View Poll Results: Do you think Armstrong doped?

Voters
533. You may not vote on this poll
  • No. He never did

    50 9.38%
  • Yup, but I didn't think so until recently.

    118 22.14%
  • Yup, knew it all along.

    156 29.27%
  • Yup, but he should keep his titles cause the USADA is bs

    169 31.71%
  • Nope, but I'm starting to have doubts.

    40 7.50%
Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 300 of 647
  1. #251
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,596
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight View Post
    If there was a mountain of evidence, why didn't they submit it to the US justice department or even to a US federal prosecutor in some random state looking to make a name for him/herself ? Why was this not presented in an ACTUAL courtroom where there is a real burden of proof to be met... oh that's right...because it wasn't real proof. It was a stacked deck of heresay and slander where they'd decided his guilt ahead of time, and done everything they could to manufacture the proof of that afterwards, even going so far as to solicit testimony from other proven liars, in exchange for sweet deals.
    So i gather you think he is clean?
    i gather you think the first hand eye witnesses are all lying?
    suppose you think that all the evidence is fabricated?
    Suppose you think that poor lance was just over it and too tired to fight the charges?

    Suppose you think the earth is still flat and the world was going to end a few days ago?

    I have read the key points of the USADA report, seen many eye witness accounts, if it was a murder charge, it would be more than enough hard evidence to lock somebody up for life, if you think theres no proof, you need to do some actual research..

    lol, im just gonna leave it here i have no intentions of arguing with somebody thats clear bias has totally skewed his vision, you know what they say about 1 in 10 people?
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....

  2. #252
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,596
    Quote Originally Posted by dwt View Post
    There are people who believe OJ did not kill his wife, that Elvis lives, that alien beings live among us, and that Lance Armstrong was clean.

    And that Tonight Santa Claus will land on their roof. If they are lucky he will give them Tyler Hamilton's book, "The Secret Race" and they will learn something true about professional cycling in the 90's and the first decade of the 00's.
    LOL, well said, but i guarentee you those same people will say Tyler is making it all up and so is every other witness, and that they have been paid off and its all a big conspiracy, same old story, as i said dwt, you know what they say about 1 in 10 people, in the poll above 8% thinks he never doped, it was 10% for a long time, that proves the 1 in 10 theory spot on, and theres no point arguing with these people or even trying to have a rational conversation with them, that would be the definition of madness lol.......
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....

  3. #253
    Sup
    Reputation: Burnt-Orange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,696
    I think Lance is clean right "wait for it, wait for it"
    NOW


    Sj
    I am slow therefore I am

  4. #254
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Tone's View Post
    So i gather you think he is clean?
    Nope, I believe he and everyone else that were "contenders" for the overall title were riding dirty. If you look at the finishing results for the TdF races when Lance was riding, most of the top-5 were proven in other investigations to be dopers. For several of the years they invalidated Lance's wins, they couldn't elevate second or third to the wins because they'd been caught and convicted of doping already. But they never actually proved he was riding dirty at the time, and retroactively convicting people for things with heresay evidence and testing that couldn't actually prove at the time... well DwT mentioning OJ simpson is appropriate. They couldn't convict him in a criminal court because the burden of proof is higher, so what did they do... find him guilty in a civil case that he was financially liable for the deaths, where the burden of proof is much lower. Same thing happened here with Lance. Attempting to argue any different just proves you're a moron.

    i gather you think the first hand eye witnesses are all lying?
    I believe they'd say whatever they think the USADA wanted to hear them say, in order to get cheesecake sweet deals for themselves.

    Levi Leipheimer for example got a six month suspension that's in effect from september 2012 thru march 2013, which prevents him from doing exactly NO major races. Oh and they took away his results for a 7 year span in which he really didn't do anything spectacular anyway. Oh boo hoo hoo.

    suppose you think that all the evidence is fabricated?
    I've read the report and think enough of it was fabricated as to cast doubt on the whole report and all the findings. Again it comes down to what can actually be proven under law, versus under "we make our own rules and will change the rules to meet what flimsy evidence we have if we don't like the first results" that is how the USADA has operated since its inception 13 years ago.

    Suppose you think that poor lance was just over it and too tired to fight the charges?
    I think so. I think it was pointless to go into a game where the deck is marked and stacked by the dealers, and try and think you can play against that and still win.

    Suppose you think the earth is still flat and the world was going to end a few days ago?
    Nope but I know you are a moron and that's enough for me to sleep at night.
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  5. #255
    dwt
    dwt is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,168
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Tone's "can see it in Cadel Evan's face" that he doesn't dope, currently, at the end of a race..
    Tyler Hamilton, an admitted doper who was privy in his era to inside information in the peloton, as to who was doing what, as well as who was clean, is on record that Cadel was/is clean.

    If you want a hero with a record which is not likely ever to be broken, he's the guy. Only rider ever to have been both Mtb and Road World Champ, and TdF winner to boot. And clean. No one can touch that. Mate.
    Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.

  6. #256
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,762
    Yep, after years of merely winning the "other" jerseys of the tour, he finally reached a stage where all the people with drugs were retired or suspended/banned.
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  7. #257
    dru
    dru is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,443
    D8, I'm curious about your interpretation of reality......

    If armstrong is innocent?

    Could you explain why Armstrong severed all ties with Ferrari on Oct 1st, 2004, confirmed by Stapleton in 2005, and reconfirmed by Armstrong spokesman Mark Fabiani on April 15, 2010, “Lance has not had a professional relationship with Ferrari since 2004", yet the payments and working together continued in secret?

    2005 $100,000
    12/31/2006: $110,000.
    and in 2009:

    On September 1, 2009, Stefano writes, “Schumi asked me if you could process the
    payment (25.000 EUR) for the season as agreed last March. You can forward the payment
    when’s best for you to my account in MC [Monte Carlo].”428 To which Armstrong responds,
    “Can I pay it in cash when I see you?”429

    So in your interpretation it doesn't matter if Armstrong is a liar?

    Or was this stuff fabricated by the USADA and various police agencies from around the world just to get your hero?

    The fact that Ferrari has long been linked to doping carries no weight with you either?

    In all honesty, contrary to what you claim, many many people have gone to prison on circumstantial evidence, and rightfully so.

    Armstrong is guilty as sin.

    I'll be waiting for the 'moron' rebuttal; it seems to make you feel better.
    occasional cyclist

  8. #258
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,047
    Quote Originally Posted by .WestCoastHucker. View Post
    OJ disagrees with your theory...
    even the GLOVE didn't help.

    if it doesn't fit - you must acquit.

    brilliant piece of american judicial system...

  9. #259
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,047
    Quote Originally Posted by AZ.MTNS View Post
    The thread that keeps on giving.
    THE DEADEST HORSE EVER...

    is taking more beating...

  10. #260
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,047
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Yes, it does, if taxpayer money is used to support the US Anti Doping Agency. Please read the Constitution and show me where it says that is a proper role of the federal government. (AND, YES, I AM AWARE THE USADA IS NOT A PART OF THE GOVERNMENT, BUT IT GETS PUBLIC FUNDING).



    If you read my other posts you will hopefully understand that I am well aware that doping was widespread and I commented on other top riders being found guilty of it during the same era.



    Okay, during the time when Lance was winning, who were those guys?



    Not a fanboi. I just posed a very logical question. Do you have facts or just more factless ranting? I've said many times in this thread I am willing to listen to facts. You're just displaying the ability to reach opposite conclusions, but you haven't shared why you think that or what your analysis is.

    again-

    I did not say Lance is or was clean
    I did not say it is a plot against America
    I did not say that I am an expert

    I posed a rhetorical question, and your response to it is a dismal failure.
    actually Dave - if you have any doubts about Lance's guilt - after all the info that was made available to general public - i must inform you that you really should do a reality check...

    i mean this in the most gentle way... seriously...

    Lance was my hero, and if he simply said: "yep, i did it. i am sorry" he would have remained being my hero.

    But defending what is really defenceless, he is treating me and all others that believed in him - as trash with no intelligence. I take offence to it.

    Big man, even with only one nut, should own to his mistakes. I don't fault him for doping as much - it is human to make mistakes - particularly in sports. Been there and I understand the desire to win - completely. However, I fault him for not admitting and apologizing. That made him a small man. He can not fit his hero shoes anymore. Sorry Dave. I hope you accept my approach to this debate...

  11. #261
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fishbucket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,259
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight View Post
    Nope but I know you are a moron and that's enough for me to sleep at night.
    You were doing so well... untill then.

  12. #262
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Fishbucket View Post
    You were doing so well... untill then.
    You're actually new here aren't you?
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  13. #263
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight View Post
    yep, but the USADA wasn't actually a governing body when Lance first started racing. it didn't exist. It actually has zero power outside the USA and in fact has been proven many times as leading witch hunts against athletes to try and give the public image to the media that the USA is tough on drug users. That's its sole purpose for existing. If there had been actual real provable evidence against lance, the justice department would NOT have dropped their case against him last year. They'd have filed criminal charges and taken him into a court of law. Not a court of public opinion.



    In what court was this guilt firmly established? Oh wait... none. Maybe in the puppet court of the backroom of the USADA headquarters when they decided ahead of time that Lance was guilty. Its amusing how all the racers who were dopers who were "witnesses" have gotten slap on the wrist suspensions for their "reliable" testimonies and Lance is given a lifetime ban. The UCI was well within their rights to deny the USADA's claims, as is IOC still (since he was no doubt blood tested at the time he won his bronze medal and didn't test positive for anything they were testing for). All the evidence since the USADA didn't actually ever have access to his actual blood and urine tests, nor the authority to ever gain access to them was based on personal testimony of proven liars. Only a complete moron would believe that is enough to firmly and irrevocably prove Lance was guilty also.


    Checks in the mail Brah.

  14. #264
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Strongarm View Post
    Checks in the mail Brah.
    priceless...

    i see the potential in you Lance...

  15. #265
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2
    Innocent until proven guilty....show me the proof, not just a bunch of people saying he did. If OJ isn't guilty then Lance isn't guilty

    TripleB67

  16. #266
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fishbucket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,259
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight View Post
    You're actually new here aren't you?
    And ?

  17. #267
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,298
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight View Post
    You're actually new here aren't you?
    appears he is, but that didn't stop him from virtually instantly realizing what the rest of us already know... that you REALLY need to change the last half of your sig. at this point it's right on par with lance's adamant stance of innocence.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  18. #268
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,298
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight View Post
    If there was a mountain of evidence, why didn't they submit it to the US justice department or even to a US federal prosecutor in some random state looking to make a name for him/herself ? Why was this not presented in an ACTUAL courtroom where there is a real burden of proof to be met... oh that's right...because it wasn't real proof. It was a stacked deck of heresay and slander where they'd decided his guilt ahead of time, and done everything they could to manufacture the proof of that afterwards, even going so far as to solicit testimony from other proven liars, in exchange for sweet deals.
    yeah... the evidence was so weak and inconclusive that LA withdrew his contention and took a lifetime ban from the sport and willingly accepted being stripped of all of his TDF victories rather than face and respond to it in an open hearing.

    what makes it even better is that this is from a dude that spent MILLIONS suing and retaliating against people who dared to even insinuate that he might be doping.

    LA had the chance to answer to the evidence and discredit all of it. he had the opportunity to vindicate himself. he had the opportunity to crush the haters and show what an honest, clean, fair, man/racer of integrity he was. BUT HE CHOSE NOT TO. he WILLINGLY accepted the punitive measures rather than facing the weak and inconclusive evidence in an actual hearing.

    ask yourself why sometime, champ.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  19. #269
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,415
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight View Post
    Nope, I believe he and everyone else that were "contenders" for the overall title were riding dirty. If you look at the finishing results for the TdF races when Lance was riding, most of the top-5 were proven in other investigations to be dopers.
    Nope but I know you are a moron and that's enough for me to sleep at night.

    That is the key part, not the last part about someone being a moron, but the first part. If you believe in what everyone that has testified has said, even Lemond, pretty much the entire peleton is on some sort of illegal substance. The heck with the top 5, they were all cheating. Does that make what Lance did right? No not at all but I think you have to put it into perspective.

    I actually wonder, if everyone was clean, would lance still have won? Each person responds differently to EPO and people can see little improvement or dramatic improvement depending upon their baseline levels.

  20. #270
    banned
    Reputation: roadie scum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    773
    Lance was nothing more than pack filler before doping. Was he clean? Yep and Santa is coming down my chimney tonight.

  21. #271
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,047
    Quote Originally Posted by roadie scum View Post
    Lance was nothing more than pack filler before doping. Was he clean? Yep and Santa is coming down my chimney tonight.
    hey scum, when you see the fat guy tonight, ask him about AZ's bike, will you please?

    AZ is starting to concern me as of late, which I think is due to the fact that he still hasn't gotten his black bike.

  22. #272
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    543
    Quote Originally Posted by Vespasianus View Post
    I actually wonder, if everyone was clean, would lance still have won? Each person responds differently to EPO and people can see little improvement or dramatic improvement depending upon their baseline levels.
    I seriously and highly doubt that he would of won. You take drugs only for one reason, to gain the extra performance over the rest. If you do take drugs, you consciously know that you're unable to win without it, otherwise why would you dope up. He knew at the time he wasn't world class material, not even close. Doping up from his first TDF to the last really says a lot.

  23. #273
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,047
    Quote Originally Posted by SV11 View Post
    I seriously and highly doubt that he would of won. You take drugs only for one reason, to gain the extra performance over the rest. If you do take drugs, you consciously know that you're unable to win without it, otherwise why would you dope up. He knew at the time he wasn't world class material, not even close. Doping up from his first TDF to the last really says a lot.
    everyone responds to EPO very similarly - it is a simple math. the more oxygen carriers - the more oxygen can be fed into the burner...

    the catch is to dope as much as possible short of exploding the burner. that is where Lance was the king, plus masking it successfully (by changing his blood) after every session - so that he is not caught - that was the ultimate perfection...

    without it? pack filler, as someone suggested it...

  24. #274
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    543
    Quote Originally Posted by osokolo View Post
    everyone responds to EPO very similarly - it is a simple math. the more oxygen carriers - the more oxygen can be fed into the burner...

    the catch is to dope as much as possible short of exploding the burner. that is where Lance was the king, plus masking it successfully (by changing his blood) after every session - so that he is not caught - that was the ultimate perfection...

    without it? pack filler, as someone suggested it...
    It's funny, why didn't he just put all that extra work into training, rather than finding shortcuts and deceiving people, maybe he would of amounted to something.

  25. #275
    Bro
    Bro is offline
    Content from my avatar
    Reputation: Bro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,356
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight View Post
    I believe they'd say whatever they think the USADA wanted to hear them say, in order to get cheesecake sweet deals for themselves.

    Levi Leipheimer for example got a six month suspension that's in effect from september 2012 thru march 2013, which prevents him from doing exactly NO major races. Oh and they took away his results for a 7 year span in which he really didn't do anything spectacular anyway. Oh boo hoo hoo.
    Most of the witnesses in the Armstrong case are not racers. A racing ban doesn't hold much water for them, now does it? Additionally, Leipheimer knew that in testifying, he would have to admit to his own drug use as well. He did, and he received that suspension; later he was fired from his team at Omega-Pharma Quickstep for this confession. If he hadn't been 100% sure that he was right to testify, why would he have done so? He lost his job, and likely ended his career, just to testify against Armstrong. Have you heard what happens to those who go against Armstrong? He makes it a personal vendetta and tries very hard to make their lives a living hell.

    Quote Originally Posted by osokolo View Post
    everyone responds to EPO very similarly - it is a simple math. the more oxygen carriers - the more oxygen can be fed into the burner...
    Actually, everyone responds differently to EPO. Armstrong just happened to be one of those people who react very strongly to it, and then of course he knew those people so that he could scrape by most of the drug controls without any positives.
    Sometimes, I question the value of my content.

  26. #276
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,762
    Quote Originally Posted by monogod View Post
    appears he is, but that didn't stop him from virtually instantly realizing what the rest of us already know... that you REALLY need to change the last half of your sig. at this point it's right on par with lance's adamant stance of innocence.
    And hasn't ever stopped me from and others from realizing you love to stick your nose into any and every thread hoping someone will listen to your diatribe and rep you for it. The whole revealing identities feature francois implemented let me see that you left me one in october, for a thread that hasn't had a post in it since Jan 24, 2011, and which you weren't even ever ****ing involved in.
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  27. #277
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,047
    Quote Originally Posted by erik1245 View Post
    Actually, everyone responds differently to EPO
    just out of curiosity - can you describe how different athletes would respond differently to EPO?

    the goal when using rEPO is to increase the erythrocyte level by 3-4% - same as blood doping. but with rEPO it is achieved within days, compared to months of altitude training.

    how do different athletes react differently to increased erythrocyte levels? as far as i understand the mechanism - the difference is insignificant, compared to overall gain...

    but i'd love to learn more accurate explanation...

  28. #278
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,298
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight View Post
    And hasn't ever stopped me from and others from realizing you love to stick your nose into any and every thread hoping someone will listen to your diatribe and rep you for it. The whole revealing identities feature francois implemented let me see that you left me one in october, for a thread that hasn't had a post in it since Jan 24, 2011, and which you weren't even ever ****ing involved in.
    Last edited by monogod; 12-24-2012 at 02:16 PM.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  29. #279
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fix the Spade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,656
    In other news:

    The Sunday Times of London plans to sue Armstrong - Yahoo! Sports
    Sunday Times to sue Armstrong

    How long before all that money gets ripped right out of his grubby little hands?

  30. #280
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Fix the Spade View Post
    In other news:

    The Sunday Times of London plans to sue Armstrong - Yahoo! Sports
    Sunday Times to sue Armstrong

    How long before all that money gets ripped right out of his grubby little hands?
    it is likely only the first in a long series of lawsuits to recover monies paid out in either settlements or legal defense against his attacks of those whom he targeted as enemies for revealing, admitting, or even suggesting he was doping.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  31. #281
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,047
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb
    All that being said, I am still back to my original point: Does it matter? If the whole field was doped up and roided out and transfusioned full of EPO, why go back and "prosecute" if you call it that Lance Armstrong? What for? We all know that darned near the whole field in that era was dirty. They aren't planning on giving the title to anyone else. It just serves no or little purpose. If the end result is that cycling will now be clean, that is wonderful. But somehow I suspect there will always be those that are trying to get an edge.
    wow... you are a lawyer?

    Merry Christmas...

  32. #282
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    543
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    We all know that darned near the whole field in that era was dirty.
    This is ignorance at it's best, enough with the excuses.

  33. #283
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,047
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Yes, and the only relevance that has here is the fact that there are issues of dropped DOJ prosecutions, and different burdens of proof at issue here. You seem to be trying really hard to take issue with something I say here. This must be all you have left.

    Merry Christmas indeed.
    i am surprised that a lawyer would use language that you used in your PM to me, which i had to delete as apparently it is against the rules to post PMs. Thanks - you know who you are - for the advice.

    plus a negative rep.

    cheers and good luck in your career.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Do you believe Lance Armstrong is clean?-screen-shot-2012-12-24-6.12.25-pm.png  

    Last edited by osokolo; 12-24-2012 at 04:11 PM.

  34. #284
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    543
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Please show me some reason to believe that during the years Lance was winning, that damn near the whole field wasn't doping.
    Well, you're the one who made the statement, so how about you pony up? (submit your findings)

  35. #285
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    543
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    I don't make "findings" but I'll cite to Floyd Landis, Frankie Andreu, and someone else in this thread mentioned even Greg LeMond saying the whole field was doping then.

    Now it is your turn.
    Cadel Evans was doping? I've heard enough...
    Carry on.

  36. #286
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,047
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    You've made several personal attacks, whilst claiming to be "gentle". Not only is it phony, but you deserved the neg rep.

    And no, it doesn't make it okay when you 1. insult someone 2. misconstrue their arguments repeatedly, but claim you are doing it "gently" and then say Merry Christmas.
    you must have mistaken me for someone else:

    i responded to your post only once and i referred to you only with this statement:

    actually Dave - if you have any doubts about Lance's guilt - after all the info that was made available to general public - i must inform you that you really should do a reality check...

    i mean this in the most gentle way... seriously...
    the second time i referred to you was with this:

    wow... you are a lawyer?
    if these two are "several personal attacks" i apologize.

    however, i think you have way more serious issues than your angle on Lance Armstrong.

    thanks for your second, and i hope the last PM to me - which i deleted here as well - as it is against rules to post PMs.

    all this after my two above comments to you?
    Last edited by osokolo; 12-24-2012 at 04:13 PM.

  37. #287
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,298
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Yes, and the only relevance that has here is the fact that there are issues of dropped DOJ prosecutions, and different burdens of proof at issue here. You seem to be trying really hard to take issue with something I say here. This must be all you have left.

    Merry Christmas indeed.
    the DOJ isn't necessarily through with lance.... linky

    of equal relevance is that LA refused to face the evidence in a hearing. if the 30+ witnesses against him are all liars and easily discredited then why didn't he face them? why did he pull his defense at the last minute after filing countless injunctions and motions and willingly accept a lifetime ban and being stripped of his TDF wins? why will you not address these points?

    one possibility is that with such a "nolo contendere" resolution by not admitting guilt and by not being adjudicated guilty via standard venues he can always claim never to have been "proven" to dope and thus claim innocence. this is still his claim DESPITE failed urine tests and a crushing mountain of evidence of his lies and deception.

    being adjudicated as "guilty" in a formal hearing would strip him of this last vestige of maintaining his facade of innocence.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  38. #288
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,298
    Quote Originally Posted by osokolo View Post
    i am surprised that a lawyer would use language that you used in your PM to me:

    plus a negative rep.

    cheers and good luck in your career.
    wow... you got PMs from him??? lucky!

    all i got was neg rep with the exact same comment.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  39. #289
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,047
    Quote Originally Posted by monogod View Post
    wow... you got PMs from him??? lucky!

    all i got was neg rep with the exact same comment.
    lol... i feel special... and he says:

    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb
    As this thread has been taken over by people who think that Lance was dirty, and the only thing that should happen is maximum prosecution and punishment of him for that, and that anyone who disagrees one little bit with their view of that part of the world is a psychopathic liar who hates kittens and puppies, it is pretty clear that no meaningful conversation can take place within this thread.
    lol... he is a victim now... must be a "different angle"...

    smiley shaking head...

  40. #290
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,047
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Yep, you're probably right about that. The reason I am not addressing those points is that I agree with them. At least as to the first paragraph. Please re-read my post where I discuss that he possibly would have prevailed in federal court, but lost in the USADA proceeding, and that might be why he did what he did. And in the same post I state my belief he was probably doping (so you can stop trying to misconstrue me as claiming he was clean - YET AGAIN).

    As far as nolo contender - are you sure there is such a thing as a nolo plea in a USADA action? Generally that is left for criminal proceedings. And a nolo plea doesn't have all the benefits that non-lawyers think it does in most jurisdictions in modern times. Further, how is a plea of "no contest" different from simply not "contesting" as far as Lance "maintaining that he has never proven to have doped". He still hasn't been so proven. They didn't have a trial in absentia. (But yes, probably he doped).

    Yes, being found guilty in a court of law, depending on the jurisdiction, the fairness of the proceeding, and the burden of proof employed, can have a legal effect on other obligations.
    it never ceases to amaze me how lawyers can skew even the simplest case - making judicial system a pure travesty sometimes... OJ just comes to mind as a glaring example...... now this "angle" on Lance Armstrong...

    "yeah, he doped, but so did everyone else. why are we witch hunting poor Lance"

    geez...

  41. #291
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,298
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Yep, you're probably right about that. The reason I am not addressing those points is that I agree with them. At least as to the first paragraph. Please re-read my post where I discuss that he possibly would have prevailed in federal court, but lost in the USADA proceeding, and that might be why he did what he did. And in the same post I state my belief he was probably doping (so you can stop trying to misconstrue me as claiming he was clean - YET AGAIN).
    incorrect. i wasn't misconstruing anything nor was i insinuating, implying, nor could any reasonably sane person infer that i was suggesting with that post that you were claiming LA was clean. i was asking you to specifically address various and specific points about LA's actions. nothing more and nothing less. it was you who misconstrued by inferring anything extraneous into it.

    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb
    As far as nolo contender - are you sure there is such a thing as a nolo plea in a USADA action? Generally that is left for criminal proceedings. And a nolo plea doesn't have all the benefits that non-lawyers think it does in most jurisdictions in modern times.
    i never said there was such a plea in a USADA action. what i said is "such a "nolo contendere" resolution". with nolo contendere being in quotation marks it should be obvious that i was referring to the STYLE of resolution (i.e. not contesting the charges but likewise not admitting guilt) rather than saying he entered a plea of nolo contendere and that's how the case was resolved.

    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb
    Further, how is a plea of "no contest" different from simply not "contesting" as far as Lance "maintaining that he has never proven to have doped". He still hasn't been so proven. They didn't have a trial in absentia. (But yes, probably he doped).
    no, it still hasn't been proven in a hearing. that was precisely my point.

    to repeat: by refusing to confront/rebut the voluminous and plethoric evidence against him he was able to avoid an adjudication of guilt in a formal hearing. by avoiding an adjudication of guilt in a formal hearing LA is still able to claim his doping has never been proven. of course by "proven" he means definitively adjudicated in a formal hearing because it has been well established and demonstrated that he was doping, lying, engaging in blackmail and coercion, and a host of other nefarious actions.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  42. #292
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,047
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Once again, for you

    It isn't about "poor Lance". it is about a non court proceeding to go back in time to prove an athlete, competing in international sporting events, was breaking the rules, during a time when absolutely everyone was breaking the rules, and to say that even though the governing bodies of the sport gave him a clean bill of health repeatedly, that he wasn't clean after all and should therefore be stripped of his titles. I think it is unfair to the competitors and to the fans of the sport.

    I think that cycling should move on, and come up with a way to test people and to establish they are clean. If one passes and is found to be clean, that should be it for that test and that period of time (unless someone can show that the test was fraudulent - which probably happened sometimes). They should clean up the field in real time.

    I don't know if Cadel Evans ever did or didn't do anything with EPO, etc. But people who know a heck of lot of more than either of us (even Lance's accusers, and multiple TdF winners Le Mond and Landis) say the whole sport was doping then at the top level.

    From a fan's perspective (fan of the sport not Lance specifically) we still got to see a great athletic competition.

    Let me make an analogy. In formula 1 racing, in the early 90s there were electronic traction control devices that were used. They would cut power if wheel slip was detected, among other things. This was outlawed. Then, in 94 (IIRC) Michael Schumacher won the title, in a car that behaved a lot like it had the outlawed traction control. Even Ayrton Senna commendted that Schumacher's car behaved nothing like his teammmate's. Months or years later it was discovered that Schumacher's team had the software codes for traction control and that it was a question of whether they were activated or not. That was never determined.

    If he had been the only doing this, well, it would stand to reason that he duped the field and doesn't deserve a title. If on the other hand, everyone else did it too, and they still lost, that changes the context quite a bit.

    Maybe you're right, maybe the solution is to go after lance, have no TdF winner for a period of several years, and to make him out to be the devil. It just seems to me he is a fallible human who was competing in the sport as it existed, at that level, at that time. Maybe that doesn't make him "innocent" but perhaps it is a "mitigating factor". And I still don't see what cycling, especially cycling in the U.S, gains out of this. That's all.

    And Merry Christmas, seriously.
    Ignorance of the law excuses no man -- from practicing it. Adison Mizner

  43. #293
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Stugotz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by Vespasianus View Post
    I actually wonder, if everyone was clean, would lance still have won? Each person responds differently to EPO and people can see little improvement or dramatic improvement depending upon their baseline levels.
    Not a chance! With a documented VO2 max in the upper 70's physiologically it would be impossible...
    Speed Kills...It kills those that don't have it!
    German Engineering in Da Haus, Ja!

  44. #294
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,298
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    It isn't about "poor Lance". it is about a non court proceeding to go back in time to prove an athlete, competing in international sporting events, was breaking the rules, during a time when absolutely everyone was breaking the rules, and to say that even though the governing bodies of the sport gave him a clean bill of health repeatedly, that he wasn't clean after all and should therefore be stripped of his titles. I think it is unfair to the competitors and to the fans of the sport.
    it's not unfair to strip a cheater of unfairly gotten wins. doesn't matter how many of the riders were doping.

    you're arguing situational ethics and very few are buying it or on board with you.

    also, not only was he repeatedly given a clean bill of health but he repeatedly failed drug tests. you're aware of this... right?

    he repeatedly dodged drug tests and even dropped out of races to avoid being tested. you're aware of this... right?

    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb
    Maybe you're right, maybe the solution is to go after lance, have no TdF winner for a period of several years, and to make him out to be the devil. It just seems to me he is a fallible human who was competing in the sport as it existed, at that level, at that time. Maybe that doesn't make him "innocent" but perhaps it is a "mitigating factor". And I still don't see what cycling, especially cycling in the U.S, gains out of this. That's all.
    excuse me? "make him out to be the devil"?!?!?!?

    hardly.

    you know why such a ruckus was made about him? because nearly ALL of the others implicated in this huge doping scandal CAME CLEAN when confronted. lance did not. lance aggressively pursued and intimidated and retaliated against people who spoke out against him. lance maintained his innocence when busted in outright in lies. lance insisted that he never failed a drug test when he failed many. lance lied under oath in depositions about doping. and it goes on and on ad nauseum.

    lance made himself out to be the devil and now he gets to reap the whirlwind.

    it's interesting you're so willing to give him a pass for lying, perjury, cheating, doping, blackmailing, bullying, and retaliation with "he's a fallible human being" as some sort of excusable "mitigating factor" while you've neg repped and shat upon anyone who's dared to discuss this with you.

    don't look now but your disingenuous prejudicial "tolerance" is showing....
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  45. #295
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,047
    Quote Originally Posted by monogod View Post
    it's not unfair to strip a cheater of unfairly gotten wins. doesn't matter how many of the riders were doping.

    you're arguing situational ethics and very few are buying it or on board with you.

    also, not only was he repeatedly given a clean bill of health but he repeatedly failed drug tests. you're aware of this... right?

    he repeatedly dodged drug tests and even dropped out of races to avoid being tested. you're aware of this... right?


    excuse me? "make him out to be the devil"?!?!?!?

    hardly.

    you know why such a ruckus was made about him? because nearly ALL of the others implicated in this huge doping scandal CAME CLEAN when confronted. lance did not. lance aggressively pursued and intimidated and retaliated against people who spoke out against him. lance maintained his innocence when busted in outright in lies. lance insisted that he never failed a drug test when he failed many. lance lied under oath in depositions about doping. and it goes on and on ad nauseum.

    lance made himself out to be the devil and now he gets to reap the whirlwind.

    it's interesting you're so willing to give him a pass for lying, perjury, cheating, doping, blackmailing, bullying, and retaliation with "he's a fallible human being" as some sort of excusable "mitigating factor" while you've neg repped and shat upon anyone who's dared to discuss this with you.

    don't look now but your disingenuous prejudicial "tolerance" is showing....
    well said.

    end of the story. let's move on, please. there is no winning here...

  46. #296
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Stugotz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    427
    I stand corrected. Lance Armstrong actually has a documented VO2 max of 84. (Still not in the realm of a GC winner).

    Documented VO2 max figures.
    Speed Kills...It kills those that don't have it!
    German Engineering in Da Haus, Ja!

  47. #297
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    215
    All I know is it make sme feel better about huffing and puffing up a hill since it took Lance blood transfusions ect ect to get those titles. I feel less inferior, at least I'm 100% natural blood sweat and beers.

  48. #298
    Bro
    Bro is offline
    Content from my avatar
    Reputation: Bro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,356
    Quote Originally Posted by osokolo View Post
    just out of curiosity - can you describe how different athletes would respond differently to EPO?

    the goal when using rEPO is to increase the erythrocyte level by 3-4% - same as blood doping. but with rEPO it is achieved within days, compared to months of altitude training.

    how do different athletes react differently to increased erythrocyte levels? as far as i understand the mechanism - the difference is insignificant, compared to overall gain...

    but i'd love to learn more accurate explanation...
    Seems I missed a bit in this thread while I was out... Anyways.

    EPO is a drug, and it is also a hormone that occurs naturally in the body. It stimulates and controls production of erythrocytes (red blood cells) in the kidneys and bone marrow -- the EPO that is taken as a PED is slightly different from naturally-occurring EPO, which is why drug controls are able to detect it. However, both forms still have the same effect -- which is increased number of red blood cells.

    As a drug, EPO affects the endocrine system. Simply by the nature of the endocrine system, every person's system responds differently to each drug, though everyone will experience the same basic effects -- in the case of EPO, it's more red blood cells. Some patients are naturally more inclined to produce more blood cells, and some may not, as is the case with anemic patients. (EPO is commonly used to treat anemia, fun fact.) Additionally, some patients respond more quickly and readily to hormonal changes than other patients. The human body is the same basic system, but minute changes in every person's set of genes results in vastly different bodies

    Anyhow, that's the very long, very complicated story very short, and as well as I understand it.
    Sometimes, I question the value of my content.

  49. #299
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,415
    Quote Originally Posted by osokolo View Post
    everyone responds to EPO very similarly - it is a simple math. the more oxygen carriers - the more oxygen can be fed into the burner...

    the catch is to dope as much as possible short of exploding the burner. that is where Lance was the king, plus masking it successfully (by changing his blood) after every session - so that he is not caught - that was the ultimate perfection...

    without it? pack filler, as someone suggested it...
    Well, I would not agree to that. People don't respond to asprin the same way, let alone EPO. Also, if you are performing at a certain level with a lower hemoglobin level, EPO will give you a boost. If you are performing at the same level but with a higher hemoglobin level, the benefits will be less.

  50. #300
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Vespasianus View Post
    Well, I would not agree to that. People don't respond to asprin the same way, let alone EPO. Also, if you are performing at a certain level with a lower hemoglobin level, EPO will give you a boost. If you are performing at the same level but with a higher hemoglobin level, the benefits will be less.
    sure - i would not challenge this statement.

    i am pretty sure Lance responded pretty well - because if he didn't - why in the hell would he risk so much, for such an insignificant gain.

    not just him, but everyone else.

    so i think it is fair to say that all of them benefited from EPO, significantly - otherwise they would not have used it...

    yes?

Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •