'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

hardCopy

No

Guybrush T wrote: »

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

More details emerge:

Lance Armstrong's ex-wife, Kristin, is said to have not only known about but also participated in his doping practices, helping to refrigerate EPO and distribute drugs to US riders at the 1998 World Championships, according to a report with alleged details from the USADA's "reasoned decision" on its lifetime ban for Armstrong.

The report also claims that George Hincapie said that he lied to US Customers officials about EPO in his luggage

Oh dear, now big George's evidence is useless too, he's a confessed liar, so is bound to be lying if he says bad things about Lance.

Everybody inside the circle was a doper, otherwise how would they be on the inside? Ergo, all the witnesses will be proven dopers and liars. Anybody clean who accuses Lance is just a bitter washed up pro who couldn't hang with the big boys.

corny

No

furiousox wrote: »

"The words of a proven serial cheat and liar shouldn't be at the top of anyones list of compelling evidence."

Couldn't this be said of Armstrong too?

Of course it could. I voted a very emphatic yes in the poll! I'm not a Lance lover because i choose to take Hamiltons new version of the truth with a pinch of salt. He lied for 6 years(?), and only chose to tell the 'truth' when he was nearing 40, the game was up and he could make a few bob from telling said truth.

Even in his book he makes a song and dance about how honest he's become (its not Lance its me:rolleyes:) but then describes how he went into a blind rage when he learned Nowitzky dropped the case. You could rip him to pieces in front of a fair minded jury in fairness.

dave_o_brien

No

corny wrote: »

Of course it could. I voted a very emphatic yes in the poll! I'm not a Lance lover because i choose to take Hamiltons new version of the truth with a pinch of salt. He lied for 6 years(?), and only chose to tell the 'truth' when he was nearing 40, the game was up and he could make a few bob from telling said truth.

Even in his book he makes a song and dance about how honest he's become (its not Lance its me:rolleyes:) but then describes how he went into a blind rage when he learned Nowitzky dropped the case. You could rip him to pieces in front of a fair minded jury in fairness.

The strategy of calling into question Hamilton's (or Landis, or Kimmage, etc) character and reputation is no defence for Armstrong. Just because somebody lied does not mean they cannot recollect the truth, not does it mean that they are incapable of telling the truth ever. Armstrong and his PR team have constantly used this character attack as a means of defence prior to now, and to any fair minded person, it's obvious that it's been a pathetic attempt at deflection.

But now it has been established that Armstrong has lied for years to stay at the top of his profession, and manipulated, bullied and corrupted those around him for that period of time, and only now that he is out of the sport has decided to concede defeat and admit that he cannot defend himself, content to put his feet up with the bags of money he has in the bank. I put it like this to echo how you put your summary of Hamilton's recent policy of honesty, although I know you said that Armstrong was far from innocent. I just think it's incredible that Armstrong's PR spin has become so all-encompassing that even those who are not fans of his start to become sceptical of Armstrong's enemies.

The legal facts are:

Armstrong systematically doped for several years.
He also was part of a system that distributed doping products among fellow professionals.
He also provided assistance and advice in terms of a developed doping programme.
He lied about all of this for years.

These are now legally established facts, because Armstrong accepted these accusation without any defence. In other words, he admitted to these accusations. To say that these are not facts is to say "I don't believe Armstrong is guilty even though he admitted it himself". What Hamilton's (or Landis, or Kimmage, etc) character and reputation have to do with this is beyond me, and I just do not understand why conversations with people who are otherwise aware of Armstrong's misdemeanour's often include statements such as "I know Lance was doped to the gills, but you can't trust Hamilton, cause he lied (EDIT: or cause he has an agenda now that his book is coming out, it's just easy publicity)". It is irrelevant.

corny

No

dave_o_brien wrote: »

The strategy of calling into question Hamilton's character and reputation is no defence for Armstrong. Just because somebody lied does not mean they cannot recollect the truth, not does it mean that they are incapable of telling the truth ever.

The rest was irrelevant for me because i never questioned Armstrongs guilty verdict. In fact if you want to read back i've been fairly damning for 50 pages now.

On the above? When do you decide when they're telling the truth and when they're trying to profit from more lies? Hamilton has demonstrated in the past he can profit from lies (sporting and financial) with the best of them. Has he ever demonstrated good character in telling the truth? You accept his version as the truth only because he's slating Armstrong. I'd rather ignore him, which i can do because he's not needed to know Armstrong is guilty.

Also to be clear, i am not sceptical of Armstrongs enemies, just this one.;)

dave_o_brien

No

corny wrote: »

The rest was irrelevant for me because i never questioned Armstrongs guilty verdict. In fact if you want to read back i've been fairly damning for 50 pages now.

On the above? When do you decide when they're telling the truth and when they're trying to profit from more lies? Hamilton has demonstrated in the past he can profit from lies (sporting and financial) with the best of them. Has he ever demonstrated good character in telling the truth? You accept his version as the truth only because he's slating Armstrong. I'd rather ignore him, which i can do because he's not needed to know Armstrong is guilty.

Also to be clear, i am not sceptical of Armstrongs enemies, just this one.;)

I know you've been damning of Armstrong, I said as much in my post, and didn't mean to suggest you aren't! All that annoys me is how people (not you specifically) mention Hamilton as an eye witness and then dismiss him as unreliable. His testimony is unnecessary. I believe him with regard to certain aspects of his testimony, but I don't see his testimony as something that's important to the case.

When do I choose to believe him? I can't answer that simply, I guess something along the lines of "on the balance of probability" would be about it. I believe him when it seems like what he is saying is likely to be true, and circumstance and others seem to align with him presenting a true version of events. I think like most people, I believe his general account of events, but discount his opinions and am sceptical of some of the specifics. But as I said, I think it's irrelevant, he is unnecessary when discussing Armstrong.

I totally agree with ignoring him. It just annoys me when people bring him up, it's a distraction rather than an aspect of the discussion. Unfortunately now I'm indulging in talking about him!

corny

No

dave_o_brien wrote: »

I know you've been damning of Armstrong, I said as much in my post, and didn't mean to suggest you aren't! All that annoys me is how people (not you specifically) mention Hamilton as an eye witness and then dismiss him as unreliable. His testimony is unnecessary. I believe him with regard to certain aspects of his testimony, but I don't see his testimony as something that's important to the case.

When do I choose to believe him? I can't answer that simply, I guess something along the lines of "on the balance of probability" would be about it. I believe him when it seems like what he is saying is likely to be true, and circumstance and others seem to align with him presenting a true version of events. I think like most people, I believe his general account of events, but discount his opinions and am sceptical of some of the specifics. But as I said, I think it's irrelevant, he is unnecessary when discussing Armstrong.

I totally agree with ignoring him. It just annoys me when people bring him up, it's a distraction rather than an aspect of the discussion. Unfortunately now I'm indulging in talking about him!

We're in agreement then so!

I only brought him up because apparently he's recommended reading now for those who still believe in Armstrong. Seriously, they ignore the blindingly obvious but a lying, cheating bastard with a chip on his shoulder might convince them!:D

noddy69

No

corny wrote: »

We're in agreement then so!

I only brought him up because apparently he's recommended reading now for those who still believe in Armstrong. Seriously, they ignore the blindingly obvious but a lying, cheating bastard with a chip on his shoulder might convince them!:D

That lying cheating cyclist, as I presume he has a father, has at least come clean. Who better than someone who actually got caught, at least we can be sure he knows what went on. The La propaganda team seem to have got to people when talking about Tyler. And they have done a good job, dont forget that Lance knew exactly what Tyler was up to at the time so needed to start the slandering when he knew the truth was coming out.
At least what he is saying now in the book is similar to evidence from others which in all likelihood makes it truthful.

ThisRegard

No

corny wrote: »

I only brought him up because apparently he's recommended reading now for those who still believe in Armstrong. Seriously, they ignore the blindingly obvious but a lying, cheating bastard with a chip on his shoulder might convince them!:D

As I said, say what you want about him but you're doing yourself a disservice by ignoring anything he has to say or write by taking some odd moral high road.

Your argument implies you'll either not believe or ignore anything anyone has to say on this topic that was involved. So what evidence do you want? The vast majority comes from whistle blowers who were obviously involved themselves.

petethedrummer

No

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Wow, are there still delusional people out there who think Armstrong wasn't a doper??

They're still on stage 5. Acceptance will take a while.

bad2dabone

No

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Wow, are there still delusional people out there who think Armstrong wasn't a doper??

my same thoughts exactly!

corny

No

ThisRegard wrote: »

As I said, say what you want about him but you're doing yourself a disservice by ignoring anything he has to say or write by taking some odd moral high road.

Your argument implies you'll either not believe or ignore anything anyone has to say on this topic that was involved. So what evidence do you want? The vast majority comes from whistle blowers who were obviously involved themselves.

It doesn't imply that at all; I've outright stated the opposite in fact.

noddy69

No

corny wrote: »

It doesn't imply that at all; I've outright stated the opposite in fact.

Ok so where Tyler is concerned you seem to be dismissive and brand him a liar and a cheat and seemingly unworthy of being listened to. Now this stance firstly is what the LA bandwagon started when Tyler changed his tune and owned up, they went on the attack to discredit anything he might say to implement Lance, a tactic that he uses against anyone who suggests he doped. It happened with Floyd aswell. If you tarnish them as liars then they cannot be trusted therefore it is rubbish. In my opinion thats just pure bull.
Take a simple thief, he steals then lies about it. He gets caught. He then confesses, but wait he is a liar and a thief he cant be telling the truth. Which is it then ? Catch 22 right there and it applies to Tyler and Floyd.
Now we know they lied about doping to begin, and yet we still say they are lying now and cant be trusted. Baloney all from LA propaganda team.
The things they are saying are believable and backed up by other accounts from what would have to be termed credible witnesses.
It is all too easy to dismiss them for LA when people believe the spin put on it. The fact of the matter is who better to know what went on than the dopers themselves. Yes book sales are there, but david millar wrote a book and he is lauded, yet he didnt point at Lance, if he did he would have been a liar and a cheat aswell, all to protect business and keep up the omerta within a broken sport.
When we know what went on we must take what is written at face value until is can be proven otherwise, only a fool would dismiss the account of a man who was caught right in the middle of a world we know little about.

Lusk Doyle

No

I'm interested to know, of the people who have posted in this thread, how many of them went to the Phoenix Park there a few years back to cycle with Lance despite the knowledge/opinion of what he did/didn't do?

Raam

No

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

I'm interested to know, of the people who have posted in this thread, how many of them went to the Phoenix Park there a few years back to cycle with Lance despite the knowledge/opinion of what he did/didn't do?

I went to give him a piece of my mind. Couldn't get close though.

Lusk Doyle

No

Raam wrote: »

I went to give him a piece of my mind. Couldn't get close though.

Yea, that piece being " I love you Lance" or "You're the man Lance"!

dave_o_brien

No

corny wrote: »

We're in agreement then so!

We're in agreement that Hamilton's testimony is unnecessary in determining Armstrong's guilt, and that Hamilton as a witness ON HIS OWN would be easy to dismiss.

We are not in agreement about Hamilton being a serial liar because he lied before, and that as a result of those lies he is totally and utterly to be dismissed regardless of what he has to say.

dave_o_brien

No

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

I'm interested to know, of the people who have posted in this thread, how many of them went to the Phoenix Park there a few years back to cycle with Lance despite the knowledge/opinion of what he did/didn't do?

I didn't. I also scolded a friend for going, then realised that my friends favourite cyclist was Frank Schleck, and so is beyond help in the first place.

buffalo

No

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

I'm interested to know, of the people who have posted in this thread, how many of them went to the Phoenix Park there a few years back to cycle with Lance despite the knowledge/opinion of what he did/didn't do?

I went along, because I heard there were going to be lots of people out for a cycle and it sounded like fun. Much like bike week this year! I was pretty ignorant of who Armstrong was, knew he won the TdF, but never really thought about the doping side of things.

Lusk Doyle

No

buffalo wrote: »

I went along, because I heard there were going to be lots of people out for a cycle and it sounded like fun. Much like bike week this year! I was pretty ignorant of who Armstrong was, knew he won the TdF, but never really thought about the doping side of things.

Ignorance of the law is no defence. You are partly to blame. Go back to your thread and do penance.

ThisRegard

No

I went out to watch each Irish stage of Le Tour in 1998. I think this makes me much worse than those who supported Lance in the park a couple of years ago.

At least those people were only cheering on one doper.

FISMA

corny wrote: »

Fisma honest question. Are you actually open to a guilty verdict or will you cling to the inevitable Armstrong spin when it comes?

Corny,
Same line of questioning.

From your posts, you appear to be fair and impartial. Without putting words into your mouth, it appears that you would say Lance probably doped.

However, do you believe that it is possible he did not?

Beasty

No

FISMA wrote: »

Corny,
Same line of questioning.

From your posts, you appear to be fair and impartial. Without putting words into your mouth, it appears that you would say Lance probably doped.

However, do you believe that it is possible he did not?

Sorry for being pedantic, but it's clear to me he did dope because he failed a drugs test (which by definition is doping as he is responsible for whatever substances are found in his body however they got there)

It's possible that he did so inadvertantly, in accordance with his own defence. However life is full of possibilities that are so remote that they can almost be discounted. In this case I think it's beyond reasonable doubt that he did dope deliberately

However I note that currently 30 posters have voted to the effect they believe he did not dope. That's over 5% of the vote - pretty impressive considering the weight of evidence against him (that has been covered in both this thread and elsewhere in the forum). I recognise those posters are entirely entitled to express such a view, however much I may personally disagree with that view.

noddy69

No

FISMA wrote: »

Corny,
Same line of questioning.

From your posts, you appear to be fair and impartial. Without putting words into your mouth, it appears that you would say Lance probably doped.

However, do you believe that it is possible he did not?

Yep about as possible as humans walking on the sun by friday. When we start talking of possibles they are usually reserved for events that could be actually possible and not pipe dreams and fantasies that only exist in faerie tales, which is exactly what the possibility that lance didnt dope is. But you are one of the ones who does believe in miracles so thats your right.

Oryx

No

He was the only 'clean' rider is a sea of dopers.
He did fail a drugs test.
Multiple eyewitnesses are willing to state, under oath, that they saw him handle and use drugs.
He had huge financial and personal motives to preserve his clean image.
He refused to enter arbitration, his big chance to prove his 'innocence' once and for all.
He has been ruthless in destroying the careers of those who didn't play by his rules.

And still, people refuse to believe he cheated?

hardCopy

No

I couldn't get off work to see Lance in the park.

At that time I wasn't fully aware of the suspicion around him and was a fan.

When I first got into cycling (via triathlon) his was the first cycling book I bought. I bought the wristbands and followed him on twitter.

I later read Tom Simpson's biography, and later again, Rough Ride, gradually I became very suspicious of most top cyclists.

I went through phases:
Accepting that some riders doped, maybe Lance was clean.
Most riders doped, maybe Lance was still good enough beat them all.
Maybe Lance doped but they all doped.

Now it's become apparent that Lance was basically King Dope and attacked all who spoke out against drugs.

Not only has he lost my respect but he has also earned my bitter spite.

Chartsengrafs

No

Important recent developments (possibly NSFW!!)

http://triathlete-europe.competitor.com/2012/10/01/gallery-lance-armstrong-at-the-superfrog-triathlon/

Lance in Pants. Subscription... cancelled.*





*Some bizarrely pro-Lance articles of late. They had a lot invested in his return

RobFowl

No

Basster wrote: »

Important recent developments (possibly NSFW!!)

http://triathlete-europe.competitor.com/2012/10/01/gallery-lance-armstrong-at-the-superfrog-triathlon/

Lance in Pants. Subscription... cancelled.*





*Some bizarrely pro-Lance articles of late. They had a lot invested in his return

He hasn't failed a single test




(since his ban )

FISMA

Beasty wrote: »

It's possible that he did so inadvertantly, in accordance with his own defence. However life is full of possibilities that are so remote that they can almost be discounted. In this case I think it's beyond reasonable doubt that he did dope deliberately

Not at all Beasty. Not trying to play word games. Not trying to be a lawyer. Not trying to use quantum mechanics to prove anything.

I am just as tired of the Lance haters as I am of the Fan-boys. All I want is a bit of science. And it appeared that we were going to get that from the USADA.

Why science? Simply, because the USADA claims to have tainted samples. That's testable empirical data.

I just want the data.

ThisRegard

No

Science has already proven one failed drug test during competition which was side stepped by the use of a back dated prescription, and most recently positive EPO samples by researchers.

Neither are hearsay, both have been proven by science and are documented in the public domain.

corny

No

FISMA wrote: »

Corny,
Same line of questioning.

From your posts, you appear to be fair and impartial. Without putting words into your mouth, it appears that you would say Lance probably doped.

However, do you believe that it is possible he did not?

Thanks fisma but no i don't unfortunately. For me the chances he didn't dope are about 1 in a trillion. Probably higher than that.;)

You're entitled to it of course and this is gonna sound harsh which is not my intention but for me, you (not you specifically) either don't know enough about cycling or you're emotionally compromised if you believe Lance Armstrong didn't take PED's. That doesn't change even if the USADA can't prove their case. Common sense not science is all thats needed.