[Velo]

An opinion which has very often proven to be wrong, but don't let the 7+1 official Tour victories, Postal/Discovery's near spotless record, and other facts get in the way of that opinion. Anyways, it's getting easier to see which members have mixed nationalities and which one is the dominant one.

As I was saying...

[admt]

Touting that which is so evidently evidence!

Love that +1. Good thing they are going to Astana. Maybe you can add +2 when that oh-so-clean team wins next year.

Actually, my response for you is already captured in my signature. I am only replying to give you another opportunity to read it.

Perhaps I should updated it and add Oscar's salbutamol positives to the list (1 tests positive in the same Tour he receives the yellow for after another tests positive and is stripped), along with Vino's positive when he was the odds-on favorite this year and was stripped of two stage victories (1 yellow odds-on favorite tests positive in the Tour and is stripped of tour stage wins, ejected and banned).

I think that would tally to 6 dopers in yellow, or effectively in yellow, from all of the activities just this year alone. I think the most ever yellow jerseys in one tour was 8. Must be some sort of record.

Funny, how 6 is the same number as all those EPO positive samples.

Well, if it comes to records, I suppose my six can be beat by your seven.

Dave.

Beautiful post! Thank you. Paul.

This post has been edited by vaunTrevi: 20 October 2007 - 11:48 PM

[ChrisH]

Love that +1. Good thing they are going to Astana. Maybe you can add +2 when that oh-so-clean team wins next year.

Perhaps you've forgotten that Contador won while being a member of the Discovery team. I didn't count Landis's win, as he was riding for a different team.

Actually, my response for you is already captured in my signature. I am only replying to give you another opportunity to read it.

Perhaps I should updated it ...

As long as your sig doesn't violate the rules I really couldn't care less. Others may care that you have a sig that needs to be edited for accuracy.

[D-Queued]

Perhaps you've forgotten that Contador won while being a member of the Discovery team. I didn't count Landis's win, as he was riding for a different team.
As long as your sig doesn't violate the rules I really couldn't care less. Others may care that you have a sig that will likely have to be edited for accuracy in the future.

I was talking about Contador and Bruyneel.

We already appear to have links between A.C. and O.P. Let's see if they are next year's doping casualty. Let's hope not, but crossing my fingers stopped working somewhere around Stage 17.

Then again, your +1 could also have been for Ivan Basso...

Please offer what edits are required for accuracy.

1. Riis -- admitted
2. Ullrich -- suspended
3. Vino -- Stage 13 & 15 stripped after testing positive in the Tour, team withdrew
4. Ras -- Yellow stripped, kicked out and fired for misreporting whereabouts (a doping violation), additional allegations pending
5. Floyd -- err, see 2:1 decision
6. Oscar -- Given yellow jersey for a Tour where he had two positives for Salbutamol, subsequently ruled admissable (also possible linkage to O.P., but who is counting)

How about a #7?
7. Add also Ivan Basso -- GC leader for Disco, removed just before Tour start, admitted and suspended.

Looks pretty accurate to me.

Dave.

[House]

When was Ullrich suspended in 2007?

[D-Queued]

When was Ullrich suspended in 2007?

Q: What is a forced retirement, when it follows a suspension from the Tour and being fired from your team and is then, in turn followed by an announcement that Ullrich's DNA sample, had "without a doubt" matched 9 bags of blood that were taken from Eufemiano Fuentes' office?

Are we splitting hairs that fine here?

Ok, a doping forced retirement then... February 26, 2007.

Dave.

I was talking about Contador and Bruyneel.

We already appear to have links between A.C. and O.P. Let's see if they are next year's doping casualty. Let's hope not, but crossing my fingers stopped working somewhere around Stage 17.

Then again, your +1 could also have been for Ivan Basso...

Please offer what edits are required for accuracy.

1. Riis -- admitted
2. Ullrich -- suspended suspended & fired in 06, then forced to retire, positive test and ongoing legal action in 07
3. Vino -- Stage 13 & 15 stripped after testing positive in the Tour, team withdrew
4. Ras -- Yellow stripped, kicked out and fired for misreporting whereabouts (a doping violation), additional allegations pending
5. Floyd -- err, see 2:1 decision
6. Oscar -- Given yellow jersey for a Tour where he had two positives for Salbutamol, subsequently ruled admissable (also possible linkage to O.P., but who is counting)

How about a #7?
7. Add also Ivan Basso -- GC leader for Disco, removed just before Tour start, admitted and suspended.

Looks pretty accurate to me.

Dave.

[jimmypop]

An opinion which has very often been proven to be wrong, but don't let the 7+1 official Tour victories, Postal/Discovery's near spotless record, and other facts get in the way of that opinion. Anyways, it's getting easier to see which members have mixed nationalities and which of those is the dominant one.

Your post reflects the insane rationalization of an irrational fan. Discovery, squeaky-clean? Whatever you say, man. Whatever you say.

If you really believe what you're writing, then I feel sorry for you. I have even more empathy for you if you're writing this stuff and don't believe it in the hopes that propagating the myth of a clean USPS/Discover team is somehow beneficial for you, others on this forum or cycling in general.

Bottom line: at this point in time, no rational individual is going to take an opinion like yours seriously.

[ChrisH]

@jimmypop
No, correct is to say that those individuals who deny the fact that Postal/Discovery have a nearly spotless record are at least highly biased if not haters. If one person like yourself had a hand in Landis's testing, we might as well dismiss the findings right now.

Hey, believe whatever you want to. There was a specific topic which asked for those like you to support your "opinions" about Postal/Discovery. No one could, but feel free to give it your best try there: http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/ind...ic=5726&hl=

[smug]

the moderators frown on such personal attacks.

[jimmypop]

@jimmypop
No, correct is to say that those individuals who deny the fact that Postal/Discovery have a nearly spotless record are at least highly biased if not haters. If one person like yourself had a hand in Landis's testing, we might as well dismiss the findings right now.

Hey, believe whatever you want to. There was a specific topic which asked for those like you to support your "opinions" about Postal/Discovery. No one could, but feel free to give it your best try there: http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/ind...ic=5726&hl=

Oh, you missed Walsh's book, which was full of reliable sources?

I'll leave it with a and a , because if you truly believe that Discovery was a clean team, then more power to you. I do think that Discovery was tapped in to a pretty good network which gave them the upper hand in avoiding positive tests, and that the team kept things pretty closed up.

Of course, if you want to believe that guys like Heras, Landis, Hamilton and others only resorted to funny business after leaving USPS/Discovery, then you can believe that, I suppose.

Keep the dream alive!

Don't stop.. beliiiievin'

This post has been edited by jimmypop: 21 October 2007 - 09:05 PM

[D-Queued]

@jimmypop
No, correct is to say that those individuals who deny the fact that Postal/Discovery have a nearly spotless record are at least highly biased if not haters. If one person like yourself had a hand in Landis's testing, we might as well dismiss the findings right now.

Hey, believe whatever you want to. There was a specific topic which asked for those like you to support your "opinions" about Postal/Discovery. No one could, but feel free to give it your best try there: http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/ind...ic=5726&hl=

A clean team would never have hired Ivan Basso when he and his dog were under suspicion, and after he had been terminated by another team for doping-related activities.

A clean team would not have broken a doping related agreement with other teams in order to hire Ivan Basso.

A clean team never would have defended Basso when he was finally called out for the O.P. involvement.

A clean team never would have suspended Bass with Pay -- they would have fired him.

A clean team...

...would have tried to stay clean?

Never mind. It is all an extraordinary fiction to try and imagine them as a clean team anyways. And, watch for Bruyneel to pick him up again this coming October.

Dave.

[formerlyfit]

Did not a french spectator punch Merckx in the liver when he was attempting to break Anquetil's then record of 5 Tour wins? Fortunately, such crude nationalism is a much lesser threat nowadays, yet nationalistic bias is still rampant. (That bias is countered with facts, preferably sourced, and not by, for example, pretending that it's impolite to call a person from France a frenchmen or simply french.) Nationalistic bias significantly affected the testing IMO.

Did not a American skater get convicted of assualting her rival. Landis must be guilty, IMO!

[mwbyrd]

A clean team would never have hired Ivan Basso when he and his dog were under suspicion, and after he had been terminated by another team for doping-related activities.

A clean team would not have broken a doping related agreement with other teams in order to hire Ivan Basso.

A clean team never would have defended Basso when he was finally called out for the O.P. involvement.

A clean team never would have suspended Bass with Pay -- they would have fired him.

A clean team...

...would have tried to stay clean?

Never mind. It is all an extraordinary fiction to try and imagine them as a clean team anyways. And, watch for Bruyneel to pick him up again this coming October.

Dave.

Yeah, and the UCI, WADA, and LNDD would/should follow their own rules....

Who do you want to believe???

Dave, your so sure about everything that your blind to any other opinion or option!

[D-Queued]

Yeah, and the UCI, WADA, and LNDD would/should follow their own rules....

Who do you want to believe???

Dave, your so sure about everything that your blind to any other opinion or option!

The question is not who do I want to believe. That question is quite simply about faith, not fact.

If you want to argue with my points, then argue with my points.

Dave.

[jimmypop]

Did Landis decide to dope the day he left Discovery?

I understand his anger, being nabbed for doping when other riders of the same caliber are doing the same stuff. But you play the game and pay the price for getting caught.

The incentives to not dope aren't yet valuable enough (in the eyes of riders and team directors) to dissuade riders from doping.

[Velo]

Did Landis decide to dope the day he left Discovery?

Not according to what Floyd told Vaughters.

[jimmypop]

Not according to what Floyd told Vaughters.

...b-b-b-b-but we have a deposition saying that the IM where Vaughters spilled all to Andreu was second- and third-hand claims which were unsubstantiated.

Because if Vaughters didn't hire a PI to verify the veracity of those claims, then the blood bad, blood pouring and doping incidents just didn't happen, right? And Vaughters sure did have an axe to grind with Lance and company, right?

Note that the statement never said that the claims were patently false - just that Vaughters didn't witness the stuff himself.

[Velo]

...b-b-b-b-but we have a deposition saying that the IM where Vaughters spilled all to Andreu was second- and third-hand claims which were unsubstantiated.

Because if Vaughters didn't hire a PI to verify the veracity of those claims, then the blood bad, blood pouring and doping incidents just didn't happen, right? And Vaughters sure did have an axe to grind with Lance and company, right?

Note that the statement never said that the claims were patently false - just that Vaughters didn't witness the stuff himself.

Vaughters is just another in an oddly long list of former associates turned Lance-hating liars.

[jimmypop]

Vaughters is just another in an oddly long list of former associates turned Lance-hating liars.

Q: How many lawyers does it take to shut up a former confidante/associate of Lance Armstrong?
A: ????


I'm sure there's a joke in that somewhere..

[Ali]

WARNING: RETRO POST.

Am I missing something ?. You can bet your ass that I am. The problem is I don't yet know what it is.

Right from the start, I mean the very start, it was obvious that there was something wrong with this case. I watched Floyd getting queried about his A sample fail. His reaction wasn't right for a person who was guilty. It just wasn't. It couldn't have been less convincing. An obvious pickup for the media. That troubled me though. He was totally unconvincing as an individual who had been caught cheating. OK, I'll park that as Ali touchy feely evidence.

The implementation of the science for the one A test which he failed has pretty been much booted into touch. LNDD fecked it up. Still, no further questions were asked, only the blatently obvious example of their incompetence was addressed. It was pretty much taken on trust that all their other work was reliable (?). I wouldn't have made that assumption. That is not the way of the scientist. Anyway, moving on, we've got the universally accepted as ambiguos C13/C12 results. Nobody seems to know what actually constitutes a positive. One metabolite ?, two ?. Nobody knows, so we all decide that one must be the right answer because that's what Floyd has and he's already failed the irrelevant (because it is inaccurate) A test. We're now on shakey ground, but the DPF scientists are just warming up here. They sense the kill. They move in here, spreading their propaganda. Throwing a lot of technical sounding discussion around and wallowing in their status as Alpha Scientists. Personally, I don't recognise that status. I can smell bias from a million miles away. A scientist with bias is not a scientist. He is a liar.

So now we have the retests on the all other B samples. A random selection fail the "infallible" carbon isotope ratio test. Does anyone know whether the results reflect what is possible. Hang on, does anyone know what is possible (positive one day, negative the next ?). No, but Floyd had those results, so let's just assume that it must be possible. He's guilty, right ?.

Let's ignore the fact that published results for these tests demonstrate an unpredictability in the repeatability of the result. Plus/minus 3 deltas are routine. 3 delta points is the cut off point for indicating doping. Anybody else wonder how this can be the gold standard infallible test ?. Trust me, it's fine if your trying to analyse some geological specimen which has been lying dormant for 100,000 years, but an athlete who's physiological stresses vary dramatically on a day by day basis ?. Get real. Get a proper test for humans. We're not all vegatables .

During his "hearing", numerous errors were highlighted with both the processing and interpretation of the results. Were these ignored or just dismissed without proper consideration ?. Yes, both.

Over and above all that, I still feel that I am missing something. There's something there which convinces me of Floyd's innocence. I just can't put my finger on it. Maybe it's the cummulation of feck ups in this case. Maybe it's something else, just hovering at edge of my mental powers (that's where my mind is just now). Either way, at this stage it appears as though there's probably little chance that it will fall into the narrow band of submissable evidence in this case. Still, who knows. Roll on CAS.