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 mal » Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:30 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?


1066, 1966 who can stand all this fun?
mal
 
Posts: 968
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby lexvid » Mon Aug 27, 2012 4:30 pm

From our very own headlines: A long look at the Lance Armstrong "Debate"

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08 ... s-and.html

I 1st heard the rumblings more than 10 years ago and dismissed it as just rumours and innuendo. No more. Looks like Lance is as guilty as the rest of 'em.

Sad really but I guess it was too good to be true that he could win against suspect riders 7 times on God given talent. Guess I wanted to believe a cancer survivor had better scruples and morals than that.
lexvid
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: The Great White North

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

Postby Mighty Favog » Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:39 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality
A cult of personality arises when an individual uses mass media, propaganda, or other methods, to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise.
This seems an appropriate academic idea to bring up when discussing Armstrong.

In Canada the anti-cancer athletic hero, Terry Fox, did not survive. Unlike Armstrong, he notably declined every corporate sponsorship offered to him during his ultimately unsuccessful trans-Canada run, including big bucks from McDonald's. The hundreds of annual Terry Fox Runs held in 38 countries similarly have no sponsors. Somehow, the Terry Fox Foundation has still managed to give 50% more to cancer research in 2011 alone than the Lance Armstrong Foundation has in its entire existence. 84% of money raised by the foundation goes to cancer research. I liked watching Lance ride through rural France while I was snoozing on the couch, but my money and my heart go to Fox.
Mighty Favog
 
Posts: 1789
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby Tuariki » Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:14 pm

lexvid wrote:From our very own headlines: A long look at the Lance Armstrong "Debate"

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08 ... s-and.html

I 1st heard the rumblings more than 10 years ago and dismissed it as just rumours and innuendo. No more. Looks like Lance is as guilty as the rest of 'em.

Sad really but I guess it was too good to be true that he could win against suspect riders 7 times on God given talent. Guess I wanted to believe a cancer survivor had better scruples and morals than that.

This article by Ross Tucker is certainly the best summary of the situation I have seen. Clearly it doesn't look good at all for Armstrong. However, I am still of the opinion that it is important for credibility's sake that USADA needs to produce the actual evidence. If Armstrong is guilty then it is vital that there can be not a shred of doubt.
Tuariki
 
Posts: 1300
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 » Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:18 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?


BUt this is literally a positive story :?
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 mump boy » Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:20 am

You lot are hilarious

The nasty UK press are picking on our poor misunderstood hero !!

You probably think Marion Jones was hard done by as well :roll: :lol:
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 kuha » Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:33 am

mump boy wrote:You lot are hilarious

The nasty UK press are picking on our poor misunderstood hero !!

You probably think Marion Jones was hard done by as well :roll: :lol:


You know, at SOME point logic has to trump the mere ability to type. You have cited the UK press as some sort of ultimate judge of merit here, and we have simply responded that the UK press love to tear up everyone and anyone. Thus, their anti-Armstrong stance isn't evidence of much of anything beyond the nature of the UK press.

Second, I'm amazed you could actually type the last sentence above without bursting into flame. Re-read gh's comments about the glee with which some non-analytical positives have been received here--and then take a guess (only one is needed) about the main target of all of that bad feeling.

:roll:
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
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 Cooter Brown » Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:30 am

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more- ... ?pgno=1%29:

One of the witnesses who testified in the SCA arbitration was Michael Ashenden, an Australian scientist who has worked on developing laboratory-based methods of doping detection...“In my opinion, his results during the 2009 Tour de France are consistent with the use of blood transfusion,” Ashenden told the News, speaking of the doping method eyewitnesses have described as central to the Armstrong teams underwritten by Tailwind Sports.

Ashenden listened when Armstrong’s former teammate, Floyd Landis, confessed to doping in 2010 and began describing how the riders on Armstrong’s team masked their transfusions by taking small injections of EPO, an anemia drug that prompts the body to create new red blood cells. “It was not to increase the amount of red blood cells but to mask the decrease in reticulocytes that they knew they would get from a reinfusion,” Ashenden said, referring to the young cells that would appear absent after, say, a doctor reinjected the blood in a bag delivered from an apartment in Spain to a hotel in France during a Tour de France rest day. “The most sophisticated dopers with the most money are going to use transfusions, and the least sophisticated with the least money use drugs.

We’re really clear on how blood behaves when you dope.”

“It is not normal for those values to remain constant during a Tour de France, where typically the strenuous exercise leads to a dilution of the blood and a 10% decrease in haemoglobin levels,” Ashenden said. “Armstrong’s haemoglobin levels actually increased during the race where he finished third overall.”

Ashenden, who also had a hand in developing a test for plasticizers — residue of blood bag material — that might also come into play in the upcoming litigation.
Cooter Brown
 
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Austin

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

Postby Conor Dary » Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:26 am

That is really swell. What does 2009 have to do with races from 1999-2005? Do these drugs go back in time?

And I still would like to know why US taxpayers are paying to investigate US athletes in a foreign race.
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 EPelle » Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:06 am

I would hazard a guess that the tax-payers funded the US Postal Service's team to some degree, however remote. I could be far off base.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby bambam » Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:37 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Has Riis' 1996 title been vacated? After all, he's an admitted doper.


No, it was specifically not taken away - citing statute of limitations.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

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

Postby bambam » Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:41 am

guru wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
guru wrote:No, because the NFL does not fall under USADA's purview as ""the official anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American and Paralympic sport in the United States." It was created in 2000 because the USOC was under increasing pressure due to conflict of interest credibility issues

So if what you're saying is true and USADA can involve itself in any Olympic sport, I would presume that USADA also has the power to strip Lebron James of MVP awards and Serena Williams of Wimbledon titles, and since golf is returning to the Olympics in 2016, I guess it can also take away Tiger Woods' 14 major golf titles if it sees fit.



The problem is the governing bodies of the professional arms of those respective sports are not signatories to USADA/WADA code. If there were to be a drug positive in the Olympics or something like a FIBA world championship then they would indeed face repercussions in those specific circumstances.


That's not quite true. As tennis is an Olympic sport it has to agree to the WADA code and when golf officially returns it will also have to go by WADA rules. Basketball is the same thing but in some way the NBA gets away without random, unannounced testing.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

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

Postby bambam » Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:46 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
guru wrote:
Tuariki wrote: What is their evidence?



As I have said previously, Armstrong hung because his ego wouldn't let him stay retired, and blood samples from 2009 and 2010, subject to more stringent tests than when he last competed, showed results outside normal range. With those results in hand, it was just a matter of gathering all the king's men to fill in the blanks.

The one positive I can see for this precedent of convicting dopers based on sworn testimony and circumstantial evidence is that it opens the door for WADA to go in and wipe the East German and Chinese records off the books in women's track and field once and for all.


There's a lot more evidence against the East Germans based on the Stasi files that have been released. But the IOC has specifically said they will not go after them, citing statute of limitations. Now the interesting thing there is what was pointed out elsewhere, that Armstrong should be outside of the statute of limitations (8 years) except for his 2005 tour. But WADA and the drug gods have come up with an out stating that they can go back farther if there is evidence of conspiracy or fraud. Well, when the hell is there not when it comes to doping? And if you can do that, why is the East German situation exempt - wasn't that conspiracy and fraud and systematic doping?

I hate the whole doping thing. I think they should eliminate it and get on with it.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

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

Postby bambam » Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:52 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)


You know, I thought so too, but I brought this up in London with a well-known British ATFS guy and he said that most crimes in Britain have no statue of limitations. Who knew?
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

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

Postby bambam » Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:54 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?


How about the Revolutionary War?
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

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

Postby Conor Dary » Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:01 pm

bambam wrote:

Basketball is the same thing but in some way the NBA gets away without random, unannounced testing.


I wonder why??? It boggles the mind to come up with any reason...$$$$$$
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 » Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:03 pm

bambam wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Has Riis' 1996 title been vacated? After all, he's an admitted doper.


No, it was specifically not taken away - citing statute of limitations.


It was taken away and then later it was rienstated. He [Riis] has made claims he does not want to be recognized as champion because he knows he did not do it fairly.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

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

Postby odelltrclan » Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:17 pm

bambam wrote:But WADA and the drug gods have come up with an out stating that they can go back farther if there is evidence of conspiracy or fraud.


It is not uncommon in other areas of the legal system where fraud nullifies a statute of limitations. In tax law, for example, generally (for federal cases) you have a 3 year statute of limitations for the IRS to assess taxes. In the cases of fraud however, there is no statute of limitations, meaning, if fraud is found 25 years after the fact and can be proven, the IRS can assess taxes and penalties and criminal charges as well.

In the sporting sense, if it is proven that an athlete has been committing fraud for that period of time, I don't see why it would be wrong to retroactively go back that far. The bottom line is that if the sport is trying to rid itself of doping and the stigma of doping, does this hurt or help? I think in the long run it helps the sport and creates more of a determent. The problem is we have to much hero worship and those also who could care less if the so called champion was doing drugs because they believe all were doing drugs. I think link above is good at discussing those issues.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08 ... s-and.html

By the way, as I read it somewhere else, I heard an interview of Mr. Tygart on the radio the day after the announcement by USADA stating that some of the evidence would be forthcoming and available to the general public fairly soon.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

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

Postby mal » Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:24 pm

Doping cycling is a can of worms.

There is a pre-epo period. In those times they only cared about the result of doping. Not the doping so much.

A cyclist had to have an Hematocrit less than 50. (Unless there was a genetric reason - as the Italian cyclist for lampre 's number is a natural 52, as is his Dad's. Daniel Cunego)

If you read the book on Pantani yo can see his numbers from the drug tests. It is clear that there is manipulation of his numbers, but his Hem was legal. Everything else was upside down.

The rules were different then. The way the rules were applied were different. Trying to rewrite history with today's rules is not a fair way of doing things.

Like coming after all the VC winners or CMO winners for committing violence.
(Poor analogy I know.)
mal
 
Posts: 968
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby Pego » Tue Aug 28, 2012 3:33 pm

I'll keep on with my old, broken record.

Enforcement of hematocrit manipulation is a mirage. Legalize autotransfusion and the issue is resolved.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:07 pm

bambam wrote:
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)


You know, I thought so too, but I brought this up in London with a well-known British ATFS guy and he said that most crimes in Britain have no statue of limitations. Who knew?

There's no statute of limitations in the U.S. for murder.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:33 pm

bambam wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:The one positive I can see for this precedent of convicting dopers based on sworn testimony and circumstantial evidence is that it opens the door for WADA to go in and wipe the East German and Chinese records off the books in women's track and field once and for all.


There's a lot more evidence against the East Germans based on the Stasi files that have been released. But the IOC has specifically said they will not go after them, citing statute of limitations. Now the interesting thing there is what was pointed out elsewhere, that Armstrong should be outside of the statute of limitations (8 years) except for his 2005 tour. But WADA and the drug gods have come up with an out stating that they can go back farther if there is evidence of conspiracy or fraud. Well, when the hell is there not when it comes to doping? And if you can do that, why is the East German situation exempt - wasn't that conspiracy and fraud and systematic doping?

Bingo! It's the selective enforcement of rules that bothers me and infuriates folks like Conor Dary. If there was a history of these agencies going on COMPREHENSIVE witchhunts of athletes from a variety of sports from all over the world, long after they've retired, the Amrstrong takedown wouldn't bother me at all, but the cherrypicking discredits USADA and WADA IMO.

Bambam, I really appreciate your posts, because I know you will always come with the facts. I hope you enjoyed your trip to London, and hopefully I'll see you at all future summer Olympics.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:39 pm

bambam wrote: Basketball is the same thing but in some way the NBA gets away without random, unannounced testing.

Imagine that? Could it be that David Stern said he would't let NBA players go to the Olympics if they had to be subjected to random, unannounced testing?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby Conor Dary » Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:24 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
bambam wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:The one positive I can see for this precedent of convicting dopers based on sworn testimony and circumstantial evidence is that it opens the door for WADA to go in and wipe the East German and Chinese records off the books in women's track and field once and for all.


There's a lot more evidence against the East Germans based on the Stasi files that have been released. But the IOC has specifically said they will not go after them, citing statute of limitations. Now the interesting thing there is what was pointed out elsewhere, that Armstrong should be outside of the statute of limitations (8 years) except for his 2005 tour. But WADA and the drug gods have come up with an out stating that they can go back farther if there is evidence of conspiracy or fraud. Well, when the hell is there not when it comes to doping? And if you can do that, why is the East German situation exempt - wasn't that conspiracy and fraud and systematic doping?

Bingo! It's the selective enforcement of rules that bothers me and infuriates folks like Conor Dary. If there was a history of these agencies going on COMPREHENSIVE witchhunts of athletes from a variety of sports from all over the world, long after they've retired, the Amrstrong takedown wouldn't bother me at all, but the cherrypicking discredits USADA and WADA IMO.

Bambam, I really appreciate your posts, because I know you will always come with the facts. I hope you enjoyed your trip to London, and hopefully I'll see you at all future summer Olympics.


Very well said. You guy have hit on the nail....
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 » Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:27 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
bambam wrote: Basketball is the same thing but in some way the NBA gets away without random, unannounced testing.

Imagine that? Could it be that David Stern said he would't let NBA players go to the Olympics if they had to be subjected to random, unannounced testing?


What?, the IOC and the drug people play favorites? Impossible!!!
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 » Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:23 am

From the article linked on the front page:

Twenty-three California state senators are asking the state's two U.S. senators to request a congressional review of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency in the wake of the Lance Armstrong sanctions.

The letter, sent Tuesday, is addressed to U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) and U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D). It notes that USADA receives a "majority of its funding from taxpayer dollars through the Office of National Drug Control Policy at the White House."

"We respectfully request that you call upon (that office) and the appropriate oversight committees of the United States Congress to develop appropriate constitutional protections and conduct a comprehensive review of USADA's operations and finances, with special attention to USADA's unilateral changes in rules for dealing with athletes who have never failed a drug test," the letter states.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/ ... 57593548/1

So there was never any attention for USADA to go after the "good guys" (eg. Lance Armstrong) who dope, only the "bad guys" (eg. Barry Bonds). What a freakin' joke! The IOC has already given a pass to the NBA and the East Germans from the 70's and 80's, and now these politicians want to give a pass to Armstrong because of his popularity. I don't agree with USADA involving itself in the UCI's business but Armstrong's popularity should have nothing to do with it.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby MattMarriott » Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:46 am

archived 2008
http://web.archive.org/web/200808251254 ... 385046/pg1

IOC International Olympic Committee, Jacques Rogge, & Illuminati agenda for Israel for dummies

Question:
Why does the IOC still refuse to sponsor a memorial for the Israeli athletes murdered in Munich in 1972?
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives ... print.html

Answer:
IOC is controlled by the illuminati
Now, how far will they go?
Jacques Rogge, the president of the IOC, coordinated the physical attack to Ekatherini Thanou and Kostas Kenteris (the first white to become world's best in a sprint event, in the age of global athletics), hours before the opening of the Olympics in Athens 2004.
No wonder that the IOC is working overtime to push forward the doping conspiracy (1), one of the most important illuminati hoaxes, serving many key agendas.

Illuminati Israel agenda for dummies
The 2 basic facts:
-one of the illuminati end times agendas is the destruction of Israel.
- the most important weapon of the illuminati used to achieve this agenda is the government of Israel, a bunch of traitors on the illuminati payroll.

Notes
(1) Who, How and Why explained long ago -
doping-conspiracy.blogspot.com... - the next victim:
Google, as usual, knows it best:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2 ... spiracy%22

(2) Glory Of the Olive, the illuminati code for the destruction of Israel and Catholic Church
http://glory-of-the-olive.blogspot.com/
MattMarriott
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:08 am

Tyler Hamilton went on the Today Show to promote his book. He says he would have taken his secrets to his grave if he had never been called before the Grand Jury and forced to testify.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/ ... 0#48908750
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby MattMarriott » Thu Sep 06, 2012 5:28 am

Today at 7 PM GMT Usain Bolt at 100 m of Brussels Van Damme meeting.
Censored by global illuminati media as all other appearances except for the Olympics
http://www.sportlive.co.za/moresport/at ... n-brussels

It could be the last chance to see the fastest man ever and forever, before the illuminati stage the next and third act out of six.
http://www.diamondleague.com/
Six acts
Lance Armstrong accused 29 June 2012 - stripped of his Tour de France titles 24 August 2012
Usain Bolt accused ? - stripped of his Olympics and World titles ?
"Hussein Obama II" accused ? - stripped of his 44th presidential title ?
MattMarriott
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby Marlow » Thu Sep 06, 2012 5:52 am

MattMarriott wrote:Today at 7 PM GMT Usain Bolt at 100 m of Brussels Van Damme meeting.
Censored by global illuminati media as all other appearances except for the Olympics
http://www.sportlive.co.za/moresport/at ... n-brussels
It could be the last chance to see the fastest man ever and forever, before the illuminati stage the next and third act out of six.
http://www.diamondleague.com/
Six acts
Lance Armstrong accused 29 June 2012 - stripped of his Tour de France titles 24 August 2012
Usain Bolt accused ? - stripped of his Olympics and World titles ?
"Hussein Obama II" accused ? - stripped of his 44th presidential title ?

First of all, Brussels is tomorrow, not today.
Second, the Illuminati did not strip Lance of anything. He doped and got caught.
Third, if Bolt were indeed a doper and were stripped of his titles, it would indeed be the End of Days . . . but not for the world, just Track & Field. :(
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby Conor Dary » Thu Sep 06, 2012 6:31 am

Marlow wrote:

Second, the Illuminati did not strip Lance of anything. He doped and got caught.


He never really got caught, like say Contador, who by the way is leading the Vuelta. Such a nice system.
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: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby odelltrclan » Thu Sep 06, 2012 6:41 am

Conor Dary wrote:He never really got caught, like say Contador, who by the way is leading the Vuelta. Such a nice system.


Maybe technically, but that is arguable given the alleged cover up with the Tour de Suisse test. Evidently, rumors have it also that USADA has obtained blood samples from the past that have been retested and have tested positive and this information is going to be released sometime in the near future.

Also have heard that Hamilton's book is going to turn heads. Not so much Lance as the sport and its culture in general.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby Conor Dary » Thu Sep 06, 2012 6:44 am

odelltrclan wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:He never really got caught, like say Contador, who by the way is leading the Vuelta. Such a nice system.


rumors have it also that USADA has obtained blood samples from the past that have been retested and have tested positive and this information is going to be released sometime in the near future.


Who needs facts when you have rumors...
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: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Sep 06, 2012 7:44 am

Well, they say sunshine is the best disinfectant, and thanks to former cyclists who are trying to clear their conscience and/or sell books, the sport of cycling is getting as much sun as Texas on a clear August day. First, World Champion and 3-time Paris-Roubaix winner Johan Museeuw:
"I am the first to admit it openly, and perhaps many people will blame me that I break the silence, but it must be: virtually everyone took doping at that time,” he told the Gazet van Antwerpen.

"We must break with the hypocrisy. The only way to come out of that murderous spiral is to break the silence, the silence that continues to haunt us.”

Everyone must confess to their part, he said. “If we do not then the borrowing into the past will continue. Only a collective mea culpa is the way to the future.”

Doping was a fact of life at that period, he said. “In the 80s and 90s everyone knew what each other was doing but never said a word about doping. Using doping was something everyone did. Eventually it became a part of your lifestyle."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/museeuw ... ast-riders

And then former Armstrong teammate and current Garmin-Sharp D.S. Jonathan Vaughters unloads on the cyclingnews.com message board by outing current riders on his own team who have never flunked a drug test:

Writing openly in the Cyclingnews forum, Vaughters further said that Tom Danielson, Christian Vande Velde and David Zabriskie had doped in the past, bluntly discussed personalities on the team and discussed his standards for hiring riders, all the while relating virtually all of it to doping.

"CVV, Zabriskie, Danielson, while all clearly have a past, and from an ethical standpoint are no different from JJ, there is a very pragmatic difference," wrote Vaughters. "That difference is performance based. Basically, I knew from what my time at USPS, how "inside" or not those riders were. Based on this, I knew their transgressions, while ethically the same as JJ's, were much less in terms of enhancing performance. Therefore, I knew they could perform close to their enhanced level, clean."


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vaughte ... -at-garmin

For those who are interested in reading his posts on the subject, his username is JV1973 and he begins posting on page five of this thread.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=18436

I find Vaughters comments riveting and I think it will cause a lot of reverberations in the world of cycling. Is it good or bad for cycling that so many cyclists and former cyclists are washing their dirty laundry out in public?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby Conor Dary » Thu Sep 06, 2012 7:49 am

Phil Liggett has some similar thoughts that I have brought up. Primarily why is USADA doing this?

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/08/ ... ion_236877
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: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby Conor Dary » Thu Sep 06, 2012 7:58 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Is it good or bad for cycling that so many cyclists and former cyclists are washing their dirty laundry out in public?


Truly wonderful. A circular firing squad for the sport. But no real evidence, just more, hey I saw them do it!...

    For me, if you take personalities out of the equation, you’re left with pee in a cup and blood in a syringe. Armstrong never failed a drug test. He was tested in competition, out of competition. He was tested at the Olympics, at the Tour de France, at dozens if not hundreds of other events. And he never failed a test. We know this because if he had, Travis T. Tygart, the head of USADA, would have personally delivered the results to every home in America, like a grim little Santa Claus.

    Instead, Tygart gathered a group of people who swear they saw Armstrong doping. There has been no trial, no due process, but in the minds of many, that testimony outweighs the results of hundreds of drug tests.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/ot ... story.html
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: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:37 am

Conor Dary wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
Is it good or bad for cycling that so many cyclists and former cyclists are washing their dirty laundry out in public?


Truly wonderful. A circular firing squad for the sport. But no real evidence, just more, hey I saw them do it!...

Did you read my whole post? Vaughters and Museeuw, who were never popped during their careers are saying, "This is what I did and this is what my riders have done". They're not sayiing "I saw him do this", and neither of them is pointing the finger at Armstrong. Do you think Museeuw's idea of a "collective mea culpa" of the entire peleton would be a good idea in the long run? Should the peleton end the "omerta"?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby Conor Dary » Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:47 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Did you read my whole post? Vaughters and Museeuw, who were never popped during their careers are saying, "This is what I did and this is what my riders have done". They're not sayiing "I saw him do this", and neither of them is pointing the finger at Armstrong. Do you think Museeuw's idea of a "collective mea culpa" of the entire peleton would be a good idea in the long run? Should the peleton end the "omerta"?


Okay, I misread it. That is different.

As for a collective mea culpa, who knows.
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: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby odelltrclan » Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:21 am

These cyclists are saying that it was relatively easy to beat the doping tests so a passed doping test doesn't mean a whole lot other to those that are naive in the general population. They had sophisticated doping regimes and those in high places that helped them beat the system. So given that, how much credibility does the doping system now have.

USADA has stated in a nutshell that a primary reason for going after Armstrong is because of the vast resources he was using to beat the system and that doing so will help undermine the ability of others to do the same in the future.

Given all the fallout now happening with confessions galore, maybe they are right about this. Only time will tell.

One thing in Hamilton's book was a comment that many believed there was a level playing if all riders were doping, and maybe to some extent that is true. However, he mentioned that doctors told him that is not necessarily the case because athletes bodies respond to the "chemical infusion" differently and that certain athletes have a better result and advantage where others bodies do not respond as well.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:33 am

odelltrclan wrote:These cyclists are saying that it was relatively easy to beat the doping tests so a passed doping test doesn't mean a whole lot other to those that are naive in the general population. They had sophisticated doping regimes and those in high places that helped them beat the system. So given that, how much credibility does the doping system now have.

I think one way to guage how clean the sport is is by comparing the cyclists times up the traditional climbs to prior years' times. Last year's climbs in the Tour were the slowest in over a decade.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests