Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Oh dear...
Options
Comments
-
Well after Discovery, his team leader was Danilo Di Luca. I don't have to suggest he was doping. He was suspended for doping.
Which proves what exactly? That everyone that Beltran ever rode with, or for, was/is doping? Or are you just selectively choosing Armstrong again?el tonto wrote:Six of his samples form the 1999 Tour (which was before an EPO test was devised) retrospectively tested positive. Frankie Andreu and his wife Betsey both testified that Armstrong told doctors when he was being treated for cancer that he'd used EPO, steroids and HGH.
Oh, so you read the Wiki page on Armstrong too? On the face of it, it appears to be one of the better written Wiki pages in that it provides a list of allegations against Armstrong but also provides further info, with references, on how each one was shot down or disproved (which you have chosen not to mention in your post above). Armstrong claimed that the latter allegation was the result of confusion on the part of Betsy Andreu when she had misheard a conversation about the drugs he was talking for his cancer treatment. It seems clear which version of events you believe, but these are again unproven allegations and unless you refute a person's right to be deemed innocent until proven guilty the existence of the allegations proves nothing.
As for the former allegation, there is more information about this here where it states that the samples testing positive is not in doubt but it was never proven that the samples were those of Armstrong. You'll probably be encouraged to hear though that Beltran's samples were claimed to be amongst some of the others that tested positive in the same tests, but again it was never proven that these were really samples from Beltran (i.e. could have been samples from any rider in the Tour that year). Plenty of fuel for conspiracy theories there though, which the lack of proof no doubt won't prove an obstacle to.el tonto wrote:Moser was a self confessed blood doper. An Italian judge in 2004 ruled that Roche and other team mates had received EPO during his second spell at Carrera.
Interesting, although links to further information would be more interesting. Still doesn't prove Armstrong's guilt, of course.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22734
Which proves what exactly? That everyone that Beltran ever rode with, or for, was/is doping? Or are you just selectively choosing Armstrong again?
You're the one who brought up the issue of other team leaders he rode for.Oh, so you read the Wiki page on Armstrong too....
No actually. David Walsh's last book, "From Lance to Landis" is pretty good on this subject. I'd recommend reading it.Armstrong claimed that the latter allegation was the result of confusion on the part of Betsy Andreu when she had misheard a conversation about the drugs he was talking for his cancer treatment.
Frankie Andreu remembered it too. As did Stephanie McIllvain. She subsequently denied this in court, but had been tellling others beforehand what she heard.it was never proven that the samples were those of Armstrong.
Damien Ressiot linked the numbers on the tests with rider names by getting the test forms from the UCIInteresting, although links to further information would be more interesting.
There's a short story about the Roche thing in the Indo here. Matt Rendell's book about Pantani has a lot of intersting stuff about the Carrera doping programme. Moser thing mentioned here.Still doesn't prove Armstrong's guilt, of course.
Yet you were the one who brought it up? You asked why no one else's performances were questioned. Plenty have been. The difference here is mentioning doping in connection to Armstrong seems to draw a hysterical reaction from some quarters that you simply don't get when other riders names are mentioned.0 -
The difference here is mentioning doping in connection to Armstrong seems to draw a hysterical reaction from some quarters that you simply don't get when other riders names are mentioned.
that's what it comes down to in this thread anyway. armstrong is such a hero to many that he's viewed as being almost superhuman, and (on the surface anyway) his story is pure hollywoood gold. but, doozerie, all our heroes are flawed human beings, we can still love them anyway... ali beat his wife, best pissed it all away and elvis died on the crapper, but yet they are loved.
there's no need to start kicking over tables and demanding satisfaction like an italian who's just heard his mother insulted, you have no vested interest in the lance legend. clean or dirty, his achievements are immense.
oh and bin liquigas mr. prudhomme. collective responsibility ftw.0 -
niceonetom wrote: »there's no need to start kicking over tables and demanding satisfaction like an italian who's just heard his mother insulted
Brilliant -have to remember that one for future use!
0 -
Tiny, I get your points that doping is also rife in some other sports (imo it has ruined athletics too) and that kicking out the full team is harsh, but no other sport has a history of doping to the extent that cycling does (e.g. you'd be hard-pressed to find a similar number of athletes that died from overuse of EPO when it first came out in the early 90s to the number of young amateur cyclists that died). It's pretty clear that several teams in cycling have been complicit passively or actively in fostering a drug culture in their teams - there's several cases that showed this and plenty of other cases where many of us have strong suspicions.
The fact that it was often led and driven by the teams contributed to the creation of the code of omerta that led to so many cyclists being afraid to speak out against doping. So I think the teams deserve everything they get and the public perception of cycling, and in particular of the feeble policy against doping for most of the last 20 years, means the only way to correct it is to use extreme measures.
The sheer level of silence from the peleton for many years on this along with the disgust any riders like Kimmage (and a good few others, there's one lad I can't remember his name, maybe Casper, that was vilified and hounded when he spoke out) received when they spoke out against doping to me suggests an extremely high level of solidarity amongst pro cyclists. Previously that was used to get everyone to keep their mouth shut so the masses could keep on doping. Imagine if that same solidarity was now turned on its head whereby every cyclist knew that if he doped and was caught he might not just be ruining his own career but would also be affecting the livelihoods of his teammates. More riders would think twice and would not base their decision whether to dope or not purely on selfish grounds.
In my opinion cycling needs that level of extreme punishment for doping as doping has extremely undermined the sport.0 -
Advertisement
-
You're the one who brought up the issue of other team leaders he rode for.
Yes, I did, and in fact I also mentioned all of his team mates on those teams. I did so in order to ask why you singled out Armstrong as being guilty when, by your reasoning for reinforcing your view of Armstrong being guilty (his association with Beltran), you presumably consider all of Beltran's former team mates and team leaders to be guilty too. That is a significant number of riders, do you consider all of them guilty of doping too?el tonto wrote:No actually. David Walsh's last book, "From Lance to Landis" is pretty good on this subject. I'd recommend reading it.
Frankie Andreu remembered it too. As did Stephanie McIllvain. She subsequently denied this in court, but had been tellling others beforehand what she heard.
And yet nothing has ever been proved. Armstrong has been made pretty wealthy by the amount of compensation that he has earned in court from successfully defending himself against these accusations. Presumably you are one of the many people that believe that they know better than the courts concerned.el tonto wrote:Damien Ressiot linked the numbers on the tests with rider names by getting the test forms from the UCI
He couldn't prove the link of the numbers to specific riders names, which is why the accusation against Armstrong never stuck, so Ressiot's accusation is nothing more definitive than just that - an accusation.el tonto wrote:
Thanks for the links. It's a shame that a technicality prevented Roche from being pursued as the judge that made the claim would presumably be very cautious about making such a claim about Roche without some decent evidence to base it upon. It would have been interesting to see the outcome had it gone to court and the evidence examined more publicly.el tonto wrote:Yet you were the one who brought it up? You asked why no one else's performances were questioned. Plenty have been. The difference here is mentioning doping in connection to Armstrong seems to draw a hysterical reaction from some quarters that you simply don't get when other riders names are mentioned.
I didn't ask why other riders performances aren't questioned - they clearly are questioned, quite often, and rightly so. What I did ask is why Armstrong is the one that is blatantly branded as guilty while other riders are just considered suspicious - they seem to be given the benefit of the doubt, which is only right, while Armstrong frequently isn't. As I mentioned earlier, that is pure hypocrisy.
To my knowledge, no other rider has been accused of, or charged with, doping as often as Armstrong. Yet, he has won each of his court cases to date. There is clearly no shortage of people that are willing to challenge him in court but he has yet to be found guilty. Perhaps some credible proof of him doping will be brought to light in the future, which will stand up in court, but in the meantime if the courts and/or cycling authorities can't find him guilty who else can justify applying that label to him?0 -
niceonetom wrote: »that's what it comes down to in this thread anyway. armstrong is such a hero to many that he's viewed as being almost superhuman, and (on the surface anyway) his story is pure hollywoood gold. but, doozerie, all our heroes are flawed human beings, we can still love them anyway... ali beat his wife, best pissed it all away and elvis died on the crapper, but yet they are loved.
there's no need to start kicking over tables and demanding satisfaction like an italian who's just heard his mother insulted, you have no vested interest in the lance legend. clean or dirty, his achievements are immense.
As you say, I have no vested interested in Armstrong. Other than respect for his achievements I'm not sure that I even like the guy as a human being. But Armstrong himself is not the real issue here. The real issue is the ease with which people apply the label of "guilty" to a rider when no-one has managed to provide proof of his guilt.
As demonstrated in this thread (in this post), that kind of thinking leads to the extreme view that the results of drug tests in cycling are not to be trusted at all i.e. all of the riders are guilty until they can prove their innocence. If people really believe this, then cycling as a professional sport has no future.
Oh, and as for kicking over tables, none of my posts have been fueled by anger or frustration. Mostly I am just incredulous at some of the views expressed and have been trying to generate discussion on the reasoning behind those views being formed. My efforts has mainly been met with responses along the lines of "I know he's guilty 'cos, like, HE'S GUILTY" (it's much more convincing in a louder voice, apparently). It has become such a mantra to some people, in relation to Armstrong, that they don't seem to ever actually stop and look at why they came to this conclusion and whether there might be any reasonable doubt about it.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22734
And yet nothing has ever been proved. Armstrong has been made pretty wealthy by the amount of compensation that he has earned in court from successfully defending himself against these accusations. Presumably you are one of the many people that believe that they know better than the courts concerned.
Le Monde invited Armstrong to sue them. He didn't. David Walsh's book has been out over a year. He's taking his time to sue him too.He couldn't prove the link of the numbers to specific riders names, which is why the accusation against Armstrong never stuck, so Ressiot's accusation is nothing more definitive than just that - an accusation.
He had the doping control forms as well as the test results, so he did link names to numbers. Even if he didn't manage to get the forms from the UCI, it would have been bad for Armstrong, as on the first day of testing during that Tour, all four samples were positive for EPO.What I did ask is why Armstrong is the one that is blatantly branded as guilty while other riders are just considered suspicious - they seem to be given the benefit of the doubt, which is only right, while Armstrong frequently isn't. As I mentioned earlier, that is pure hypocrisy.
Eh, no. For example, even before he copped to it last year, I had yet to come across anyone who didn't think Bjarne Riis was doped to the gills in 1996. It was simply assumed, based purely on peleton gossip, that he had. He had the nickname "Mr 60 Per Cent" for years.Yet, he has won each of his court cases to date.
He's settled out of court a few times too.0 -
...My efforts has mainly been met with responses along the lines of "I know he's guilty 'cos, like, HE'S GUILTY" (it's much more convincing in a louder voice, apparently).
you see, you're responding to accusations that are of you're own invention.
read Diarmud's post (that you quoted at me) again.
see where it says : "I'm not claiming I know but looking at evidence I feel there is a very strong probability that he did."? (a perfectly reasonable opinion, and one i happen to share btw).
what you appear to be hearing is ""I know he's guilty 'cos, like, HE'S GUILTY" (your own misunderstanding of what has been said).
see the disconnect?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22734
niceonetom wrote: »you see, you're responding to accusations that are of you're own invention.
i.e. Straw man0 -
Advertisement
-
Le Monde invited Armstrong to sue them. He didn't. David Walsh's book has been out over a year. He's taking his time to sue him too.
And opting not to sue someone is some sort of proof of guilt?el tonto wrote:He had the doping control forms as well as the test results, so he did link names to numbers. Even if he didn't manage to get the forms from the UCI, it would have been bad for Armstrong, as on the first day of testing during that Tour, all four samples were positive for EPO.
Saying/posting something repeatedly doesn't make it any more true than the first time it was said/posted. Here is a quote from my previous response to that same statement by you: "As for the former allegation, there is more information about this here where it states that the samples testing positive is not in doubt but it was never proven that the samples were those of Armstrong."el tonto wrote:Eh, no. For example, even before he copped to it last year, I had yet to come across anyone who didn't think Bjarne Riis was doped to the gills in 1996. It was simply assumed, based purely on peleton gossip, that he had. He had the nickname "Mr 60 Per Cent" for years.
Yes, there was suspicion about Riis for years, but people had the decency to label it as suspicion rather than having the arrogance to claim that they knew he was guilty in the absence of real proof. Although clearly not everyone believes in a person's basic right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.el tonto wrote:He's settled out of court a few times too.
So settling out of court is proof of guilt now? Someone should tell the legal system 'cos that news doesn't seem to have reached them yet.0 -
niceonetom wrote: »you see, you're responding to accusations that are of you're own invention.
read Diarmud's post (that you quoted at me) again.
see where it says : "I'm not claiming I know but looking at evidence I feel there is a very strong probability that he did."? (a perfectly reasonable opinion, and one i happen to share btw).
what you appear to be hearing is ""I know he's guilty 'cos, like, HE'S GUILTY" (your own misunderstanding of what has been said).
Oh, I'm inventing accusations? I thought I was referring to a post that suggested that all riders should be deemed guilty until proved innocence. Hang on, I'll just have a quick read back through...
...yup, there it is.niceonetom wrote:see the disconnect?
Eh, no. You might have to type it really s l o w l y and IN CAPITALS 'cos I'm not too bright.0 -
The Straw Man was here? Well he was taking a risk - considering the number of pitch forks and torches being bandied about in here he was likely to go up in flames along with any rider who has, or indeed hasn't, failed a drugs test. We've already lost common sense, please let's save the Straw Man.0
-
Oh, I'm inventing accusations? I thought I was referring to a post that suggested that all riders should be deemed guilty until proved innocence. Hang on, I'll just have a quick read back through...
...yup, there it is.
Eh, no. You might have to type it really s l o w l y and IN CAPITALS 'cos I'm not too bright.
where does it say "that all riders should be deemed guilty until proved innocence"? or anything like that?
is this still the post we're discussing?
btw the only capitals i used are direct quotes form you.
we'll try again shall we:
diarmuid says-
I'm not claiming I know but looking at evidence I feel there is a very strong probability that he did.
disconect
doozerie hears:
I know he's guilty 'cos, like, HE'S GUILTY
(your words doozerie).
c a n y o u s e e i t n o w?0 -
niceonetom wrote: »where does it say "that all riders should be deemed guilty until proved innocence"? or anything like that?
Right here:Having never tested positive is not proof that you are clean.
That statement suggests that riders must find some (new?) means of proving that they are clean as, according to that view, clean results from the existing tests and controls seem to count for nothing i.e. the onus is on the rider to prove he/she is clean rather than the onus being on the sport to prove that they are doping.
The actual situation at the moment is that all riders are under suspicion (which is why the existing drug tests exist), but no rider can be found guilty of doping until sufficient credible evidence is gathered to support such a claim. And this is the only fair approach, in sport as it is when applied within society for social laws/rules.0 -
Having never tested positive is not proof that you are clean.
is a true statement. it just is. you may not like it. but it is.
now you have taken it upon yourself to read that as meaning:all riders should be deemed guilty until proved innocence{sic}
which is not implicit in the statement at all.
again (or is it still?) you are inaccurately paraphrasing someone whom you disagree with in order to make their argument suit your counterargument.0 -
Well you need to read it again!Oh, I'm inventing accusations? I thought I was referring to a post that suggested that all riders should be deemed guilty until proved innocence. Hang on, I'll just have a quick read back through...
...yup, there it is.
I said that based on the evidence, I believed that it was beyond a reasonable doubt that Armstrong was doping. You may not, that's fine. However I, and it seems others here, believe you are being naive.
This statement means exactly what it says. "Having never tested positive is not proof that you are clean"doozerie wrote:That statement suggests that riders must find some (new?) means of proving that they are clean as, according to that view, clean results from the existing tests and controls seem to count for nothing i.e. the onus is on the rider to prove he/she is clean rather than the onus being on the sport to prove that they are doping.
If there is nothing else in a riders past to implicate or associate him with doping then I think it's reasonable to assume that he is clean. However, if he has a mountain of evidence to implicate him in doping, then I cannot make the same assumptions.
I find it strange that you can disregard Armstrong's associations with Ferrari so easily. (just to pick on one of the allegations) Do you think that he retained his services (of all the doctors available to him) because of his bedside manner?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22734
And opting not to sue someone is some sort of proof of guilt?
Never said it was. But you knew that anyway and are now just moving the goalposts. You're the one who said he "has been made pretty wealthy by the amount of compensation that he has earned in court from successfully defending himself against these accusations". I'm pointing out he has sued neither Le Monde for his story or Walsh for his book. In other words, your point was irrelevant.Saying/posting something repeatedly doesn't make it any more true than the first time it was said/posted. Here is a quote from my previous response to that same statement by you: "As for the former allegation, there is more information about this here where it states that the samples testing positive is not in doubt but it was never proven that the samples were those of Armstrong."
It is true. Ressiot matched the name with the sample numbers. Even the article you link to says this: "Ressiot says he first learned of retroactive testing on 1999 Tour samples back in January. It took months to get the sample numbers and match them, he said, a problem compounded by the fact that, according to Ressiot, the lab didn't produce its results until August 22nd. Already in possession of the sample numbers and corresponding identifiers, Ressiot made his match and the paper went to press."Yes, there was suspicion about Riis for years, but people had the decency to label it as suspicion rather than having the arrogance to claim that they knew he was guilty in the absence of real proof. Although clearly not everyone believes in a person's basic right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
Right. So all the chat about Riis was characterised by some sort of reserve in the absence of real proof, but Armstrong somehow was different? I'm glad you noticed this subtle difference when no one else has. Tell me this, Rasmussen hasn't been proven to haved doped, just having not being been where he said he was last year. That hasn't stopped everyone thinking that he's a doper. Do you think he too has been dealt with unfairly.0 -
This statement means exactly what it says. "Having never tested positive is not proof that you are clean"
The issue with this statement is the suggestion that a rider has to prove that he/she is clean. In no other sport, and not even within society, does a person have to prove their innocence. Instead, they are deemed innocent until they can be proved guilty. You seem happy to throw away that fundamental right within cycling, which I find bizarre.I find it strange that you can disregard Armstrong's associations with Ferrari so easily. (just to pick on one of the allegations) Do you think that he retained his services (of all the doctors available to him) because of his bedside manner?
I believe in a person's right to be considered innocent until reliable evidence proves them otherwise, even in the area of professional cycling. No-one has ever gathered enough evidence against Armstrong to prove him guilty, therefore he remains not guilty. And it's not for lack of trying that sufficient evidence has not been gathered against him. The continuing failure to prove him guilty is either because sufficient evidence does not exists (i.e. he is not guilty), or because numerous people are complicit in a conspiracy to protect his guilt. It doesn't matter in either case though, as the courts and cycling authorities to date have found him innocent and unless you personally have further evidence against him that they don't have available to them then you have no justification in labeling him as guilty.0 -
Never said it was. But you knew that anyway and are now just moving the goalposts. You're the one who said he "has been made pretty wealthy by the amount of compensation that he has earned in court from successfully defending himself against these accusations". I'm pointing out he has sued neither Le Monde for his story or Walsh for his book. In other words, your point was irrelevant.
Which point was irrelevant?el tonto wrote:It is true. Ressiot matched the name with the sample numbers. Even the article you link to says this: "Ressiot says he first learned of retroactive testing on 1999 Tour samples back in January. It took months to get the sample numbers and match them, he said, a problem compounded by the fact that, according to Ressiot, the lab didn't produce its results until August 22nd. Already in possession of the sample numbers and corresponding identifiers, Ressiot made his match and the paper went to press."
Where in that quote does it say that Ressiot proved the link between the sample numbers and Armstrong? "made his match" does not mean that he proved the link, it means that, in his opinion, the link is correct. That does not constitute proof. Maybe if the issue had been pursued then the link could have been proved, but they chose not to pursue it therefore it falls into the category of unproven allegation.el tonto wrote:Right. So all the chat about Riis was characterised by some sort of reserve in the absence of real proof, but Armstrong somehow was different? I'm glad you noticed this subtle difference when no one else has.
What you refer to as a "subtle difference" is that Riis was not labeled as guilty, just as "suspicious". The difference between those two labels is far from subtle.el tonto wrote:Tell me this, Rasmussen hasn't been proven to haved doped, just having not being been where he said he was last year. That hasn't stopped everyone thinking that he's a doper. Do you think he too has been dealt with unfairly.
He lied to avoid drug tests/checks, and he has been proven to have lied, therefore they have good reason to penalise him. Even in athletics, failing to attend a drugs test is deemed as having failed the test, so penalising an athlete under these circumstances is a well established practice and athletes/cyclists are well aware of it. The severity of the penalty might be debatable, but not the fact that some penalty was appropriate.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 22734
Which point was irrelevant?
That he has successfully defended himself in court against these allegations.Where in that quote does it say that Ressiot proved the link between the sample numbers and Armstrong? "made his match" does not mean that he proved the link, it means that, in his opinion, the link is correct. That does not constitute proof. Maybe if the issue had been pursued then the link could have been proved, but they chose not to pursue it therefore it falls into the category of unproven allegation.
When a sample is taken, it is split and numbered. Then a doping control form is filled out, with the rider's details and sample numbers. The samples are sent to the lap, the form is kept by the officials. Ressiot got Armstrong's doping control forms from the UCI, then matched the numbers from them with the numbers on the samples tested in the lab.What you refer to as a "subtle difference" is that Riis was not labeled as guilty, just as "suspicious". The difference between those two labels is far from subtle.
So routinely calling someone "Mr 60 Per Cent" is "having the decency" to label someone as suspicious. Whatever you say.He lied to avoid drug tests/checks, and he has been proven to have lied, therefore they have good reason to penalise him. Even in athletics, failing to attend a drugs test is deemed as having failed the test, so penalising an athlete under these circumstances is a well established practice and athletes/cyclists are well aware of it. The severity of the penalty might be debatable, but not the fact that some penalty was appropriate.
You still didn't answer my question. Do you think he's being unfairly victimised then when people refer to him as a doper?0 -
That he has successfully defended himself in court against these allegations.
Why is that point irrelevant? It is, after all, one of the reasons why he has not been found guilty of doping.el tonto wrote:When a sample is taken, it is split and numbered. Then a doping control form is filled out, with the rider's details and sample numbers. The samples are sent to the lap, the form is kept by the officials. Ressiot got Armstrong's doping control forms from the UCI, then matched the numbers from them with the numbers on the samples tested in the lab.
Numbers are used to protect the identity of the riders. Ressiot claims to have matched Armstrong's name to some of the numbers, but he never proved that he had done so properly or accurately. Claims are not proof, despite your apparent willingness to believe otherwise.el tonto wrote:You still didn't answer my question. Do you think he's being unfairly victimised then when people refer to him as a doper?
It hasn't been proved that he took drugs, therefore calling him a doper is incorrect and is a misrepresentation of the facts. He was fired from his team, etc., because he lied to them (the team themselves label it as an "issue of trust"), and he has had sanctions imposed on him because those lies meant that he avoided drug controls. The consequences for Rasmussen are perhaps about the same as if he had failed those drug tests, which is fair enough (and not just in cycling either), but even his own former team, the UCI, etc., point out that they are not accusing him of having taken drugs.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22734
Why is that point irrelevant? It is, after all, one of the reasons why he has not been found guilty of doping.
Because he didn't bring the people making these allegations to court.Numbers are used to protect the identity of the riders. Ressiot claims to have matched Armstrong's name to some of the numbers, but he never proved that he had done so properly or accurately. Claims are not proof, despite your apparent willingness to believe otherwise.
How can you do it improperly? You look at the number on the sample and check it against the number on the form.It hasn't been proved that he took drugs, therefore calling him a doper is incorrect and is a misrepresentation of the facts.
Good.0 -
I don’t know anything, but I believe certain things based on my opinion of whatever information is available to me. I never knew that Riise was a doper, but in 96 I believed it. Same with many other cases. In my opinion, the fact that many people don’t have confidence in applying the innocent until proven guilty rule to cycling is more a reflection on the disgraceful record of both cyclists and the cycling administration in these areas.
I make it a rule not to get involved in discussions where someone is more intent on proving their own position by any means necessary and is therefore more focused on twisting others’ opinions to suit their own argument than actually having a meaningful discussion. In this case I think Doozerie is doing exactly that and as it is clear the possibility of changing his view is or even in him accepting the views of others is zero, I won’t waste my typing breath much more.0 -
FrankGrimes wrote: »I don’t know anything, but I believe certain things based on my opinion of whatever information is available to me. I never knew that Riise was a doper, but in 96 I believed it. Same with many other cases. In my opinion, the fact that many people don’t have confidence in applying the innocent until proven guilty rule to cycling is more a reflection on the disgraceful record of both cyclists and the cycling administration in these areas.
I make it a rule not to get involved in discussions where someone is more intent on proving their own position by any means necessary and is therefore more focused on twisting others’ opinions to suit their own argument than actually having a meaningful discussion. In this case I think Doozerie is doing exactly that and as it is clear the possibility of changing his view is or even in him accepting the views of others is zero, I won’t waste my typing breath much more.
For someone who makes it a rule not to get involved in a discussion like this, you certainly seem to have a lot to say.
A summary of what you are saying seems to be that cyclists don't merit the right afforded to other athletes (the right of being presumed innocent until proved guilty - which, incidentally, goes way beyond the sport itself as their are very serious legal implications for having been found guilty of doping in some countries), and that you are happy to summarily dismiss any views which challenge such a stance. Fair enough, it's your opinion, but thankfully the courts and cycling authorities, for all of their various failings, are more broad-minded.0 -
oh dear...
As a throw-away comment I'm in favour of collective responsibility in this situation.
Doozerie, somebody can be guilty of a wrongdoing without being proven guilty. Being innocent before the law is fine, but it doesn't mean the individual is actually innocent, just presumed innocent before the law. Is OJ Simpson innocent? Yes. Did he do it? Hmmm. Did a former Taoiseach take money in an innapropriate manner? Hmmmm. Is a former judge guilty of looking at kiddiepics? No. Was he looking at the pictures? Hmmmm
When the public evidence suggests guilt, and the legal case fails on a technicality, and the facts of the case still point towards wrongdoing, it is natural that people will be suspicious. There is an onus in that case on the accused to demonstrate their innocence. Not a legal onus - just if the accused want to maintain the respect of the public (or their friends/family in less high-profile cases).
That's just my opinion.0 -
Doozerie, have you never heard storys where the cops, or even just some ordinary person, says something along the lines of "I know it was X who did it, I just can't pin it on him"? It's exactly the same thing thats being discussed here.
Here's another example illustrating the same point: just because you happen to be going at the speed limit when you go through a speed camera, does not mean that you are not a speeder - you are a speeder who did not get caught.
There's no doubting that Armstrong had a fantastic career, especially given his medical problems. But you do have to wonder if he had a little "help" along the way, no?0 -
At this stage I think we all know where we stand on this topic, probably no point flogging it to death.
On a related note here's a really good sports science blog with an interesting post on doping in the TdF0 -
It is widely accepted that professional cycling is in serious trouble given the continued use of drugs. If it loses public support, or loses the last remaining shreds of respect from the public, then the sponsors will lose interest (some already have) and this will drive further nails into the coffin of the sport at this level.
There are systems in place to identify the drug users. They are not always successful, but they appear to be getting better over time, and on top of that the teams themselves are getting more heavily involved in the whole process of identifying the drug users within their own camps. The sport is clearly trying to tackle the problem, but it relies on the support of the public to make sure that is survives long enough to reach the point where riders have more to lose by taking drugs than not (it's obviously not there yet given the continuing positive drug tests).
It is bad enough hearing non- cycling fans glibly dismiss cycling as a sport fuelled entirely by illegal drugs without also hearing supposed fans of the sport tarnish its reputation further, and cast even more scorn over its attempts to sort out its problems, by writing off existing drug tests and controls as essentially being pointless. There is already enough hysteria and misinformation about the sport as is, without adding further to it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Diarmaid, thank you for pointing me in the direction of excellent ‘Science of Sport’ site.
The section on doping was very informative, particularly the page “Drugs work - but by how much? A look at doping and performance improvements”.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/06/drugs-work-but-by-how-much-look-at.html
This is the first time I have seen actual figures on the East German female athletes drug induced improvements and Marco Pantani’s incredible 64% haematocrit in 1995. Essentially he had 1/3 more red blood cells pumping around his body, compared to a normal individual. Unfortunately therefore his Alpe d'Huez record time (like so much in pro cycling recently) is exposed as nothing more than fraudulent cheating.
Having read the figures for the improvements in performance that doping can produce… it is very difficult to swallow the line that a “clean” Armstrong could be so dominant for so long, at a time when so many of his competitors were doping.
.0
Advertisement