Christcock - I hate it when I fuck up spelling or grammar.
Again, fair enough. I apologize if I’ve misrepresented your thoughts. The problem is that no one else on this thread seems to agree that “BASED ON OTHER THINGS” is a valid argument. We’ve seen the other things and don’t agree that it constitutes any sort of proof that LA is doping. It certainly leaves open the door to the possibility that LA is doping, but that’s all it does.
You have one case. Explain to me exactly what this says about LA? Both athletes have excelled in their sport, one dopes and wasn’t caught by any of the drug tests. But without something else there’s really no link with LA.
Nor have I suggested that it does any more.
The “something else” is the evidence of the team soigneur. That I have to tell you this, on page three of this thread, says much about how keen you are to put your hands over your ears.
Don’t give me any of this “no evidence” bullshit. You know damn well what the team soigneur said. Or maybe you don’t. Maybe you are so obtuse you’ve just mentally blanked that out.
All you are saying is that because you reject the available evidence, anyone who reaches a different conclusion on the available evidence must have “automatically presumed” LA is cheating because he excels.
Pardon me for reaching a different view on the available evidence, almighty Sauron, I’m sure you actually know what I’m thinking better than I do myself.
Presumptuous jerk.
Besides which your presumption is utterly illogical. If in fact myself and threemae only think that LA dopes because he excels, then logically we would not think the same about the rest of the peleton, since they don’t all excel.
And yet my own and threemae’s position is that we think probably the whole peleton dopes.
How does that fit with your presumptuous arseholish theory, shit for brains?
We’re really not trying to be obtuse, but what the team soigneur says is contradicted by what Lance has said and by the lack of a positive drug test ever.
I myself don’t see how what people have said is in any way conclusive without a shred of other proof. Can you explain to me (using small words please. I’m awferly dumm) why it should be otherwise?
And again, I repeat, that is extremely flimsy evidence. You have a single person, without any coroboration, saying she saw something which may have been doping or may not have been. You have another person (LA) saying there was nothing there.
We have seen the evidence you’ve presented and many people seem to have all come to the same conclusion: that this evidence isn’t enough to suggest doping, let alone constitute any sort of proof. You clearly have come to a different conclusion, but it’s silly to yell at us for finding the evidence of very low quality.
You may not be trying to be obtuse, Harborwolf. You appear not to be kidding yourself that there is no evidence, unlike others I could name.
The team soigneur had no reason to lie. The lack of positive tests says almost nothing. And what, precisely, would you expect LA to say?
There is no conclusive evidence. Never said there was. We live our lives without conclusive evidence, for the most part. 90% of history is hearsay. Do you reject anything anyone tells you that is not based on their direct experience? Of course you don’t.
Conclusive evidence is for courts making final and important decisions with heavy impacts on people’s lives.
Not for me when making a judgment call (that frankly doesn’t matter, given that I’m just some guy nattering on a message board) about a particular sporting situation.
I’ve already freely accepted that I have reached a particular conclusion, but that others may reach a different conclusion. I have never yelled at anyone for that at all.
So that’s what you’re basing your belief on? The team soigneur? The lady who said she saw needles, and admitted she didn’t know what was in them? Boy, I hope no one in Armstrong’s entourage is a diabetic. Or that somebody was on intravenous medication at one point. Or that vitamin supplements were being administered via syringe. Or that any of the dozens of other legitimate reasons for someone to have syringes in their possession could be true. 'Cause that would mess up your theory, wouldn’t it?
All I can say is, I pray to the heavens that if I’m ever on trial for anything in Australia, you’re not sitting on the jury. “The defendant must be guilty, your Honor, because he was in Australia at the time of the crime.”
Listen carefully to me: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE LANCE ARMSTRONG DOPES. Syringes filled with “something” isn’t evidence, no matter how badly you want it to be so.
Goofball, go back and read what threemae wrote in this thread. She talks about a cyclist who was at the top of his game one year, and couldn’t keep up with the peleton the next year. Compared to that cyclist, the whole peleton excelled. And by your own statement, you two both think the whole peleton dopes.
Geez, man, at least try to make this difficult for me to refute your points. This is too easy.
You don’t actually have any fucking idea about the extent of the team soigneur’s evidence, do you Sauron? No one who had the faintest idea about this topic would say something so dumbass as what you just said, you ignorant fuckwit.
Here’s some basic reading for you.
When come back, bring clue.
Read the last two sentences of my second last post. Read my post #50 of this thread. Now explain to me why your above comment isn’t that of a deliberately misrepresenting arsehole. Of course, you probably haven’t read most of the thread, have you? You’ve just dipped in and mouthed off from a position of near total ignorance, like the jerk you are.
Listen to you carefully? Why would I bother? It’s pretty clear that your aim here is to be a jerk, not to have your opinion sullied by any actual facts. By the way, your above comment was not shouted quite loud enough for me to believe you. Try 20 point, and try repeating it a few more times. Having your hands over your ears would probably also help.
That is not all Emma O’Reilly says, no matter how badly you want it to be so.
Nice little attempt at a slippery segue, but you’re not going to get away with it.
This all started with Lamar’s question, namely “Why is it that a cyclist who excels is automatically presumed to be cheating?” Note that the question is not “Why are *cyclists * who excel etc” it is “Why is it that *a cyclist * who excels etc”.
Let’s start from the beginning.
Lovely Lamar then said:
And then:
My emphasis. Note the context. The question is about LA. Of course, Sauron, before it became important to you to argue the opposite, you agreed that it was all about LA:
Again, my emphasis. “A cyclist who is excelling like no other”, you say.
But then I point out that it is logically inconsistent to suggest that threemae or I only think LA dopes because he excels, when in fact we both think the whole peleton dopes, and they don’t all excel. And suddenly Sauron spins around like a top and starts arguing that the whole peloton excels, and that it’s not about LA. Even though the original question posed by Lamar clearly about “a cyclist” (ie Lance Armstrong, in the singular). And even though on this very page it was none other than Sauron who was arguing that threemae must be of the opinion that LA dopes because LA excelled like no other.
You are a total dipshit.
You say arguing with me is too easy. To paraphrase Dilbert, simpletons assume that what they can’t understand must be easy.
But by all means do reply, I’d look forward to the opportunity to make you look even more of an idiot than you already do.
I have an idea about the extent of her hearsay claims. Allow me to quote from the story you yourself posted:
"One of the two authors concedes that there is no smoking gun in the extract or in the full book to prove that Armstrong, a 32-year- old Texan, engaged in doping.
“‘It’s all circumstantial evidence,’” the author, David Walsh … said"
Seriously, man, stop and think about this. You’re basing your rock-solid belief regarding Armstrong’s doping on hearsay. You and others have posted about the massive rivalries that exist in cycling, and the lawsuits, recriminations, allegations and innuendos that can destroy careers. Don’t you think it’s even remotely possible that Emma might have an ulterior motive in saying some of this stuff?
I’ve read the entire thread, thanks. Multiple times, even. I think it’s quite obvious here who is choosing to wallow in ignorance, and who is attempting to keep an open mind.
Hang on a second. I gotta recalibrate my irony meter. It just blew off the scale.
Sucks when I keep refuting every point in your argument, doesn’t it?
I’ve already gone over this. If you can’t understand the logic, I can’t help you.
I’m honestly stunned and amused in equal measure by this portion of your post. Apparently, I’m not allowed to argue against the points you make in your own “argument” when your argument switches tacks like a rudderless boat.
I give up, man. Enjoy your preconceived, rock-solid beliefs based solely on flimsy or non-existent evidence. Where I come from, we call that kind of crap “prejudice,” and consider it one of the highest forms of ignorance.
Anyone that follows bike racing closely is either suspicious of Armstrong’s dominance or naive.
All this carping about what constitutes proof positive about doping is very intellectually impressive.
I really cheered for Pantani when he won the tour, I liked it when Mr. 60% Barne Riis won. I have always rooted for Virenque and I hope Vanderbroke dog is better. I wonder what happened to Rumsas? He seemed to have so much talent.
I could go on but I won’t because I know it doesn’t prove anything.
I think anytime you’ve got an athlete who dominates a sport like Armstrong does, there is likely to be suspicion of rulebreaking somewhere, somehow. It’s human nature.
What I object to is the leap from suspicion to outright accusation without concrete proof, as has happened in this thread.
No it’s more than human nature. With cycling you have a sport with a very long history of confessed or implicated cheaters. Armstrong may not be a rulerbreaker but he defiantly competes with them.
Therefore all the vitriol earlier in the thread kind of misses the point for me.
Proof or no proof Armstrong cannot expect to win in such a sport and not be accused. Many of his fan’s understand this, but this thread makes it obvious many don’t.
That is the only reason I am so tired of Lance Armstrong.
That said the cancer foundation thing is super. A training partner of mine came down with Bladder cancer. We wrote his foundation and we got a hand written letter back. That was cool.
Yeah, I guess that this is what I’m going for. People that follow cycling, or live in countries that follow cycling and know a lot about it are at least open to the substantial amount of evidence that suggests it. People that only heard of the Tour becasue a Texan won it six times in a row demand the positive drug tests just because they don’t understand how widespread of a problem doping really is. They don’t understand how intensely physical cycling is, nor how much the use of products like EPO, HGH, IGF-1, CNS stimulants, etc. can influence the sport, nor the dangers that they can pose to riders. They draw comparisons to Tiger Woods, Wayne Gretzky, and other dominant athletes. I’m not going to turn this into a, “Who’s the world’s greatest athlete?” debate, but it’s enough to say that cycling is nothing like football, baseball, hockey, or golf.
Again, I’m not blaming Armstrong for dope existing. Like I said, before, during, and after. But I saw him acting like a thug when forcing Simeoni to drop, and that’s why I pitted him.
I guess that I also pitting dope because now we’ll never know just how much Armstrong benefitted from dope compared to others. It’s possible that the entire peleton is on the exact same cocktail and that there is still parity, but I just doubt that R.A.G.T-Semences Rover is using the same stuff as Postal. Again, not LA’s fault, but unfortunate.
I don’t mean to demean Armstrong’s work for charitable causes like the LA Foundation, it’s some amazing stuff that I commend him for. But he’s still saddling up and clipping in with hundred’s of other pro’s, and millions of fans are still lining up on the course, and millions more are tuning in on TV to watch, and there are thousands more amateur riders hoping to break through into a higher level of competition, and it would be cool if he’d reacted to some things differently.
Let’s not be too harsh on Lance here. While he certainly has to deny doping, it doesn’t help him much, even if he isn’t doping. After all, what else can he say? It’s kind of an ugly lil corner to be backed into.
As for the accusations against him, I’d put a lot more credence in them if I knew that the accusers hadn’t been paid for their stories. I don’t know for sure that they have, but money certainly is something to gain.
One thing caught me in Emma O’Reilly’s story. Putting make-up on before a medical examination? I cincerely hope that any doctor above Nick Riviera caliber can tell when makeup is covering a bruise. Also the “Emma, you know enough to destroy me” quote seems a bit too cheesy and convenient for my tastes. That’s just my opinion though.
As for the other sports examples threemae, the point was that LA seems to be held to an unfair standard than other exceptional athletes. As I have said before, why is it so impossible that Lance is just better than the others.
In closing, if even the authors of the book admit that their case is nothing but circumstantial, why the insistence that he dopes?
Exactly.
What drivel. You say you’ve read this whole thread and yet you characterize my beliefs as “rock-solid”, and imply that I don’t think its even remotely possible that Emma might have an ulterior motive?
You either haven’t read this whole thread, or you are deliberately misrepresenting my position. All I’ve said is I think LA probably dopes. That judgment is not rock solid. I know damn well Emma could be lying or mistaken and I’ve never said any different. I know damn well the evidence is circumstantial and hearsay. I’ve never said its anything more. You have just sunk so low that the only way you can attempt to make a point is by strawman-ing my position.
Open mind? You of the “LA has never failed a test and that is definitive proof” bollocks? You who didn’t even know the extent of Emma’s evidence, despite having participated in a three page thread on the subject, until I pointed it out to you at the foot of page three? Don’t make me puke.
Your “logic” I understand: it consists of starting with a factual error (“there is no evidence”, though above you have now admitted there is evidence, albeit hearsay etc) then leveraging that error into a presumption that my position must be what I have explicitly stated it is not. Colour me unimpressed.
The good thing about strawmen is you just have to apply one little match and “poof!” they’re gone.
I leave you guys alone for a little over a week and look what happens. Sheez!
BTW 5que I know your brother 4…
You forgot to add in the part that as the son of a single mother, he could afford the best equipment, best trainers, and of course the best drugs. It’s a well know fact that single mothers in Texas have the most disposable income. It’s no wonder he kicked everybody elses ass. With advantages like that even I could win. [/scarcasm mode off]
As far as the OP “truly pit-worthy act”
Consider for a moment that you are Lance Armstrong, and consider just for a moment that you do not dope (threemae try not to let your head explode) Simeoni has accused you of cheating. You know this to be false since you know you are clean. You are leading the TDF and this little piece of shit goes to join the breakaway. [Karl Malden] What do you do? What do you do?[/KM]
In Lance’s case he used that old American tradition best expressed by a New Yorker
[Heavy New York accent]
Foook me?
Noooooooooooooooooooooo
Fook YOU
[/HNYA]
You want to break away from me? No fucking way you little asshole. You will have to ride my wheels off if you think you are going to beat me. And guess what asshole, you are not good enough to do that. So prepare to get stomped by me. Cause there ain’t no free lunch in my Peleton.
Me, I don’t have a problem with that attitude. It is a race after all.
While I don’t doubt that there are potentially explanations for Armstrong’s behaviour towards Simeoni other than that Armstrong dopes, I don’t think you have the story straight. Read this.
I just wanted to pop in and say I’ve learned a great deal from this thread. I know it’s had its ups and downs, but thank you all.
Also, to Boo Boo Foo: you’re a complete badass. Your humble, measured, respectful and highly qualified replies deserve special mention. Thank you very much. Should you ever find yourself in a bind in the Colorado Rockies, you should not hesitate to contact me.
Damn it to hell, I had a complete reply typed and the hamsters ate it!
** Princhester** you might want to check out the July 27th issue of Sports Illustrated, a story called the Joy of Six. It tells a much different story than the link you posted. This story is not available online, sorry. The SI story is the story I related in my post above (minus the New York attitude of course) So either SI is wrong or you Simeoni is a lying asshole. Which is it?
Well let’s look at the two possibilities.
Simeoni is telling the truth Two possibilities here. If Lance is doped or not. In either of these cases the question then becomes why would Armstrong threaten Simeoni? What does Armstrong gain by threatening Simeoni? What would be his purpose? If he is doped to the gill slits like some people seem to think he is, then since he is on this super dope that turns him into superman, and leaves no trace, couldn’t he just ride the wheels off of Simeoni and leave him as a broken man? Why a threat? Since he has super dope that makes him half man, and half Honda motorcycle Lance should just be able to motor away. A threat makes no sense whatsoever.
But what if Lance is clean? Then the threats make even less sense. Why would a guy who is the best of the best do something like threaten Simeoni where it might get out? What is the upside for Armstrong? If watching the TDF over the years has taught me anything, it has taught me that Lance Armstrong is a very calculating man. Watch the interviews before and after the race, he never says anything without thinking about it first. So what possible reason would Lance have to threaten Simeoni? No reason that I can think of.
So what if Simeoni is lying? here is a man (Armstrong) who has a very long memory, and has been known to carry a grudge. Look at what he did in 1999 anytime he saw a Cofidis Jersey. (Cofidis was the outfit that said publicly that they would keep him on the team while he as fighting cancer and then dropped him like a hot rock in private) One of the OLN commentators mentioned that every time Lance saw a Cofidis jersey he took off like he was on afterburners. More of that Fuck me, no, Fuck you attitude. So Lance sees Simeoni take off toward the breakaway, he pursues. They are in a race after all, so this is allowed even if it is not usually done. Lance does not have to threaten Simeoni verbally. All Lance has to do is ride on his wheel, because Simeoni knows that there is no way he can outride Lance. So they catch up with the breakaway. Everyone wants to know why Lance is there. In the SI article Lance is quoted as saying “if he goes I go” In other words Lance is the Patron of the Peleton, and Simeoni is not getting a free pass to try for a stage win. Simeoni drops back and so does Lance. Simeoni now looks very bad if front of his fans, the press, and his sponsors / team. What can he do to make himself look a little less bad? Well he can claim that Armstrong threatened him. Simple and almost impossible to disprove.
From where I sit it looks like Simeoni is trying to make himself look not quite so bad in front of his fans, sponsors, team, and the press. This explanation seems to make the most sense. It sounds to me like Simeoni came back and said the mean dope fiend Lance Armstrong threatened me. Whaah! Whaah! Big bad Lance scared me. I want my mommy. Whatever. Pedal faster or stay home crybaby.
One more thing about Lance and drug tests. Not only has he been tested out the wazoo, but he has been investigated by the French court system. He details the rather lengthy investigation in his book It’s Not About the Bike. I can’t quote from my copy right now, it is on loan to a friend fighting brain cancer. Like what Lance was operated on for.
Oh and ** El Cid Viscoso** I am with you 100% of the way about Boo Boo Foo he is a complete badass. And BBF the same offer applies to anywhere on the West Coast of the US, if you need a hand just holler. It would be my honor to assist, or maybe just get to ride with you.