Lance Armstrong appears finally to have run out of rope. (Read 2696 times)

    That's not what I said, and not what they are doing.

     

    However given the clear bias you have expressed and, frankly, your demeanor in a couple recent threads, I'm not really inclined to spend my time engaging about it.

     

    MTA:  If you want to be taken seriously, at least do your homework.  Several very important athletes have been convicted and banned without positive tests.  Others who never tested positive have admitted to long-term doping.  Many mechanisms that do not directly detect drugs, like cell ratios and other blood chemistry parameters, are routinely used as confirmatory evidence of doping sufficient to institute a ban.

     

    No need for name-calling.  I've never hidden my bias nor have I attempted to insult anyone who disagrees with me.  In fact, I suspect our respective biases even out and, in a way, that's the point.  If Lance wins, you will continue to believe he's "guilty."  If he loses, I will continue to believe that he was singled out for political reasons and that we might as well just invalidate the TdF results altogether.  So why is USADA blowing millions of dollars to go out on a limb like this?  Two words: Travis Tygart.  I also tend to disagree with the argument that "you agree to play by the rules" for the same reason that I disagree that borrowers and investors should be held to all of the onerous terms of their contracts.    

     

    btw, who got "convicted" w/o a positive test?  I was trying to think of someone.  Don't get mad.  Just asking.  

    xor


      Name calling?

       

        btw, who got "convicted" w/o a positive test?  I was trying to think of someone.  Don't get mad.  Just asking.  

         

        Marion Jones, for one.

        Runners run.


        Fat butt on couch

          No need for name-calling.  I've never hidden my bias nor have I attempted to insult anyone who disagrees with me.

           

           If Lance wins, you will continue to believe he's "guilty."  If he loses, I will continue to believe that he was singled out for political reasons and that we might as well just invalidate the TdF results altogether.  

           

          I also tend to disagree with the argument that "you agree to play by the rules" for the same reason that I disagree that borrowers and investors should be held to all of the onerous terms of their contracts.    

           

          btw, who got "convicted" w/o a positive test?  I was trying to think of someone.  Don't get mad.  Just asking.  

           

          I did not call you a name.  I stated that based on your behavior in another thread I did not feel it worth my time to go into it.  You accused a new member of being a troll because you didn't like the question they asked trashed their thread; that sort of behavior does not give me the warm fuzzies about the value of using my time to respond to you in depth.

           

          See this is how we differ.  If Lance wins because it is found...when all the evidence (which we have not seen yet) is disclosed...that there is not good reason to believe he is guilty, I am open to changing my mind.  I care about the truth, while you've already stated that you are solidly biased -- your position is indifferent to how this plays out in court.

           

          So people should be able to sign contracts then simply not abide by them when it is convenient not to?  Tell you what, I'm going to sign a contract to rent your property.  However I will find the rent onerous to my beer fund so I simply will continue to live there without paying you.  I like that concept.  Roll eyes   (Silly me, I read contracts word for word and either don't sign or negotiate ones with clauses I find onerous).

           

          Yes, Marion Jones.  Seriously, you want to argue about doping cases and one has to spell that one out for you?

          "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

           

            Did Marion Jones get convicted, or did she *admit* and plead guilty that she used PEDs.

             

            I can't remember.  All I do remember is being disappointed.  I always liked her, and was bummed that she used.

             

            I know it's nit-picking...but, well, maybe it's not.

            Jeff

              Name calling?

               

              Side note: Ever since the Naked Gun, I've always had a hankering to call someone "poopy pants."

              "If you have the fire, run..." -John Climacus


              HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

                Side note: Ever since the Naked Gun, I've always had a hankering to call someone "poopy pants."

                 

                Hey, aren't you misspelling sidebar?

                It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.


                Fat butt on couch

                  Did Marion Jones get convicted, or did she *admit* and plead guilty that she used PEDs.

                   

                  I can't remember.  All I do remember is being disappointed.  I always liked her, and was bummed that she used.

                   

                  I know it's nit-picking...but, well, maybe it's not.

                   

                  She plead out.  As for whether it is nitpicking...no?  Yes?  Thinking back to that time it would seem she was trying to save herself from a harsher punishment upon conviction, she was likely screwed if she had gone to trial over it.

                   

                  All I know is I distinctly recall hearing interviews with her both before the doping scandal began (while she was winning medals and juicing) and after (when she was "clean" and sucked).  The difference in the pitch of her voice was shocking.

                  "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                   

                    btw, who got "convicted" w/o a positive test?  I was trying to think of someone.  Don't get mad.  Just asking.  

                    To ask the question I think Cheevers is trying to ask: who got banned without getting "lab-busted" or turning himself in?

                     

                    Also from the Ashenden interview:

                     

                    Police Intervention

                    AS: It's said that dopers are nine years, a number of years ahead of the testers. A lot of the famous cases are broken by traditional police techniques: surveillance, raids, etc. Is that, moving forward, how most dopers will be caught?

                    MA: Yeah, I think that's a very insightful comment. If we look back, certainly over the last decade, the major drug scandals that've raised the awareness of drug usage, that have confronted the public with how it is, they've all come from police style investigations. You talk about Puerto, or Balco, or Austrian skiers at the Olympics, all of those came from a police intervention of some kind.

                    If you look back, really the only significant high profile case that was purely from a doping control standpoint, is probably Ben Johnson in Seoul, and Floyd Landis at the Tour de France. Other than that, I think you struggle to really come up with a big fish caught with a doping control.

                    “Everything you need is already inside.” -- Bill Bowerman


                    just a simple cat

                      She plead out.  As for whether it is nitpicking...no?  Yes?  Thinking back to that time it would seem she was trying to save herself from a harsher punishment upon conviction, she was likely screwed if she had gone to trial over it.

                       

                      All I know is I distinctly recall hearing interviews with her both before the doping scandal began (while she was winning medals and juicing) and after (when she was "clean" and sucked).  The difference in the pitch of her voice was shocking.

                       That was too bad since she ended up in prison.

                       

                       


                      HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

                        Here's another side note:

                         

                        In regards to Marion Jones' relay teammates having sued IOC in order to retain their relay medals, I'm not sure I admire their suit.

                         

                        I think I can understand that they wanted to keep their medals on the basis that they didn't cheat, and the basis of their suit seems to be that the IOC did not in 2000 have the power to strip the team of the medals for this offense, but it seems to me that because Jones cheated, it follows that their team cheated, and I incline more to think that means their team does not deserve  to keep the medals (in terms of fairness, not legality).

                         

                        So I'd admire them more if they had just given up the medals as a point of good sportsmanship,

                         

                        ref: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=oly&id=5385884

                         

                         

                        Was keeping their medals consistent with good sportsmanship?

                        It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

                          To ask the question I think Cheevers is trying to ask: who got banned without getting "lab-busted" or turning himself in?

                           

                          Also from the Ashenden interview:

                           

                          Police Intervention

                          AS: It's said that dopers are nine years, a number of years ahead of the testers. A lot of the famous cases are broken by traditional police techniques: surveillance, raids, etc. Is that, moving forward, how most dopers will be caught?

                          MA: Yeah, I think that's a very insightful comment. If we look back, certainly over the last decade, the major drug scandals that've raised the awareness of drug usage, that have confronted the public with how it is, they've all come from police style investigations. You talk about Puerto, or Balco, or Austrian skiers at the Olympics, all of those came from a police intervention of some kind.

                          If you look back, really the only significant high profile case that was purely from a doping control standpoint, is probably Ben Johnson in Seoul, and Floyd Landis at the Tour de France. Other than that, I think you struggle to really come up with a big fish caught with a doping control.

                           

                          I like the Marion Jones example.  That was a criminal investigation where she pleaded guilty to perjury before a federal grand jury.  The USADA simply piggybacked and imposed sanctions after she admitted her lying and use in connection with that criminal case.  She did, apparently, pass some 150 drug tests but (a) tested positive in 2006, but avoided sanctions because the B sample turned up negative (some sort of testing mistake), and (b) missed a drug test in HS, but got the decision reversed by Johnnie Cochrane (remember him).  There was also a lot of incredibly damning documentary evidence in the BALCO files.    

                           

                          Here, by contrast, the FBI, DOJ, FDA, and US Postal Service all investigated Lance for two years and decided not to proceed (we do not know how much they spent in taxpayer funds for that).  Now the USADA is trying to take all of that evidence, which it could not have obtained through arbitration procedures, and use it in another forum that is designed to determine the validity of positive tests.  Very different scenario and patently unfair -- not part of the "agreement" (assuming that an enforceable one ever existed to give USADA jurisdiction for its case).  

                           

                          I'm trying to think of a case where the USADA, or even WADA, pursued a case based solely on "non-analytical" positives, i.e. no positive tests -- other than admissions (Hellebuyck).  I'll accept a criminal case, but I'm really looking for the use of an arbitration proceeding in lieu of a criminal action.  

                           

                          As for the silly "trolling" accusation, I remember someone posting something patently goofy a while ago to trigger a reaction then never returning.  I didn't think it was a real post -- still don't, but if i'm wrong i'll say sorry.  

                            Aha, found the "trolling" post.  I didn't say any such thing.  Just my usual smartass comments.  Vague  references to Pauly Shore movies might not be the greatest idea.  I'll give you that.  

                              Here's another side note:

                               

                              In regards to Marion Jones' relay teammates having sued IOC in order to retain their relay medals, I'm not sure I admire their suit.

                               

                              I think I can understand that they wanted to keep their medals on the basis that they didn't cheat, and the basis of their suit seems to be that the IOC did not in 2000 have the power to strip the team of the medals for this offense, but it seems to me that because Jones cheated, it follows that their team cheated, and I incline more to think that means their team does not deserve  to keep the medals (in terms of fairness, not legality).

                               

                              So I'd admire them more if they had just given up the medals as a point of good sportsmanship,

                               

                              ref: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=oly&id=5385884

                               

                               

                              Was keeping their medals consistent with good sportsmanship?

                               

                              By this reasoning, all of the tainted TdF teams should be disqualified, including US Postal, etc.  If that was the basis for taking Lance's titles, I'm not sure I'd have a problem with that.  It kind of seems right for the same reasons that stripping the relay medals seems right.  

                                Hey, aren't you misspelling sidebar?

                                Oh, it's all right. I'm sure we can handle this disagreement maturely, just like the responsible adults that we are. Isn't that right, Mr. Poopy Pants?

                                "If you have the fire, run..." -John Climacus