posted Oct 10, 2008

Are you in politics?

Lots of nothing to say. Lots of time to say it.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 10, 2008

Envy (also called invidiousness) may be defined as an emotion that "occurs when a person lacks another’s superior quality, achievement, or possession and either desires it or wishes that the other lacked it.

Wouldn't suprise me if someone at the testing lab tampered with Landis' sample either just cause they couldn't handle another American winning the tour.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 11, 2008

I've lived in France for over 20yrs and of course they don't want him to come back!When did a frenchman win, let alone seven times! Remember Zidane, he head butted someone and became a national hero, they don't like anyone who isn't french, thats all!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 11, 2008

The last two tours have been the best. Funny that a sport catching cheats is criticised and put on hold by the BBc while other major codes pretend to check and get full coverage.
If Armstrong does well it will surprise. You need the team to work for you and that normally takes a while to get the right guys. Otherwise Cadel Evans would now have one or two tours to his name.
Samples in laboratories have numbers and there are heaps of them. Not much point in tampering when there is a second sample not in the lab.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 12, 2008

Marlayman.

digger28's evidence consists of gossip. Anyone who ever road a bike with any succes had this sort of stuff said about them. It's more intense in this case because of Armstrong's level of success. I think anyone who takes a balanced view would treat this sort of gossip spreading with contempt it deserves. I don't know wether Armsrong cheated AND NIETHER DOES DIGGER28! He is entitled to his opinion but cannot expect to be taken seriously on the basis of tittle tattle.

He is merely referring to (unamed) people who have dished out this stuff before. None of them has ever been able to back up their claim. As far as I know all had an agenda which had nothing to do with cleaning up cycling.

NOBODY seems to want to explain why the lab does not re-test Armstrong's later samples using the latest technology. If they brought in INDEPENDENT observers whilst they did this I for one would happily accept the findings. Or have they failed to keep those samples securely?!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 13, 2008

Augher – even though I believe your last question of your post to be rhetorical (given your other posts/articles), here are my thoughts if it were not. If you read (or find extracts) of the Vrijman report then I suggest you do so – this will give a better insight into why the samples should not be trusted. However, the UCI have removed this report from its pages, although the WADA response to Vrijamn is still available if you want to get their view on it. Independently (of LA), other issues with the lab in question will also show you that they lacked integrity in their processes with respect to chain of custody, anonymity of testing, leaks/independence to the media etc. (the evidence in the Landis case being amongst such evidence against them). So, for me it would not be a case of Independent advisers being present that would add any credibility whatsoever – the need for independence has already been shown to have been required from the time the sample was taken, and no amount of work now could undo the “damage” done by the lab to date.

For me, a very good analogy would be to compare this lab to the banks of today – for years people made deposits believing that they were safe and secure, and would be managed properly. Now people KNOW it is not the case…..

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 14, 2008

Kohl now positive! thats the end of the credibility of this years tour. its depressing

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 14, 2008

augher if i make an allegation about someones conduct you may choose to believe it or not based on the credibility of my evidence.thats not gossip.besides you ignore all the evidence of other top riders who have admitted taking performance enhancers and who armstrong beat soundly.thats not gossip either. finally his info about vo2 max cannot be as yet rationally explained. anyway if armstrong comes back he only be one of many(kohl,pieopli,ricco etc)

add comment | complain about this comment