For those of you who aren't pretty sure Armstrong doped

Triathlon Forum
1

You do realize that Michael Ashenden, one of the developers of the EPO test and one of the nine members of the scientific panel that analyzes the bio-passport tests for the UCI, has stated publicly that he is sure that Armstrong doped in 1999?

Ashenden: “…there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour.”

That quote came from an interview over at Velocity Nation over a year ago:
http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

He’s a scientist-- this is his entire professional reputation and livelihood on the line. And his entire financial future, as Lance would sue him for libel for every penny he has, if he wasn’t telling the truth.

Yet he hasn’t been sued, and his peers still respect him enough for him to be one of the current members of the bio-passport panel.

Doesn’t that tell you something?

2

Fail.

Do we need ANOTHER thread on Lance doping. Each thread is a repeat of the others. Yes there is more than one way to skin a cat. Please list them all in ONE thread.

3

Fail.

Do we need ANOTHER thread on Lance doping. Each thread is a repeat of the others. Yes there is more than one way to skin a cat. Please list them all in ONE thread.

Why ‘fail’?

Old Chinese Proverb…

One doctor tells you to lay down, get a second opinion.
Second doctor tells you to lay down - lay down.

Me thinks one day not too far in the future we’ll see somebody lay down.

4

haha. I just like to say FAIL. :slight_smile:

I guess I was just tired of seeing so many this is why Lance doped threads, akin to “P2 or P3” threads.

Everyone has their opinion and has to create a new thread to demonstrate why their opinion will sway the masses.

Just put them all in one place and those people can be swayed :slight_smile:

This is all in pink btw as I don’t mean to put anyone down or whatever. I don’t really care either way about Lance. Then again, I still like Barry Bonds. :slight_smile:

5

I’m from Alabama, we don’t do science down here.

6

haha. I just like to say FAIL. :slight_smile:

I guess I was just tired of seeing so many this is why Lance doped threads, akin to “P2 or P3” threads.

Everyone has their opinion and has to create a new thread to demonstrate why their opinion will sway the masses.

Just put them all in one place and those people can be swayed :slight_smile:

This is all in pink btw as I don’t mean to put anyone down or whatever. I don’t really care either way about Lance. Then again, I still like Barry Bonds. :slight_smile:

Sorry buddy, this whole pink thing is lost on me…I’m ACTUALLY colour blind.

lol

No offence intended, and no offence taken. (Although I’m home alone with a bottle of wine - I’m guessing I’ll offend someone here before it’s over!).

7

Isn’t there a NASA research center in huntsville? So maybe there isn’t much science in alabama?

8

Ashenden uses science to draw his conclusions, but we don’t need it to make logical inferences:

You or I think Lance doped = an opinion
Real dope testing expert publicly states Armstrong doped in '99, and a year later he hasn’t been torn a new one = Armstrong probably doped in '99.

9

Ashenden uses science to draw his conclusions, but we don’t need it to make logical inferences:

You or I think Lance doped = an opinion
Real dope testing expert publicly states Armstrong doped in '99, and a year later he hasn’t been torn a new one = Armstrong probably doped in '99.Do you know how hard it is to sue somebody for libel? I wouldn’t be surprised at all if LA doped, but you clearly don’t understand what a libel suit takes to win. Ever wonder why the National Enquirer et al. rarely face successful lawsuits?

10

The lack of a libel suit isn’t the main issue. If Ashenden’s science was shoddy, his peers would have torn apart his work, forced him off the bio-passport panel, etc for making such outlandish claims against a public figure. Instead he’s one of the ones successfully challenging the science behind others’ studies-- Ashenden led the fight against Ed Coyle’s efficiency study on Armstrong, leading Coyle to admit to errors:
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2008/09/09/2008-09-09_scientist_my_research_on_lance_armstrong-1.html

Ashenden also is the guy who developed the test for homologous blood doping and has researched autlogous blood doping for the USADA:
http://www.usada.org/what-we-do/research/research-in-action.aspx?topicid=1

11

Timing is everything. As if Lance hasn’t had enough problems and distractions/lack of fitness issues this year. This has really got to suck. Hasn’t been much Alberto press lately. Just out there getting miles in real quiet.sort of like Lance used to do. I don’t know who the master planner against the Shack team is, but a couple Federal Ricco problems six weeks before the Tour can’t be helping the training too much.

12

Not every fairy tale has a fairy tale ending…

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/6512/cinderellac.jpg

13

Ashenden uses science to draw his conclusions, but we don’t need it to make logical inferences:

You or I think Lance doped = an opinion
Real dope testing expert publicly states Armstrong doped in '99, and a year later he hasn’t been torn a new one = Armstrong probably doped in '99.

Do you know how hard it is to sue somebody for libel? I wouldn’t be surprised at all if LA doped, but you clearly don’t understand what a libel suit takes to win. Ever wonder why the National Enquirer et al. rarely face successful lawsuits?

Yes, when you sue someone for defamation (libel or slander) firstly you have to prove that the person made the comments and that the comments can or will cause you harm financially, reputation or otherwise. OK so I think that would be pretty easy to prove that allegations of doping would hurt a TdF winner. The comments definitely could cause harm.

Secondly, if the person is a public official, you have to prove that the comment were made with malice. Not sure on Ashenden’s status here. May be considered a public official in AUS, but probably not in US. In which case the comments are onyl required to have been made out of negligence.

Once that is achieved, the burden of proof then lies on the defendent to substantiate the comments. Since this a civil case, the standard of proof is only the preponderence of evidence. Thus if Ashenden can not prove that his claims are reasonable, then the defamation suit would succeed.

So since Lance claimed to be totally vindicated by the court when the issue of the 1999 samples first came out, and completely innocent of doping, ipso facto, a defamation case should be relatively easy to pursue.

maybe the absence of a defamation suit would cause some to believe that Lance had something to hide. However, and to the OP, Lance did pursue some legal action in this case (more centered around rule of evidence and persoanl rights than that issue of doping) and was victorious. Maybe he felt that that the legal case won was suffucient to prevent the majority of the damage that the allegations might have made to his reputation and thus didnt need to sue everyone.
.
.
.

14

"However, and to the OP, Lance did pursue some legal action in this case (more centered around rule of evidence and persoanl rights than that issue of doping) and was victorious. Maybe he felt that that the legal case won was suffucient to prevent the majority of the damage that the allegations might have made to his reputation and thus didnt need to sue everyone. "

My understanding is that Lance sued SCA to get his $5 million bonus. SCA tried to get out from paying, saying he had doped to win. When the court ruled that doping wasn’t relevant to the contract, SCA settled and paid up. Armstrong declared victory and claimed it proved he wasn’t doping. What was shown was that SCA had to fulfill their contract, not that Lance hadn’t doped.

SCA says it’s watching the Landis revelations closely, by the way.

15

Do you know how hard it is to sue somebody for libel? I wouldn’t be surprised at all if LA doped, but you clearly don’t understand what a libel suit takes to win. Ever wonder why the National Enquirer et al. rarely face successful lawsuits?

That much is true. My father was in politics and was libeled a few times in his career.

The first time was a TV current affairs programme. They failed to check their facts, made a simple, lazy, error and ignored a warning of their error before going to air.
He sued and won comprehensively (public apology and retraction, substantial damages) and it damn near killed him. The stress of it was horrible, and it went on for more than a year.
The next time he was libeled (a naked, demonstrable lie by a newspaper columnist) he could have sued and would certainly have won, but he just let it go. As he said at the time, it’s like you’re racing a tri that you have trained for and looked forward to for years, and suddenly you encounter some loser throwing rocks at you from the side of the road. Do you stop and belt the cretin, or do you finish the race you came to do? There’s no “right” answer to that question, but the answer depends on things other than the chance of winning.

LA could be a doper and sue and win, or he could be innocent and sue and lose. His choices around that aren’t conclusive.

16

It’s whether the person you’re speaking about – the target, not the speaker – is a public figure or not that changes that required state of mind for liability for libel, I believe.

17

**Do we need ANOTHER thread on Lance doping. Each thread is a repeat of the others. Yes there is more than one way to skin a cat. Please list them all in ONE thread. **

That thread would be so big, ST would crash.

18

It tells me I have a nice piece of land to sell you for the one time only price of $2,000,000. I will send pics later, just PayPal me. I’m a scientist trust me.

Gu…gu…gu…gull…gullible?

I mean the guy is a scientist so he HAS to be right, right? Scientists, like the ones who have said every year for the past 5 that we are going to get demolished by hurricanes…again? And they can’t even tell me if it’s going to rain tomorrow.

19

Who has more to loose here? LA or the scientist.

I think that one has to be totally in the dark to believe that LA did not dope.

I think that there are two camps

  1. One camp totally trusts LA and anything that he says and will never be convinced that he used (uses) any PED’s
  2. Second camp that really believes that LA is a doper and do not trust the man.

There may be a third camp, those sitting on the fence.

I think that the argument is pointless unless someone shows a positive test or LA finally comes clean (he would never do).

20

haha. I just like to say FAIL. :slight_smile:

I guess I was just tired of seeing so many this is why Lance doped threads, akin to “P2 or P3” threads.

Everyone has their opinion and has to create a new thread to demonstrate why their opinion will sway the masses.

Just put them all in one place and those people can be swayed :slight_smile:

This is all in pink btw as I don’t mean to put anyone down or whatever. I don’t really care either way about Lance. Then again, I still like Barry Bonds. :slight_smile:

http://i50.tinypic.com/mbpjyp.jpg