The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I'm guessing one of the serial muppets is nit-picking?

..or once again daring to have an opinion different to yours?
 
It's also an addendum. The detailed consideration of this particular incident is not included in the main body of evidence upon which he conclusions are based. But I guess you knew that...

Yes it is an appendix and its purpose seems to be to say "Look what a nasty person he is" but it illustrates the polemic nature of the document because it completely ignores the key evidence that negates their conclusion that Betsy Andreu was not mistaken. Unless, as has been discussed before, you believe his doctor put his medical career and reputation on the line by lying under oath for someone who at the time was still a minor sportsperson in the US.
 

asterix

Comrade Member
Location
Limoges or York
Sorry but I only watch this thread from a passive outside viewpoint, though I'm fascinated. I've been convinced for years Lance doped purely by understanding of physical limits, times up climbs, the era and other anecdotal stuff. Let alone today's stuff!

Does anyone here still believe he didn't dope? Intentional closed question.

Oh yes. And the Earth is flat.
 

yello

Guest
I must admit that I did find 'appendix b' (the hospital room incident) a little clumsy. USADA went to great lengths to say it wasn't being presented as evidence of an admission of guilt but as something else entirely. I'm undecided - perhaps they might have been better off leaving it out entirely??

As it was, I think USADA were keen to present everything they had. That particular incident didn't fit the linear narrative of the report (which was basically a witness testimony linked chronology) and so appeared somewhat tacked on. In fairness though, perhaps a problem of presentation rather than substance.

In any event, and even if one chooses to ignore that section, the report is otherwise comprehensive and the sheer weight of testimony and detail can only lead you to one conclusion. As a document, it succeeds in it's objective and fully supports USADA's decision.
 

screenman

Legendary Member
Still not proven guilty in court, nor has he ever been tested positive.:rolleyes:
 

smutchin

Cat 6 Racer
Location
The Red Enclave
[QUOTE 2091723, member: 45"]So Lance is a doping cheat? Thought so.

Anyone still trying to defend him?[/quote]

Most of the Radio Five Live listenership, apparently. Unless the presenters are only reading out the pro-Lance comments and ignoring the antis. But I'm sure the good old BBC wouldn't be so incompetent and unprofessional. Much.

But since most of the comments are just rehashes of the "most tested" canard and "level playing field" myth, they're clearly not based on having actually read the report.

d.
 

smutchin

Cat 6 Racer
Location
The Red Enclave
Do you really think so?

Yes, I really think the idea that they were all doing it, therefore it was a level playing field is a myth, in a broad sense of the word.

I used to think it was true(ish) but then I read some stuff and realised the error of my ways. I don't see how anyone can still cling to the story if they've read the USADA report. Hence the fact that they do shows they haven't.

d.
 
Top Bottom