L. Armstrong to be Stripped of All Titles

Off Topic
141

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Your honor, I submit to the court, 525 negative drug tests, most of which were administered by agents of the plaintiff under controlled conditions and all verified at the time as valid by said agents.

It’d take a special kind of contrary evidence to surmount that wall. [/quote]

Negative drug tests are not proof that an athlete is clean. Many confessed cheaters have passed drug tests while using. They are effectively meaningless as evidence of innocence.[/quote]

A confession carries a lot more weight then clean drug tests. LOL
Witnesses, on the other hand, are widely known to be much less reliable then physical evidence. This is not news to you, right?

142

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Your honor, I submit to the court, 525 negative drug tests, most of which were administered by agents of the plaintiff under controlled conditions and all verified at the time as valid by said agents.

It’d take a special kind of contrary evidence to surmount that wall. [/quote]

Negative drug tests are not proof that an athlete is clean. Many confessed cheaters have passed drug tests while using. They are effectively meaningless as evidence of innocence.[/quote]

A confession carries a lot more weight then clean drug tests. LOL
Witnesses, on the other hand, are widely known to be much less reliable then physical evidence. This is not news to you, right?[/quote]
You missed the point entirely.
A clean drug test isn’t proof that an athlete is actually clean. It is just the absense of proof that he is dirty.

143

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Your honor, I submit to the court, 525 negative drug tests, most of which were administered by agents of the plaintiff under controlled conditions and all verified at the time as valid by said agents.

It’d take a special kind of contrary evidence to surmount that wall. [/quote]

Negative drug tests are not proof that an athlete is clean. Many confessed cheaters have passed drug tests while using. They are effectively meaningless as evidence of innocence.[/quote]

A confession carries a lot more weight then clean drug tests. LOL
Witnesses, on the other hand, are widely known to be much less reliable then physical evidence. This is not news to you, right?[/quote]
You missed the point entirely.
A clean drug test isn’t proof that an athlete is actually clean. It is just the absense of proof that he is dirty.[/quote]
Really think hard about what you just posted for a second and extend it to why should money be wasted by the government to test at all then. Your position is beyond ludicrous not passing the test is simply we haven’t caught you yet you are in a state of protoguilt that will become guilt by either failing a test or goddamnit we will offer some bitches immunity and limited title stripping to get some testimony. You aren’t willing to take the result of a test at face value. And now that time has gone by and some results from the past show consistent both with cancer treatment and with plasticizers or whatever they are looking for now they didn’t look for then, those tests are suddenly not proof of anything and get thrown out and we move to witness testimony. But not unbiased witness testimony. Even though the court declined to block this arbitration the judge stated he felt it unlikely that the proceedings would be unbiased. So would you willingly submit to a biased proceeding?

144

[quote]OBoile wrote:

A clean drug test isn’t proof that an athlete is actually clean. It is just the absense of proof that he is dirty.[/quote]

So you are guilty till proven innocent or guilty no matter what? Makes absolutely no sense what you are saying.

145

In 2003, Dr. Wade Exum, the United States Olympic Committee’s director of drug control administration from 1991 to 2000, gave copies of documents to Sports Illustrated which revealed that some 100 American athletes who failed drug tests and should have been prevented from competing in the Olympics were nevertheless cleared to compete. Among those athletes was Lewis.[74]

It was revealed that Lewis tested positive three times before the 1988 Olympics for pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine, banned stimulants and bronchodilators also found in cold medication, and had been banned from the Seoul Olympics and from competition for six months. The USOC accepted his claim of inadvertent use and overturned the decision. Fellow Santa Monica Track Club teammates Joe DeLoach and Floyd Heard were also found to have the same banned stimulants in their systems, and were cleared to compete for the same reason.[75][76]

The positive results occurred at the Olympic Trials in July 1988 where athletes were required to declare on the drug-testing forms “over-the-counter medication, prescription drugs and any other substances you have taken by mouth, injection or by suppository.”

this guy is also a “hero” of american sport, why do the same rules not apply. carl lewis has actually FAILED a test and had it brushed under the carpet by the authorties. as has been previously said, sport is rife with drugs cheats, they are always a step ahead of the game and always will be.

“Carl did nothing wrong. There was never intent. He was never told, you violated the rules,” said Martin D. Singer, Lewis’s lawyer, who also said that Lewis had inadvertently taken the banned stimulants in an over-the-counter herbal remedy.[77] “The only thing I can say is I think it’s unfortunate what Wade Exum is trying to do,” said Lewis. “I don’t know what people are trying to make out of nothing because everyone was treated the same, so what are we talking about? I don’t get it.”[78] The International Olympic Committee’s medical commission chairman, Arne Ljungqvist, said the Exum documents “fit a pattern” of failure to report on positive drug cases.

In subsequent interview April 2003 Carl Lewis agreed that he tested positive 3 time in 1988 but he was let off as that was the normal practice in those times"[79]". This statement lend credibility to the theory that the strong nations shielded their athletes from getting banned, while athletes from the other nations were punished.

146

nick357. exactly!!! all this was told on the hbo docu bigger stronger faster.
lance cheated. anyone who races bikes at a high level knows this…

147

[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:

[quote]OBoile wrote:

A clean drug test isn’t proof that an athlete is actually clean. It is just the absense of proof that he is dirty.[/quote]

So you are guilty till proven innocent or guilty no matter what? Makes absolutely no sense what you are saying.[/quote]

The 6 fails come from a 2005 EPO study on 1999 samples that were discovered by the press to be Armstrongs. This test didn’t exist in 1999. WADA tried to get UCI to pursue the case but they didn’t and this has led to the current predicament of how to achieve justice when the body responsible has been neglecting its duty and protecting Armstrong.

148

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Kvetch wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Kvetch wrote:

Marion Jones is a better example. All titles won dirty are redacted. Similar evidence too i.e. tested clean at the time. No-one seems to weep much for her…

[/quote]

She was stripped of all titles and medals during the year she admitted to doping.
[/quote]

Looking it up, Wikipedia says retrospectively dqd from everything post 2000 including IAAF events in 2001/02 and 5th place in 2004 Olympics long jump.
[/quote]

I’m not interested in getting into a google-fu duel. The point is, it wasn’t an entire career’s worth of titles down the pan. [/quote]

Your point remains incorrect. Its a dq dated from 1/8/1998 and does not cover a bunch of national titles earnt earlier. Like Marion Jones, its not since birth but does cover the most significant titles of his career.

149

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Your honor, I submit to the court, 525 negative drug tests, most of which were administered by agents of the plaintiff under controlled conditions and all verified at the time as valid by said agents.

It’d take a special kind of contrary evidence to surmount that wall. [/quote]

Negative drug tests are not proof that an athlete is clean. Many confessed cheaters have passed drug tests while using. They are effectively meaningless as evidence of innocence.[/quote]

A confession carries a lot more weight then clean drug tests. LOL
Witnesses, on the other hand, are widely known to be much less reliable then physical evidence. This is not news to you, right?[/quote]
You missed the point entirely.
A clean drug test isn’t proof that an athlete is actually clean. It is just the absense of proof that he is dirty.[/quote]

So there’s no point in testing. We should just wait until enough other doped up athletes tell us he’s guilty and then throw the book at him, right?

What is “the point,” exactly? I must be missing it, too. Where I come from, you take a test under prescribed conditions, you pass, you are good to go. Keeps things simple that way. And if it isn’t “fair” because some guys figure out ways to beat the tests, then the governing bodies should focus their efforts on making the testing process more reliable. Because coming at an athlete for years after he did everything they asked of him and being told, “No, that wasn’t enough and now we are going to take away EVERYTHING you earned unless you can prove a negative” doesn’t exactly strike me as exactly “fair,” either.

150

[quote]Kvetch wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Kvetch wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Kvetch wrote:

Marion Jones is a better example. All titles won dirty are redacted. Similar evidence too i.e. tested clean at the time. No-one seems to weep much for her…

[/quote]

She was stripped of all titles and medals during the year she admitted to doping.
[/quote]

Looking it up, Wikipedia says retrospectively dqd from everything post 2000 including IAAF events in 2001/02 and 5th place in 2004 Olympics long jump.
[/quote]

I’m not interested in getting into a google-fu duel. The point is, it wasn’t an entire career’s worth of titles down the pan. [/quote]

Your point remains incorrect. Its a dq dated from 1/8/1998 and does not cover a bunch of national titles earnt earlier. Like Marion Jones, its not since birth but does cover the most significant titles of his career.

[/quote]

How much of this are you looking up as you go? I don’t need a middle-man to nitpick every error I make.

151

Glad he has been banned and lost all of his titles, he cheated in order to win every single one.

152

[quote]yolo84 wrote:
Glad he has been banned and lost all of his titles, he cheated in order to win every single one.[/quote]

Who are you?

153

[quote]yolo84 wrote:
Glad he has been banned and lost all of his titles, he cheated in order to win every single one.[/quote]

FTR, he hasn’t lost a single Tour de France title.

you know for a fact that he cheated? you saw him? you shot him up yourself?

didn’t think so.

154

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:
Glad he has been banned and lost all of his titles, he cheated in order to win every single one.[/quote]

FTR, he hasn’t lost a single Tour de France title.

you know for a fact that he cheated? you saw him? you shot him up yourself?

didn’t think so.[/quote]

A large number of individuals who did know him were willing to testify that he did.

Good enough for me.

155

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:
Glad he has been banned and lost all of his titles, he cheated in order to win every single one.[/quote]

Who are you? [/quote]

Not the one making tens of millions of dollars through lying and cheating.

Armstrong systematically cheated year after year.

How anyone believes a man can come back from his death bed and win by far the toughest endurance event in the world within a couple of years multiple times in a row, while being completely devoid of any PEDs is a total joke.

The fact he survived cancer and inspired people is not the point.

He cheated and lied in order to win. It’s neither a travesty or witch hunt that he is being treated this way.

156

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:
Glad he has been banned and lost all of his titles, he cheated in order to win every single one.[/quote]

Who are you? [/quote]

Not the one making tens of millions of dollars through lying and cheating.

Armstrong systematically cheated year after year.

How anyone believes a man can come back from his death bed and win by far the toughest endurance event in the world within a couple of years multiple times in a row, while being completely devoid of any PEDs is a total joke.

The fact he survived cancer and inspired people is not the point.

He cheated and lied in order to win. It’s neither a travesty or witch hunt that he is being treated this way.
[/quote]

LOL at “by far the toughest endurance event in the world”. Did you just crawl out from under a rock? It’s not even close to the toughest. There’s people out there doing really crazy shit. The Tour de France is a fucking bike ride. Ya ever hear of Badwater? Turns out even hippies whup-ass on the French.

And, yes it is a witch hunt.

157

[quote]on edge wrote:
LOL at “by far the toughest endurance event in the world”. Did you just crawl out from under a rock? It’s not even close to the toughest. There’s people out there doing really crazy shit. The Tour de France is a fucking bike ride. Ya ever hear of Badwater? Turns out even hippies whup-ass on the French.

And, yes it is a witch hunt.[/quote]

LOL at you dismissing the TDF as “just a bike ride” shows just how much insight you have on the subject - ZERO.

It is not a witch hunt: again, please explain how someone on their death bed can recover to the point of being able to win such an arduous endurance event year after year without taking any PEDs. Against competition who 1. never had to come back from cancer, 2. by and large were ALL on drugs and have since been caught.

This isn’t a Rocky movie. It’s real life. It’s not possible. Simple.

158

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:
LOL at “by far the toughest endurance event in the world”. Did you just crawl out from under a rock? It’s not even close to the toughest. There’s people out there doing really crazy shit. The Tour de France is a fucking bike ride. Ya ever hear of Badwater? Turns out even hippies whup-ass on the French.

And, yes it is a witch hunt.[/quote]

LOL at you dismissing the TDF as “just a bike ride” shows just how much insight you have on the subject - ZERO.

It is not a witch hunt: again, please explain how someone on their death bed can recover to the point of being able to win such an arduous endurance event year after year without taking any PEDs. Against competition who 1. never had to come back from cancer, 2. by and large were ALL on drugs and have since been caught.

This isn’t a Rocky movie. It’s real life. It’s not possible. Simple.
[/quote]

You lost credibility first calling it by far the toughest endurance race.

Neither you or I have credibility talking about what someone can achieve after coming back from what he went thru because neither you or I have done it. It’s not like a sprinter who tears his Achilles or a baseball player who gets a hip replacement, oh wait, scratch that example. Or a football player who gets reconstructive knee surgery. Crap, scratch that one too. When lance recovered, he still had all the necessary parts in tact, and he was fairly young. Sounds to me like a case where someone could come back.

I don’t know why I’m arguing that any way. I never said he didn’t use. I said it was a witch hunt. I believe Roger Clemens used, that debacle was a witch hunt. I believe Barry Bonds used, that debacle was a witch hunt. I believe Lance Armstrong used, this debacle is a witch hunt. Simple.

The thought process you display “It is not a witch hunt: again, please explain how someone on their death bed can recover to the point of being able to win such an arduous endurance event year after year without taking any PEDs. Against competition who 1. never had to come back from cancer, 2. by and large were ALL on drugs and have since been caught” is the very seed of this witch hunt. “No one could have done this so he had to be cheating. Let’s go make deals and/or coerce a bunch of witnesses until we get what we need.” Show me physical evidence or reliable witnesses, witnesses who have nothing to gain or lose, then I will be willing to pass a final judgement on a man. I’m not going to pass such judgement just because I think no one could have done what he did.

USADA needs to quit wasting tax dollars by going after retired athletes and work on catching athletes who are relevant now. Now that i think about it, maybe the thought process is they figured out he was using after the fact and now their feelings are all hurt because he managed to beat all their tests.

159

[quote]on edge wrote:
Show me physical evidence or reliable witnesses, witnesses who have nothing to gain or lose, then I will be willing to pass a final judgement on a man. [/quote]
This. A lot of this feels like “yeah I cheated, but you know what, so did Lance poster boy Arsmtrong, so it’s not so bad that I cheated.”

160

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
He may be a dick in real life (I have read several articles where folks said he was an ass) and that might be the reason for the witch hunt. But he is one of the 10 ten U.S. athletes of all time IMHO…and has raised over 300 million for cancer research…at the end of the day, it just shows the absolute pettiness of people.

And last point, all 7 of Armstrong’s vacated Tour de France titles will now go to… suspected dopers.

1999: Alex Zulle (confessed to EPO use)
2000: Jan Ullrich (suspended from 2006 Tour; banned this year and stripped of all results from 2005 on)
2001: Jan Ullrich
2002: Joseba Beloki (kept out of 2006 Tour while under doping investigation, later cleared)
2003: Jan Ullrich
2004: Andreas Kloden (accused of illegal blood transfusion in the 2006 Tour)
2005: Ivan Basso (confessed to attempted doping, suspended)[/quote]
That’s the only issue I have with all of this what if some super marvel comics technology determines everyone cheated. With the playing ground being equal isn’t he still the best?