Armstrong drops fight against doping charges

[Bartelby]

Its a formula of words they use because its not a simple issue like blood alcohol content.

You spoke of no physical evidence not there had to be multiple instances of physical evidence for each and every victory to be nullified.

This is not a credible position and the other evidence was used in relation to these and other matters.

[jonnythan]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

Its a formula of words they use because its not a simple issue like blood alcohol content.

You spoke of no physical evidence not there had to be multiple instances of physical evidence for each and every victory to be nullified.

This is not a credible position and the other evidence was used in relation to these and other matters.

Whatever the formula of words, the USADA has not said they have positive samples. They may have positive samples, but they haven't said they do.

[Bartelby]

You want to put words into the mouths of others. And you've no expertise in the area to do so.

[jonnythan]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

You want to put words into the mouths of others. And you've no expertise in the area to do so.

It seems you're the one trying to put words into the mouths of others.

You claimed that the USADA announced they have samples of Lance's blood that are positive for doping.

They have not claimed this. End of story.

[Bartelby]

The reality is that you keep changing the goalposts to get Lance, as you call him, off the hook.

Moreover, you keep wanting bodies to use your terminology even when they have physical evidence that was not rebutted.

His samples came back with evidence consistent with blood doping among other things.

So they don't use the word 'positive'. There's no point to your nonsense other than a desperate attempt to avoid reality.

[jonnythan]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

The reality is that you keep changing the goalposts to get Lance, as you call him, off the hook.

Moreover, you keep wanting bodies to use your terminology even when they have physical evidence that was not rebutted.

His samples came back with evidence consistent with blood doping among other things.

So they don't use the word 'positive'. There's no point to your nonsense other than a desperate attempt to avoid reality.

I haven't changed any goal posts.

I've been saying for a long time that it doesn't make sense to vacate past victories for which you cannot produce a sample of tainted blood.

That's the goal post. If they can produce a sample of tainted blood from one of Lance's Tour victories, then it makes sense to vacate that victory. Some testimony from a bunch of guys that have either been caught doping themselves, have books to sell, or have a personal beef with Lance isn't enough to vacate 7 Tour victories.

[Bartelby]

You're not the tribunal and your fantasy goalposts are ridiculous (as previously discussed) and Armstrong failed to front the tribunal so he has to cop his guilt.

You started off claiming that only french tv was stating there was any physical evidence and you were wrong on that and on everything else.

Of course, if everything that is real is redefined in the fantasy land of your imagination Armstrong will end by being canonized a saint.

By the way, you are now talking about 'tainted blood', whatever that means, so the terminology changes again.

[jonnythan]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

You started off claiming that only french tv was stating there was any physical evidence and you were wrong on that and on everything else.

You said:
"[USADA] said they've got positive samples"

This is false. The reality is that a French TV show said that the USADA has positive samples. The USADA never said they have positive samples.

The closest the USADA got was saying that they had samples that are "consistent with" EPO use in 2009 and 2010, which are not from his victory days and also not a claim that they are "positive" for anything.

[Bartelby]

Its not for you to decide what terminology should be in use.

The samples show he's a drug cheat, end of story.

I say now he's a drug cheat proved by physical evidence, inter alia, end of story.

[jonnythan]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

Its not for you to decide what terminology should be in use.

The samples show he's a drug cheat, end of story.

I say now he's a drug cheat proved by physical evidence, inter alia, end of story.

I'm not deciding what terminology should be in use. I'm just pointing out the fact that something you said is 100% false.

No one has ever produced any samples that "show he's a drug cheat."

[Bartelby]

I said something that is completely true.

He's a drug cheat and there's physical evidence that he has tested positive for drug cheating.

USADA does not use the word positive for good scientific reasons.

The words that it does use add up to drug cheat.

[jonnythan]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

I said something that is completely true.

I'm sure you've said many things that are completely true.

However, the problem is that you've also said things that are completely false :P

[Bartelby]

There's unchallenged physical evidence and he's been found guilty, but you're free to believe in gods, unicorns or whatever else pleases you.

[jonnythan]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

There's unchallenged physical evidence

Well, according to some French TV news program.

I notice you went from claiming "the USADA says it has positive samples" to the much more vague "there's physical evidence." Certainly no one can say that this is definitely false, but it's also not definitely true. If there is any actual physical evidence, it has not been presented yet.

So it's possible that there's physical evidence. But we don't know. That means you don't know either. So while you're not flat-out lying, you're stating as fact things that have not yet been presented.

[Bartelby]

You're repeating yourself and making up your own terms, yet again, as I said you can invent your own fantasy house and live in it happily.

[jonnythan]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

You're repeating yourself and making up your own terms, yet again, as I said you can invent your own fantasy house and live in it happily.

I am repeating myself, because you keep repeating the same lies. You seem to change them slightly every post, but the gist of it remains the same.

You keep saying there's physical evidence against Armstrong in the form of failed drug tests. There are not. There may be eventually, but the USADA has not said they have any and they have not produced any.

You can say it over and over, but that doesn't make it true. Accusing the people pointing out your falsehoods of "repeating themselves" is laughable when you keep telling the same lies.

[Avles]

I think focusing on whether Armstrong actually failed drug tests is like focusing on whether the glove fit OJ or not. It's a red herring.

The point is that there is overwhelming non-physical evidence that Armstrong doped. Nine independent sources corroborating one another is a lot of evidence. IMO it absolutely defies credulity to believe that all of those teammates are part of some grand conspiracy to falsely accuse Armstrong of doping.

To me, the probability that Armstrong didn't dope looks vanishingly small. Whether that vanishingly small probability technically exists or not should really only matter to Lance's lawyers, if anyone.

As far as I'm concerned Lance can keep his trophies if he wants to admire how shiny they are on his shelf. They won't change the fact that his reputation is irreversibly tarnished.

[adventure]

Originally Posted by jonnythan

Insider knowledge? Please share with the rest of the class, because they've never said or even implied they have such samples.

You have got to be the laziest schmuck on the planet. You have the energy to troll this thread non stop but not enough to do a 5 second internet search on this topic which will give you several days of reading material and evidence.

[adventure]

Originally Posted by jonnythan

If Lance has admitted he's a doper, I'll eat my shoes live on webcam.

I'm being reasonable. You, however, are lying.

Nope, he said he gained "no unfair advantage" from doping. What do you suppose that means? Does that sound like a denial to you?

He has the RIGHT and the OBLIGATION to step forward and defend his name against TEN teammates who claim he had access to the most advanced doping and who regularly discussed and watched each other doping.

Anyone with a SHRED of credibility would be RACING to this tribunal to COMPLETELY TRASH his LYING teammates. What does Lance say? It's not worth his time. It's not worth his time? When your NAME AND LEGACY are on the line? If NOW is not the time when will it ever be? He's guilty.

[adventure]

That leaves the small problem of the tens of millions of dollars in prize money he stole from cycling and it's sponsors.

Originally Posted by Avles

I think focusing on whether Armstrong actually failed drug tests is like focusing on whether the glove fit OJ or not. It's a red herring.

The point is that there is overwhelming non-physical evidence that Armstrong doped. Nine independent sources corroborating one another is a lot of evidence. IMO it absolutely defies credulity to believe that all of those teammates are part of some grand conspiracy to falsely accuse Armstrong of doping.

To me, the probability that Armstrong didn't dope looks vanishingly small. Whether that vanishingly small probability technically exists or not should really only matter to Lance's lawyers, if anyone.

As far as I'm concerned Lance can keep his trophies if he wants to admire how shiny they are on his shelf. They won't change the fact that his reputation is irreversibly tarnished.