What do you reckon the chances are?

[Chuffy]

The '99 samples are nothing but a sh*t stirring tool now. There's more than a hint of doubt about the provenance of the original 'independent' tests, they're outside the current limit and the French are up to their old cynical smear campaign again.

Not really. The doubts about the samples was predominantly surrounding the admin procedures that allowed the results to become public, not about the tests themselves. Even the LA PR machine focussed on the, apparently, unethical release of the results as the main way to discredit them. The positive results turned up by those re-tests raised questions that have never been adequately answered. That's not a smear campaign, that's a valid enquiry. It's only a smear campaign if you take the view that if Lance says he's always been clean then his word is good enough. And in cycling that ain't nearly good enough....

Those that say his return is not good for the sport are enacting the first stages of a self-fulfilling prophecy. They don't have the best interests of the sport at hand but their own interests and agendas. I find it quite sickeningly distasteful.

What I find distasteful is that LA (+ PR machine) will try to spin a 'clean' 2009 Tour in order to restrospectively tidy up his reputation and dodgy history. If you want to talk about people acting out of their own interests and agendas, I'd say that Camp Lance would be your first port of call...

 

[Crackle]

Well first it wasn't a valid enquiry, that's the point and a quite significant one. Out of 12 tests taken which were allegedly positive, only Armstrong's were identified, why was that if it wasn't part of someones agenda. True the test results smell but so does the publication of the results, enough for me to question the validity of the whole thing in the abscence of not knowing exactly what was done. What makes me further doubt is LA confidential itself. I read a fair bit of it, as much as I could scrabble off the internet and print off. Scum, muck stirring journalism at it's worst. Innuendo interlaced with facts unconnected, real godawful stuff. Even if it's allegations turn out to be true, I'd still think the same of the book.

As for LA's propaganda machine, it's guilty of the same amount of spin that's levelled at him, no more, no less.

Jury's still out for me Chuffy old chum. I'm just gonna cling to the facts we do know until someone proves them wrong beyond doubt and I don't think that's happened yet.

 

[wafflycat]

LA does not have any sympathy from me in this case as he has publicly made a past show of saying that his past samples could be tested in the future to prove he was clean. Now some testing may be done, camp LA comes out rubbishing the tests before the tests are done. Sounds remarkably like - 'oops, they are taking me at my word and I didn't want that to really happen.' He is indeed a remarkable cyclist and his determination at overcoming illness and determination to win can never be in doubt, but as for his 'cleanliness' - he has done himself no favours on this IMO.

 

[John the Monkey]

I think (although I don't have the book to hand to check) that Kimmage talks about results being leaked/released inappropriately, doesn't he? I half remember Delgado's positive (for a drug not yet banned) being leaked rather than announced officially too. I think it's probably stretching a bit too far to say that Armstrong is the only victim of it.

(Assuming I've remembered all that correctly).

 

[Crackle]

LA does not have any sympathy from me in this case as he has publicly made a past show of saying that his past samples could be tested in the future to prove he was clean. Now some testing may be done, camp LA comes out rubbishing the tests before the tests are done. Sounds remarkably like - 'oops, they are taking me at my word and I didn't want that to really happen.' He is indeed a remarkable cyclist and his determination at overcoming illness and determination to win can never be in doubt, but as for his 'cleanliness' - he has done himself no favours on this IMO.

Now you may well have a point but consider this. The test done in 2005 concerned a test procedure which was itself being re-tested for producing false positives. Indeed, it had already been discredited once. Further, it includes three criteria of which one is a mathematical model. All three have to be positive for the test to confirm a positive. Not all the samples tested were conclusive. We are taking of very fine margins here with plenty of room for doubt, it's not like using a pregnancy kit for example. Tyler Hamilton, challenged the validity of the test against him on the basis that it had not been validated for false positives, an already proven occurence.

Now given all that, would you want to subject ageing samples to testing which may or may not be accurate, especially if you know you haven't cheated?

 

[wafflycat]

There is that, but now its 2008, and it remains the case that it was LA himself who has said many times about having his past samples stored for future testing and how that would prove him correct even years down the line. Now he's objecting to the very thing he said, in the past, that he would welcome. He does himself no favours.

 

[Tetedelacourse]

... It's only a smear campaign if you take the view that if Lance Chuffy says he's always been clean doped then his word is good enough. And in cycling that ain't nearly is good enough....


...

 

[Tetedelacourse]

There is that, but now its 2008, and it remains the case that it was LA himself who has said many times about having his past samples stored for future testing and how that would prove him correct even years down the line. Now he's objecting to the very thing he said, in the past, that he would welcome. He does himself no favours.

If you thought the testing procedures were unreliable, would you say nothing?

 

[Crackle]

As I said, you have a point.

I have my own theories on that, which I may expand on later. Personally I've veered between both sides of this debate and am slowly forming two possible and contradictory opinions which broadly fit the events. I wish to believe the better of the two but am prepared to accept the 2nd may be true.

 

[yello]

And so the fun commences! Expect more of this politicing as the months roll on. Damned clever by M Bordry, win-win isn't it? If Armstrong has nothing to hide, and is open to testing etc etc, then he should have nothing to fear.... or so it is spun. I have sympathies (well, some anyway!) with LA here. Exactly what relevance does it have to his status as a clean cyclist in 2009?

I do find Armstrong's response interesting though....

"There is simply nothing I can agree to that would provide any relevant evidence about 1999."

Really? "nothing"?? That really is slamming down the hatches!

Expect more of this.... the carnival is starting early, it's going to be better than anything on tv!

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Quote:
"There is simply nothing I can agree to that would provide any relevant evidence about 1999."

Read: "I and my associates have already made sure of destroying all evidence and threatening or discrediting any witnesses and you can't touch me anyway because I am too important, nyah-nyah-na-na."

 

[wafflycat]

Quote:
"There is simply nothing I can agree to that would provide any relevant evidence about 1999."

Read: "I and my associates have already made sure of destroying all evidence and threatening or discrediting any witnesses and you can't touch me anyway because I am too important, nyah-nyah-na-na."

That's what it seems to come across as IMO

 

[Noodley]

Quote:
"There is simply nothing I can agree to that would provide any relevant evidence about 1999."

What about questioning by Chuffy whilst he wears his rubber pants?

 

[Tetedelacourse]

That begs the question, is Chuffy "clean"?

 

[Noodley]

That begs the question, is Chuffy "clean"?

I was rather worried there as I read your reply to include your signature...."is Chuffy clean? Mmm tastes like babyfood"