the names of the 10 witnesses the US Anti-Doping Agency is claiming:
So far, the agency is refusing to release its evidence.
I assume they'll have to release it at some point -- relying on unnamed or secret evidence is what the French Army used to frame Dreyfus. Its a favorite tactic of totalitarian regimes. They have to reveal it right?
My question is timing -- reportedly Armstrong has until June 22 to respond to the charges before they make a ruling. But if he can't see the evidence against him, how can he respond?
If that's not enough, the whole idea of 10 witnesses sounds a bit fishy to me. During the entire time he's riding, he's at the center of doping rumors with everybody in France (who hated the idea of an American dominating their tour) out to nail him. And Armstrong is so sloppy he dopes up in front of almost a dozen witnesses? It's kind of like Oliver Stone's version of the JFK Assassination that left frustrated conspiracy buffs to complain that in Stone's world, the conspirators would have had to meet in Madison Square Garden to hold all the plotters.
I thought Lance was innocent until his US postal teammates started getting uncovered...
....ultimately I don't really care anymore.
If the team was supposed to be involved in doping, how is it that Lance knew how to "cover his tracks" but others on the team couldn't? Wouldn't they have followed the same regimen? For example, Tyler Hamilton allegedly learned to dope while on US Postal but when he left, he didn't take any knowledge of how to hide his doping? Same with Floyd Landis? I find that a bit odd.
I think it's time for Lance to tell the Gestapo to take their investigation, and their medals, and shove them where the sun don't shine. The man's never tested positive once, regardless of how sophisticated the test was, before or after he was racing, before or after he had cancer. Let's not forget he came back from near his death bad from testicular cancer that had spread to other parts of his body. Perhaps his cancer treatments rendered his system immune to PED tests. If so, let the other riders get cancer so they too can test clean ... No volunteers? I didn't think so.
Ozzie, your paradigm of optimism!
Go To Hell carolina, Go To Hell!
9F 9F 9F
I have to tell you, given how many of his rivals were doping and drugging like crazy, the notion that Lance won in such dominant fashion without doping seems almost absurd.
That said, there better be a lot more than just bitter rivals who have a vendetta against Lance or this is not gonna come close to sticking.
-Jason "I have to wonder what good is being done by this... as others have noted, Lance's rep raises a ton of money for cancer research" Evans
Ultimately, his extracyclical (new word!) activities far outweigh any of the doping stuff for me. At the very worst, if it comes out he doped, so what? He'll be like everyone else in the industry (at the time) with the enormous caveat that he's raised about a gazillion dollars for a truly worthwhile cause. Earthshattering.
I just want it to be over. They're beating a paleolithic horse at this point.
'Liverpool are magic. Everton are tragic.' -Emlyn Hughes
And, here's the question -- okay, say you find out that Armstrong doped and you take away his jersey. Are you going to do as in-depth an investigation to see whether the guys who finished second were also clean that year? Jan Ullrich finished as runner-up four times in the TdF -- and then got banned for doping.
"Enjoy every sandwich" -- Warren Zevon
Granted I'm somewhat of a cynic but I have always believed the rumors that Lance was doping when he made his remarkable comeback from cancer and won 7 straight TDFs against competition who are all known to have been doping. I remember he had a rumored relationship with a coach or trainer who was known for providing PEDs. You're just setting yourself up for disappointment to believe otherwise. Greg Lemond certainly isn't shy about expressing his feelings on the subject.
I'm equally incredulous about claims that doping is not a problem in the NBA. How is it that doping gives you an advantage pitching, cycling and track but not in basketball? Does anyone really believe a marginal NBA player isn't going to look for an advantage when it is done in every other sport? I'd be shocked if PEDs aren't rampant in golf.
One interesting (at least to me) supposition: since Armstrong was always the team leader and his teammates were always pulling him, perhaps he didn't have to dope. They doped for him, and left a clean Armstrong in position to win. And now they're annoyed.
So, what to make of the latest report that surfaced in a Dutch newspaper today, which says that five former Armstrong teammates have reached a deal with the USADA for reduced suspensions after admitting to doping and agreeing to testify against Armstrong?
Right now, the five individuals in question are either staying mum or, in the case of Jonathan Vaughters, denying the assertions in the report.
Umm, pardon me if I find such testimony somewhat less than convincing.
-Jason "I am eager for Lance to mount a vigorous defense... though he may not bother if he thinks the system is rigged" Evans