http://www.cbssports.com/columns/st...heated-tell-us-something-we-dont-already-know So, Lance cheated; tell us something we don't already know Lance Armstrong's game is finally up, if you believe Tyler Hamilton's words to Scott Pelley of CBS that he saw Armstrong fire up EPO before his first Tour de France victory in 1999. Then again, America has been off the Lance Armstrong boil for quite awhile now, and barring a pending court case a la Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens, it's going to stay that way. Without government intervention, Lance Armstrong will continue to fade from public view. (Getty Images) It is hard to construct a plausible defense for Armstrong at this point based on the sheer weight of circumstantial evidence. I mean, the best rider in the history of a sport soaked in performance enhancing drugs was the only clean one? Really? And his own claim, that he never tested positive, is really only a condemnation of the system in cycling at the time, which was, "How's your blood and urine, sport? Good? OK. Pedal hard and we'll see you at the finish line in a month." Armstrong says he wasn't caught? The same as never having done it? Nobody who sailed through fourth grade isn't going to see the massive distinction in those two positions. But Hamilton also says Armstrong told him he failed one test in 2001, and didn't miss a stroke. If that's true, then we have an implausible defense undone by a lie. And ... waiting for that second shoe ... nope, not yet. The second shoe, of course, being Armstrong being brought to court and going through the full Bonds-Clemens public shame-a-thon. Barring that, Armstrong remains what he is now -- a widely disbelieved champion living in a limbo of nobody much giving a damn about cycling. Now to those who do, and find these claims from Hamilton either outrageous or crushing, well, welcome to where most people have been on this subject. Armstrong won the hardest bicycle race in the world over and over and over again. All the other champions in the sport (give or take) have been caught doping to excel. So most folks have done the math. One, plus one, equals two. And if you're not there yet, take your time, review your work. We have other stuff to do, but we'll be around if you need us. Armstrong has become rather an irrelevance as time has gone on. He was a household name for awhile, and had books and television shows of great praise written about his heroic struggles against cancer, the cycling establishment and the topography of Europe. But as baseball went through its drugs catharsis (which by the way it is trying now to advertise as a raving daily success, even though we know better), the illogic in the Armstrong position was displayed by any number of ballplayers who claimed "They didn't catch me" as the same as "I never did it." And now Armstrong is a fairly invisible figure, just radioactive enough to be ignored without actually being shamed. That might have happened anyway, given that he excelled at a sport which most Americans equate with "you'll be late for school; hurry up." That is probably his only escape from the opprobrium of the Bonds and Clemens issues. His denials were as flimsy as theirs. In fact, his denials come closer to Clemens' defiance as Bonds' of gullibility. But the lapse of time and the general disinterest in post-Armstrong-Tour-de-France cycling will likely be his path to escaping greater wrath and scorn. In short, America will look at Armstrong and take one the following stances: 1. "Of course he cheated. How he could he not? The sport is nuts." 2. "Of course he cheated. So did everybody else." 3. "Of course he cheated. But he cheated for our team, and that's OK." 4. "Of course he cheated, and he's a pretty brutal liar." 5. "Of course he cheated, and why didn't the government go chasing after him?" 6. "Of course he cheated. And I never liked him anyway." 7. "Lance Armstrong? Is he still around?" None of these are appealing paths in retirement -- scorn, misplaced pity or utter disinterest. That leaves only late-night infomercials for juicers and knife sets or a life in public service for him. On the other hand, it isn't jail time, and we await developments from the government there. Our guess: They won't touch it. Then again, we've been wrong about how the government works before. Armstrong, though? We all pretty much got that one awhile back. Tyler Hamilton's admissions certainly do him no favors, but they mostly reinforce what we have come to believe on Armstrong. He did it. So did everyone else. The sport was filthy. We stopped caring. He's no hero. And he's out of our faces. Not exactly a happy ending. And not exactly a gauntlet of public outrage, either.
If the testing regulations couldn't verify it as a failed test, as in 99, then sorry, but it doesn't count as a failed test. Do I want video of a needle in his ass? It would help, but no. Just some hard evidence is all I want, testimony of friends, teammates, employees, etc is good and all, but shouldn't he have, you know, failed a test? Shouldn't there be a paper trail maybe? Some kind of actual tangible evidence to link him to this?
You must not have followed the case - at all. If you really care, click through this presentation. <a title="View Lance Armstrong Doping History on Scribd" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/16226502/Lance-Armstrong-Doping-History" style="margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block; text-decoration: underline;">Lance Armstrong Doping History</a><iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" src="http://www.scribd.com/embeds/16226502/content?start_page=1&view_mode=list&access_key=key-1q2ha2lnlxjf153njklg" data-auto-height="true" data-aspect-ratio="1.29411764705882" scrolling="no" id="doc_75604" width="100%" height="600" frameborder="0"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">(function() { var scribd = document.createElement("script"); scribd.type = "text/javascript"; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = "http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js"; var s = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();</script>
Wow, DonnyMost is the Mathloom of this thread. It's ATW, yet you still want to "debate" over the subject. Donny, I thought you would know better.
That's great. I'm not banking that anybody saying they saw him do X, or were told by him that Y, is going to be sufficient evidence to prove that he doped on a race. It's not childish to ask for hard evidence. Childish would be falsely attributing things to me which I never said (hearsay), and then belittling my "understanding of the law", including making wild-assumptions about people and their motives/beliefs based on damn near nothing. So, when I think child, I think of you when it comes to the subject of Lance Armstrong. If they failed to bust Lance, then oh well, that sucks. Better get to working on exposing the cover-up, then? I believe that if Lance cheated, there would be definitive, undeniable, unfalsifiable evidence to prove that. Be it a test, be it a paper trail, or so on and so forth. I don't think that a guy who dominated the cycling universe for the better part of 10 years could get away with cheating for that long, at that high a level, without some kind of way to prove it beyond eye-and-ear witness testimony. I don't think it is unreasonable (or childish!) to ask for more than that.
1) If I was Mathloom, I would've changed my stance about a million times by now, claimed racism/bigotry, tried to justify doping, and then eventually called him a Nazi. 2) This isn't a debate. I'm asking for the smoking gun. He's not providing it. And round and round we go.
There was no test for EPO in 99. They tested the B sample from 99 in 2005 which was positive for EPO. Unfortunately there wasn't an A sample since it was tested in 99 for other stuff. That is why Lance hasn't been caught. He surrounds himself with doctors like Ferrari that tells him which drugs can't be tested for. Its all about plausible deniable.
I never realized he bulked up that fast -- tremendous amount of weight for a man the size of Paq to pack on.
That's not that much considering the 130 weight was after dropping weight for a fight, so he was probably standing around at 135-140. He now weighs in at 145 at weigh in but that is also his fighting weight. So I'm guess he gained 5-10 pounds of muscle over the last 4 years.
Not a single proof. Not a single evident. Stop reaching for straws. If they can't even catch like 20 PED cyclers with Olympic testing what is your case? Just because Manny telling Gayweather to **** off doesn't mean he's cheating. I'm pretty sure for a guy bad mouthing Manny will get a fight or even going to earn that $50mil. Because I woudn't even if I was clean. A **** dirt bag like Gayweather and his family don't deserve that kind of money and respect. Manny have agreed to the test but Gayweather keeps on making excuses.
You cannot dismiss evidence that is admissible but that you do not like as "non-hard evidence". Either it is admissible or it is not. There is plenty of admissible evidence that you, however, dismiss because you do not like it. Show where I said that you said hearsay. REEKO did (although he spelled it incorrectly) and your argument was basically the same. I am not belittling it. Your statements clearly show that you do not understand it, you keep referring to "hard" evidence, as if anything other than a positive test or a video of a needle sticking out of his ass with "EPO" on the syringe is not evidence. That's fine. I assume you are not a lawyer. You apparently like Lance Armstrong, so - to me - you seem irrational about this. Fine. There are people working on that. There is a federal investigation going on. I hear what you are saying, but it is irrational. You ignore the known fact that basically almost all the other top riders he competed with got caught already. Do you actually think that he is so superhuman that he was the only guy out of the top riders that was clean, yet managed to beat the others all the time? You also ignore the fact that many of the officials who would be in charge of testing would have suffered greatly financially and reputation-wise from the biggest icon in the sport being busted. Basically, there are two conflicting ideas here: You say it is unlikely that he would have cheated if there was never a positive test. I understand that. That is obviously also his main (and really only) defense, and would close the case, if there wasn't all the evidence that stands against that. Others (and I would say the large majority outside of the few outspoken defenders of Armstrong here on this board) say that it would be extremely unlikely that when basically everyone was using PED, the one guy that was beating all the others was not. Add to that the admissible evidence of others who would swear under oath that they have seen him inject EPO first-hand many times, his mafia-like behavior towards people who spoke out about doping, his relationship with Dr. Ferrari (convicted doping doctor) over many years that he only admitted to when it was clear that it would come out, etc. etc. etc. You cannot just dismiss all of that other admissible evidence because you haven't seen a video of a needle sticking in his ass or a positive test. Cycling is like a mafia. The officials are in on it, it has been going on for decades, and there are plenty of reasons why a positive test would not come out.
It's like 54 powerpoint slides :grin:. Summary: There is plenty of evidence pointing to him having done it.
I can disagree with Donny, but I have mad respect for him. He is one of the most rational and smart posters around here (except when it comes to Lance Armstrong ). So we can butt heads on this issue, but that won't change that.
I agree, Manny doesn't have a single proof through Olympic style testing. It's a major stain on his legacy. Thanks for bringing that up along with the positive discussion.
You can use it as evidence, but it remains his word vs. his word. I'm not calling it in-admissable. It's just, like I said, insufficient. With pleasure. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=6133399&postcount=102 Here you directly tell me "that is not hearsay"... so unless you're just having a conversation with Reeko, that would mean you are assuming I said/think it is hearsay. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=6133521&postcount=114 Here you say I have "no understanding of the law", which I take to mean 1 of 2 things. 1) Either you think I don't know that eye-ear witness testimony alone is enough to convict someone or 2) You think that I assume what you've posted is hearsay. In the first case, you're likely incorrect (conviction on eye-ear witness alone may be a common thing in Germany, I guess?), and in the second case, you're most definitely incorrect. 1) Yes, you are acting belitting, and quite frankly, you need to knock it the f*** off. 2) No, I don't give a f*** about Lance Armstrong. In fact, the only time I met him (ACL 2002) he was a douchelord to me. So if anything, I'm biased against him. Good, I'll wait for the findings to come out before making a judgment, unlike you. (Calling me "irrational" for wanting to see evidence beyond ear-eye witness is weak...) Yeah, seems fishy, doesn't it? But all I can do from that circumstance is form an opinion, not a basis for fact. Once again, only basis for opinion. Michael Jordan getting busted for doing something wrong would've hurt the NBA, doesn't mean that such a cover-up ever took place. Simply because the motive exists does not create a crime. Once again, I'm not saying it isn't admissible, I'm saying it is insufficient. Your argument seems to boil down to a handful of things... 1) eye-ear witness of people who have a motive to make these claims about Armstrong (you played the motive card, so I can too) 2) guilt by association and 3) theories about massive cover-ups and mafia like conspiracy... I'm sorry, but none of that does it for me, and I have no rooting interest one way or the other. We can form our opinions and speculate all we want... but I'm not going to trash the guy until I have the smoking gun.
