I’ll start off this little tirade with Doucheblogcycling.blogspot.com. That’s where the pic is from. That’s who’s kicking this off. And that’s Lord God King Doucheblogcycling.blogspot.com. Dude’s got so much game, you might as well bow.
Flick had a good take on yesterday’s press release: “It would be really hard to keep my word, and you guys really aren’t smart enough to understand that stuff anyway. So just trust me, I’m not doping.”
Lets say its 1994, you’re a world class rider, and you’ve got to go out and compete against guys like Berzin and the other doped up Michele-Ferrari-created-robots at teams like Gewiss-Ballan who win by taking (what were then) undetectable products made by recombinant technology. If you’re someone who makes their living by racing your bike, at that point in time I think it would be completely rational to decide to take the same products in order to be competitive. I’m not saying its the right decision, but I fully understand how someone gets there.
Now here’s the thing: Its no longer 1994. Its no loner 1999. Its no longer 2006, even. If you fucked up in the past, that’s okay, but spare us all the sanctimonious charade and just admit it, for Christ-fucking-sake. What Alex Rodriguez did the other day took balls. Telling the truth and admitting your mistakes takes fucking guts. If you want to get past an issue, though, its really the only way. Lance keeps complaining that his critics (of which I certainly am) will never go away. He’s right, as you can never please everyone. He could silence most of them and have a chance of putting his doping past behind him, though, if he just told the truth.
Of course, that’s all predicated on the assumption that he’s stopped.
All right, enough of that shit.
This is from an Angel Puerta piece from way back in September of 2004. Seems pretty relevant to the conversation of late.
Lance Armstrong is guilty of doping under common-sense standard
The recent decision by the US Anti-Doping Agency to adopt a lower standard of proof for doping cases is a welcomed addition to the scant arsenal of weapons available against the ever more sophisticated users of performance-enhancing drugs in the world of sports. Athletes need no longer be proven guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” in doping cases-a near impossibility in many instances-but rather they must be proven guilty “to the comfortable satisfaction” of the panels hearing their cases.
The new standard brings common sense into the pursuit of a level playing field. Obvious cheaters, such as Greek sprinters Kostas Kenteris and Katerina Thanou, can no longer hide beyond a “we have never tested positive” gimmick that is built upon clever drugs and astute event and training schedules. Instead, evidence of associations with persons known to facilitate the distribution of drugs, abnormal improvements in performance, and even hearsay, will all be admissible when judging athletes. The standard recognizes in practice what we all know or suspect: that the technology behind the production and administration of performance-enhancing drugs is nearly always ahead of that of drug testing. As a result, athletes universally suspected of wrongdoing spend entire careers achieving records and staying one step ahead of the law.
Comfortable satisfaction brings into the forefront an event that purposely avoids using it, and an athlete who could be the poster child for it: The Tour de France and Lance Armstrong, respectively. Armstrong has been dodged for years by doping accusations and has remained free of final judgment thanks to a lack, but not an absence, of positive tests, and a convenient racing schedule that minimizes testing opportunities.
However, if we eliminate the “beyond a reasonable doubt” requirement, the case for Armstrong being a cheater is very strong, if not completely conclusive. Let us examine the evidence at hand…
Read more: www.arpuerta.com
As to the assertation that his accusers have “ulterior motives”:
Frankie and Lance had been good friends since the early 1990s, when they were teammates on Motorola. After Armstrong’s recovery, he and then-wife Kristin often dined with the Andreus.
The Andreus say they didn’t want to testify in the SCA case. They refused to obey a subpoena issued by a Texas court, claiming it lacked jurisdiction. SCA promptly obtained an “ex parte” order, and had the subpoena issued in Michigan, where the Andreus live. “We went in and decided not to lie,” Frankie told SI, “and all hell broke loose.”
Asked what Andreu had to gain from lying, Armstrong claims that Betsy is motivated by “bitterness, jealousy and hatred.” Members of Armstrong’s inner circle point to a section of Betsy’s testimony in the SCA case where, they contend, she expressed her “hatred” for him. Armstrong’s attorney Tim Herman noted, in his cross examination of Betsy, that “one of the notes you provided to us had a notation on it by you, ‘Why do I hate Lance?’ Correct?”
Andreu explained that she was “going through some of the questions I believe you’re going to ask me, and one of them is: ‘Why do I hate Lance?’ That’s what it is. It’s not me asking myself out loud ‘Why do I hate Lance?’ That’s not what it is.”
“Well,” Herman replied, “there’s a difference between ‘Why do I hate Lance?’ and ‘Do I hate Lance?’ You obviously hate Lance.”
And so Team Armstrong has contended, ever since.
Read more: sportsillustrated.cnn.com
Ignoring a subpoena really sounds like someone who is just chomping at the bit to schmear the greatest athlete in the history of the world.
Good night and good luck.by