Lance Armstrong cheated?! - Page 2

Meister · 08-25-2005, 07:35 AM

Megiddo, don't just ask that kind of stuff in the next best thread, especially not in Discussion. It's completely off topic. Here is what you're looking for, but please try and be mindful of these things in the future. Thanks.

meb955 · 08-25-2005, 10:48 AM

there is a reason why i suggested it was too early to comment intelligently on the issues of this story. things just keep coming out about it, like in today's usa today:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"How can you prosecute a guy when there have been what must be violations of the WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) code?" Armstrong asked. "The code says when there is just one sample available, that sample must always be anonymous. Second, that sample can't be used without permission. These are serious violations."

Canadian physician Christiane Ayotte, director of the World Anti-Doping Agency-certified lab near WADA headquarters in Montreal, told VeloNews magazine Tuesday that, "We are extremely surprised that (1999) urine samples could have been tested in 2004 and have revealed the presence of EPO. EPO in its natural state or the synthesized version is not stable in urine, even if stored at minus 20 degrees."

The test also has been recently overturned for producing false positives. Belgian triathlete Rutger Beke was cleared Aug. 9 of EPO doping charges despite two positive tests because a review showed he naturally excreted proteins that would give a positive result.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycli...director_x.htm

the longer this story goes on, the stupider the tour director looks (he's now threatening to take away the 1999 victory, which people have pointed out is illegal) and the magazine that thought it finally had some supporting evidence after years of doping accusations against armstrong with none.

Archbio · 08-25-2005, 01:08 PM

Now I have a feeling this comment might get a "this wasn't meant to be taken seriously" or "lighten up" response... so if what I'm replying to were jokes, you can juste check this alternative reply: "NOT FUNNY".

The original response: there's no call for the racism. I think the "genetic code" comment as the official signal that there is, in fact, racism. Not that the answer according to which the accusations are motivated by chauvinism is essentially racist. I think it seems likely, if one assumes that the lack of supporting evidence should be interpreted as meaning that he's clean, and the fact that the newspaper in question has always had it out for Amstrong means that it's not trustworthy.

While the racism infused responses actually covers this, they also spill out everywhere. THE french has in it for Amstrong, they say. You know how THEY are, is implied. No matter that the french people quoted in the article have a much more ambiguous reaction, overall, to the information that the comments here let on. And then, there's the suggestion, by Shiney, that they might "strip him of his titles or try to levy any sort of fine, restriction, penalty or punishment on him" while this seems to be put clearly out of the question by officials in the article.

So there you have it: decrying chauvinism while sounding like one is under the influence of chauvinism themselves.

The "THE french" formulation I've seen before around here. In the European Constitution thread, for example, where it was used despite the nonsensical conclusions that it would have led to if it had been thought through.

Also, "surrender" jokes never get old. Ho ho, France was occupied, leading to the death of many! What mirth!

meb955 · 08-25-2005, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archbio

And then, there's the suggestion, by Shiney, that they might "strip him of his titles or try to levy any sort of fine, restriction, penalty or punishment on him" while this seems to be put clearly out of the question by officials in the article.

Tour director Jean-Marie Leblanc has threatened to strip Armstrong of the 1999 win, but most point out he doesn't have the authority under the sport's existing doping regulations to do that. he is looking rather foolish for jumping on the side of the magazine so early ("armstrong fooled us" -- and, of course, the tour is put on by the same company that owns the magazine), but at least responsible people in the sport are willing to point out his stupidity in this. it will be interesting how his personal fortunes go as this plays out.

and, as a side note, i'm ashamed to admit it took me hours to identify your sig after i first saw it -- and charades is one of my favorite movies.

Archbio · 08-25-2005, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Tour director Jean-Marie Leblanc has threatened to strip Armstrong of the 1999 win

I missed that in your previous post (under the dotted line), sorry. Too much too soon, in any case. And if I understand, too much for anytime.

Quote:

and, of course, the tour is put on by the same company that owns the magazine

Is it possible it's being coordinated? I really don't see what the Tour would gain by this. Like the Sports Minister said, it would be damaging to cycling all around if it was confirmed true; but the unconfirmed accusations are already damaging. And while it would justified to get to the bottom of this if it was true, if the accusations are baseless there's the damage without the justification.

Either way this is a mess.

meb955 · 08-25-2005, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archbio

Is it possible it's being coordinated? I really don't see what the Tour would gain by this. Like the Sports Minister said, it would be damaging to cycling all around if it was confirmed true; but the unconfirmed accusations are already damaging. And while it would justified to get to the bottom of this if it was true, if the accusations are baseless there's the damage without the justification.

i doubt the coordination -- leblanc would be out of a job immediately if that was ever confirmed, or even shown likely, and where would he ever find a better one? i think it more likely that leblanc jumped the gun to show he's on the anti-doping side after all the drug use the tour has endured in the recent past, and try to isolate armstrong from the tour if it was true. but he's still looking very foolish, and cyclists are beginning to jump on him today for his convicting before trial.

i wouldn't be surprised if armstrong is correct -- the headlines sold more papers and made the magazine a hot item because at last it had "proof" of a charge it's been making for years. and leblanc just fell into it.

08-25-2005, 10:48 AM	#12
meb955 merry music man Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: minnesota Posts: 66	there is a reason why i suggested it was too early to comment intelligently on the issues of this story. things just keep coming out about it, like in today's usa today: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "How can you prosecute a guy when there have been what must be violations of the WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) code?" Armstrong asked. "The code says when there is just one sample available, that sample must always be anonymous. Second, that sample can't be used without permission. These are serious violations." Canadian physician Christiane Ayotte, director of the World Anti-Doping Agency-certified lab near WADA headquarters in Montreal, told VeloNews magazine Tuesday that, "We are extremely surprised that (1999) urine samples could have been tested in 2004 and have revealed the presence of EPO. EPO in its natural state or the synthesized version is not stable in urine, even if stored at minus 20 degrees." The test also has been recently overturned for producing false positives. Belgian triathlete Rutger Beke was cleared Aug. 9 of EPO doping charges despite two positive tests because a review showed he naturally excreted proteins that would give a positive result. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycli...director_x.htm the longer this story goes on, the stupider the tour director looks (he's now threatening to take away the 1999 victory, which people have pointed out is illegal) and the magazine that thought it finally had some supporting evidence after years of doping accusations against armstrong with none. __________________ trust me. i know what i'm talking about. i've read books. well...chewed books. "the world does not deal well with those who don't pick a side." "i like the middle." "that gives you two enemies. i'm amazed you can afford so many, on a sergeant's pay."

08-25-2005, 01:08 PM	#13
Archbio Data is Turned On Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 3,980	Now I have a feeling this comment might get a "this wasn't meant to be taken seriously" or "lighten up" response... so if what I'm replying to were jokes, you can juste check this alternative reply: "NOT FUNNY". The original response: there's no call for the racism. I think the "genetic code" comment as the official signal that there is, in fact, racism. Not that the answer according to which the accusations are motivated by chauvinism is essentially racist. I think it seems likely, if one assumes that the lack of supporting evidence should be interpreted as meaning that he's clean, and the fact that the newspaper in question has always had it out for Amstrong means that it's not trustworthy. While the racism infused responses actually covers this, they also spill out everywhere. THE french has in it for Amstrong, they say. You know how THEY are, is implied. No matter that the french people quoted in the article have a much more ambiguous reaction, overall, to the information that the comments here let on. And then, there's the suggestion, by Shiney, that they might "strip him of his titles or try to levy any sort of fine, restriction, penalty or punishment on him" while this seems to be put clearly out of the question by officials in the article. So there you have it: decrying chauvinism while sounding like one is under the influence of chauvinism themselves. The "THE french" formulation I've seen before around here. In the European Constitution thread, for example, where it was used despite the nonsensical conclusions that it would have led to if it had been thought through. Also, "surrender" jokes never get old. Ho ho, France was occupied, leading to the death of many! What mirth! __________________ 6201 Reasons to Support Electoral Reform.

08-25-2005, 07:35 AM	#11
Meister Pure joy Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Germany Posts: 10,689	Megiddo, don't just ask that kind of stuff in the next best thread, especially not in Discussion. It's completely off topic. Here is what you're looking for, but please try and be mindful of these things in the future. Thanks.