Can I report hora for trolling, as he's not obviously adding anything useful to this thread?
I think Hora is adding a lot to this thread. He may be wrong in the view of some but at least he is bring out the arguements from most of you why you think LA is a badun. Also it has shown who is cynical and can't believe that hard work and honesty will reward.
All views are valid and often say more than what is written.
It doesn't add anything to the debate but I did like this quote from an American newspaper.....
[i]"In 2006, Landis became the first person other than Armstrong to win the Tour"[/i]
all that Hora is saying is "i am a cretin" but i guess you knew that anyway.
I don't think hora is "wrong", he is as entitled to his opinions as anyone else.
I would like to know his views on the ashenden interview - as posted above ^, not to rub his nose in it, but because I found it to be a very balanced and well reasoned piece. Those materials that were factual were identified as such, those parts that were speculation / deduction / professional opinion (and therefore open to interpretation) were also identifed as such.
No wild claims were made by Ashenden one way or the other, no hyperbole, rhetoric or hang 'em high type approach (he was actually VERY sympathetic towards the peloton in general and the pressures they would all be under).
The piece was exactly what I would expect from a practising scientific expert witness, and that to me, adds to it's credibility.
1. Not getting done themselves.
2. Money for interviews and tv on "why I grassed on Lance".
3. To be able to carry on in the (any) sport in some capacity.
4. Self justification.Any or all of these would do. Not saying they are lying though but given the justice system in the US, an admission of guilt with a guarantee of short sentence is much better than bankruptcy and a long jail term.
This is not a criminal investigation and in fact, the only people seriously punished in previous grand jury doping cases have been people who lied under oath. I can easily understand they might confess if they've done it themselves, but why implicate someone who hadn't? Also, none of these people had tested positive (ignoring suspicions) during the period under investigation so what hard evidence would anyone have on them? I don't buy that people like Hincapie or Leipheimer, both trusted Armstrong aides in the riding days, would suddenly lie about him particularly as the former, at least, has more to lose from this as he is a cycling clothing supplier and it could impact his business.
You mean it fitted your view. 🙂
You mean it fitted your view
Was that aimed at me???
If so, not really, not regarding LA specifically.
It certainly fitted my view of how different lines of scientific evidence should be drawn together and professionally interpreted. The approach and language is both familiar and effective.
It certainly fitted my view of how different lines of scientific evidence should be drawn together and professionally interpreted. The approach and language is both familiar and effective.
Mine too, my MSc thesis had less holes in it than the journal paper that LA uses to defend himself!
For a different approach listen to the More or Less episode "Has clamping down on drugs made the Tour de France slower?" from 20th July
Links page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/moreorless
Actual MP3(5MB):
Very interesting alalysis of the speeds people are cycling, their power output etc.
Conclusion is that LA and his peers were not doing scientifically credible times, that Wiggins, Frome, Niballi, Evans etc are measurably slower than the riders in the 2000s and they don't recover as well so can't go day after day. Something that is evident in the "dull" racing.
Very interesting listening.
Obviously not proof LA doped but it is evidence that something that was happening then isn't happening now. It adds weight to the arguement that Sky are clean but Postal were not and you would be a fool to ignore factual evidence such as this.
[url= http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ashenden-says-mcquaid-must-now-help-usadas-investigation ]Ashenden urges UCI to assist USADA[/url]
How many of the past two decades TDF winners are tainted? Look at it for one moment, if they take the 7 titles off of him how will it look?
Its terrible for road cycling, even if he is guilty. The credibility of the sport. Yes it will be ground zero, to build on however look at Contador, you are still going to get winners caught in the future.
Depressing if he is stripped because it sure aint going to stop in top flight cycling.
I don't actually care if he's stripped of the titles, I just want cheaters as a whole to be punished in some way. For Lance, the total loss in credibility and an inability for him and his cronies to have anything to do with cycling for the rest of their lives is a pretty good thing.
As I said before, though, given his stature in the sport, the things he's done (both actually and allegedly), it's VERY important an example is made of him. Landis said the big difference between him and Armstrong is that Armstrong was powerful enough to make it go away. I think if Armstrong is found guilty, the UCI will also need to clean up as it will all come out in the wash. It will be painful but will lead to a better future I think.
It will look bad Hora.....should they just leave it be then?
I don't know who is more pathetic; people calling for Lance and all cheats to be stripped of theri titles or the people blindly saying lance hasn't cheated. In fact I do both as pathetic as each other.
The past is the past. If you're not caught red handed then tough. The whole history of cycling and pretty much any competitive sport is full of people bending the rules as well as breaking them. The future of cycling and pretty much any competitive sport will have people bending the rules as well as breaking them. Its part of the nature of sport full stop. Please stop banging on about lets just accept he probably did dope he wasn't caught. Big deal.
The more or less program was very interesting but I came to the conclusion that so many must have been doping that it would be impossible to judge who should of won.
I have to admit that after reading that Ashenden interview, I accept now that in 99 at least he was using. Evidence of synthetic EPO ?. I just can't think of any other reason that would be there. At the moment I believe that Lance was using, based on what Ashenden was saying and the results from those retested samples.
Furthermore, if Lance was using in 99, I can't see why he wouldn't be using in subsequent years.
As for what to do about it. Not sure. It seems that EPO was in use during that period, may still be in use today. As was discussed in the interview, Lance's samples weren't the only ones to test positive for synthetic EPO.
😕
It will look bad Hora.....should they just leave it be then?
No however if your going to rip the sport a large arsehole then you really really should have 100% evidence otherwise just move on.
I don't understand the agenda, political sport power-play against the UCI? Its ridiculous.
There will be no winners. The biggest loser will be the sport itself.
The past is the past. If you're not caught red handed then tough
Utter nonsense, sorry.
Consider the parallels...
Following the event, a regulatory authority sets up an investigation into "cheating" by a small group of people in a position to use their influence and cover their tracks...
So, looking back from 2012, do we think it is OK, "in the past", that selected staff in certain banks were manipulating data used for rate setting?
Or do we believe that they should be thoroughly investigated and any criminal wrong doing should be prosecuted?
ETA -
There will be no winners. The biggest loser will be the sport itself.
And does the sport not lose if this inconvenient problem is "disappeared"
If you could go back further and somehow test (or testify) against all the previous greats..and legends and found them guilty - should you?
Lets face it, the Tour is not won on [i]mineral water alone[/i].
How comes what Lance did is condemned and what Coppi did is fine?
It's [i]exactly[/i] the same thing and following his admission, it would only be fair if Coppi had his wins struck from the records.
hora - name one other "previous great" in cycling who is accused of systematically cheating to become one of the biggest sporting names in the world, who has used his position to bully people who speak out (and ruin careers) and whose influence with the sport's governing body raises questions about their impartiality.
I don't really care about wins being struck from the records, it's just the constant denial in the face of mounting evidence that gets me.
If he'd retired and then said 'yeah I was off my tits and this is how you could've caught me' I'd have more respect for him now.
In fact, that's probably a good way of encouraging ex-dopers to come forward, immunity if you've retired. I know that it means they've effectively gotten away with it, but at least it closes loopholes for the future.
[i]How comes what Lance did is condemned and what Coppi did is fine[/i]
Just my opinion here, but in the days of Coppi, Stablinski, Anquetil. It was pretty much business as usual. For them drugs [i]were[/i] part of the sport.
In the 90s, it was well understood that the sport was ment to be free of artifical enhancement.
Just my opinion here, but in the days of Coppi, Stablinski, Anquetil. It was pretty much business as usual. For them drugs were part of the sport.
Eh, so a two-tiered system. It was fine then/turn a blind-eye but not now.
What constitutes 100% evidence Hora?
[i]Eh, so a two-tiered system. It was fine then/turn a blind-eye but not now.
[/i]
I was making a distinction between the olden days and the modern era.
Anquetil seemed to be convinced that drugs were an acceptable part of the sport and should be allowed. Hence Coppi's relaxed and frank admission about his use of drugs.
It was fine then/turn a blind-eye but not now.
Except there was no blind eye to turn, it was totally open and everyone knew about it.
Except there was no blind eye to turn, it was totally open and everyone knew about it.
You mean French Journalists, homebrew website conspirasists and cheating cyclists who had been caught who wanted to say 'hey its just not me-please blame everyone else as well'?
Why would you trust a cheats testimony? Its tainted.
it was different in that there were no actual rules banning the use of drugs alcohol cigarettes etc...
THey did seem to draw the line at using the train though...
You mean French Journalists, homebrew website conspirasists and cheating cyclists who had been caught who wanted to say 'hey its just not me-please blame everyone else as well'?Why would you trust a cheats testimony? Its tainted.
I'm not sure that I follow this line - presumably we are back on the "evidence" relating to LA?
Where does the testing laboratory sit amongst your "cheats testimony". Presumably you do accept the results of their analyses?
Where does the testing laboratory sit amongst your "cheats testimony". Presumably you do accept the results of their analyses?
Oh- so they have guilty samples now ready to go?
Do keep up, hora
What are you talking about 'the samples that were taken but werent found positive but were but didnt charge because it was a 'conspiracy' in 2001'? Jesus wept.
it was different in that there were no actual rules banning the use of drugs alcohol cigarettes etc...
I get that....but they still took drugs. If we ignore the official standpoint and regulations, it still makes their achievements comparable. They won/competed in the manner they did due to artificial enhancement. I got no horse in this race maybe playing devils advocate a little...;but I'm not really arsed about LA or Coppi.
Lance was still an active competitor until he got banned pending this hearing.
Maybe if he had had some humility and sense he would have stayed retired the first time and none of this would have happened.
But instead his "sticking two fingers up to the world", worlds most tested althlete BS has egged people on and its coming back to bite him.
There is no doubt that the chase against him is fueled by it being "Lance Armstrong" but he has brought this upon himself. He reaped more rewards than anyone else from the deceitful period of cycling so it is right he also loses the most if he was cheating, which based on the evidence it seems almost certainly he was.
Oh- so they have guilty samples now ready to go?
Eehhh???
My question was a follow up to your comment. You used the term "cheats testimony".
I was asking whether you regarded an accredited analytical laboratory as being within that category - ie "cheats testimony".
The sample results they have produced are just that, sample results. A series of chemical concentrations against a sample number. To me, those lab results are "facts"...
(I'm going to go on the other thread and ask for a [TROLL] Button)
<wanders in>
Good grief, are you lot still at it?
<wanders out again>
[i]I know this is over-simplistic but....[/i] another difference between the Coppi era and the Armstrong era is that the drugs were different. In Coppi's day people took drugs to allow them to continue to perform at their best whereas in the Armstrong era drugs were used to push performance past normal levels.
Why would you trust a cheats testimony? Its tainted
No idea Hora, why do you believe Lance?
Your hilarious a mixture of he did not do it, it would taint the sport [ yes for knowing he cheated and ignoring it would be so much more honourable], just let it go it s the past and discrediting everyone but LA [ like he would have no motive to deny it if is true he cheated]
Hora - I don't know if anyone has said this yet but I think STW is collectively preparing the worlds biggest 'nah nah nah nah nah nah we told you so' just for you.
For anyone who wants to get up to speed, might take a while 😯
[url= http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/index-of-lance-armstrong-doping-allegations-over-the-years ]http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/index-of-lance-armstrong-doping-allegations-over-the-years[/url]
He is now banned for life and his 7 Tour vivtorys taken off him and he still won't admit he doped .
it's a shame,as i did have a lot of respect for him overcoming cancer to ride again in tdf.but i think the punishment is fair (as he was cheating not only himself,but everyone who were fans of him also 🙁
He is now banned for life and his 7 Tour vivtorys taken off him and he still won't admit he doped .
Note sure the USADA has the authority to do this, and the UCI heirachy are as big a fan of LA as Phil L and Paul S, or Hora (although I think LA only donated $100K to the UCI).
Armstrong's base claim "I never tested positive" is false (retrospective TUE certificate made that one disappear) and sets the tone for his level of argument.
