Quote
otonneau
Sad sad sad... re-read your posts and mine, and perhaps you'll see where the witch-hunt is: in Armstrong accusing everybody of plotting his downfall and being jealous and whatnot (for which he has NO evidence), and NOT in the USADA presenting a detailed and argued 1000 pages report.

As for our conversation, you are accusing me of being anti-US and a witch-hunter, while I've not accused you of anything and just tried to present arguments which you have not discussed in the least detail. Who has a cool, calm, collected attitude here? I don't think it is you whose fonts are growing ever wider and who answer arguments with photographs...

I stand by what I said about him being innocent until the ICU says otherwise, and you and anyone can say what ever you want. This is not an issue between you and I.

So you dismiss the USADA whatever they say, but you will trust the UCI whatever they say? What sense does that make?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-14 11:42 by otonneau.

People post here that he is guilty.

I post here that the ICU never said that and that he passed tests

It is simple as that, nothing personal bewtween me or anyone else.



And as long as people keep bringing this thread up to the top and are harping about it then I will continue to post in his defense.... unless/until the ICU makes a statement otherwise.




And sooner or later we will see the real motivation of the person behind the witch hunt.

It's quite clever from you Maxou cos you probably know that the ICU will never delete his 7 victories in Tour de France.
Indeed, LA has given lots of money to this organization, so you understand that it would be unfaithful to confirm the USADA report by withdrawing his titles.
The ICU just said that they will never refute the American report.
All this is disgusting and has the smell of shame !

Quote
jpasc95
It's quite clever from you Maxou cos you probably know that the ICU will never delete his 7 victories in Tour de France.
Indeed, LA has given lots of money to this organization, so you understand that it would be unfaithful to confirm the USADA report by withdrawing his titles.
The ICU just said that they will never refute the American report.
All this is disgusting and has the smell of shame !

OK, Thanks for playing, your comments are duly noted.

I'll post one last time and let it go (with apologies to people who could care less, but this community is something I check a dozen times a day and it's kind of a go to stop for me. Actually need to chill on that, but........).

First of all, what is this ICU? The intensive care unit? It's the UCI.

Secondly, the thrust of all my thoughts on the matter boils down to this:

I believe that the powers in charge of the UCI (Pat McQuaid and his lunatic predecessor Hein Verbruggen) are in on the heist. They are flat out gangsters who have ruined the careers and dreams of any one who sought help from them (with doping) or stood in opposition to them. The LA problem could have been handled in 2001 when he first tested positive or when he confessed to the cancer doctors if Verbruggen and McQuaid had a shred of honor or integrity.

Now you are going to wait for their thoughts on the matter? Pure crazieness. Again, this is akin to waiting on a ruling from John Gotti or Don Corleone.

That's all from me folks. I'm going to put on Perth '73 and go for a bike ride.
Peace.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-14 16:45 by shawnriffhard1.

Going for a long ride myself.
For all riding today, keep safe.

So if you're out tonight, don't forget, if you're on your bike, wear white.

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

[quote="Posted by: Rolling Hansie () Date: October 14, 2012 16:21 So if you're out tonight, don't forget, if you're on your bike, wear white.

It's a beautiful morning here.

Ontonneau, really respect your intelligent posts on this very ugly situation.

More developments:

[www.usatoday.com]

[www.washingtonpost.com]

When sponsors flee the end is near...

And I wonder what the French anti-doping agency will find in Lance's more recent (2003 on?) urine samples.

Maybe they're so full of unstable chemical substances they'll blow up the lab as soon as they're defrozen? ><

While I have only a small amount of specific knowledge on Lance Armstrong, I do find this thread kind of funny to read the outrage of some of the posters against Armstrong over his alleged cheating (Like Max, I believe in innocence until proven guilty as opposed to innocence until supposed guilty).

This is a Rolling Stones board right?
Mick Jagger = Cheater
Bill Wyman = Cheater
Brian Jones = Cheater
Keith Richards = Cheater
Ronnie Wood = Cheater (I think but, I wouldn't try to argue about it.)
Mick Taylor = Haven’t a clue
Charlie Watts = Non-Cheater (At least from what I’ve ever heard)

Now, if I were to extend the definition of "cheating" to include not only how these guys treated the women they were with but also how they treated various laws concerning say, drug possession and use, Charlie and Mick Taylor would lose any exemptions that they might have now.

Interesting how so many are willing to crucify an athletic entertainer while viewing selected music entertainers with a different set of standards.

Happy Witch Hunting Y'all!

Peace,
Mr DJA

Great points Mr DJA....

... yeah I am about done responding to posts on this topic... which at this point are basically pimping for a reply... it is boring and pointless.

Right now there are some real bad guys in the world, doing real bad things... the haters should be bashing on them... but whatever/whomever they choose to bash on is their businesss... some people just love gossiping.

Nike, in a statement on its website, said:

“Due to the seemingly insurmountable evidence that Lance Armstrong participated in doping and misled Nike for more than a decade, it is with great sadness that we have terminated our contract with him. Nike does not condone the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs in any manner. Nike plans to continue support of the Livestrong initiatives created to unite, inspire and empower people affected by cancer.”

things are clear!
all the evidence take place in the Usada report and show that LA is guilty.
Some refuse to admit it, it's very sad.
i wonder what kind of evidence they need. A God reaction ?.

Quote
mr_dja
While I have only a small amount of specific knowledge on Lance Armstrong, I do find this thread kind of funny to read the outrage of some of the posters against Armstrong over his alleged cheating (Like Max, I believe in innocence until proven guilty as opposed to innocence until supposed guilty).

This is a Rolling Stones board right?
Mick Jagger = Cheater
Bill Wyman = Cheater
Brian Jones = Cheater
Keith Richards = Cheater
Ronnie Wood = Cheater (I think but, I wouldn't try to argue about it.)
Mick Taylor = Haven’t a clue
Charlie Watts = Non-Cheater (At least from what I’ve ever heard)

Now, if I were to extend the definition of "cheating" to include not only how these guys treated the women they were with but also how they treated various laws concerning say, drug possession and use, Charlie and Mick Taylor would lose any exemptions that they might have now.

Interesting how so many are willing to crucify an athletic entertainer while viewing selected music entertainers with a different set of standards.

Happy Witch Hunting Y'all!

Peace,
Mr DJA

Well, I think the difference is clear...Keith (whomever) never denied taking substances. With that said I agree with the notion of presumed innocence.

What I've said before and maintain is the disgust I have with the zeal that some people seem to have in burying public figures.

It says a lot about them I think.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
mr_dja
Interesting how so many are willing to crucify an athletic entertainer while viewing selected music entertainers with a different set of standards.

Well, I think the difference is clear...Keith (whomever) never denied taking substances.

Ehem, there's one major difference, and that's that we; or me at least, is interested in the music coming out of the speakers, when it comes to entertainers. I don't care what running through their blood, only interested in how they play.

You can't say the same about an athlete; as being clean of drugs is the absolute most important rule for him/her to be competing against other in the first place.....it's the competition that's important in sports. Somebody doping themselves makes the competing irrelevant

I promised myself I would leave this alone, but the absurdity of mr dja's post suckered me back in.
The comparison between the Stones and a pro athlete is absolute nonsense. The Stones are not cheaters (Ry Cooder, Blondie Chaplin etc. notwithstanding). They and Keith in particular have built a great deal of their legend on doing drugs. LA has gone to the ends of the Earth denying his drug use and destroyed the lives and careers of those who called him out as a liar.

Cycling is different than other sports (ostensibly) in that it's based on good health and the fact that most fans are themselves participants. LA and his crew kind of shit on that (re: all the 20 y.o.'s who had a heart attacks before they figured out how to work with EPO safely).

Keith presented no such template.

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
mr_dja
Interesting how so many are willing to crucify an athletic entertainer while viewing selected music entertainers with a different set of standards.

Well, I think the difference is clear...Keith (whomever) never denied taking substances.

Ehem, there's one major difference, and that's that we; or me at least, is interested in the music coming out of the speakers, when it comes to entertainers. I don't care what running through their blood, only interested in how they play.

You can't say the same about an athlete; as being clean of drugs is the absolute most important rule for him/her to be competing against other in the first place.....it's the competition that's important in sports. Somebody doping themselves makes the competing irrelevant

I agree with you
Taking drugs in sports is real cheating ! not in music cos it doesn't help you to play better, it only helps you to keep awake longer. It was also a matter of way of living especially in rocknroll world.

This particular comparison between athletes and Rolling Stones (ie: Keith) is ludicrous.

And think of the magnificent athletes we saw at the Olympics in London.,,From runners to mountain bike riders to swimmers and on and on.

In no way can the Lance Armstrong the Liar and Cheat be compared to them.

Quote
jpasc95

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
mr_dja
Interesting how so many are willing to crucify an athletic entertainer while viewing selected music entertainers with a different set of standards.

Well, I think the difference is clear...Keith (whomever) never denied taking substances.

Ehem, there's one major difference, and that's that we; or me at least, is interested in the music coming out of the speakers, when it comes to entertainers. I don't care what running through their blood, only interested in how they play.

You can't say the same about an athlete; as being clean of drugs is the absolute most important rule for him/her to be competing against other in the first place.....it's the competition that's important in sports. Somebody doping themselves makes the competing irrelevant

I agree with you
Taking drugs in sports is real cheating ! not in music cos it doesn't help you to play better, it only helps you to keep awake longer. It was also a matter of way of living especially in rocknroll world.

It's obvious how the athlete is cheating by doping...not so the musician. EVEN if you could say it is cheating, we still don't care as long as it sounds good.

Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds

I love it when I get a rise out of people! Welcome back shawn! Also thanks Eric & treacle for replying.

FYI -> the original form of cheating I was referring to has to do with infidelity to significant others. Here in the US, we refer to "cheating on someone". Two different forms for cheating (L.A. allegedly drugs & the Stones alleged/proven infidelity) but both could be titled “cheaters”.

While I will concede the point to Eric that in sport a "level playing field" (i.e. following the established rules) is assumed and desired, it's hardly ever a fact. Athletes the world over are always going to look for a competitive advantage. Better equipment. Better training facilities & methods. Better coaching. Better teammates. Better diet. I know these aren't exactly examples of rule breaking (cheating). I must say I really liked your comment about somebody doping makes the competition irrelevant. While it may help the performance & entertainment value, it truly does negate the competition. Great point!

Also, while I'll thank shawn for his opinion that a "comparison between the Stones and a pro athlete is absolute nonsense", I'll also say that, in my opinion, he's wrong. Both train their bodies to do very specific tasks at very specific times at least partially for the entertainment of others. While it could be argued that an athlete is motivated by a competitive force that does influence a musician, even that argument isn't going to go very far. Show me a musician that doesn't want to be better than they are or better than their peers. Musicians are some of the most competitive people I know, they just score differently than athletes. If you look at them analytically as opposed to emmotionally, you'll see that musicians and athletes are actually very similar on a fundamental level even if they don't appear to be on the surface.

Quote: treaclefingers
"What I've said before and maintain is the disgust I have with the zeal that some people seem to have in burying public figures.

It says a lot about them I think."

While I don't know that I could go as far as "disgust", I'm with you in principle if not vocabulary and I do think, like you, that it says a lot about them.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
stonesrule
This particular comparison between athletes and Rolling Stones (ie: Keith) is ludicrous.

And think of the magnificent athletes we saw at the Olympics in London.,,From runners to mountain bike riders to swimmers and on and on.

In no way can the Lance Armstrong the Liar and Cheat be compared to them.

Actually, the way I was first using cheating (see above) would put Keith down towards the bottom of the list of Stones as cheaters. I guess because LA is accused of drug cheating, everyone is focusing on that side of the Stones.

I never compared LA to the Olympians. As an aside, it's a shame he never competed in the Olympics as they seem to get their drug test results quickly and convincingly (as opposed to the USADA). Maybe if he had competed there, we'd know for a fact that he was dirty or clean - at least at that time.

That being said, in the most positive ways only, I would compare the Stones, especially the early Stones to the Olympians. Both groups of people are/were incredibly dedicated and passionate in their pursuit of excellence. Both want/wanted to be the best at what they do and share what they do with the world. Both were willing to sacrifice to get where they wanted to be. I could go on but I think you probably get my point & it would just get redundant.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Wellsaid babe!

Lance Armstrong did compete on the Olympics a few years back
and got a bronze medal. This medal could also be taken aways
very soon.

Nike just dropped LA's sponsorship.

Quote
ChefGuevara
Lance Armstrong did compete on the Olympics a few years back
and got a bronze medal. This medal could also be taken aways
very soon.

Nike just dropped LA's sponsorship.

Again, pardon my ignorance in the specifics of the LA case, but I thought the IOC tested all the medalists. Is the IOC in some way beholden to the USADA? If LA passed IOCs test why would they take his medal back due to someone at the USADA wanting his head on a platter?

Peace,
Mr DJA

HE TOOK THE TESTS!!! HE PASSED THE TESTS!!!! HOW IS THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND!

I don't know Max... Many of the posters on the board don't use English as a primary language. Maybe if you translated it into a few other languages it wouldn't be so hard for people to understand.

It is a shame though that in the court of public appeal one is guilty until proven innocent instead of the other way around.

I just had a thought... I think it was you who mentioned if this was a European athlete the feelings might be different. What about a European television star? Wasn't there a big thread recently about a TV star who allegedly molested young girls but, since he had done such good charity work and couldn't defend himself people said to leave it alone? In the LA case we have a US athlete who allegedly cheated yet even though he's done great charity work, since he's decided to quit fighting, he needs to be destroyed. I know it's not exactly the same but it does seem kind of curious the seemingly double standard.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
mr_dja
I don't know Max... Many of the posters on the board don't use English as a primary language. Maybe if you translated it into a few other languages it wouldn't be so hard for people to understand.

It is a shame though that in the court of public appeal one is guilty until proven innocent instead of the other way around.

I just had a thought... I think it was you who mentioned if this was a European athlete the feelings might be different. What about a European television star? Wasn't there a big thread recently about a TV star who allegedly molested young girls but, since he had done such good charity work and couldn't defend himself people said to leave it alone? In the LA case we have a US athlete who allegedly cheated yet even though he's done great charity work, since he's decided to quit fighting, he needs to be destroyed. I know it's not exactly the same but it does seem kind of curious the seemingly double standard.

Peace,
Mr DJA

I dont know about that case, I dont follow the gossip very much.

Note to self- Self, stop opening this thread, no good can come of it..

Quote
mr_dja
Wasn't there a big thread recently about a TV star who allegedly molested young girls but, since he had done such good charity work and couldn't defend himself people said to leave it alone?

No, it was because he is dead, so one can't get him convicted anyway.
Meanwhile, I find it strange with this Europe vs America thing. Didn't know there was a battle.... I think most people are objective and doesn't defend somebody because they're from the same continent as themselves. Coming from the same continent.....why should that matter? If it was from the same household; I'd understand; but same continent ? Beats me....