|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
angel
Franchise Player
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 14226
Location: city of angels
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There seems to be an element that tried to drag Lance Armstrong's reputation through the mud. I hope Landis is cleared.
_________________
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that." ~~Martin Luther King Jr.~~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yep. I alluded earlier to witch hunt tactics by WADA. Armstrong wrote a letter to the IOC calling for discipline against the WADA head, Dick Pound. I saved a copy:
LINK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakersfreak
Franchise Player
Joined: 11 Apr 2001
Posts: 12389
Location: Riverside Rescue
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:22 am Post subject: Family: Title will be stripped |
|
|
Family: Title will be stripped
By Tom Murse And Bernard Harris
Lancaster New Era
Published: Aug 01, 2006 1:34 PM EST
LANCASTER COUNTY, PA - Family and friends of Tour de France champion Floyd Landis expect him to become the first cyclist ever stripped of the sport’s most-sought-after title over doping allegations.
But even in the face of damaging new details, they are clinging to hope the Farmersville native has naturally high levels of testosterone and will be proven innocent — title or no title.
“The bottom line is the truth,” said Tammy Martin, a family friend who has served as their spokeswoman.
Martin said she and the Landises, who have stopped granting interviews, anticipate the Tour de France title will be stripped from the cyclist.
The New York Times and several other international news agencies have reported that Landis’ initial urine test showed some of the testosterone was synthetic — contradicting the cyclist’s claim he has naturally high levels of the hormone.
And in a separate blow to his case, Landis’ personal doctor confirmed the ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone in the first sample was 11:1, nearly three times the maximum allowable limits under Tour de France rules.
“You just can’t explain it naturally, with alcohol or any of that,” Charles Yesalis, a recently retired Pennsylvania State University professor and doping expert, told the New Era today. “They can say anything they want, but I’ve never heard anything like that.”
more:
http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/24469 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Polish_Bastard
Starting Rotation
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 106
Location: India baby!
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm happy anytime they get one of these cheaters. I would be really surprised to see one of the current or past (20 years) champions be absolutely clear for his career. In that light Armstrong's letter is logical in an egoistic way.
_________________
Win now - win what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nudizl_Forshizl
Starting Rotation
Joined: 23 May 2004
Posts: 974
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Polish_Bastard wrote: | | I'm happy anytime they get one of these cheaters. I would be really surprised to see one of the current or past (20 years) champions be absolutely clear for his career. In that light Armstrong's letter is logical in an egoistic way. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angel
Franchise Player
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 14226
Location: city of angels
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In fairness, we should wait for the test results on Saturday.
_________________
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that." ~~Martin Luther King Jr.~~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Doesn't matter...after all, Armstrong came up clear each & every time he was ever tested (hundreds of times), but this guy is sure he was dirty anyway. Dirty and egoistic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angel
Franchise Player
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 14226
Location: city of angels
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is no doubt there have been many witch hunts conducted against Lance Armstrong. Lance has always played by the rules and yet dominated his sport. The recognition Lance has received seems insufficient when you consider all that he has had to overcome. He fought against cancer. He fought his way to the top of the cycling ranks. He fought against people who have thrown unfounded accusations at him for years. Yet, he established himself as the greatest Champion of the top cycling event. It's sad that anyone should try to taint all that he has accomplished. He has proved his accusers to be liars. However, the retractions are never as widely publicized as the accusations, so there must be some who have bought into the lies. I do hope action is taken against those who have brought false accusations. In this case, it seems the cheaters are among those who administer the tests. At a time when kids are in desperate need of role models, Lance Armstrong stands tall.
_________________
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that." ~~Martin Luther King Jr.~~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Polish_Bastard
Starting Rotation
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 106
Location: India baby!
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just one thing. Check out the names which are now being thrown out there in connection with the doping labs, people disqualified or removed from races. You can basically find all the former Tour favorites there. I suppose doping is meant to improve your results. And Armstrong is supposed to have been the only clean guy in a world of doping abusers. Rather superhuman isn't it? I never said I am sure of anything, I just said I would be surprised if the truth was he has never been taking anything, that's all.
Part of the science of doping is camouflage. Montgomery and Jones have also been tested zounds of times and it still is rather an accepted fact dope helped them in a major way and they were never caught. Doping testing is basically a technological race between the abusers and the testers. Maybe in the future we will have more efficient methods of testing for drugs which would have yielded different results if we used them now. I see Lance's letter with his all-out attack on WADA as an attempt to let sleeping dogs lie, to make testing old samples with new methods impossible. I suppose that would be rather convenient for him.
_________________
Win now - win what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nudizl_Forshizl
Starting Rotation
Joined: 23 May 2004
Posts: 974
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Polish_Bastard wrote: | Just one thing. Check out the names which are now being thrown out there in connection with the doping labs, people disqualified or removed from races. You can basically find all the former Tour favorites there. I suppose doping is meant to improve your results. And Armstrong is supposed to have been the only clean guy in a world of doping abusers. Rather superhuman isn't it? I never said I am sure of anything, I just said I would be surprised if the truth was he has never been taking anything, that's all.
Part of the science of doping is camouflage. Montgomery and Jones have also been tested zounds of times and it still is rather an accepted fact dope helped them in a major way and they were never caught. Doping testing is basically a technological race between the abusers and the testers. Maybe in the future we will have more efficient methods of testing for drugs which would have yielded different results if we used them now. I see Lance's letter with his all-out attack on WADA as an attempt to let sleeping dogs lie, to make testing old samples with new methods impossible. I suppose that would be rather convenient for him. |
You could make a lot of money with L'Equip or some other media source if you had some sort of proof for your implicit accusations. But who needs proof when pundits are able to base their groundless conjecture on 'accepted fact'. Of course that is not how it works, otherwise we'd have a real chance at landing Oden next year.
One thing you're right about is the constant tug of war between dopers and testing technology. But the race is hardly linear; first the dopers are ahead, then testing technology catches up, some athletes are caught, new clandestine doping methods are adopted - and so on. Even this back and forth model is highly simplified. I find it surprising that Lance, who may very well be the most tested athlete in history, never succumbed to the testing tech lag. Unless you count his 'positive' 1999 tests. Even assuming that he was guilty of doping in 99, the whole thing strains credulity. Do the effects of EPO last 7+ years? If not, he must have doped intermittantly or continuously since then. Why not test his samples again from 2000 onward? It's not like violating his rights is an issue anyway. Or maybe EPO is just a hell of a drug - take it in 1999, get better and better each year (both relatively and absolutely, beating his own times, as well as other full time dopers)
I appreciate your critical analysis of Armstrong's letter to the IOC regarding WADA and Dick Pound. His motive may very well have been to get the IOC to 'let sleeping dogs lie'. But to give your meta analysis on Armstrongs intentions, while ignoring the content of the letter (i.e. proved malfeasance of Pound, WADA, L'Equip), smacks of intellectual dishonesty. As I'm sure you are aware, we don't adhere to Napoleonic Law - the accused are innocent until proven otherwise, and certain procedures, both legal, technical, and otherwise, exist to protect our rights.
To the point, if Landis comes back positive, and the subsequent investigation fails to show tampering or other elements of foul play, the (bleep) him, he deserves what he gets. If Armstrong is later shown to be guilty, then (bleep) him too. We haven't arrived at that point yet, however, and to proceed as otherwise is our own folly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Polish_Bastard
Starting Rotation
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 106
Location: India baby!
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nudizl_Forshizl wrote: | | Polish_Bastard wrote: | Just one thing. Check out the names which are now being thrown out there in connection with the doping labs, people disqualified or removed from races. You can basically find all the former Tour favorites there. I suppose doping is meant to improve your results. And Armstrong is supposed to have been the only clean guy in a world of doping abusers. Rather superhuman isn't it? I never said I am sure of anything, I just said I would be surprised if the truth was he has never been taking anything, that's all.
Part of the science of doping is camouflage. Montgomery and Jones have also been tested zounds of times and it still is rather an accepted fact dope helped them in a major way and they were never caught. Doping testing is basically a technological race between the abusers and the testers. Maybe in the future we will have more efficient methods of testing for drugs which would have yielded different results if we used them now. I see Lance's letter with his all-out attack on WADA as an attempt to let sleeping dogs lie, to make testing old samples with new methods impossible. I suppose that would be rather convenient for him. |
You could make a lot of money with L'Equip or some other media source if you had some sort of proof for your implicit accusations. But who needs proof when pundits are able to base their groundless conjecture on 'accepted fact'. Of course that is not how it works, otherwise we'd have a real chance at landing Oden next year.
One thing you're right about is the constant tug of war between dopers and testing technology. But the race is hardly linear; first the dopers are ahead, then testing technology catches up, some athletes are caught, new clandestine doping methods are adopted - and so on. Even this back and forth model is highly simplified. I find it surprising that Lance, who may very well be the most tested athlete in history, never succumbed to the testing tech lag. Unless you count his 'positive' 1999 tests. Even assuming that he was guilty of doping in 99, the whole thing strains credulity. Do the effects of EPO last 7+ years? If not, he must have doped intermittantly or continuously since then. Why not test his samples again from 2000 onward? It's not like violating his rights is an issue anyway. Or maybe EPO is just a hell of a drug - take it in 1999, get better and better each year (both relatively and absolutely, beating his own times, as well as other full time dopers)
I appreciate your critical analysis of Armstrong's letter to the IOC regarding WADA and Dick Pound. His motive may very well have been to get the IOC to 'let sleeping dogs lie'. But to give your meta analysis on Armstrongs intentions, while ignoring the content of the letter (i.e. proved malfeasance of Pound, WADA, L'Equip), smacks of intellectual dishonesty. As I'm sure you are aware, we don't adhere to Napoleonic Law - the accused are innocent until proven otherwise, and certain procedures, both legal, technical, and otherwise, exist to protect our rights.
To the point, if Landis comes back positive, and the subsequent investigation fails to show tampering or other elements of foul play, the (bleep) him, he deserves what he gets. If Armstrong is later shown to be guilty, then (bleep) him too. We haven't arrived at that point yet, however, and to proceed as otherwise is our own folly. |
I don't really get your "accepted fact" comments? Do you still believe Jones and Montgomery were clean? It was a side point but talking about "intellectual dishonesty" after making such claims hinges on blasphemy.
While I refuse to assume Armstrong is 100% guilty without a definite proof I strongly disagree against depicting him as a great athlete, showing as an example and what not. Cycling can now be considered on par with bodybuilding where even if a guy is really good and tested clean you still can't help thinking that yeah, he's clean but... Because there's always the question: if everyone works hard, everyone is doping and one guy is clean then how does he win? All I'm saying is let's not treat people from certain sports as icons because there is more chance than not that they don't deserve that. I understand it's not an easy perspective when you're talking about a guy from your own nation.
On Armstrong's letter: it gives his arguments, most probably quite well. But what about the Pound side? If we had a response from the WADA we could discuss the facts. That's why I left the content on most part alone.
Other famous athletes also have never succumbed to the testing lag despite doping - consider the BALCO affair.
To conlude: While Armstrong cannot be treated as a doping abuser until proven guilty it would be rather one-sided to shut the eyes to the contemporary nature of his sport.
_________________
Win now - win what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nudizl_Forshizl
Starting Rotation
Joined: 23 May 2004
Posts: 974
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
You used the term 'accepted fact' to imply guilt when it hadn't been proved. Without proof, 'accepted fact' is just conjecture.
It's also 'accepted fact' that blacks commit more crimes per capita than whites, that men are more competent than women in the workplace, etc.. This type of thinking leads to racial profiling, woman getting paid 70 cents on the dollar compared to men, and a host of other junk-science type remedies. It's just not how reasonable people should operate.
I would love to see Pound's rebuttal to Armstrong's letter. Given the outcome of the investigation, I just don't see what he could say to redeem himself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Polish_Bastard
Starting Rotation
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 106
Location: India baby!
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nudizl_Forshizl wrote: | You used the term 'accepted fact' to imply guilt when it hadn't been proved. Without proof, 'accepted fact' is just conjecture.
It's also 'accepted fact' that blacks commit more crimes per capita than whites, that men are more competent than women in the workplace, etc.. This type of thinking leads to racial profiling, woman getting paid 70 cents on the dollar compared to men, and a host of other junk-science type remedies. It's just not how reasonable people should operate.
I would love to see Pound's rebuttal to Armstrong's letter. Given the outcome of the investigation, I just don't see what he could say to redeem himself. |
On "accepted fact": have you been asleep for the last few years? I thought the BALCO case was well enough publicized. You can read for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Montgomery
Or do you think it's all one big sports court conspiracy as usual...
It is easy to be a judge knowing only one side of the story. Maybe Pound knew some things about the standards in the French lab that you don't.
_________________
Win now - win what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
