Lance Armstrong gave up.

[MaddSkillz]

Nice try, but there's an amount of hypocrisy here. First, countless people can visually verify beyond a reasonable doubt that he did in fact win those tours. Many were there, millions watched on TV. So I can verify that pretty easily even though I wasn't there.

Now, to whether he was doping. We have by most accounts evidence from the media or soley relayed through the media. Seems the evidence is pretty damning (if true) and it would be a cut and dry case eh?

Now the funny thing is, if this was the "truth behind 9/11" or something of the like, you and many other would be screaming about how unreliable and bias the media is. However, NOW it seems you believe everything they say. If the feds went after him and found something then I'd be a little bit more willing to accept the full story but as it stands...... not so much.

I'll ignore the speculative aspect as to how I would approach a different subject matter.... As you've proven, media is not 100% unreliable and can provide us concrete information (countering your initial comment with your own supplied logic... Thank you for that).

I read the book by Tyler Hamilton... It's very well supported by the actions of USADA, the UCI and those that raced with Armstrong... There are even those like David Zabriskie who testified against Armstrong on their own accord... He wasn't offered a deal. He came forward by himself unaware who or if USADA would talk to others.

It's all water under the bridge at this point... I feel some form of justice has been served but there's still a lot that can never be undone... Like restoring Greg LeMond's bicycle company or giving Filippo Simeoni another chance at a cycling career...

 

[JD8]

you shouldn't rush to judgment. check out the appendices and supported documents section. it has all of the affidavits from the teammates who testified.

Ok, I'll bite. Upon a superficial review I see lots of benign stuff in there, what specifically have you read in those docs that is concrete? Give me the exact subheading to speed things along.

just because a politically appointed federal prosecutor dropped the case (which came as a surprise to even the lead investigator) doesn't mean lance didn't dope

The burden of proof is on the accusor. So I'm curious again.... with supposed concrete evidence..... this should have been an easy case to prove. What was the problem? Seems perjury would have been enough for the feds. Rather it was enough for them to go after Clemens like they did.

 

[donner]

I'm perfectly happy to say that Lance was the best doper in a sport full of dopers and i honestly agree with something Hamilton wrote in his book, that most cyclists would pass polygraph tests if asked if they cheated. Doping was so rampant and necessary to compete that many thought they were just doing what needed to be done to level the field.

I also don't know why the USADA went after lance and not other athletes, and really i don't care. The information is out there now and is pretty damning, but i know there will be some that wouldn't even believe a confession from lance.

 

[JD8]

I'll ignore the speculative aspect as to how I would approach a different subject matter....

It's better that way, I guess. It's not speculative though. I can go back and pull up several conspiracy comments you've made. You seemingly believe the media when it suits you, which is fine, it seems to be commonplace around here.

As you've proven, media is not 100% unreliable and can provide us concrete information (countering your initial comment with your own supplied logic... Thank you for that).

Well, when presented with overwhelming visual evidence and eyewitnesses..... .yes. But the problem in your apples to apples fallacy here is that there is no video, nor millions of people that watched the "doping." Nice try though.

 

[JD8]

I'm perfectly happy to say that Lance was the best doper in a sport full of dopers and i honestly agree with something Hamilton wrote in his book, that most cyclists would pass polygraph tests if asked if they cheated. Doping was so rampant and necessary to compete that many thought they were just doing what needed to be done to level the field.

I also don't know why the USADA went after lance and not other athletes, and really i don't care. The information is out there now and is pretty damning, but i know there will be some that wouldn't even believe a confession from lance.

Got some shortcuts of that evidence for me? I'll ask again so I can reference it. What specifically have you read from that link that is concrete to you? Give me the subheading so that I can quickly navigate through all the worthless pics and junk on that "supported documents" page.

 

[donner]

Ok, I'll bite. Upon a superficial review I see lots of benign stuff in there, what specifically have you read in those docs that is concrete? Give me the exact subheading to speed things along.



The burden of proof is on the accusor. So I'm curious again.... with supposed concrete evidence..... this should have been an easy case to prove. What was the problem? Seems perjury would have been enough for the feds. Rather it was enough for them to go after Clemens like they did.

Did lance ever testify? Clemens did before congress, which is what they went after him for i believe.

you also keep talking about 'concrete evidence'. what sort of evidence do you consider concrete? 26 people all telling the same basic story isn't enough? There isn't a smoking gun, but enough circumstantial evidence to paint a pretty clear picture (at least to myself and many others). If you are really interested in this topic read "Lance Armstrong's war" and then tyler hamilton's book, if for no other reason than to see learn all about Dr. Ferrari and Dr. del Moral. Then look at the statements people like george hincapie give (pg 10 of his affidavit). It's a web of caught cheaters, confessed cheaters and people who could profit from both. As Hincapie says right away in the affidavit, he and lance were friends from the start and all throughout his career.

Would a highly paid doctor, the doctor that lance brought into the team, be willing to help every other member of the team (and people on other teams) dope but not lance? Why would lance say that he had cut ties with the doctor, only to later find out lance was still paying him?

 

[MaddSkillz]

It's better that way, I guess. It's not speculative though. I can go back and pull up several conspiracy comments you've made. You seemingly believe the media when it suits you, which is fine, it seems to be commonplace around here.

I may or may not subscribe to my self-subscribed ideas of the past. My world-view on many things has change and will continue to do so. Welcome to the journey. BTW, Do you have a vagina? You like to bring up the past a lot.

Well, when presented with overwhelming visual evidence and eyewitnesses..... .yes. But the problem in your apples to apples fallacy here is that there is no video, nor millions of people that watched the "doping." Nice try though.

You yourself mentioned media... You could have been more precise and said "video." That's not my fault.

 

[donner]

Got some shortcuts of that evidence for me? I'll ask again so I can reference it. What specifically have you read from that link that is concrete to you? Give me the subheading so that I can quickly navigate through all the worthless pics and junk on that "supported documents" page.

i'm still working my way through all of it myself, but hincapie, Zabriskie, leipheimer, Emma O'Reilly all say a lot. As i said, it's not about a smoking gun but a web of proof, which is much easier to see when you know all the players and backstories.

Honest question, what type of evidence would change your mind? what would convince you?

 

[JD8]

I may or may not subscribe to my self-subscribed ideas of the past. My world-view on many things has change and will continue to do so. Welcome to the journey. BTW, Do you have a vagina? You like to bring up the past a lot.

I appreciate your opinion and past. As for the vagina comment, you sure get chlidish real quick, no need to get all huffy. I just have a halfway decent memory.....so I DO remember people's comments..... probably to a fault. Not that I'd need a fantastic memory though, like I said..... it's a trend around here and you're not the only one that's guilty.

You yourself mentioned media... You could have been more precise and said "video." That's not my fault

I was pretty specific when I said millions watching it on TV. You even quoted me as saying it. You DO understand that means video evidence?

i'm still working my way through all of it myself, but hincapie, Zabriskie, leipheimer, Emma O'Reilly all say a lot. As i said, it's not about a smoking gun but a web of proof, which is much easier to see when you know all the players and backstories

I'll look those over.

Honest question, what type of evidence would change your mind? what would convince you?

Something I can reference, at least physical evidence would be nice considering the magnitude of the implications.

 

[MaddSkillz]

I appreciate your opinion and past. As for the vagina comment, you sure get chlidish real quick, no need to get all huffy. I just have a halfway decent memory.....so I DO remember people's comments..... probably to a fault. Not that I'd need a fantastic memory though, like I said..... it's a trend around here and you're not the only one that's guilty.

Well, I don't think the world is black and white. I do not believe media is all bad or all good. I do believe the subject matter determines media honesty. Therefore, to say they're completely honest or completely misleading is naive. I would think this approach to media to be a more "common-sense" one and that how a person views the media is again, based on the content of the subject. So I feel your desire to bring up a completely different subject and my stance on media with that subject was a irrelevant.

I was pretty specific when I said millions watching it on TV. You even quoted me as saying it. You DO understand that means video evidence?

No my comment was a response, to your initial comment of "Right because we can make concrete decisions based on what the media tells us."

But this is all stupid... The subject is Lance Armstrong. The guy is guilty and would have made a great mob-boss. Tyler Hamilton's book is a great read. If you have any interest in the subject, you'll like the book.