Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby EPelle » Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:18 am

They're not. However, WADA is attempting to increase its co-operation with MLB to incorporate stronger sanctions and MLB's ability to increase discipline for players who disguise their actions and attempt to distort the truth.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:24 am

guru wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:
By the way, why is Cabrera still eligible to win the batting title this year. Why doesn't USADA make a big fuss on that? The guy actually failed a drug test.



MLB is not a WADA/USADA signatory


That is convenient.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:38 am

guru wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:
By the way, why is Cabrera still eligible to win the batting title this year. Why doesn't USADA make a big fuss on that? The guy actually failed a drug test.



MLB is not a WADA/USADA signatory

If soccer, basketball, tennis and golf can participate in the Olympics without FIFA, the NBA, the ATP and the PGA signing up with USADA/WADA, I wonder why the UCI and the IAAF signed up. Why relinquish power without getting any extra benefits in return?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby guru » Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:52 am

jazzcyclist wrote: I wonder why the UCI and the IAAF signed up. Why relinquish power without getting any extra benefits in return?



http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics ... ting_N.htm
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby donley2 » Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:21 am

Tuariki wrote:
Against that there is supposed to be sworn statements by 10 former team mates but no actual evidence. We already know that several of those statements are by persons with no credibility like Landis and Hamilton. Who are the others. What is their credibility. What is their evidence?

If this is the US justice system you can keep it.


I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but there is plenty of precedent for USADA to do this. The list of non-analytical postives (there pet name for your busted without a positive test) is significant even in track and field. It includes Tim Montgomery, Christie Gaines and I believe a few others.

This page http://www.usada.org/sanctions/ has 19 non-analytical positives dating between 2007 and now. That does not count Armstrong as one of those 19.
donley2
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby gh » Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:20 am

I find it rather "amusing" that there was dancing in the streets when some unpopular athletes were busted on non-analytical grounds, but now that it has happened to an icon suddenly it's a horridly unfair process.

The creation of the ADAs definitely falls into a classic "be careful what you wish for" scenario.
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:29 am

I'm okay with non-analytical postives. The UCI has punished dozens, if not hundreds of cyclists over the years based on circumstantial evidence (eg. Operación Puerto, Festina Scandal, etc.). However, I didn't know that outside agencies like USADA could overrule the governing bodies of the individual sports.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:07 am

gh wrote:I find it rather "amusing" that there was dancing in the streets when some unpopular athletes were busted on non-analytical grounds, but now that it has happened to an icon suddenly it's a horridly unfair process.

The creation of the ADAs definitely falls into a classic "be careful what you wish for" scenario.


I think, and always have, that they are all ridiculous. If you want to save blood samples indefinitely for testing in the future, fine. But these non-analytical busts are just so random without any context of who else is taking something. Basically it comes down to who has enemies and are high profile enough to go after.

In the end it is just sport. The government spends more going after Armstrong, than anyone involved in the recent financial meltdown.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:18 am

Conor Dary wrote:Basically it comes down to who has enemies and are high profile enough to go after.

I agree with this 100%. It's no coincidence that Barry Bonds and Lance Armstrong found themselves in the crosshairs of the Feds instead of some unknown utiiity infielder and a journeyman domestique.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Sat Aug 25, 2012 12:00 pm

And the lesson learned is that drugs work, testing is meaningless, and be sure to keep the number of people who know down to an absolute minimum.

And finally, as in the words of Michael Corleone--keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. If someone had given Landis a job in cycling when he was down and out this whole Armstrong investigation would never had gone far.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby kuha » Sat Aug 25, 2012 1:01 pm

Conor Dary wrote:
gh wrote:I find it rather "amusing" that there was dancing in the streets when some unpopular athletes were busted on non-analytical grounds, but now that it has happened to an icon suddenly it's a horridly unfair process.

The creation of the ADAs definitely falls into a classic "be careful what you wish for" scenario.


I think, and always have, that they are all ridiculous. If you want to save blood samples indefinitely for testing in the future, fine. But these non-analytical busts are just so random without any context of who else is taking something. Basically it comes down to who has enemies and are high profile enough to go after.

In the end it is just sport. The government spends more going after Armstrong, than anyone involved in the recent financial meltdown.


Totally agree. Sound and fury signifying (next to) nothing.If this Armstrong thing is so great, why aren't we protesting in the street for all the failed tests in 1984 to be publicly revealed? And paying certain doctors (lets go back to the 1960s) enough to sign confessions and name names?
kuha
 
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby odelltrclan » Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:35 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:Basically it comes down to who has enemies and are high profile enough to go after.

I agree with this 100%. It's no coincidence that Barry Bonds and Lance Armstrong found themselves in the crosshairs of the Feds instead of some unknown utiiity infielder and a journeyman domestique.


It's also extremely likely that the "high profile" description has helped athletes, particularly Armstrong beat the system. Tips on tests beforehand, etc. It is well documented now about his so-called positive from the Tour of Switzerland and subsequent unprecedented "contribution" to UCI. These people can have positive tests never come to light because of who they are. There are many others over the years who have decried Armstrong's ability to beat the system by having help from people in high places. People he has had no problem in vilifying to serve his purpose. Some of these people had no axe to grind with Lance and were not athletes, just people who want(ed) to clean up the sport.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:54 pm

First of all why don't post some of this evidence.

And secondly, you make it sound like the whole drug thing in cycling started with Armstrong, which is pretty idiotic.

If folks really wanted to clean up the sport it is probably because it had become a high profile sport, at least in this country, thanks to Armstrong.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:41 pm

Conor Dary wrote:And finally, as in the words of Michael Corleone--keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. If someone had given Landis a job in cycling when he was down and out this whole Armstrong investigation would never had gone far.

I think that not only was Landis radioactive after he got busted, but the peleton probably looked at him as a dumbass. The day before he pulled off his miracle on the stage to Morzine, which Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwin called unprecented in the annals of cycling, he lost the yellow jersey when he cracked on the stage to La Toussuire. I think Landis got desparate after he lost the yellow jersey and decided to go well beyond the accepted doping protocol that night, in order to get back into the race. After being unable to catch Landis after a 120 km chase, the peleton probably figured he was doped to the gills and it probably came as no surprise to then when he got popped.
Last edited by jazzcyclist on Sat Aug 25, 2012 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby odelltrclan » Sat Aug 25, 2012 4:05 pm

Conor Dary wrote:First of all why don't post some of this evidence.

And secondly, you make it sound like the whole drug thing in cycling started with Armstrong, which is pretty idiotic.

If folks really wanted to clean up the sport it is probably because it had become a high profile sport, at least in this country, thanks to Armstrong.


First of all Conor there is nothing anywhere in any post I have ever posted in this site that hints or indicates that doping started with Lance Armstrong so your inference that I indicated as much is disappointing. Cycling, and the Tour de France, in particular, have long had issues with drugs. The most problematic era for cycling, in my opinion, starting in the early 1990's with the advent of EPO use.

Secondly, the popularity of the sport in the USA started with Lemond, not Armstrong. Sure he helped, but he was not the first or most important.

Thirdly, there are mountains of evidence against Lance Armstrong, some of which has been posted here, but very little. If someone really is interested in reading all of it, they should go to cyclingnews.com. They can read many things that I don't care to regurgitate here. You will have to find most of it in links on the message boards.

I don't feel sorry for him in the slightest. He has made no small effort in trying to shame anyone who has stood in his way, many of whom were not cyclists. He has tried to get people fired from jobs, or ruin their reputations and has help from his cohorts in cover-up. He is a nothing but a mafioso bully in my opinion. He achieved much of his fame and fortune under false pretenses.

Was he the best of his generation? Possibly, but no one will every really know because we don't know how many clean riders were ever riding during this era. We also don't know how much advantage he had over others because of the help he received.

If it blackens the sport, so be it. The sport allowed such a culture to develop, many riders have been complicit in helping it along. They get what they get now, like it or not. They all are part of this. Many now have come out and stated they compromised their principles to be a part of it. Hopefully the future can be better.

If the Tour de France wants to keep him as champion, or the UCI, that is their prerogotive. I don't really care. I am fine with that. I would not award anyone else the titles if he is stripped but think they should be vacated. I am just glad that his house of cards [lies and deceit] has finally crumbled and hopefully one day he will come clean and apologize to all those he has been pissing on for all these years.

Wonder if he is going to have to pay back his bonus to that Sports Promo company now. He is in deep shit which is why he walked away. If proven he had cheated, which was likely, then he has perjured himself and could have faced criminal charges. Hopefully it will all finally go away.
Last edited by odelltrclan on Sat Aug 25, 2012 6:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Sat Aug 25, 2012 4:34 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:And finally, as in the words of Michael Corleone--keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. If someone had given Landis a job in cycling when he was down and out this whole Armstrong investigation would never had gone far.

I think that not only was Landis radioactive after he got busted, but the peleton probably looked at him as a dumbass. The day before he pulled off his miracle on the stage to Morzine, which Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwin called unprecented in the annals of cycling, he lost the yellow jersey when he cracked on the stage to La Toussuire. I think Landis got desparate after he lost the yellow jersey and decided to go well beyond the accepted doping protocol that night, in order to get back into the race. After being unable to catch Landis after a 120 km chase, the peleton probably figured he was doped to the gills and it probably came as no surprise to then when he got popped.


I remember that stage well watching it live. Landis lost about 7 minutes and then the next day makes up 8. It was amazing. Almost as amazing that he would drug up knowing if he won the stage the next day he would be tested.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby j-a-m » Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:49 pm

gh wrote: singling out the East Germans is unequal application of "justice" if there was such a thing. Not their fault they apparently just did it better than everyone else.

Don't think they did it better, just more of it. And then there's the aspect that it was a totalitarian regime in which athletes had no freedom and were forced to take whatever substance government bureaucrats put in front of them.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby mal » Sun Aug 26, 2012 5:04 am

Cycling was founded on drugs. The early race was designed so that only one rider would finsh. The race was so brutal and so long - 360 kms = one stage for example - that pick me ups were needed to keep rifding. It was a ride of attrition.

When more than one guy was competing for the prize in the last days, they made it harder and harder.

SO yoiu ended up with a sport where the foundation was win at any personal cost.

Nothing like the holier than thou stuff I hear from people who call it cheating. On the top of MT Ventoux, there is a famous memorial to Tom Simpson. He died on the slopes from exhaustion. Fiull of amphetimones, duiretics and alcohol.

THe USADA has absolutely no jurisdiction here. What irritates me is that they have singled out LA for purely political reasons. His results will not be reversed. The TDF is a power unto itslef, and guys like Merckx, Pantani, Ulrich and Fignon etc were all done for drugs at some stage in their careers. They still have their titles and their icons. Look how they handled Contador.

What pisses me off is that the USADA has spent money on a retired athlete. An athlete who did his stuff in Europe, when no one cared about cycling. I am not for drugs, I want them removed from schools and colleges, and also pro sports. I want them to do their jobs. Not wander around in a cesspit and tell me they discovered waste.

To go in and retrospectively try to rewrite history for a sport that has existed a century before they did is assinine.

Do you job, don'e waster money on LA who is now an inspiration to cancer sufferers everywhere. Next they'll be after Santa for working the Elves too hard at Xmas.
Last edited by mal on Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mal
 
Posts: 968
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby gh » Sun Aug 26, 2012 6:13 am

j-a-m wrote:
gh wrote: singling out the East Germans is unequal application of "justice" if there was such a thing. Not their fault they apparently just did it better than everyone else.

Don't think they did it better, just more of it. And then there's the aspect that it was a totalitarian regime in which athletes had no freedom and were forced to take whatever substance government bureaucrats put in front of them.


"more of it"? Not a chance.

But the no-freedom part of the equation raises this philosophical thought: who deserves more to be punished: Eastbloc athletes who had absolutely no say in their steroid intake or freeworld people who openly made the decision to defy the rules?
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Aug 26, 2012 6:37 am

gh wrote:But the no-freedom part of the equation raises this philosophical thought: who deserves more to be punished: Eastbloc athletes who had absolutely no say in their steroid intake or freeworld people who openly made the decision to defy the rules?

I thinks it's irrelevant. The only thing that matters to me is whether the athletes had an unfair advantage at the time of the performance. I don't think that Castor Semenya has done anything wrong, but I still feel as though she has an unfair advantage and that's the only thing that matters.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby j-a-m » Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:00 am

jazzcyclist wrote:The only thing that matters to me is whether the athletes had an unfair advantage at the time of the performance.

And it's also about whether someone proves it, and whether that someone does so within the statute of limitations and has the authority to do something about it.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:03 am

gh wrote:
j-a-m wrote:
gh wrote: singling out the East Germans is unequal application of "justice" if there was such a thing. Not their fault they apparently just did it better than everyone else.

Don't think they did it better, just more of it. And then there's the aspect that it was a totalitarian regime in which athletes had no freedom and were forced to take whatever substance government bureaucrats put in front of them.


"more of it"? Not a chance.

But the no-freedom part of the equation raises this philosophical thought: who deserves more to be punished: Eastbloc athletes who had absolutely no say in their steroid intake or freeworld people who openly made the decision to defy the rules?


That is a very good point. Probably another good reason to depend on a solid testing program---if even possible---just to stop the abuse by authorities. If the Wall had never gone down, what would be the chance of a non-analytical investigation by the East Bloc. I truly doubt the East Germans would ever had had an equivalent of a USADA going after their own athletes.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby odelltrclan » Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:11 am

Conor Dary wrote:That is a very good point. Probably another good reason to depend on a solid testing program---if even possible---just to stop the abuse by authorities. If the Wall had never gone down, what would be the chance of a non-analytical investigation by the East Bloc. I truly doubt the East Germans would ever had had an equivalent of a USADA going after their own athletes.


You seem to be in contradiction to other statements you have made. Now you seem to be OK with non analytical positives and agencies like USADA. Only not in the case of Armstrong. Why the inconsistency?
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:18 am

j-a-m wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:The only thing that matters to me is whether the athletes had an unfair advantage at the time of the performance.

And it's also about whether someone proves it, and whether that someone does so within the statute of limitations and has the authority to do something about it.

Why should there be a statute of limitations on proving someone was dirty? There's no statute of limitation on world records.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:22 am

odelltrclan wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:That is a very good point. Probably another good reason to depend on a solid testing program---if even possible---just to stop the abuse by authorities. If the Wall had never gone down, what would be the chance of a non-analytical investigation by the East Bloc. I truly doubt the East Germans would ever had had an equivalent of a USADA going after their own athletes.


You seem to be in contradiction to other statements you have made. Now you seem to be OK with non analytical positives and agencies like USADA. Only not in the case of Armstrong. Why the inconsistency?


Hardly. Obviously I am reiterating my point that a non-analytical investigation is a random happening. It happens to some individuals and obviously not to others, and certainly not in a totalitarian government still in power. Do you think the Chinese are going to eat their own athletes on the world stage?
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:24 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
j-a-m wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:The only thing that matters to me is whether the athletes had an unfair advantage at the time of the performance.

And it's also about whether someone proves it, and whether that someone does so within the statute of limitations and has the authority to do something about it.

Why should there be a statute of limitations on proving someone was dirty? There's no statute of limitation on world records.


I agree. That Phidippides guy was obviously on something.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby j-a-m » Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:28 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Why should there be a statute of limitations on proving someone was dirty? There's no statute of limitation on world records.

Samples are stored for a certain time, I believe currently eight years. After that you can't prove anything based on those samples. Technically that's not a statute of limitations, but it has a similar effect.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby gh » Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:30 am

jazzcyclist wrote:...
Why should there be a statute of limitations on proving someone was dirty? ...


Because in the end it comes down to legalities, and limitations are a solid part of the legal system in all civilized nations. (as far as I know)
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby j-a-m » Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:35 am

gh wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:...
Why should there be a statute of limitations on proving someone was dirty? ...


Because in the end it comes down to legalities, and limitations are a solid part of the legal system in all civilized nations. (as far as I know)

Agreed. We are talking about severe sanctions against those athletes, and the more time has passed, the more difficult it is for anyone to defend such allegations.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby gh » Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:38 am

Scott Ostler in the SF Chron this morning:

<<-- Let's clear up one myth. Lance Armstrong has not been raising millions of dollars for cancer research. An article in February's Outside Magazine explains the deal. Livestrong no longer accepts research grant applications. Money is spent to assist cancer patients, yes, but, "Livestrong spends extensively on advertising, PR, and 'branding,' all of which helps preserve Armstrong's marketability at a time when he's under fire.">>
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby kuha » Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:40 am

But "legalities" is a completely mushy term here. What, specifically, are the rules?; what, specifically, is the border between legal and illegal?; what, specifically, are the standards and criteria of evidence?; and what, specifically, are the rights of the accused? We cannot pretend there is any absolute standard here--which is why all of this remains such an absurd, stinking, and unsatisfying mess.
kuha
 
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Tuariki » Sun Aug 26, 2012 2:41 pm

The radio sporting talk-back in NZ appears to be pretty much on the side of Lance Armstrong. The following sentiments come through:

1. USADA takes the stance that Armstrong is guilty until proven innocent.

2. Physical evidence of innocence in terms of the hundreds of clean drug tests is irrelevant according to USADA.

3. Since when does a US drug regulatory regime have the legal powers to dictate to other other countries and to international sporting bodies?

4. What credibility is their in the statements of confirmed drug cheats like Landis?

5. What is the relevance of drug tests from 2009 and 2010 to events before those dates?

6. Why hasn't USADA released the results of those 2009 and 2010 drug tests.

7. For how many years and how many times does Armstrong have to prove his innocence?

8. Has USADA tested samples that have been presumably held in storage? and are those samples now showing a positive?

In general, most New Zealanders appear to be concerned that justice must be seen to be done and in this case that doesn't appear to be happening. All talk back callers would be happy to have Armstrong stripped if USADA have the evidence. Like me, we are all waiting to see it.

Suspicions are not good enough. Evidence iswhat we want and need to see.
Tuariki
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:39 pm
Location: Rohe o Te Whanau a Apanui

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Sun Aug 26, 2012 3:17 pm

Hey, hey. Leave it to the Kiwis to talk some sense.

Too bad the cricket side isn't doing better. Oh well, India is a tough place to play.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Tuariki » Sun Aug 26, 2012 5:21 pm

Conor Dary wrote:Hey, hey. Leave it to the Kiwis to talk some sense.

Too bad the cricket side isn't doing better. Oh well, India is a tough place to play.

Cricket?? What is that? :oops:
Don't know what you are talking about.
Winners, winners, that is all I know.
So I guess on that subject I will never know anything
Tuariki
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:39 pm
Location: Rohe o Te Whanau a Apanui

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby mump boy » Mon Aug 27, 2012 4:41 am

UK press have mostly gone along the lines of he's a lying, bullying, cheat and finally he's been nailed for what everyone has known to be true for at least 10 years
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby mal » Mon Aug 27, 2012 4:51 am

mump boy wrote:UK press have mostly gone along the lines of he's a lying, bullying, cheat and finally he's been nailed for what everyone has known to be true for at least 10 years


That's cos the Poms want to cover up that their lying and cheating has been over turned.

Misery loves company.
mal
 
Posts: 968
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:22 am

mump boy wrote:UK press have mostly gone along the lines of he's a lying, bullying, cheat and finally he's been nailed for what everyone has known to be true for at least 10 years


What a surprise. The sanctimonious, pompous UK press doesn't like Armstrong. Who could have guessed that. And they didn't even have to hack any phones to get the story.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Daisy » Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:03 am

Conor Dary wrote:The sanctimonious, pompous UK press doesn't like Armstrong.

Have they had anything positive to say about anything since the Falklands war?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby kuha » Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:27 am

Daisy wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:The sanctimonious, pompous UK press doesn't like Armstrong.

Have they had anything positive to say about anything since the Falklands war?


The Brit papers can be absolutely hilarious, with wonderful writing, BUT most of them are on a perpetual search-and-destroy mission. The fact that they've taken this stance doesn't tell us anything of real substance.
kuha
 
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:00 am

kuha wrote:
Daisy wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:The sanctimonious, pompous UK press doesn't like Armstrong.

Have they had anything positive to say about anything since the Falklands war?


The Brit papers can be absolutely hilarious, with wonderful writing, BUT most of them are on a perpetual search-and-destroy mission. The fact that they've taken this stance doesn't tell us anything of real substance.


I was going to say vulturous, but that is an insult to vultures. But search-and-destroy is good and pretty accurate.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests