Would you be banging on less if it was a charity that met with your full approval?
Well it might lend a little more weight to the claim that all the drug taking was OK because of the charity work.
Really what is your point? I was charitable [see what I did there] about his charity which "promotes cancer" [ serioulsy read the blurb its not even clear from their mission aims what they do] when most folk think it actually funds cancer research and still you seem to want to have digs each post.
The charity is a side line as i said I could not care whether he cured cancer or pissed all his money up the wall on cheap whores and cocaine. The issue is he cheated to win the TdF and he has made a big thing about how he did it clean. This would be why i would want him to be caught. The charity gets raised by his supporters as the "shield" rather than mentioned by those who think he is a drug cheating fraudster.
Are you going to deny that LA uses it for self promotion as well?
Whatever your view why not just say it without trying to get an argument going with your insults.
bumpty clithc thingy
plenty of organisations with charitable status who don't do much for the benefit of society/mankind and if LA is going to bring it out as a defence "I'm not going to challenge the doping case but hey look at my charity work" then he's devaluing it himselfWould you be banging on less if it was a charity that met with your full approval?
Junkyard, everytime I glance at this thread you're there, on the "Lance is a druggy" tip. Why do you feel the need to spend so much time on this?
Why not just wait until the proof is out?
Well it might lend a little more weight to the claim that all the drug taking was OK because of the charity work.
I've not seen one post; here or anywhere or news story etc which has claimed or even suggested that the charity stuff makes up for the cheating. Some, including me think that raising money for charity is far more impressive than winning a bike race (particularly when pretty much every single person in the race is cheating).
I was at a MTB event on Sunday, I wore my Livestrong baseball hat, its still the most comfortable one I have (see a few arguements about Lance ago)I did feel that I may as well have a target on my head saying "mug" on it though.
I am pleased for Paul Kimmage, David Walsh and the other whistleblowers however sorry for cycling in general.
In all honesty I don't think Armstrong should be stripped of his titles, whats the point? They really cannot be certain that whoever they pass the win to was clean, in fact its almost certain they weren't.
Either declare its not worth adjusting the results but the medals were basically meaningless or just say all those Tour de France tours were all null and void.
I am very interested in what happens with Bruyneel and the UCI etc now though
I will still keep wearing my hat, it fits my head & hopefully some of the money my wife paid for it went to some bit of the foundation that did some good for somebody who deserves it
@ dezB
You mean like the big report by the doping agency that charged him with doping that he did not contest. Is that the sor tof thing I should wait for ..he is as guilty as anyone else who chooses to not defend themselves from lawfull charges
Why the time possibly because people keep posting things at/about me and addressing me by name 💡
it would be rude not to reply 😉
Why not just wait until the proof is out?
It is. By not disputing the charges, Lance has effectively admitted to them. That's the sort of proof which is good enough in any courtroom, so it will do for me. Anybody who thinks otherwise is either a fanboi, or has been taken in by the Lance spin.
It's very hard to determine what Livestrong actually does - I've just been looking on their website. I would argue though that this statement is pretty damn misleading, given that they don't actually get involved in trying to find a cure for cancer.
Since our inception, we have raised more than $470 million dollars for [b]the fight against cancer[/b]
The whole Kony saga should show that charity does not automatically = the best use of people's money. I'm sure Livestrong do some good things - but it's not difficult to see it mainly as a PR exercise for Lance Armstrong. He does quite shamelessly bring it up whenever questioned about anything he doesn't like - even when it has no relevance whatsoever.
In all honesty I don't think Armstrong should be stripped of his titles, whats the point? They really cannot be certain that whoever they pass the win to was clean, in fact its almost certain they weren't.
I agree, I think the best plan would be as someone suggested taking the idea from baseball where the results have a little asterisk next to them and a key explaining they are marred by cheating.
Whatever your view why not just say it without trying to get an argument going with your insults.
640 + posts so far, a substantial number of them yours - you're doing fine yourself.
Insults? sorry, didn't mean to offend you (much), but if keep banging on like the Duracell bunny, some people are going to get bored and poking you with a stick to get a reaction.
.he is as guilty as anyone else who chooses to not defend themselves from lawfull charges.
No need for evidence then?
[i]some people are going to get bored and poking you with a stick to get a reaction.[/i]
Which according to this
[url] http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/our-forum [/url]
Should mean that the Trolls here might get a nice note from the Mods. And yes, the trolling is now getting so obvious. Even I can spot it.
<yawn>Troll zone</yawn>
It's done well to get this far IMHO. A few months back it would have been closed within 10 pages.
Know who you remind me of in this thread junky?
[img] http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSLaqYx6syHYP9VecCtzyPHHjoCvEhl3v0f6L9uxhrenPCCleLZ [/img]
Except with not as good boobs. probably.
I am very interested in what happens with Bruyneel and the UCI etc now though
Me too - this is [b]not[/b] all about the Texan.
No need for evidence then?
That was Lance's whole point in not disputing the charges - or didn't you realise that? It means the deniers can keep on claiming a lack of evidence, despite the situation now being exactly as if all the evidence had been presented and the court found him guilty. Do you think he didn't dispute the charges despite there being no evidence? You do realise that they don't normally bother presenting evidence when somebody pleads guilty?
I think some people don't want to imagine that he was not Superman, but a mere mortal who used and abused people to get where he is now, the bill has been presented and he doesn't want to pay.
The others involved will be having sleepless nights i hope, Riis, Bruyneel , and those at UCI who have gone along with this, needs sorting root and branch stylee , only then can a new broom begin !
he is as guilty as anyone else who chooses to not defend themselves from lawfull charges.No need for evidence then?
done before, he is guilty like you are. If you dont turn up to contest a speeding charge and what aracer said. Would you like to discuss whether they have the right to charge to save you re reading the thread?
Should mean that the Trolls here might get a nice note from the Mods. And yes, the trolling is now getting so obvious. Even I can spot it.
Do you mean me or those poking? Try reporting the thread I dont expect to get anything as I have not done anything.
I have been consitent on my view of LA for a number of threads and years. I may * be an opinionated gob shite who wont shutup but I am not a troll.
* not sure why I even bothered with may tbh
if there was no evidence all LA would have to do was turn up and say "I didn't do it prove otherwise", he chose not to contest the claims. Now, considering he spent a lot of time and money trying to prevent it going to arbitration and now his sudden CBA attitude to defending the actual drug charges, would you say that suggests LA is innocent but will accept the ban and stripped titlesNo need for evidence then?
or
that his legal team know he'll lose and suggested this strategy as a way of still being able to deny everything and hopefully all the nasty evidence won't come out? (we can already see it's partially working from this thread)
This is why I'll never be a STW bighitter. I have no arguing staying power. You lot are immense. I salute you.
I have been consitent on my view of LA for a number of threads and years. I may * be an opinionated gob shite who wont shutup but I am not a troll.
no arguments there.
if there was no evidence all LA would have to do was turn up and say "I didn't do it prove otherwise", he chose not to contest the claims. Now, considering he spent a lot of time and money trying to prevent it going to arbitration and now his sudden CBA attitude to defending the actual drug charges, would you say that suggests LA is innocent but will accept the ban and stripped titlesor
that his legal team know he'll lose and suggested this strategy as a way of still being able to deny everything and hopefully all the nasty evidence won't come out? (we can already see it's partially working from this thread)
none of which is what is called evidence, it's all just assumption on your part - reasonable and probably good enough in a pub debate, but for me you're guilty when the appropriate court says so, and this just isn't it, no matter how big a hitter you think you are.
some people are going to get bored and poking you with a stick to get a reaction.
AKA trolling? Which is against the forum rules.
No need for evidence then?
This statement is so daft it must be a troll. Surely.
no arguments there.
Nice little ad hominem dig there too.
none of which is what is called evidence, it's all just assumption on your part - reasonable and probably good enough in a pub debate, but for me you're guilty when the appropriate court says so, and this just isn't it, no matter how big a hitter you think you are.
What do you understand to normally happen when you are charged with something but decide not to defend yourself? Do you still get to claim to be innocent because you 'couldn't be bothered' arguing?
The appropriate court has said they consider his lack of defence an admission of guilt BTW! Nice to get in another little ad hominem attack with the big hitter comment too, you're really doing well. 🙄
Come on now chaps we are falling into LA plot. We are arguing instead of looking at the issue.
The Bruyneel case will be interesting especially what his sanction will be (they have found him guilty already, it's just a show trial). If he is banned from working in cycling what happens to Vaughters as manager of the Garmin Slipstream? What happens to Hincapie, just retired, who will he work for? Will he be able to sell cycle clothing ranges as a known offender?
This and more tenuous questions later.
but for me you're guilty when the appropriate court says so, and this just isn't it
The appropriate court has said he is guilty. What part of this don't you understand?
Most of it is fact and he offer two intepretatiuon of the factsnone of which is what is called evidence, it's all just assumption on your part
it has said so. WADA agrees this is the court as does the US federal govt so it is legally the appropriate court.but for me you're guilty when the appropriate court says so
but for me you're guilty when the appropriate court says so, and this just isn't it
USADA is the investigating body on behalf of WADA, the World Anti-Doping Agency. UCI is signed up to WADA. The US court, that LA appealed to, over-ruled him and confirmed that that USADA had authority in this case.
What more appropriate 'court' would you like?
In matters relating to drugs in cycling, if USADA (or any othere ADA) says someone's guilty, WADA will back them and UCI will have to comply eventually.
The Bruyneel case will be interesting especially what his sanction will be.
Indeed, as will the cases against Marti and Celaya.
Let's not forget this is an investigation into a team (US Postal) and their doping regime, not a singular case against the Texan.
Two Drs (Ferrari and Garcia) have already received life-time bans. I am interested to know what that means in practice. WADA cannot stop them being doctors. I presume the ban means they can no longer be employed by a cycling team (or any other sport?) but would it stop a rider from popping along to see them about a 'medical issue'?
Trainer Marti was given a life-time ban but has subsequently asked for arbitration. I can't help thinking he's warming up his vocal chords right now.
Bruyneel is obviously of interest as he was right at the heart of USP/Discovery while all this was going on.
Dr Celaya is interesting as he is the current doctor at RadioShackNissan (under Bruyneel).
Armstrong's misdemeanors may well be in the past but that's no argument to drop the case. Marti, Bruyneel and Celaya are all very much still involved in cycling.
Except with not as good boobs. probably.
Your right wrecker, she does have nice boobs.
am very interested in what happens with Bruyneel and the UCI etc now though
Is there any way that the Bruyneel case could be quietly dropped? Anything he could say that would stop them going ahead with it? Or because he's admitted guilt is it on like Donkey Kong?
Because there are other people who will be doing their best to ensure that the evidence is not aired publicly.
I wonder if Greg LeMond is having a quiet chuckle over this? He has been vindicated despite Team Armstrongs best efforts.
evening... firstly im not a troll in any way shape or form.
ive been a back seat TDF fan for years and seen armstrongs rise.
i know theres no smoke without fire but isnt it innocent until proven guilty?
i know people hate him but can somebody in laymans terms tell me what the score is, i sense due to his latest "i give up fighting my innoncence" the haters have seen this as an admission of guilt?
i've read aswell that atleast 10 other riders who were in his team could testify and prove he's a cheat... why havent they come forward before?
again this is not a wind up, i know theres loads i havent read but just a simple synopsis if anyone can be bothered.
cheers!
Oops, sorry keep forgetting to check this overlong thread..
[i]By not disputing the charges, Lance has effectively admitted to them.[/i]
Er, have you read his statement? I have and he definitely disputes the charges! I'm no fanboi, as I've said I couldn't give a toss either way about the drugs in cycling bit.
I respected the bloke after reading "It's Not About the Bike", which I leant to a friend who had cancer to try to give him strength. Unfortunately he didn't make it. But I'd like to think that book isn't full of bullshit like some seem to think. Maybe there's a bit of jealousy in these pages...
Monkey boy the last 3 or 4 page should give you all you need. Suffice to say he has effectively plead guilty by not mounting a defence. The legal challenge to jurisdiction failed and that was that.
Not all the witnesses are ex-team mates, (their swapping leniency for testimony is a recognised and allowed tactic, the defence has to try and discredit this at trial/arbitration). A masseur is also one of those on the list who can confirm that he had no saddle sores when he tested positive for Steroids.
He will not get his titles striped from him because the French hate the Yanks. As soon as USADA insist that the ASO(?) they will say no. It could serve to make Lance incredibly well liked by the French as a superb twist of fate.
DezB you too could do with re reading the thread.
DezB you too could do with re reading the thread.
F-that. I'm not that interested, just bemused.
May I just say, the use of the term "ad hominem" is a ridiulous conceit IMO. Fine over at the Oxford union, I'm sure, but why not stick with English ?
oh, and he's as gulity as all the rest but quite a lot more hypocritical
Er, have you read his statement? I have and he definitely disputes the charges!
Which is why his statement is such nonsense. He clearly has the legal muscle and finances to fight it in court, yet he chooses not to. Hmmmm.....
i know theres no smoke without fire but isnt it innocent until proven guilty?i know people hate him but can somebody in laymans terms tell me what the score is, i sense due to his latest "i give up fighting my innoncence" the haters have seen this as an admission of guilt?
By not contesting the charges, he has been proven guilty. He'll be 'even more guilty' once all the evidence against him comes out into the open.
It's not just the 'haters' that see it as an admission of guilt, it's the USADA, and the WADA. Unless you think they are just 'haters' too.
May I just say, the use of the term "ad hominem" is a ridiulous conceit IMO. Fine over at the Oxford union, I'm sure, but why not stick with English ?
What phrase would you prefer? 'an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it'. Snappy isn't it. It's a pretty commonly used Latin term in English - a logical fallacy.
Lots of people on here could do with reading up on logical fallacies TBH.
OK Dez, just for you:
He's not defending the charges, but he still disputes them?
It MAKES NO SENSE. Just more hypocrisy.
Written by someone much more eloquent than me
Imagine that you are chilling on your yacht.
Martini in hand, bikini-clad ladies sunning
themselves on the foredeck, your stockbroker
sweating slightly in the Mediterranean sun as he
explains that you’re up 34% on last quarter. Life is
sweet. You are The Balls. But wait! What is this
grubby seaplane doing in Antibes harbour? Who is
this dour Scot in uniform climbing aboard your
yacht without so much as a tug of the forelock?
Police? Really? What the **** does he mean he’s
arresting you for the robbery of Lloyds TSB in
Slough in 1997?But it’s fine. The charges will never stick. This is
because:- 1997 is a long time ago.
- The police are unconstitutional.
- This really ought to be dealt with between you
and Lloyds TSB.- You’re in Antibes, not in Slough.
- The police have never found any of the money
allegedly stolen, indeed how do they even know it
was stolen if they haven’t found it? It might still
be in the bank for all you know.- The only witnesses to your involvement are
Steve, who says he drove the getaway-car, Derek,
who was convicted of hitting the security guard
with a baseball bat, Big Mike and Croydon Mike,
who were arrested in Maidenhead 2 hours after
the robbery with balaclavas and shotguns and Ian
P Timkins, a solicitor who issued large cheques
drawn on his client account made out to you on
six occasions during 1998 after you decided not to
buy a number of houses that you had thought
about buying and given him the deposits for. Who
would believe that shower of crooks?But frankly, balls to it. You’ve got better things
to do than argue about whether you robbed a
bank in 1997 with a load of unconstitutional fat
jealous police losers. The bikini-clad lovelies know
you made your money on the stock-market, and
you aren’t going to dignify this police-business
with the time of day. Life is too short to defend
yourself from accusations of armed robbery. On
the advice of your lawyers, you decide to plead
guilty to the armed robbery of Lloyds TSB in
Slough in 1997.Question:
Does this mean that:
(a) you robbed Lloyds TSB in Slough in 1997; or
(b) you are innocent?
dunno, "Irrelevant personal attack/slight/insult" ? (delete as you see fit)What phrase would you prefer?
More words and letters than ad hominem.
Playing the person and not the debate is the only phrase that comes close but again more words. Perhaps we should different English version on an ad hoc basis ?
The TDF is a UCI race , so ASO cannot take away his TDF wins untill UCI says so .
