[Closed] Lance, latest have we done it yet.

Whatever your view why not just say it without trying to get an argument going with your insults.

.he is as guilty as anyone else who chooses to not defend themselves from lawfull charges.

[i]some people are going to get bored and poking you with a stick to get a reaction.[/i]

Which according to this
[url] http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/our-forum [/url]

Should mean that the Trolls here might get a nice note from the Mods. And yes, the trolling is now getting so obvious. Even I can spot it.
<yawn>Troll zone</yawn>

It's done well to get this far IMHO. A few months back it would have been closed within 10 pages.
Know who you remind me of in this thread junky?

[img] http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSLaqYx6syHYP9VecCtzyPHHjoCvEhl3v0f6L9uxhrenPCCleLZ [/img]

Except with not as good boobs. probably.

I am very interested in what happens with Bruyneel and the UCI etc now though

Me too - this is [b]not[/b] all about the Texan.

No need for evidence then?

That was Lance's whole point in not disputing the charges - or didn't you realise that? It means the deniers can keep on claiming a lack of evidence, despite the situation now being exactly as if all the evidence had been presented and the court found him guilty. Do you think he didn't dispute the charges despite there being no evidence? You do realise that they don't normally bother presenting evidence when somebody pleads guilty?

I think some people don't want to imagine that he was not Superman, but a mere mortal who used and abused people to get where he is now, the bill has been presented and he doesn't want to pay.

The others involved will be having sleepless nights i hope, Riis, Bruyneel , and those at UCI who have gone along with this, needs sorting root and branch stylee , only then can a new broom begin !

he is as guilty as anyone else who chooses to not defend themselves from lawfull charges.

No need for evidence then?

done before, he is guilty like you are. If you dont turn up to contest a speeding charge and what aracer said. Would you like to discuss whether they have the right to charge to save you re reading the thread?

Should mean that the Trolls here might get a nice note from the Mods. And yes, the trolling is now getting so obvious. Even I can spot it.

* not sure why I even bothered with may tbh

No need for evidence then?

or

that his legal team know he'll lose and suggested this strategy as a way of still being able to deny everything and hopefully all the nasty evidence won't come out? (we can already see it's partially working from this thread)

This is why I'll never be a STW bighitter. I have no arguing staying power. You lot are immense. I salute you.

I have been consitent on my view of LA for a number of threads and years. I may * be an opinionated gob shite who wont shutup but I am not a troll.

if there was no evidence all LA would have to do was turn up and say "I didn't do it prove otherwise", he chose not to contest the claims. Now, considering he spent a lot of time and money trying to prevent it going to arbitration and now his sudden CBA attitude to defending the actual drug charges, would you say that suggests LA is innocent but will accept the ban and stripped titles

or

that his legal team know he'll lose and suggested this strategy as a way of still being able to deny everything and hopefully all the nasty evidence won't come out? (we can already see it's partially working from this thread)

some people are going to get bored and poking you with a stick to get a reaction.

AKA trolling? Which is against the forum rules.

No need for evidence then?

This statement is so daft it must be a troll. Surely.

no arguments there.

Nice little ad hominem dig there too.

none of which is what is called evidence, it's all just assumption on your part - reasonable and probably good enough in a pub debate, but for me you're guilty when the appropriate court says so, and this just isn't it, no matter how big a hitter you think you are.

What do you understand to normally happen when you are charged with something but decide not to defend yourself? Do you still get to claim to be innocent because you 'couldn't be bothered' arguing?

The appropriate court has said they consider his lack of defence an admission of guilt BTW! Nice to get in another little ad hominem attack with the big hitter comment too, you're really doing well. 🙄

Come on now chaps we are falling into LA plot. We are arguing instead of looking at the issue.
The Bruyneel case will be interesting especially what his sanction will be (they have found him guilty already, it's just a show trial). If he is banned from working in cycling what happens to Vaughters as manager of the Garmin Slipstream? What happens to Hincapie, just retired, who will he work for? Will he be able to sell cycle clothing ranges as a known offender?
This and more tenuous questions later.

but for me you're guilty when the appropriate court says so, and this just isn't it

The appropriate court has said he is guilty. What part of this don't you understand?

none of which is what is called evidence, it's all just assumption on your part

but for me you're guilty when the appropriate court says so

but for me you're guilty when the appropriate court says so, and this just isn't it

USADA is the investigating body on behalf of WADA, the World Anti-Doping Agency. UCI is signed up to WADA. The US court, that LA appealed to, over-ruled him and confirmed that that USADA had authority in this case.

What more appropriate 'court' would you like?

In matters relating to drugs in cycling, if USADA (or any othere ADA) says someone's guilty, WADA will back them and UCI will have to comply eventually.

The Bruyneel case will be interesting especially what his sanction will be.

Let's not forget this is an investigation into a team (US Postal) and their doping regime, not a singular case against the Texan.

Two Drs (Ferrari and Garcia) have already received life-time bans. I am interested to know what that means in practice. WADA cannot stop them being doctors. I presume the ban means they can no longer be employed by a cycling team (or any other sport?) but would it stop a rider from popping along to see them about a 'medical issue'?

Trainer Marti was given a life-time ban but has subsequently asked for arbitration. I can't help thinking he's warming up his vocal chords right now.

Bruyneel is obviously of interest as he was right at the heart of USP/Discovery while all this was going on.

Dr Celaya is interesting as he is the current doctor at RadioShackNissan (under Bruyneel).

Armstrong's misdemeanors may well be in the past but that's no argument to drop the case. Marti, Bruyneel and Celaya are all very much still involved in cycling.

Except with not as good boobs. probably.

Your right wrecker, she does have nice boobs.

am very interested in what happens with Bruyneel and the UCI etc now though

Because there are other people who will be doing their best to ensure that the evidence is not aired publicly.

I wonder if Greg LeMond is having a quiet chuckle over this? He has been vindicated despite Team Armstrongs best efforts.

evening... firstly im not a troll in any way shape or form.

ive been a back seat TDF fan for years and seen armstrongs rise.

i know theres no smoke without fire but isnt it innocent until proven guilty?

i know people hate him but can somebody in laymans terms tell me what the score is, i sense due to his latest "i give up fighting my innoncence" the haters have seen this as an admission of guilt?

i've read aswell that atleast 10 other riders who were in his team could testify and prove he's a cheat... why havent they come forward before?

again this is not a wind up, i know theres loads i havent read but just a simple synopsis if anyone can be bothered.

cheers!

Oops, sorry keep forgetting to check this overlong thread..

[i]By not disputing the charges, Lance has effectively admitted to them.[/i]

Er, have you read his statement? I have and he definitely disputes the charges! I'm no fanboi, as I've said I couldn't give a toss either way about the drugs in cycling bit.
I respected the bloke after reading "It's Not About the Bike", which I leant to a friend who had cancer to try to give him strength. Unfortunately he didn't make it. But I'd like to think that book isn't full of bullshit like some seem to think. Maybe there's a bit of jealousy in these pages...

Monkey boy the last 3 or 4 page should give you all you need. Suffice to say he has effectively plead guilty by not mounting a defence. The legal challenge to jurisdiction failed and that was that.

Not all the witnesses are ex-team mates, (their swapping leniency for testimony is a recognised and allowed tactic, the defence has to try and discredit this at trial/arbitration). A masseur is also one of those on the list who can confirm that he had no saddle sores when he tested positive for Steroids.

He will not get his titles striped from him because the French hate the Yanks. As soon as USADA insist that the ASO(?) they will say no. It could serve to make Lance incredibly well liked by the French as a superb twist of fate.

DezB you too could do with re reading the thread.

DezB you too could do with re reading the thread.

F-that. I'm not that interested, just bemused.

May I just say, the use of the term "ad hominem" is a ridiulous conceit IMO. Fine over at the Oxford union, I'm sure, but why not stick with English ?

oh, and he's as gulity as all the rest but quite a lot more hypocritical

Er, have you read his statement? I have and he definitely disputes the charges!

Which is why his statement is such nonsense. He clearly has the legal muscle and finances to fight it in court, yet he chooses not to. Hmmmm.....

i know theres no smoke without fire but isnt it innocent until proven guilty?

i know people hate him but can somebody in laymans terms tell me what the score is, i sense due to his latest "i give up fighting my innoncence" the haters have seen this as an admission of guilt?

By not contesting the charges, he has been proven guilty. He'll be 'even more guilty' once all the evidence against him comes out into the open.

It's not just the 'haters' that see it as an admission of guilt, it's the USADA, and the WADA. Unless you think they are just 'haters' too.

May I just say, the use of the term "ad hominem" is a ridiulous conceit IMO. Fine over at the Oxford union, I'm sure, but why not stick with English ?

What phrase would you prefer? 'an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it'. Snappy isn't it. It's a pretty commonly used Latin term in English - a logical fallacy.

Lots of people on here could do with reading up on logical fallacies TBH.

OK Dez, just for you:

He's not defending the charges, but he still disputes them?

It MAKES NO SENSE. Just more hypocrisy.

Written by someone much more eloquent than me

Imagine that you are chilling on your yacht.
Martini in hand, bikini-clad ladies sunning
themselves on the foredeck, your stockbroker
sweating slightly in the Mediterranean sun as he
explains that you’re up 34% on last quarter. Life is
sweet. You are The Balls. But wait! What is this
grubby seaplane doing in Antibes harbour? Who is
this dour Scot in uniform climbing aboard your
yacht without so much as a tug of the forelock?
Police? Really? What the **** does he mean he’s
arresting you for the robbery of Lloyds TSB in
Slough in 1997?

But it’s fine. The charges will never stick. This is
because:

- 1997 is a long time ago.

- The police are unconstitutional.

- This really ought to be dealt with between you
and Lloyds TSB.

- You’re in Antibes, not in Slough.

- The police have never found any of the money
allegedly stolen, indeed how do they even know it
was stolen if they haven’t found it? It might still
be in the bank for all you know.

- The only witnesses to your involvement are
Steve, who says he drove the getaway-car, Derek,
who was convicted of hitting the security guard
with a baseball bat, Big Mike and Croydon Mike,
who were arrested in Maidenhead 2 hours after
the robbery with balaclavas and shotguns and Ian
P Timkins, a solicitor who issued large cheques
drawn on his client account made out to you on
six occasions during 1998 after you decided not to
buy a number of houses that you had thought
about buying and given him the deposits for. Who
would believe that shower of crooks?

But frankly, balls to it. You’ve got better things
to do than argue about whether you robbed a
bank in 1997 with a load of unconstitutional fat
jealous police losers. The bikini-clad lovelies know
you made your money on the stock-market, and
you aren’t going to dignify this police-business
with the time of day. Life is too short to defend
yourself from accusations of armed robbery. On
the advice of your lawyers, you decide to plead
guilty to the armed robbery of Lloyds TSB in
Slough in 1997.

Question:
Does this mean that:
(a) you robbed Lloyds TSB in Slough in 1997; or
(b) you are innocent?

What phrase would you prefer?

More words and letters than ad hominem.
Playing the person and not the debate is the only phrase that comes close but again more words. Perhaps we should different English version on an ad hoc basis ?

The TDF is a UCI race , so ASO cannot take away his TDF wins untill UCI says so .

The TDF is a UCI race , so ASO cannot take away his TDF wins untill UCI says so .

Don't the Swiss hate the Americans even more than the French hate the Americans though?

More words and letters than ad hominem

ASO is far more powerful than the UCI they can choose what they want to do - they don't need the UCI, as the UCI discovered when they tried to take control of the calendar and if anything ASO are stronger now as they have a stake in the Vuelta. That doesn't mean they will do anything different, they will do what it is commercially expedient and allows the tour to grow.

The battle between the UCI and the organisers of the big races is the context in which this whole farrago should be viewed. Armstrong who gave the UCI the opportunity to spread cycling to big money new territories perhaps proved too valuable an ally for their integrity.

well, "ad hominem attack" generally
granted, 9 more characters but probably fewer unneccessary googlings and a bit less pompous feel to it IMO

So you want me to use dumbed down but less efficient language, because you don't like using google to learn about stuff, and insult other people when they know (fairly common) stuff you don't? 😛

Anyway, it's a totally bona fide term. 😉

I'm aware of the term, grum but unlikely ever to use it - even if it is Kosher (1 word and 3 characters to me, I believe ! 😆 )

ASO have not commented yet , according to L Equipe ( same company as ASO ) they are waiting for UCI .

Are you lot going to argue ad nauseum about the correct term to use for a personal attack? i.e. get upset about the use of latin phrases etc.? Well they're in the dictionary, QED.

nauseam 😉

(or have I been hoist with my own petard ?)

yes but I got away with ad hoc ..that is all i cared about 😳

Wanders off to find a life

carpe diem

et cetera ?

Let's just nip this in the bud now or it could go on ad infinitum.

ASO have not commented yet , according to L Equipe ( same company as ASO ) they are waiting for UCI .

It is the same group to be precise, management has been split, my guess is that they will follow what the UCI does as it is ancient history and they have not been crusading about drugs since they got rid of Patrice Clerc. If he was still around they would have stripped Armstong like they did Riis.

Tour Director Christian Prudhomme has erased Bjarne Riis' name from the Tour de France record books in light of the Dane's confession that he won the 1996 Tour while using doping products.

"Formally it's down to the International Cycling Union [UCI] to disqualify him but for us he can no longer be the winner and he has already been wiped from the road book [the official press guide] you will see at the start of the Tour," Prudhomme told the Manchester Guardian. "His name will not be at the top of the page, and below we will put that following his confession he cannot be considered the winner of that Tour."

At a press conference last month, Riis confessed to having used EPO, growth hormones and cortisone. He also said, "My yellow jersey is in box at home, you can come and collect it." Prudhomme confirmed that negotiations to pick up the jersey are underway.

He would not comment as to whether Erik Zabel's name would be removed as winner of the sprinter's green jersey that same year. The German confessed to having used EPO in the Tour that year.

Junkyard - Member

he is as guilty as anyone else who chooses to not defend themselves from lawfull charges

Interesting... Because [i]I[/i] chose not to defend myself from lawful charges, despite being innocent of them.

So, is he as guilty as me? Or, is your black and white a bit too black and white?

so at page 20 we have made no progress.....

time for a humane end to this thread please
[img] [/img]
[img] http://moni.typepad.com/images/misc/bay-bridge-falling-truck-sign-400.pn g" target="_blank">http://moni.typepad.com/images/misc/bay-bridge-falling-truck-sign-400.pn g"/> [/img]

[img] [/img]

Well my black and white will look different from yours but I could borrow your rose tinted glasses 😉

So no comeback huh? You want to make things simple, and I can understand that, but this "Innocent people would defend themselves, therefore if you don't defend yourself you must be guilty" schtick is just plain wrong.

There's lots of other arguments that are more convincing tbh.. But you don't need rose tinted glasses to see a poor argument and get narked by it.

cacoethes carpendi cacoethes scribendi

EXPECTO PATRONUS!

😆 😀

arms, EXTENDO..!!

Interesting... Because I chose not to defend myself from lawful charges, despite being innocent of them.

So, is he as guilty as me? Or, is your black and white a bit too black and white?

Come on then. Details please. You can't really throw that in there without explaining the circumstances.

There's lots of other arguments that are more convincing tbh

As has been covered on her eyes you could argue the case if you want and of course LA chooses the route with plausible deniability when compared to an actual guilty verdict he contested. The fact remains he is now seen, like every other person who did this as guilty as charged

All i have learned from this is that LA will never admit it and some will never believe it.

Because I chose not to defend myself from lawful charges, despite being innocent of them.

Except that unless the circumstances were completely different from Lance's case, you're not innocent of them, whatever you like to think.

Junkyard - Member

yes serial litigator LA who sues for defamation at any drug story, battler against cancer, never quits just gave in because he is innocent and tired.

Well- it [i]is[/i] more plausible than the absurd "everyone who doesn't defend themselves must be guilty". Though, IMO not by much.

The point i'm making to you here is that by making bad arguments you weaken the whole of the argument- people will see errors and then say "Well, if[i] this [/i]part's wrong...". Take it or leave it...

Northwind it's the legal Silence gives assent (can't be bothered with the Latin). Fail to defend and you as good as plead guilty. (A proper lawyer could explain it better).

[url= ]Hora. Yesterday......[/url]

Anyone cares to resume me the last 20 pages?

LA took drugs. Probably. Some agree. Some don't.

Did he?
Didn't he?

Who knows?

There are arguments for both sides. How much has he spent on litigation against stories posted against him over the years? Must be a pretty penny.

That'd grind anyone down.

Still, he refused to fight.

So who knows? He did win against the best who were doping though so at least he isn't a Ben Johnson if he did dope. He is also genetically odd IMO- a very very fit fella, even now. Thats got to go someway into explaining why he was dominant when he was in his prime.

The sad thing is it overshadows his Cancer work and the punishment was over-drastic and almost vindictive. It just leaves a bitter taste allround.

A sad time for cycling IMO.

Jesus f%&king wept

Wish I'd not reviewed this thread

[i]Anyone cares to resume me the last 20 pages?[/i]

LA Times article...

[url= http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120825,0,2080853.column ]not biased what so ever..[/url]

Good article. Much more informative than the threads on here, that's for sure.

The comments are quite interesting (if you ignore the fanboi/hater ones)

This one in particular

"The piece is too slanted to be taken seriously, but the author does make one good point. The practice of mandatory arbitration should be abolished. It amounts to nothing more than wielding monopoly power to strip citizens of their right to due process"

... at least he isn't a Ben Johnson ...

In what way?

edit: added reference

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2003/apr/18/athletics.comment

If this is a massive injustice, ****.

If he is lying I wish he'd just fess up.

DezB - it's a ludicrously one-sided article, but because you agree with it you think it's good? No attempt at any kind of balance whatsoever.

hora - Member
So who knows? He did win against the best who were doping though so at least he isn't a Ben Johnson if he did dope.

So if he did cheat he's not as bad as some cheats?

He is also genetically odd IMO- a very very fit fella, even now. Thats got to go someway into explaining why he was dominant when he was in his prime.

But he didn't cheat, he's just genetically 'odd'.

The logical gymnastics that have kept you in this thread really are something to behold.

grum - Member
DezB - it's a ludicrously one-sided article, but because you agree with it you think it's good? No attempt at any kind of balance whatsoever.

+1

Read like "WADA are hunting down all sportsmen!"

I like the way he links to more of his own articles as if that's proof he is right.

This just CANT still be going on! 🙂

So if he did cheat he's not as bad as some cheats?

I know but say in Ben's final heat all of the runners were chemical - who is he cheating? He was the only one though.

I like the idea, asking cheats if they agree to be caught just seems so very sociable and polite.

[i]it's a ludicrously one-sided article, but because you agree with it you think it's good?[/i]

Just thought it was interesting. 🙂 Unlike this thread 😆