The hilarious thing is that you, trying to argue about not reading things, fail basic comprehension.
Which is clear by your statement “your defense of someone with mountain of evidence against him”
Beyond noting that we are arguing over what people SAY, I’ve never said that Armstrong was innocent.
I came into a thread to discuss the article; others want to discuss a USADA report, or some book.
You clearly believe that the people cited by the USADA are telling the truth. Why do their statements match each other so well? Do you know that the USADA didn’t help them all with their statements? Did their statements made prior to the USADA involvement match? (no). Did many of them get special consideration to make statements that helped the USADA (yes). Is there a reason why these people could all by lying (yes). Is there any chance they would suffer from lying at this point (no). Is there a chance that they would suffer if they refused to tell the USADA what the USADA wanted to hear (yes).
They could all be telling the truth. They are clearly not all truthful, what with prior quotes denying what they now say happened, with their waiting years to come forward, etc.
So, if you have someone who you know WOULD lie, then the question is, what would it take to get them to lie now? It’s not like these people are pure as the driven snow, and it’s insulting to suggest they might lie. We already know they WOULD lie.
The girl in this story apparently lied, cheated, and participated in the drug trade for years. Then, according to her, she had a change of heart, only couldn’t prove anything she said well enough to win a court battle, and then she pretty much went away for years, and then she told the USADA what they wanted to hear.
Her story could be entirely true. I certainly don’t know otherwise, and I wouldn’t bet against her. But to decide to believe her now, I have to decide to NOT believe her prior actions, and I have to have a reason why she is more truthful now than before.
And the USADA has given me EVERY reason to believe that they would happily coerce perjured testimony if it would help them in their vendetta (I’d say that they wouldn’t BELIEVE it was perjured).
The picture painted is a bad one. Apparently the entire cycling “sport” is nothing more than druggies on parade. There are some who seem to think the most important thing in the world is that they be proven right in their personal animosity for Lance Armstrong. I never got the hero worship, and I don’t get the hatred. He’s a guy who has low moral standards, and a liberal outlook on life. He happened to be a good cyclist, and if he was a cheater, he was our cheater, and he beat their cheaters.
Maybe when we are done using the US. Government to persecute a private citizen for sporting rules infractions, we could figure out why our U.S. Postal Service, with a monopoly, had to pay millions of dollars for world-wide advertising using a cycling team.
That was the real scandal of the 90s — our government getting involved in a private sport.
Can you point that out in the article???
I really don’t have a horse in this race - except that I get upset when I see physiogical data being over-interpreted.
However, allow me to be contrarian, and look at the payments to Dr Ferrari from another angle.
If one reads Dr Ferrari’s blog he appears to be a very competent physiologist - in a way much more knowledgable than many of his detractors. (I say this based on my own expertise in neighbouring subjects.) Apparently Lance Armstrong trusted him - and some comments I’ve read indicates that Ferrari to a large extent ran the team’s training schedule, diet, resting periods etc, etc. Now let us suspend disbelief and assume that he did not provide doping drugs. Would he still be paid these sums?
Well, if the team or Lance Armstrong felt that his expertise was a major (or the major) factor behind the success in TdF, I don’t see this as extreme remunerations.
From the link I was sent it appears the LA during 2004 only paid Dr Ferrari once, in July 2004. The next payment was in March 2005. Compared with the number of payments during the previous year, could this last payment be a payment for 2004 initially withheld in waiting for the outcome of the court case in Italy? The next payment occurred well after Ferrari’s conviction had been overturned in the Court of Appelation.
Thus, again, if one is convinced LA is quilty, the accounting records count as yet more evidence against Armstrong. If not then it just shows that Armstrong used Ferrari as consultant, something that has never been contested.