Josh Spivey

Very well put.
On 8/29/12 11:29 PM, "Dave Campbell" wrote:

> With his immense celebrity, sainthood to many, and determined efforts (as well
> as financial resources) to protect himself he was insulated and dodged bullets
> for a LONG time. As relentless as he was with training and preparation, he
> was probably similarly thorough in covering his "other" tracks. All this
> rubbed USADA's pride, created a bit of a vendetta, and created the situation
> we have today (Ridiculous and Ugly) where they ignore statutes of limitation
> (and LOGIC) and pursue to the very bitter and pointless end. To elevate other
> dopers while knocking down a doper? What good does that serve. If the TRUE
> INTEREST was that of the sport, USADA would have made Lance an ALLY long ago,
> both sides could have saved millions, the sport could have not been beat up as
> much, and all could pursue a more WORTHY goal...improving the TESTS and
> PASSPORTS for the FUTURE and improve things for all. Stripping a title from
> 1999??? What other sport does this? NONE
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: Candi Murray
>>
>> To: jeff@ultrafreaks.net ; 'Jon Ragsdale'
>> ; obra@list.obra.org
>>
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:52 AM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I so agree
>>
>> Candi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
>> Behalf Of jeff@ultrafreaks.net
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:41 AM
>> To: Jon Ragsdale; obra@list.obra.org
>> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance
>>
>>
>>
>> Cutting it more finely, a fifth group:
>>
>>
>> Those that admire his work off the bike, think that, while he may have been
>> an a$$ at times, he was a tremendous athlete and competitor regardless of
>> allegations, and that feel you cannot judge the past with today's lens.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Fact is he passed all of the tests and satisfied the requirements of the
>> races he participated in. That is the only thing that matters with regards
>> to his wins. He played by the rules of the time and he won. Whether or not
>> he actually doped is immaterial at this point except as a social thought
>> experiment.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To do otherwise is revisionist history. Many things in athletic competition
>> have changed in the last few decades: timing accuracy, starting guns, video
>> analysis, clothing, etc. Would it be fruitful to go back and analyze track
>> or swimming events to determine if the finishing order might be different if
>> all the competitors had had the benefit of today's technology? Or, how
>> about we start exhuming the bodies of former medalists and do chemical
>> analysis to determine if they took illicit drugs, and strip them of their
>> medals if they did? Drag out films of Wimbledon tennis tournaments and use
>> digital analysis to look for uncalled foot faults?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Better for the FDA, WADA and UCI to spend their resources improving tests on
>> a go-forward basis than to focus on the past with a stupid, fruitless witch
>> hunt.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -j
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On August 29, 2012 at 1:41 AM Jon Ragsdale wrote:
>>
>>> > There are also the 4th group. The group that doesn't care, his work off
>>> the
>>> > bike is what's important.
>>> >
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
>>> > Behalf Of olivier
>>> > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:09 PM
>>> > To: obra@list.obra.org
>>> > Subject: [OBRA Chat] Lance
>>> >
>>> > I figure there are three camps: First those who think Lance doped and
>>> > deserves to be stripped of his Tour wins. Second those who think Lance
>>> > doped but so did everybody else so what what's the big deal. Third those
>>> > who still believe Lance was clean. Only the first two are relevant. The
>>> > third is in LaLa land.
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > OBRA mailing list
>>> > obra@list.obra.org
>>> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>>> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > OBRA mailing list
>>> > obra@list.obra.org
>>> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>>> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OBRA mailing list
>> obra@list.obra.org
>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Dave Campbell

With his immense celebrity, sainthood to many, and determined efforts (as well as financial resources) to protect himself he was insulated and dodged bullets for a LONG time. As relentless as he was with training and preparation, he was probably similarly thorough in covering his "other" tracks. All this rubbed USADA's pride, created a bit of a vendetta, and created the situation we have today (Ridiculous and Ugly) where they ignore statutes of limitation (and LOGIC) and pursue to the very bitter and pointless end. To elevate other dopers while knocking down a doper? What good does that serve. If the TRUE INTEREST was that of the sport, USADA would have made Lance an ALLY long ago, both sides could have saved millions, the sport could have not been beat up as much, and all could pursue a more WORTHY goal...improving the TESTS and PASSPORTS for the FUTURE and improve things for all. Stripping a title from 1999??? What other sport does this? NONE
----- Original Message -----
From: Candi Murray
To: jeff@ultrafreaks.net ; 'Jon Ragsdale' ; obra@list.obra.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance

I so agree

Candi

From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On Behalf Of jeff@ultrafreaks.net
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:41 AM
To: Jon Ragsdale; obra@list.obra.org
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance

Cutting it more finely, a fifth group:

Those that admire his work off the bike, think that, while he may have been an a$$ at times, he was a tremendous athlete and competitor regardless of allegations, and that feel you cannot judge the past with today's lens.

Fact is he passed all of the tests and satisfied the requirements of the races he participated in. That is the only thing that matters with regards to his wins. He played by the rules of the time and he won. Whether or not he actually doped is immaterial at this point except as a social thought experiment.

To do otherwise is revisionist history. Many things in athletic competition have changed in the last few decades: timing accuracy, starting guns, video analysis, clothing, etc. Would it be fruitful to go back and analyze track or swimming events to determine if the finishing order might be different if all the competitors had had the benefit of today's technology? Or, how about we start exhuming the bodies of former medalists and do chemical analysis to determine if they took illicit drugs, and strip them of their medals if they did? Drag out films of Wimbledon tennis tournaments and use digital analysis to look for uncalled foot faults?

Better for the FDA, WADA and UCI to spend their resources improving tests on a go-forward basis than to focus on the past with a stupid, fruitless witch hunt.

-j

On August 29, 2012 at 1:41 AM Jon Ragsdale wrote:

> There are also the 4th group. The group that doesn't care, his work off the
> bike is what's important.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
> Behalf Of olivier
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:09 PM
> To: obra@list.obra.org
> Subject: [OBRA Chat] Lance
>
> I figure there are three camps: First those who think Lance doped and
> deserves to be stripped of his Tour wins. Second those who think Lance
> doped but so did everybody else so what what's the big deal. Third those
> who still believe Lance was clean. Only the first two are relevant. The
> third is in LaLa land.
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Mike Murray

Insulin has been used by non-diabetics to increase glycogen stores. Use by
diabetics is permitted.

Caffeine was previously banned above specific limits. That has been removed
as high caffeine levels do not provide ergogenic benefit beyond what is
provided by usual doses.

Cathine is an amphetamine like substance different from caffeine.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
Behalf Of Eric
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 11:58
To: obra-bounces@list.obra.org; 'remailer, OBRA'
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance

Insulin is prohibited?

I thought that caffeine in quantity was banned, but did not see it on the
list, unless it is cathine. Anybody remember when Steve Hegg was kicked off
the 1988 Olympic team for too much caffeine?

Does anybody know why marijuana is on the list?

== Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
Behalf Of Josh Spivey
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 11:23 AM
To: mike.murray@obra.org; obra-bounces@list.obra.org; remailer, OBRA
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance

According to USADA's site (for 2012), most of these things are on the list.
I may be misinterpreting them or this is no longer accurate? Sorry if that's
the case, I was trying to make a point that it's very easy for us to point
fingers, but it's very difficult to monitor everything that is banned.

4. Nicotine and caffeine are not prohibited. They are simply part of WADAs
monitoring program.

5. Hemorrhoidal creams are not prohibited, but systemic rectal use (like a
suppository) of glucorticosteroids is prohibited.

3. Pseudoephedrine is an ingredient in several over-the-counter cold and flu
medications. WADA has issued an advisory to athletes that they should
discontinue taking medications containing pseudoephedrine AT LEAST 24 hours
prior to the time defined as in-competition.

1. Athletes should be aware that cannabinoids may be retained in fat tissue
following chronic use and may be detected weeks after use. There have been
situations where sudden weight loss has caused cannabinoid metabolites
stored in fat to be released in detectable levels. USADA strongly advises
athletes not to use cannabinoids at any time.

1. The dosage of albuterol or formoterol that may be used in sport without a
TUE may translate into a wide range of puffs. You should examine your
inhaler closely to determine the dosage. If you need to take more than the
non-prohibited dosage you must apply for a TUE.

http://www.usada.org/prohibited-list/athlete-guide/

On 8/29/12 10:32 AM, "mike.murray@obra.org" wrote:

> Antihistamines - not on the banned list and never have been.
Sympathomimetics
> have been on the list in the past but not antihistamines.
>
> Albuterol - previously required a TUE, no longer required.
>
> Nicotine - never on the list
>
> Caffeine - previously only dose limited. Interestingly higher illegal
doses
> decrease rather than improve performance.
>
> Topical steroids (hemorrhoid preparations) - not banned
>
> Narcotics and marijuana - only banned in competition as they should be
> for safety reasons
>
> Details count. Although cheating might be strictly defined as breaking
> the rules we need to recognize that doping is not strictly about cheating.
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josh Spivey
> Sender: obra-bounces@list.obra.org
> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:03:54
> To:
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>

_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

brandon

How about we focus our tax dollars on something more productive, like our nations children and their education! Millions spent on a witch hunt for something that in no way shape or form helps our nation from an internal or external perspective is what pisses this guy off. That is the group i am in! Spend my tax dollars on bike lanes and schools, which will create jobs, not this BS!

BM

On Aug 29, 2012, at 9:40 AM, jeff@ultrafreaks.net wrote:

> Cutting it more finely, a fifth group:
> Those that admire his work off the bike, think that, while he may have been an a$$ at times, he was a tremendous athlete and competitor regardless of allegations, and that feel you cannot judge the past with today's lens.
>
> Fact is he passed all of the tests and satisfied the requirements of the races he participated in. That is the only thing that matters with regards to his wins. He played by the rules of the time and he won. Whether or not he actually doped is immaterial at this point except as a social thought experiment.
>
> To do otherwise is revisionist history. Many things in athletic competition have changed in the last few decades: timing accuracy, starting guns, video analysis, clothing, etc. Would it be fruitful to go back and analyze track or swimming events to determine if the finishing order might be different if all the competitors had had the benefit of today's technology? Or, how about we start exhuming the bodies of former medalists and do chemical analysis to determine if they took illicit drugs, and strip them of their medals if they did? Drag out films of Wimbledon tennis tournaments and use digital analysis to look for uncalled foot faults?
>
> Better for the FDA, WADA and UCI to spend their resources improving tests on a go-forward basis than to focus on the past with a stupid, fruitless witch hunt.
>
> -j
>
> On August 29, 2012 at 1:41 AM Jon Ragsdale wrote:
>
> > There are also the 4th group. The group that doesn't care, his work off the
> > bike is what's important.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
> > Behalf Of olivier
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:09 PM
> > To: obra@list.obra.org
> > Subject: [OBRA Chat] Lance
> >
> > I figure there are three camps: First those who think Lance doped and
> > deserves to be stripped of his Tour wins. Second those who think Lance
> > doped but so did everybody else so what what's the big deal. Third those
> > who still believe Lance was clean. Only the first two are relevant. The
> > third is in LaLa land.
> > _______________________________________________
> > OBRA mailing list
> > obra@list.obra.org
> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OBRA mailing list
> > obra@list.obra.org
> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Sarah Tisdale

I can see the logic behind, "He passed all the tests at the time, so leave
it alone."

But, I can also see that perhaps seeing LA caught many years after the fact
might prevent more future dopers? A rider considering doping might think,
"I know how to beat the current testing regime." But then might reconsider
when they think, "But I could get caught later and lose my reputation."

Sarah

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Eric wrote:

> When I was racing, a couple friends made no secret of when they snuck off
> to
> smoke pot. Then they won most of the races. I didn't ask, but I never
> could figure it out. I always wondered why they didn't cough a lot.
>
> == Eric
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Johnson [mailto:RickCJohnson1@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 12:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance
>
> On 8/29/2012 11:58 AM, Eric wrote:
> > Does anybody know why marijuana is on the list?
>
> Because of the "I ride better when I'm stoned" crowd perhaps...
>
>
> Rick Johnson
> Bend, Oregon
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>

Eric

When I was racing, a couple friends made no secret of when they snuck off to
smoke pot. Then they won most of the races. I didn't ask, but I never
could figure it out. I always wondered why they didn't cough a lot.

== Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Johnson [mailto:RickCJohnson1@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance

On 8/29/2012 11:58 AM, Eric wrote:
> Does anybody know why marijuana is on the list?

Because of the "I ride better when I'm stoned" crowd perhaps...

Rick Johnson
Bend, Oregon

Rick Johnson

On 8/29/2012 11:58 AM, Eric wrote:
> Does anybody know why marijuana is on the list?

Because of the "I ride better when I'm stoned" crowd perhaps...

Rick Johnson
Bend, Oregon

Every revolutionary idea seems to evoke three stages of reaction...
One, it's completely impossible.
Two, it's possible, but it's not worth doing.
Three, I said it was a good idea all along.

Arthur C. Clarke

Eric

Insulin is prohibited?

I thought that caffeine in quantity was banned, but did not see it on the
list, unless it is cathine. Anybody remember when Steve Hegg was kicked off
the 1988 Olympic team for too much caffeine?

Does anybody know why marijuana is on the list?

== Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
Behalf Of Josh Spivey
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 11:23 AM
To: mike.murray@obra.org; obra-bounces@list.obra.org; remailer, OBRA
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance

According to USADA's site (for 2012), most of these things are on the list.
I may be misinterpreting them or this is no longer accurate? Sorry if that's
the case, I was trying to make a point that it's very easy for us to point
fingers, but it's very difficult to monitor everything that is banned.

4. Nicotine and caffeine are not prohibited. They are simply part of WADAs
monitoring program.

5. Hemorrhoidal creams are not prohibited, but systemic rectal use (like a
suppository) of glucorticosteroids is prohibited.

3. Pseudoephedrine is an ingredient in several over-the-counter cold and flu
medications. WADA has issued an advisory to athletes that they should
discontinue taking medications containing pseudoephedrine AT LEAST 24 hours
prior to the time defined as in-competition.

1. Athletes should be aware that cannabinoids may be retained in fat tissue
following chronic use and may be detected weeks after use. There have been
situations where sudden weight loss has caused cannabinoid metabolites
stored in fat to be released in detectable levels. USADA strongly advises
athletes not to use cannabinoids at any time.

1. The dosage of albuterol or formoterol that may be used in sport without a
TUE may translate into a wide range of puffs. You should examine your
inhaler closely to determine the dosage. If you need to take more than the
non-prohibited dosage you must apply for a TUE.

http://www.usada.org/prohibited-list/athlete-guide/

On 8/29/12 10:32 AM, "mike.murray@obra.org" wrote:

> Antihistamines - not on the banned list and never have been.
Sympathomimetics
> have been on the list in the past but not antihistamines.
>
> Albuterol - previously required a TUE, no longer required.
>
> Nicotine - never on the list
>
> Caffeine - previously only dose limited. Interestingly higher illegal
doses
> decrease rather than improve performance.
>
> Topical steroids (hemorrhoid preparations) - not banned
>
> Narcotics and marijuana - only banned in competition as they should be for
> safety reasons
>
> Details count. Although cheating might be strictly defined as breaking the
> rules we need to recognize that doping is not strictly about cheating.
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josh Spivey
> Sender: obra-bounces@list.obra.org
> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:03:54
> To:
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>

_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Josh Spivey

According to USADA's site (for 2012), most of these things are on the list.
I may be misinterpreting them or this is no longer accurate? Sorry if that's
the case, I was trying to make a point that it's very easy for us to point
fingers, but it's very difficult to monitor everything that is banned.

4. Nicotine and caffeine are not prohibited. They are simply part of WADAs
monitoring program.

5. Hemorrhoidal creams are not prohibited, but systemic rectal use (like a
suppository) of glucorticosteroids is prohibited.

3. Pseudoephedrine is an ingredient in several over-the-counter cold and flu
medications. WADA has issued an advisory to athletes that they should
discontinue taking medications containing pseudoephedrine AT LEAST 24 hours
prior to the time defined as in-competition.

1. Athletes should be aware that cannabinoids may be retained in fat tissue
following chronic use and may be detected weeks after use. There have been
situations where sudden weight loss has caused cannabinoid metabolites
stored in fat to be released in detectable levels. USADA strongly advises
athletes not to use cannabinoids at any time.

1. The dosage of albuterol or formoterol that may be used in sport without a
TUE may translate into a wide range of puffs. You should examine your
inhaler closely to determine the dosage. If you need to take more than the
non-prohibited dosage you must apply for a TUE.

http://www.usada.org/prohibited-list/athlete-guide/

On 8/29/12 10:32 AM, "mike.murray@obra.org" wrote:

> Antihistamines - not on the banned list and never have been. Sympathomimetics
> have been on the list in the past but not antihistamines.
>
> Albuterol - previously required a TUE, no longer required.
>
> Nicotine - never on the list
>
> Caffeine - previously only dose limited. Interestingly higher illegal doses
> decrease rather than improve performance.
>
> Topical steroids (hemorrhoid preparations) - not banned
>
> Narcotics and marijuana - only banned in competition as they should be for
> safety reasons
>
> Details count. Although cheating might be strictly defined as breaking the
> rules we need to recognize that doping is not strictly about cheating.
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josh Spivey
> Sender: obra-bounces@list.obra.org
> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:03:54
> To:
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>

rondot@spiritone.com

Re: [OBRA Chat] LanceOBRA.......this is not a thread any longer. It has officially become a Lance Quilt.
In true Debbie Downer fashion....
Folks. Lance is busted (as well as others). If his Cancer Foundation does and continues to help people that is very good. None of us are angels and I think busting people for drug use in competition is good for sports going forward. Lance and cheating was on the radar from his first tour win. We really should move on, let him find his place (trust me he will not have to worry about making a living).
If you want to use drugs then go ahead and use them. If you want to race that way it is your choice. My drug of choice is caffeine in the form of a cup of tea or coffee and maybe a Cliffshot or blocks. Pretty radical. But it still does not counteract the 40mg of Pravastatin I am taking each day (twice what I was taking this time last year). So I do what I can do without cheating my fellow racers. In college I smoked dope and played intramural basketball. It was fun watching the ball whiz around, but not so much when it would hit my face. Lesson learned long ago.
Last year I got an email from a racer telling me how hard it was for him to compete because he had the testosterone levels of an old woman. So he was working with his doctor to remedy this with medication. My feeling regarding that is do what you do....but tell your fellow racers.........especially if you are beating them. Or he could race like an old woman and live with it.
The drugs these pros at the level Lance raced were cheating and making a great deal of money by doing so. They were making a much better living because of their cheating than the regular Joe.
I think the publicity of the sanctions will impact the racers use for a time, but greed will again cause more doping. Where it goes from here we will get to see on all our electronic and print media. More drama to come.
Do the Pro Cross racers dope? How many of them have been busted? I am not kidding, just have not heard of any busts. Maybe no need because of short duration?
ron

From: Josh Spivey
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:03 AM
To: obra@list.obra.org
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance

How many people on this list have taken antihistamines within a few days of a race? Cheating.
Or how many take albuterol for asthma? Take a couple of extra puffs? Cheating.
Nicotine and caffeine? Borderline cheating according to USADA
Smoked a little weed lately? Cheating.
Stuck a Hemorrhoid suppository up your ass with a little hydrocortisone in it? Cheating.
Had a vicodin left over from that time you broke your collarbone, but now you just have a gnarly headache? Cheating.

There are just too many ways to cheat and many of them are nearly impossible to monitor for everyone all the time. I realize this is quite a long way from EPO and HGH, but hopefully the point isnt lost. You dont get caught, you dont get dinged.

What if I started telling people that I know the winner of some PIR race smoked weed all the time when he won 5 years ago. Tell me thats not vindictive, counter-productive behavior aimed at smearing somebody when it makes little to no difference to what is happening at PIR right now.

On 8/29/12 9:47 AM, "Eric" wrote:

Look at Hinault in 1979! That year, the next-to-last stage finished in a bunch sprint in a suburb of Paris. Hinault led out the sprint and won it, an incredible finish! Third place overall was over 20 minutes down.

Did he have chemical help? Kind of super-human!

== Eric

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: wlmailhtml:obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On Behalf Of wlmailhtml:jeff@ultrafreaks.net
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 9:32 AM
To: Steve Brown; wlmailhtml:jb24817@gmail.com
Cc: wlmailhtml:obra@list.obra.org; dacrizzow
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance

Well then let's line up The Badger, The Cannibal, LeMond, etc, and we'll have to exhume Laurent, Marco and others. Take core samples and analyze them, question their friends and competitors, then burn their effigies when we find something questionable. Wouldn't be fair to be selective in our campaign. Unfortunately that means we'll also have to test all the second place winners too... just in case.

If USADA is doing what they were created to do, then I think it's misguided. I think Lance bowed out of the fight because his team knows that the public has tired of the discussion and largely supports him as a hero regardless.

I don't condone doping in any sport, nor do I tolerate cheaters, but let's fix things by looking forward.

-j

On August 29, 2012 at 12:07 PM J Bravard wrote:

> USADA is doing what they were created to do and what they have done in
> the past. Armstrong is not being treated differently than BALCO or
> Marion Jones, who, not surprisingly, also stood behind all her "clean"
> doping control tests until she finally admitted guilt. The IOC and UCI
> have both signed on to WADA/USADA oversight for doping, just like
> IAAF/USATF (track & field).
>
> Despite widespread misconceptions, hearsay testimony IS admissible as
> evidence in our judicial system under many circumstances. It's
> certainly plausible that one of the reasons Lance bowed out of the
> fight (while still proclaiming his innocence) is that the testimony,
> under oath, in arbitration hearings could have been enough to re-open
> the criminal case.
>
> USADA is doing their job and I hope this case has a deterrent effect
> going forward.
>
>
> On Aug 29, 2012, at 6:48 AM, Steve Brown wrote:
>
> > The bigger question is how deep and how far back does this go. Big Mig, The Badger, The Cannibal. USADA has gone too far. They have put themselves in front of the sport with hearsay testimony and lack of direct evidence with the bar lower than our judicial system would allow.
> > That is why the Fed's had to drop their case. USADA has become the performer not the referee.
> >
> >
> > Steve Brown
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Aug 29, 2012, at 8:34 AM, dacrizzow wrote:
> >
> >> sorry, what lance does (or doesn't) do for cancer has nothing to do with wether he doped or not. two separate subjects and should be treated as such. don't want to start a whole thread about this but there's been plenty uncovered on his foundation on how much REALLY gets accounted for
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OBRA mailing list
> >> wlmailhtml:obra@list.obra.org
> >> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> >> Unsubscribe: wlmailhtml:obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > OBRA mailing list
> > wlmailhtml:obra@list.obra.org
> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> > Unsubscribe: wlmailhtml:obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> wlmailhtml:obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: wlmailhtml:obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
wlmailhtml:obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: wlmailhtml:obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Devin Zoller

I think there are a few pretty important points that a lot of people are
either glossing over or choosing to ignore:

1- the guy retired from pro cycling, but was racing as a pro triathlete- he
was an active pro, continuing to race and be held liable to the standards
that he signed up for when he got a US racing license. This is not the
same as a long-time retired pro like the Badger; had he never come back for
Comeback 2.0 this most likely would not have occurred.

2- to everybody saying "he passed all his doping tests, you didn't catch
him so he beat the system," what the USADA is alleging is that he passed
all those doping tests BECAUSE of a larger conspiracy (doctors,
directors.) This is exactly the same as not passing a dope test- if you
spend a million euro to pass a doping test and it's discovered, that's a
non-analytical positive. Just because he beat the system doesn't mean he
got away with it.

3- why is it all coming out now instead of when it happened? I think
because the wall of silence is coming down, and yes, that started with
people like Landis and Hamilton. Yes, they lied and denied for a very long
time, but they came clean when they had nothing left to gain. To some
people, this makes them suspect witnesses- not to me. I'm of the opinion
that once they went off the deep end of the confession pool and no longer
had to worry about omerta, they had not reason to lie- it's not like they
were going to get pro contracts again. The case against Lance probably
started with them, and their sworn confessions- based on that they got
sworn confessions from enough other ex-teammates with zero credibility
problems to make an airtight case. It just took this long to get people to
talk. It's been seen many times that Lance has no problem with
intimidation, and he's got enough clout in the cycling world to make a
current racer's life pretty miserable if they were saying the wrong things
about him.

Devin

PS- somebody, buy those 2012 Red BB30 cranks I've still got. 175mm, 39/53,
BB30, with bottom bracket.

Mike Murray

OBRA membership increased during that period but to attribute this to Lance
is a confusion of proximity and causality. An argument against causality
would be that OBRA membership increased to a far greater degree than the
increase in USAC membership.

Mike Murray

-----Original Message-----
From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
Behalf Of Nathan Gibson
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:33
To: obra@list.obra.org
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance

Im just glad to see so many people share the same opinion about the whole
debacle. There's so much seething hatred towards lance on twitter, its
refreshing to see some common sense postings.

I have a question, though everyone knows what LA did for sales at local bike
shops and awareness of road racing in general during that 99-05 period, was
there a correlation with OBRA membership increase as well?

I'm not old enough to remember, nor was I even aware of road racing until
lance won the 04 tour and I finally took notice. I started racing in 05 in
WA and you can be damn sure it's largely because of LA.
_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

mike.murray@obra.org

Antihistamines - not on the banned list and never have been. Sympathomimetics have been on the list in the past but not antihistamines.

Albuterol - previously required a TUE, no longer required.

Nicotine - never on the list

Caffeine - previously only dose limited. Interestingly higher illegal doses decrease rather than improve performance.

Topical steroids (hemorrhoid preparations) - not banned

Narcotics and marijuana - only banned in competition as they should be for safety reasons

Details count. Although cheating might be strictly defined as breaking the rules we need to recognize that doping is not strictly about cheating.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Spivey
Sender: obra-bounces@list.obra.org
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:03:54
To:
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance

_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Nathan Gibson

Im just glad to see so many people share the same opinion about the whole debacle. There's so much seething hatred towards lance on twitter, its refreshing to see some common sense postings.

I have a question, though everyone knows what LA did for sales at local bike shops and awareness of road racing in general during that 99-05 period, was there a correlation with OBRA membership increase as well?

I'm not old enough to remember, nor was I even aware of road racing until lance won the 04 tour and I finally took notice. I started racing in 05 in WA and you can be damn sure it's largely because of LA.

Josh Spivey

Sorry. After reading this, it sounds a-holeish. Im not trying to be that
way.

Im just saying the evidence should be king. People have a lot of reasons to
say things. Sometimes they are not true.

Josh

On 8/29/12 10:13 AM, "Josh Spivey" wrote:

> So youre saying that because some peoples opinion was that some guy was
> driving too fast and it made somebody crash their car? But he didnt touch
> anybody elses car in any way, or crash his car? Its simply opinion that he
> caused an accident, not fact.
>
> If witnesses saw somebody crash into somebody else and then flee, then there
> is physical evidence that must be proven by examination of the drivers
> vehicle. If there is no evidence and he is convicted, then this country is
> going to shit and Im moving to Mars.
>
> josh
>
>
> On 8/29/12 9:55 AM, "Ryan Storfa" wrote:
>
>> Just to change up the language a bit, lets say you are doing 100 mph up I-5.
>> Your speed directly causes an accident that at least 10 reputable people
>> witnessed and then recorded your license plate number. The cops show up to
>> arrest you later in the day and your defense is I wasnt pulled over for
>> speeding this morning so I cant possibly be guilty. Good luck convincing a
>> jury of that one. The idea that we cant use witness testimony ignores the
>> fact that prior to about 80 years ago, witness testimony was pretty much the
>> only form of evidence at any trial.
>>
>>
>>
>> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:34:10 -0700
>> From: josh@we-are-transport.com
>> To: obra@list.obra.org
>> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance
>>
>> Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance You misunderstood my language. I clearly agree that he
>> was cheating on a huge scale. I said if you dont get caught, youre not in
>> violation. Its a technical, systemic problem with testing, not with
>> cheating.
>>
>> Josh
>>
>>
>> On 8/29/12 9:30 AM, "Robert Brown" > > wrote:
>>
>>> Putting the Lance issues aside for a minute, I have to say that the idea
>>> implicit in several comments here that "if you didn't get caught then you
>>> weren't cheating" is pretty troubling. I hope this is the minority opinion.
>>> Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the point folks are trying to make with this
>>> line of thinking.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Josh Spivey >> > wrote:
>>>> We all know that the sport is riddled with a history of drug use. There are
>>>> plenty of accounts of former athletes testifying to this. In the early days
>>>> it was amphetamines. The horror stories of syringes stuck under riding
>>>> shorts ready to be injected when the moment was right are out there
>>>> already.
>>>> Riders have died with EPO and even on the bike using speed.
>>>>
>>>> When you're livelihood depends on winning or doing work for a winner, we
>>>> would all consider doing drugs if it meant our families wouldn't starve.
>>>> I'm
>>>> not talking about the Contadors and the Armstrongs. I'm talking about the
>>>> guy on that small pro team trying to make as many races as possible to
>>>> scrape together a decent living.
>>>>
>>>> I sympathize with the USADA on a certain level, they are using Lance as a
>>>> example to tell athletes that they will do anything (even if it's slightly
>>>> outside the lines) to stop drug use and set a level playing field. But they
>>>> will never catch up. I'm sure they feel like this will make a difference.
>>>>
>>>> They cannot be allowed to go back in time to steal away victories. If they
>>>> don't catch you red-handed, then you are not in violation. It's very, very
>>>> simple. If they have not caught up with the current drug of choice and
>>>> testing, then it sucks to be them. The should spend their money where it
>>>> matters fixing the problem, not advertising that it used to happen 20
>>>> years ago.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8/29/12 6:48 AM, "Steve Brown" >>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> > The bigger question is how deep and how far back does this go. Big Mig,
>>>>> The
>>>>> > Badger, The Cannibal. USADA has gone too far. They have put themselves
>>>>> in
>>>>> > front of the sport with hearsay testimony and lack of direct evidence
>>>>> with the
>>>>> > bar lower than our judicial system would allow.
>>>>> > That is why the Fed's had to drop their case. USADA has become the
>>>>> performer
>>>>> > not the referee.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Steve Brown
>>>>> > Sent from my iPad
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Aug 29, 2012, at 8:34 AM, dacrizzow >>>> > wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> sorry, what lance does (or doesn't) do for cancer has nothing to do
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> >> wether he doped or not. two separate subjects and should be treated as
>>>>>> such.
>>>>>> >> don't want to start a whole thread about this but there's been plenty
>>>>>> >> uncovered on his foundation on how much REALLY gets accounted for
>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >> OBRA mailing list
>>>>>> >> obra@list.obra.org
>>>>>> >> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>>>>>> >> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > OBRA mailing list
>>>>> > obra@list.obra.org
>>>>> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>>>>> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OBRA mailing list
>>>> obra@list.obra.org
>>>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>>>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ OBRA mailing list
>> obra@list.obra.org http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra Unsubscribe:
>> obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OBRA mailing list
>> obra@list.obra.org
>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

mike.murray@obra.org

None of them are to believed. Not WADA, USADA, UCI, USAC, Lance or any of his detractors or supporters. All have different interests to support and different views on the different information they hold. All have had improprieties in the past. The best one can do is evaluate what biases each has and evaluate their statements and actions in light of those.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: "Robert Burney"
Sender: obra-bounces@list.obra.org
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:58:26
To: 'Ormerod, Gilbert'; ; 'Jon Ragsdale';
Reply-To: robert@reburney.com
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance

_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

mike.murray@obra.org

Nope. WADA was created so that there was an independant organization to do doping control. The idea was that the individual sport governing bodies had vested interest that prevented them from enforcing doping regulations. One could argue that the independent organization, WADA and its subsidiaries, free from the interest in protecting athletes and the individual sport have an uncontrolled bias towards inappropriately aggressive enforcement. YMMV. Regardless, WADA was not created to provide a venue for appeal. That is what CAS is for.

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: "Leibowitz, Flo"
Sender: obra-bounces@list.obra.org
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:51:38
To: obra@list.obra.org
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance

_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Josh Spivey

So youre saying that because some peoples opinion was that some guy was
driving too fast and it made somebody crash their car? But he didnt touch
anybody elses car in any way, or crash his car? Its simply opinion that he
caused an accident, not fact.

If witnesses saw somebody crash into somebody else and then flee, then there
is physical evidence that must be proven by examination of the drivers
vehicle. If there is no evidence and he is convicted, then this country is
going to shit and Im moving to Mars.

josh

On 8/29/12 9:55 AM, "Ryan Storfa" wrote:

> Just to change up the language a bit, lets say you are doing 100 mph up I-5.
> Your speed directly causes an accident that at least 10 reputable people
> witnessed and then recorded your license plate number. The cops show up to
> arrest you later in the day and your defense is I wasnt pulled over for
> speeding this morning so I cant possibly be guilty. Good luck convincing a
> jury of that one. The idea that we cant use witness testimony ignores the
> fact that prior to about 80 years ago, witness testimony was pretty much the
> only form of evidence at any trial.
>
>
>
> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:34:10 -0700
> From: josh@we-are-transport.com
> To: obra@list.obra.org
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance
>
> Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance You misunderstood my language. I clearly agree that he
> was cheating on a huge scale. I said if you dont get caught, youre not in
> violation. Its a technical, systemic problem with testing, not with
> cheating.
>
> Josh
>
>
> On 8/29/12 9:30 AM, "Robert Brown" > wrote:
>
>> Putting the Lance issues aside for a minute, I have to say that the idea
>> implicit in several comments here that "if you didn't get caught then you
>> weren't cheating" is pretty troubling. I hope this is the minority opinion.
>> Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the point folks are trying to make with this
>> line of thinking.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Josh Spivey > > wrote:
>>> We all know that the sport is riddled with a history of drug use. There are
>>> plenty of accounts of former athletes testifying to this. In the early days
>>> it was amphetamines. The horror stories of syringes stuck under riding
>>> shorts ready to be injected when the moment was right are out there already.
>>> Riders have died with EPO and even on the bike using speed.
>>>
>>> When you're livelihood depends on winning or doing work for a winner, we
>>> would all consider doing drugs if it meant our families wouldn't starve. I'm
>>> not talking about the Contadors and the Armstrongs. I'm talking about the
>>> guy on that small pro team trying to make as many races as possible to
>>> scrape together a decent living.
>>>
>>> I sympathize with the USADA on a certain level, they are using Lance as a
>>> example to tell athletes that they will do anything (even if it's slightly
>>> outside the lines) to stop drug use and set a level playing field. But they
>>> will never catch up. I'm sure they feel like this will make a difference.
>>>
>>> They cannot be allowed to go back in time to steal away victories. If they
>>> don't catch you red-handed, then you are not in violation. It's very, very
>>> simple. If they have not caught up with the current drug of choice and
>>> testing, then it sucks to be them. The should spend their money where it
>>> matters fixing the problem, not advertising that it used to happen 20
>>> years ago.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/29/12 6:48 AM, "Steve Brown" >> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> > The bigger question is how deep and how far back does this go. Big Mig,
>>>> The
>>>> > Badger, The Cannibal. USADA has gone too far. They have put themselves
>>>> in
>>>> > front of the sport with hearsay testimony and lack of direct evidence
>>>> with the
>>>> > bar lower than our judicial system would allow.
>>>> > That is why the Fed's had to drop their case. USADA has become the
>>>> performer
>>>> > not the referee.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Steve Brown
>>>> > Sent from my iPad
>>>> >
>>>> > On Aug 29, 2012, at 8:34 AM, dacrizzow >>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>>> >> sorry, what lance does (or doesn't) do for cancer has nothing to do
>>>>> with
>>>>> >> wether he doped or not. two separate subjects and should be treated as
>>>>> such.
>>>>> >> don't want to start a whole thread about this but there's been plenty
>>>>> >> uncovered on his foundation on how much REALLY gets accounted for
>>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>> >> OBRA mailing list
>>>>> >> obra@list.obra.org
>>>>> >> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>>>>> >> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>>>>
>>>>> >>
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > OBRA mailing list
>>>> > obra@list.obra.org
>>>> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>>>> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OBRA mailing list
>>> obra@list.obra.org
>>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________ OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra Unsubscribe:
> obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Gerard Smith

For a slightly different take - you can read David Millars new book 'Racing Through The Dark', in which he writes of his anti doping stance, to his being coerced by his team to dope, his fall from grace and the depths of despair, to coming back as an anti doping advocate and winner of Stage 12 of the TDF this year. Also the only former doper who is the WADA athlete representative.

Interesting as it documents a lot of the time we are taking about with Lance, and gives insights into the almost full scale doping of the peloton and the few who resisted, the blind eye turned by teams to their athletes dopng etc Its a great read and an eye opening one, and the scorn for those who broke the omerta

From: Robert Burney >
Organization: Integrity Financial
Reply-To: "robert@reburney.com" >
Date: Wednesday, 29 August 2012 9:58 AM
To: "'Ormerod, Gilbert'" >, "jeff@ultrafreaks.net" >, 'Jon Ragsdale' >, "obra@list.obra.org" >
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance

It is not just the UCI. I believe that WADA (World Anti-doping) has a role in testing and the release of those test results. I do not have time to look up when WADA was formed, and it may have after 1998, but at some point, WADA may have had oversight responsibility.

How far up does this go? There have been comments by several authors that UCI is complicit. If this also goes as far as WADA, how can any of this be believed?
Robert

[Description: image002]
Robert Burney, JD
o: 503-608-7813
f: 503-210-1595
c: 503-502-4289
www.IntegrityFinancialpdx.com

Brokerage of Life Insurance, Annuities, Long Term Care and Disability Insurance.

1820 SW Vermont St., Suite M
Portland, OR 97219

From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On Behalf Of Ormerod, Gilbert
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 9:25 AM
To: 'jeff@ultrafreaks.net'; Jon Ragsdale; obra@list.obra.org
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance

From:obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On Behalf Of jeff@ultrafreaks.net
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:41 AM
To: Jon Ragsdale; obra@list.obra.org
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance

Fact is he passed all of the tests and satisfied the requirements of the races he participated in. That is the only thing that matters with regards to his wins. He played by the rules of the time and he won. Whether or not he actually doped is immaterial at this point except as a social thought experiment.

Sorry, but this is not really as well said as many have commented.

Dig a little deeper. What hopefully will be accomplished by this investigation is that the UCI will be exposed as bending the rules of the time. The facts will likely show that Lance did not, indeed, pass(ed) all of the tests of the races he participated in. What will hopefully be shown is that the UCI was complicit in the doping of athletes in that they turned a blind eye to what they knew was taking place. The various federations who followed this charade of cleanliness may also be exposed, and the example of notifications of impending out-of-competition drug testing for select athletes by USAC comes to mind in this regard.

________________________________
This message is intended for the sole use of the addressee, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee you are hereby notified that you may not use, copy, disclose, or distribute to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email and delete this message.

Josh Spivey

How many people on this list have taken antihistamines within a few days of
a race? Cheating.
Or how many take albuterol for asthma? Take a couple of extra puffs?
Cheating.
Nicotine and caffeine? Borderline cheating according to USADA
Smoked a little weed lately? Cheating.
Stuck a Hemorrhoid suppository up your ass with a little hydrocortisone in
it? Cheating.
Had a vicodin left over from that time you broke your collarbone, but now
you just have a gnarly headache? Cheating.

There are just too many ways to cheat and many of them are nearly
impossible to monitor for everyone all the time. I realize this is quite a
long way from EPO and HGH, but hopefully the point isnt lost. You dont get
caught, you dont get dinged.

What if I started telling people that I know the winner of some PIR race
smoked weed all the time when he won 5 years ago. Tell me thats not
vindictive, counter-productive behavior aimed at smearing somebody when it
makes little to no difference to what is happening at PIR right now.

On 8/29/12 9:47 AM, "Eric" wrote:

> Look at Hinault in 1979! That year, the next-to-last stage finished in a
> bunch sprint in a suburb of Paris. Hinault led out the sprint and won it, an
> incredible finish! Third place overall was over 20 minutes down.
>
> Did he have chemical help? Kind of super-human!
>
> == Eric
>
>
>
>
> From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On Behalf
> Of jeff@ultrafreaks.net
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 9:32 AM
> To: Steve Brown; jb24817@gmail.com
> Cc: obra@list.obra.org; dacrizzow
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance
>
> Well then let's line up The Badger, The Cannibal, LeMond, etc, and we'll have
> to exhume Laurent, Marco and others. Take core samples and analyze them,
> question their friends and competitors, then burn their effigies when we find
> something questionable. Wouldn't be fair to be selective in our campaign.
> Unfortunately that means we'll also have to test all the second place winners
> too... just in case.
>
>
>
> If USADA is doing what they were created to do, then I think it's misguided.
> I think Lance bowed out of the fight because his team knows that the public
> has tired of the discussion and largely supports him as a hero regardless.
>
>
>
> I don't condone doping in any sport, nor do I tolerate cheaters, but let's fix
> things by looking forward.
>
>
>
> -j
>
>
>
>
> On August 29, 2012 at 12:07 PM J Bravard wrote:
>
>> > USADA is doing what they were created to do and what they have done in
>> > the past. Armstrong is not being treated differently than BALCO or
>> > Marion Jones, who, not surprisingly, also stood behind all her "clean"
>> > doping control tests until she finally admitted guilt. The IOC and UCI
>> > have both signed on to WADA/USADA oversight for doping, just like
>> > IAAF/USATF (track & field).
>> >
>> > Despite widespread misconceptions, hearsay testimony IS admissible as
>> > evidence in our judicial system under many circumstances. It's
>> > certainly plausible that one of the reasons Lance bowed out of the
>> > fight (while still proclaiming his innocence) is that the testimony,
>> > under oath, in arbitration hearings could have been enough to re-open
>> > the criminal case.
>> >
>> > USADA is doing their job and I hope this case has a deterrent effect
>> > going forward.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Aug 29, 2012, at 6:48 AM, Steve Brown
>> wrote:
>> >
>>> > > The bigger question is how deep and how far back does this go. Big Mig,
>>> The Badger, The Cannibal. USADA has gone too far. They have put themselves
>>> in front of the sport with hearsay testimony and lack of direct evidence
>>> with the bar lower than our judicial system would allow.
>>> > > That is why the Fed's had to drop their case. USADA has become the
>>> performer not the referee.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Steve Brown
>>> > > Sent from my iPad
>>> > >
>>> > > On Aug 29, 2012, at 8:34 AM, dacrizzow wrote:
>>> > >
>>>> > >> sorry, what lance does (or doesn't) do for cancer has nothing to do
>>>> with wether he doped or not. two separate subjects and should be treated as
>>>> such. don't want to start a whole thread about this but there's been plenty
>>>> uncovered on his foundation on how much REALLY gets accounted for
>>>> > >> _______________________________________________
>>>> > >> OBRA mailing list
>>>> > >> obra@list.obra.org
>>>> > >> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>>>> > >> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>>> > >>
>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > OBRA mailing list
>>> > > obra@list.obra.org
>>> > > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>>> > > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > OBRA mailing list
>> > obra@list.obra.org
>> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Robert Burney

It is not just the UCI. I believe that WADA (World Anti-doping) has a role in testing and the release of those test results. I do not have time to look up when WADA was formed, and it may have after 1998, but at some point, WADA may have had oversight responsibility.

How far up does this go? There have been comments by several authors that UCI is complicit. If this also goes as far as WADA, how can any of this be believed?

Robert

Description: image002

Robert Burney, JD

o: 503-608-7813

f: 503-210-1595

c: 503-502-4289

www.IntegrityFinancialpdx.com

Brokerage of Life Insurance, Annuities, Long Term Care and Disability Insurance.

1820 SW Vermont St., Suite M

Portland, OR 97219

From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On Behalf Of Ormerod, Gilbert
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 9:25 AM
To: 'jeff@ultrafreaks.net'; Jon Ragsdale; obra@list.obra.org
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance

From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On Behalf Of jeff@ultrafreaks.net
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:41 AM
To: Jon Ragsdale; obra@list.obra.org
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance

Fact is he passed all of the tests and satisfied the requirements of the races he participated in. That is the only thing that matters with regards to his wins. He played by the rules of the time and he won. Whether or not he actually doped is immaterial at this point except as a social thought experiment.

Sorry, but this is not really as well said as many have commented.

Dig a little deeper. What hopefully will be accomplished by this investigation is that the UCI will be exposed as bending the rules of the time. The facts will likely show that Lance did not, indeed, pass(ed) all of the tests of the races he participated in. What will hopefully be shown is that the UCI was complicit in the doping of athletes in that they turned a blind eye to what they knew was taking place. The various federations who followed this charade of cleanliness may also be exposed, and the example of notifications of impending out-of-competition drug testing for select athletes by USAC comes to mind in this regard.

_____

This message is intended for the sole use of the addressee, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee you are hereby notified that you may not use, copy, disclose, or distribute to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email and delete this message.

Ryan Storfa

Just to change up the language a bit, lets
say you are doing 100 mph up I-5. Your
speed directly causes an accident that at least 10 reputable people witnessed
and then recorded your license plate number.
The cops show up to arrest you later in the day and your defense is I
wasnt pulled over for speeding this morning so I cant possibly be guilty. Good luck convincing a jury of that one. The idea that we cant use witness
testimony ignores the fact that prior to about 80 years ago, witness testimony was pretty much the only
form of evidence at any trial.

Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:34:10 -0700
From: josh@we-are-transport.com
To: obra@list.obra.org
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance

Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance

You misunderstood my language. I clearly agree that he was cheating on a huge scale. I said if you dont get caught, youre not in violation. Its a technical, systemic problem with testing, not with cheating.

Josh

On 8/29/12 9:30 AM, "Robert Brown" wrote:

Putting the Lance issues aside for a minute, I have to say that the idea implicit in several comments here that "if you didn't get caught then you weren't cheating" is pretty troubling. I hope this is the minority opinion. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the point folks are trying to make with this line of thinking.

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Josh Spivey wrote:

We all know that the sport is riddled with a history of drug use. There are

plenty of accounts of former athletes testifying to this. In the early days

it was amphetamines. The horror stories of syringes stuck under riding

shorts ready to be injected when the moment was right are out there already.

Riders have died with EPO and even on the bike using speed.

When you're livelihood depends on winning or doing work for a winner, we

would all consider doing drugs if it meant our families wouldn't starve. I'm

not talking about the Contadors and the Armstrongs. I'm talking about the

guy on that small pro team trying to make as many races as possible to

scrape together a decent living.

I sympathize with the USADA on a certain level, they are using Lance as a

example to tell athletes that they will do anything (even if it's slightly

outside the lines) to stop drug use and set a level playing field. But they

will never catch up. I'm sure they feel like this will make a difference.

They cannot be allowed to go back in time to steal away victories. If they

don't catch you red-handed, then you are not in violation. It's very, very

simple. If they have not caught up with the current drug of choice and

testing, then it sucks to be them. The should spend their money where it

matters fixing the problem, not advertising that it used to happen 20

years ago.

On 8/29/12 6:48 AM, "Steve Brown" wrote:

> The bigger question is how deep and how far back does this go. Big Mig, The

> Badger, The Cannibal. USADA has gone too far. They have put themselves in

> front of the sport with hearsay testimony and lack of direct evidence with the

> bar lower than our judicial system would allow.

> That is why the Fed's had to drop their case. USADA has become the performer

> not the referee.

>

>

> Steve Brown

> Sent from my iPad

>

> On Aug 29, 2012, at 8:34 AM, dacrizzow wrote:

>

>> sorry, what lance does (or doesn't) do for cancer has nothing to do with

>> wether he doped or not. two separate subjects and should be treated as such.

>> don't want to start a whole thread about this but there's been plenty

>> uncovered on his foundation on how much REALLY gets accounted for

>> _______________________________________________

>> OBRA mailing list

>> obra@list.obra.org

>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra

>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

>>

> _______________________________________________

> OBRA mailing list

> obra@list.obra.org

> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra

> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

_______________________________________________

OBRA mailing list

obra@list.obra.org

http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra

Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Leibowitz, Flo

Josh is making an important point. It's my understanding that WADA was created so that an athlete could appeal or contest a finding of doping. When WADA or its parts go ahead and level a penalty based on this procedure, I think they are going beyond what they were created to do. It's up to UCI or whoever WADA works for to decide what to do with these materials and not up to WADA to take its own action.

________________________________
From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On Behalf Of Josh Spivey [josh@we-are-transport.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 9:34 AM
To: obra@list.obra.org
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance

You misunderstood my language. I clearly agree that he was cheating on a huge scale. I said if you dont get caught, youre not in violation. Its a technical, systemic problem with testing, not with cheating.

Josh

On 8/29/12 9:30 AM, "Robert Brown" > wrote:

Putting the Lance issues aside for a minute, I have to say that the idea implicit in several comments here that "if you didn't get caught then you weren't cheating" is pretty troubling. I hope this is the minority opinion. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the point folks are trying to make with this line of thinking.

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Josh Spivey > wrote:
We all know that the sport is riddled with a history of drug use. There are
plenty of accounts of former athletes testifying to this. In the early days
it was amphetamines. The horror stories of syringes stuck under riding
shorts ready to be injected when the moment was right are out there already.
Riders have died with EPO and even on the bike using speed.

When you're livelihood depends on winning or doing work for a winner, we
would all consider doing drugs if it meant our families wouldn't starve. I'm
not talking about the Contadors and the Armstrongs. I'm talking about the
guy on that small pro team trying to make as many races as possible to
scrape together a decent living.

I sympathize with the USADA on a certain level, they are using Lance as a
example to tell athletes that they will do anything (even if it's slightly
outside the lines) to stop drug use and set a level playing field. But they
will never catch up. I'm sure they feel like this will make a difference.

They cannot be allowed to go back in time to steal away victories. If they
don't catch you red-handed, then you are not in violation. It's very, very
simple. If they have not caught up with the current drug of choice and
testing, then it sucks to be them. The should spend their money where it
matters fixing the problem, not advertising that it used to happen 20
years ago.

On 8/29/12 6:48 AM, "Steve Brown" > wrote:

> The bigger question is how deep and how far back does this go. Big Mig, The
> Badger, The Cannibal. USADA has gone too far. They have put themselves in
> front of the sport with hearsay testimony and lack of direct evidence with the
> bar lower than our judicial system would allow.
> That is why the Fed's had to drop their case. USADA has become the performer
> not the referee.
>
>
> Steve Brown
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Aug 29, 2012, at 8:34 AM, dacrizzow > wrote:
>
>> sorry, what lance does (or doesn't) do for cancer has nothing to do with
>> wether he doped or not. two separate subjects and should be treated as such.
>> don't want to start a whole thread about this but there's been plenty
>> uncovered on his foundation on how much REALLY gets accounted for
>> _______________________________________________
>> OBRA mailing list
>> obra@list.obra.org
>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Robert Burney

Another issue is that different national anti-drug federations deal with the same issues differently. If the same crime nets a different penalty in different jurisdictions, there is little in the way of justice.

Laurent Fignon admitted to drug use in his biography, We Were Young and Insouciant. If one were to follow USADAs line of reasoning, his titles should also be revoked.

Robert

Description: image002

Robert Burney, JD

o: 503-608-7813

f: 503-210-1595

c: 503-502-4289

www.IntegrityFinancialpdx.com

Brokerage of Life Insurance, Annuities, Long Term Care and Disability Insurance.

1820 SW Vermont St., Suite M

Portland, OR 97219

From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On Behalf Of jeff@ultrafreaks.net
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 9:32 AM
To: Steve Brown; jb24817@gmail.com
Cc: obra@list.obra.org; dacrizzow
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance

Well then let's line up The Badger, The Cannibal, LeMond, etc, and we'll have to exhume Laurent, Marco and others. Take core samples and analyze them, question their friends and competitors, then burn their effigies when we find something questionable. Wouldn't be fair to be selective in our campaign. Unfortunately that means we'll also have to test all the second place winners too... just in case.

If USADA is doing what they were created to do, then I think it's misguided. I think Lance bowed out of the fight because his team knows that the public has tired of the discussion and largely supports him as a hero regardless.

I don't condone doping in any sport, nor do I tolerate cheaters, but let's fix things by looking forward.

-j

On August 29, 2012 at 12:07 PM J Bravard wrote:

> USADA is doing what they were created to do and what they have done in
> the past. Armstrong is not being treated differently than BALCO or
> Marion Jones, who, not surprisingly, also stood behind all her "clean"
> doping control tests until she finally admitted guilt. The IOC and UCI
> have both signed on to WADA/USADA oversight for doping, just like
> IAAF/USATF (track & field).
>
> Despite widespread misconceptions, hearsay testimony IS admissible as
> evidence in our judicial system under many circumstances. It's
> certainly plausible that one of the reasons Lance bowed out of the
> fight (while still proclaiming his innocence) is that the testimony,
> under oath, in arbitration hearings could have been enough to re-open
> the criminal case.
>
> USADA is doing their job and I hope this case has a deterrent effect
> going forward.
>
>
> On Aug 29, 2012, at 6:48 AM, Steve Brown wrote:
>
> > The bigger question is how deep and how far back does this go. Big Mig, The Badger, The Cannibal. USADA has gone too far. They have put themselves in front of the sport with hearsay testimony and lack of direct evidence with the bar lower than our judicial system would allow.
> > That is why the Fed's had to drop their case. USADA has become the performer not the referee.
> >
> >
> > Steve Brown
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Aug 29, 2012, at 8:34 AM, dacrizzow wrote:
> >
> >> sorry, what lance does (or doesn't) do for cancer has nothing to do with wether he doped or not. two separate subjects and should be treated as such. don't want to start a whole thread about this but there's been plenty uncovered on his foundation on how much REALLY gets accounted for
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OBRA mailing list
> >> obra@list.obra.org
> >> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> >> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > OBRA mailing list
> > obra@list.obra.org
> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Eric

This makes me think of a long-time friend. I raced with this person for
many years, and almost always finished behind him. After he retired, he
admitted to having used amphetamines. He never was caught, ever. He did
really well for a long time, though.

== Eric

_____

From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
Behalf Of Robert Brown
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance

Putting the Lance issues aside for a minute, I have to say that the idea
implicit in several comments here that "if you didn't get caught then you
weren't cheating" is pretty troubling. I hope this is the minority opinion.
Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the point folks are trying to make with this
line of thinking.

Justin Burstein

I keep hearing "hearsay evidence". I have two objections to this:

1) You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
means. *Hearsay* is information gathered by one person from another person
concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no
direct experience. "I sat next to Lance while he reinjected his own blood"
is not hearsay.

2) Despite my prior example, unless you work for USADA or for Lance then
you don't know if the evidence is hearsay, or eyewitness, or analytical.
Other than Floyd Landis' public comments none of have any idea what the
evidence against Lance is. So you can say it's a trumped up charge and
using bogus evidence, and I'll continue to roll my eyes at you. Because
you simply don't know what they have on him.

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Eric wrote:

> In this country, we have things set up to try to be fair to the accused.
> Accusations are not supposed to linger for years and years, and there is
> supposed to be conclusive evidence, not hearsay.
>
> That would likely involve positive drug tests.
>
> Haven't we all told somebody something that wasn't true at some point for
> some reason? Has a rider in a criterium ever asked you how many laps to go
> and you told them something inaccurate?
>
> == Eric
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
> Behalf Of J Bravard
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 9:07 AM
> To: Steve Brown
> Cc: obra@list.obra.org; dacrizzow
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance
>
> USADA is doing what they were created to do and what they have done in
> the past. Armstrong is not being treated differently than BALCO or
> Marion Jones, who, not surprisingly, also stood behind all her "clean"
> doping control tests until she finally admitted guilt. The IOC and UCI
> have both signed on to WADA/USADA oversight for doping, just like
> IAAF/USATF (track & field).
>
> Despite widespread misconceptions, hearsay testimony IS admissible as
> evidence in our judicial system under many circumstances. It's
> certainly plausible that one of the reasons Lance bowed out of the
> fight (while still proclaiming his innocence) is that the testimony,
> under oath, in arbitration hearings could have been enough to re-open
> the criminal case.
>
> USADA is doing their job and I hope this case has a deterrent effect
> going forward.
>
>
> On Aug 29, 2012, at 6:48 AM, Steve Brown
> wrote:
>
> > The bigger question is how deep and how far back does this go. Big Mig,
> The Badger, The Cannibal. USADA has gone too far. They have put themselves
> in front of the sport with hearsay testimony and lack of direct evidence
> with the bar lower than our judicial system would allow.
> > That is why the Fed's had to drop their case. USADA has become the
> performer not the referee.
> >
> >
> > Steve Brown
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Aug 29, 2012, at 8:34 AM, dacrizzow wrote:
> >
> >> sorry, what lance does (or doesn't) do for cancer has nothing to do with
> wether he doped or not. two separate subjects and should be treated as
> such.
> don't want to start a whole thread about this but there's been plenty
> uncovered on his foundation on how much REALLY gets accounted for
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OBRA mailing list
> >> obra@list.obra.org
> >> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> >> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > OBRA mailing list
> > obra@list.obra.org
> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>

Eric

Look at Hinault in 1979! That year, the next-to-last stage finished in a
bunch sprint in a suburb of Paris. Hinault led out the sprint and won it,
an incredible finish! Third place overall was over 20 minutes down.

Did he have chemical help? Kind of super-human!

== Eric

_____

From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
Behalf Of jeff@ultrafreaks.net
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 9:32 AM
To: Steve Brown; jb24817@gmail.com
Cc: obra@list.obra.org; dacrizzow
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance

Well then let's line up The Badger, The Cannibal, LeMond, etc, and we'll
have to exhume Laurent, Marco and others. Take core samples and analyze
them, question their friends and competitors, then burn their effigies when
we find something questionable. Wouldn't be fair to be selective in our
campaign. Unfortunately that means we'll also have to test all the second
place winners too... just in case.

If USADA is doing what they were created to do, then I think it's misguided.
I think Lance bowed out of the fight because his team knows that the public
has tired of the discussion and largely supports him as a hero regardless.

I don't condone doping in any sport, nor do I tolerate cheaters, but let's
fix things by looking forward.

-j

On August 29, 2012 at 12:07 PM J Bravard wrote:

> USADA is doing what they were created to do and what they have done in
> the past. Armstrong is not being treated differently than BALCO or
> Marion Jones, who, not surprisingly, also stood behind all her "clean"
> doping control tests until she finally admitted guilt. The IOC and UCI
> have both signed on to WADA/USADA oversight for doping, just like
> IAAF/USATF (track & field).
>
> Despite widespread misconceptions, hearsay testimony IS admissible as
> evidence in our judicial system under many circumstances. It's
> certainly plausible that one of the reasons Lance bowed out of the
> fight (while still proclaiming his innocence) is that the testimony,
> under oath, in arbitration hearings could have been enough to re-open
> the criminal case.
>
> USADA is doing their job and I hope this case has a deterrent effect
> going forward.
>
>
> On Aug 29, 2012, at 6:48 AM, Steve Brown
wrote:
>
> > The bigger question is how deep and how far back does this go. Big Mig,
The Badger, The Cannibal. USADA has gone too far. They have put themselves
in front of the sport with hearsay testimony and lack of direct evidence
with the bar lower than our judicial system would allow.
> > That is why the Fed's had to drop their case. USADA has become the
performer not the referee.
> >
> >
> > Steve Brown
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Aug 29, 2012, at 8:34 AM, dacrizzow wrote:
> >
> >> sorry, what lance does (or doesn't) do for cancer has nothing to do
with wether he doped or not. two separate subjects and should be treated as
such. don't want to start a whole thread about this but there's been plenty
uncovered on his foundation on how much REALLY gets accounted for
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OBRA mailing list
> >> obra@list.obra.org
> >> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> >> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > OBRA mailing list
> > obra@list.obra.org
> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

joec@aracnet.com

Never let commonsense dictate usada's withchunts.

Oh and +3

Joe

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:55:21 -0700 (PDT), Kevin
wrote:
> +2
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> What is happening in Kevin's corner of the bike world?
> http://the-whir-of-spokes-in-air.blogspot.com
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> -------------------------
> FROM: Rick Johnson
> TO: "jeff@ultrafreaks.net"
> CC: obra@list.obra.org
> SENT: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:47 AM
> SUBJECT: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance
>
> +1
> Well said.
>
> Rick Johnson
> Bend Oregon
>
> * * *
>
> This news has been sanitized for your preconceptions
>
> On 8/29/2012 8:40 AM, jeff@ultrafreaks.net [1] wrote:
>
> Cutting it more finely, a fifth group:
> Those that admire his work off the bike, think that, while he may have
> been an a$$ at times, he was a tremendous athlete and competitor
> regardless of allegations, and that feel you cannot judge the past
> with today's lens.
>
> Fact is he passed all of the tests and satisfied the requirements of
> the races he participated in. That is the only thing that matters with
> regards to his wins. He played by the rules of the time and he won.
> Whether or not he actually doped is immaterial at this point except as
> a social thought experiment.
>
> To do otherwise is revisionist history. Many things in athletic
> competition have changed in the last few decades: timing accuracy,
> starting guns, video analysis, clothing, etc. Would it be fruitful to
> go back and analyze track or swimming events to determine if the
> finishing order might be different if all the competitors had had the
> benefit of today's technology? Or, how about we start exhuming the
> bodies of former medalists and do chemical analysis to determine if
> they took illicit drugs, and strip them of their medals if they did?
> Drag out films of Wimbledon tennis tournaments and use digital
> analysis to look for uncalled foot faults?
>
> Better for the FDA, WADA and UCI to spend their resources improving
> tests on a go-forward basis than to focus on the past with a stupid,
> fruitless witch hunt.
>
> -j
>
> On August 29, 2012 at 1:41 AM Jon Ragsdale [2] wrote:
>
> > There are also the 4th group. The group that doesn't care, his work
> off the
> > bike is what's important.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [3]
> [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org [4]] On
> > Behalf Of olivier
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:09 PM
> > To: obra@list.obra.org [5]
> > Subject: [OBRA Chat] Lance
> >
> > I figure there are three camps: First those who think Lance doped
> and
> > deserves to be stripped of his Tour wins. Second those who think
> Lance
> > doped but so did everybody else so what what's the big deal. Third
> those
> > who still believe Lance was clean. Only the first two are relevant.
> The
> > third is in LaLa land.
> > _______________________________________________
> > OBRA mailing list
> > obra@list.obra.org [6]
> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org [7]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OBRA mailing list
> > obra@list.obra.org [8]
> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra [9]
> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org [10]
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org [11]
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra [12]
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org [13]
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org [14]
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra [15]
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org [16]
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] mailto:jeff@ultrafreaks.net
> [2] mailto:jon.ragsdale@comcast.net
> [3] mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org
> [4] mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org
> [5] mailto:obra@list.obra.org
> [6] mailto:obra@list.obra.org
> [7] mailto:obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
> [8] mailto:obra@list.obra.org
> [9] http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> [10] mailto:obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
> [11] mailto:obra@list.obra.org
> [12] http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> [13] mailto:obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
> [14] mailto:obra@list.obra.org
> [15] http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> [16] mailto:obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Eric

In this country, we have things set up to try to be fair to the accused.
Accusations are not supposed to linger for years and years, and there is
supposed to be conclusive evidence, not hearsay.

That would likely involve positive drug tests.

Haven't we all told somebody something that wasn't true at some point for
some reason? Has a rider in a criterium ever asked you how many laps to go
and you told them something inaccurate?

== Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
Behalf Of J Bravard
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 9:07 AM
To: Steve Brown
Cc: obra@list.obra.org; dacrizzow
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance

USADA is doing what they were created to do and what they have done in
the past. Armstrong is not being treated differently than BALCO or
Marion Jones, who, not surprisingly, also stood behind all her "clean"
doping control tests until she finally admitted guilt. The IOC and UCI
have both signed on to WADA/USADA oversight for doping, just like
IAAF/USATF (track & field).

Despite widespread misconceptions, hearsay testimony IS admissible as
evidence in our judicial system under many circumstances. It's
certainly plausible that one of the reasons Lance bowed out of the
fight (while still proclaiming his innocence) is that the testimony,
under oath, in arbitration hearings could have been enough to re-open
the criminal case.

USADA is doing their job and I hope this case has a deterrent effect
going forward.

On Aug 29, 2012, at 6:48 AM, Steve Brown
wrote:

> The bigger question is how deep and how far back does this go. Big Mig,
The Badger, The Cannibal. USADA has gone too far. They have put themselves
in front of the sport with hearsay testimony and lack of direct evidence
with the bar lower than our judicial system would allow.
> That is why the Fed's had to drop their case. USADA has become the
performer not the referee.
>
>
> Steve Brown
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Aug 29, 2012, at 8:34 AM, dacrizzow wrote:
>
>> sorry, what lance does (or doesn't) do for cancer has nothing to do with
wether he doped or not. two separate subjects and should be treated as such.
don't want to start a whole thread about this but there's been plenty
uncovered on his foundation on how much REALLY gets accounted for
>> _______________________________________________
>> OBRA mailing list
>> obra@list.obra.org
>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Robert Brown

Putting the Lance issues aside for a minute, I have to say that the idea
implicit in several comments here that "if you didn't get caught then you
weren't cheating" is pretty troubling. I hope this is the minority
opinion. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the point folks are trying to make
with this line of thinking.

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Josh Spivey wrote:

> We all know that the sport is riddled with a history of drug use. There are
> plenty of accounts of former athletes testifying to this. In the early days
> it was amphetamines. The horror stories of syringes stuck under riding
> shorts ready to be injected when the moment was right are out there
> already.
> Riders have died with EPO and even on the bike using speed.
>
> When you're livelihood depends on winning or doing work for a winner, we
> would all consider doing drugs if it meant our families wouldn't starve.
> I'm
> not talking about the Contadors and the Armstrongs. I'm talking about the
> guy on that small pro team trying to make as many races as possible to
> scrape together a decent living.
>
> I sympathize with the USADA on a certain level, they are using Lance as a
> example to tell athletes that they will do anything (even if it's slightly
> outside the lines) to stop drug use and set a level playing field. But they
> will never catch up. I'm sure they feel like this will make a difference.
>
> They cannot be allowed to go back in time to steal away victories. If they
> don't catch you red-handed, then you are not in violation. It's very, very
> simple. If they have not caught up with the current drug of choice and
> testing, then it sucks to be them. The should spend their money where it
> matters fixing the problem, not advertising that it used to happen 20
> years ago.
>
>
> On 8/29/12 6:48 AM, "Steve Brown" wrote:
>
> > The bigger question is how deep and how far back does this go. Big Mig,
> The
> > Badger, The Cannibal. USADA has gone too far. They have put themselves
> in
> > front of the sport with hearsay testimony and lack of direct evidence
> with the
> > bar lower than our judicial system would allow.
> > That is why the Fed's had to drop their case. USADA has become the
> performer
> > not the referee.
> >
> >
> > Steve Brown
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Aug 29, 2012, at 8:34 AM, dacrizzow wrote:
> >
> >> sorry, what lance does (or doesn't) do for cancer has nothing to do with
> >> wether he doped or not. two separate subjects and should be treated as
> such.
> >> don't want to start a whole thread about this but there's been plenty
> >> uncovered on his foundation on how much REALLY gets accounted for
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OBRA mailing list
> >> obra@list.obra.org
> >> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> >> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > OBRA mailing list
> > obra@list.obra.org
> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>

Josh Spivey

You misunderstood my language. I clearly agree that he was cheating on a
huge scale. I said if you dont get caught, youre not in violation. Its
a technical, systemic problem with testing, not with cheating.

Josh

On 8/29/12 9:30 AM, "Robert Brown" wrote:

> Putting the Lance issues aside for a minute, I have to say that the idea
> implicit in several comments here that "if you didn't get caught then you
> weren't cheating" is pretty troubling. I hope this is the minority opinion.
> Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the point folks are trying to make with this
> line of thinking.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Josh Spivey
> wrote:
>> We all know that the sport is riddled with a history of drug use. There are
>> plenty of accounts of former athletes testifying to this. In the early days
>> it was amphetamines. The horror stories of syringes stuck under riding
>> shorts ready to be injected when the moment was right are out there already.
>> Riders have died with EPO and even on the bike using speed.
>>
>> When you're livelihood depends on winning or doing work for a winner, we
>> would all consider doing drugs if it meant our families wouldn't starve. I'm
>> not talking about the Contadors and the Armstrongs. I'm talking about the
>> guy on that small pro team trying to make as many races as possible to
>> scrape together a decent living.
>>
>> I sympathize with the USADA on a certain level, they are using Lance as a
>> example to tell athletes that they will do anything (even if it's slightly
>> outside the lines) to stop drug use and set a level playing field. But they
>> will never catch up. I'm sure they feel like this will make a difference.
>>
>> They cannot be allowed to go back in time to steal away victories. If they
>> don't catch you red-handed, then you are not in violation. It's very, very
>> simple. If they have not caught up with the current drug of choice and
>> testing, then it sucks to be them. The should spend their money where it
>> matters fixing the problem, not advertising that it used to happen 20
>> years ago.
>>
>>
>> On 8/29/12 6:48 AM, "Steve Brown" wrote:
>>
>>> > The bigger question is how deep and how far back does this go. Big Mig,
>>> The
>>> > Badger, The Cannibal. USADA has gone too far. They have put themselves in
>>> > front of the sport with hearsay testimony and lack of direct evidence with
>>> the
>>> > bar lower than our judicial system would allow.
>>> > That is why the Fed's had to drop their case. USADA has become the
>>> performer
>>> > not the referee.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Steve Brown
>>> > Sent from my iPad
>>> >
>>> > On Aug 29, 2012, at 8:34 AM, dacrizzow wrote:
>>> >
>>>> >> sorry, what lance does (or doesn't) do for cancer has nothing to do with
>>>> >> wether he doped or not. two separate subjects and should be treated as
>>>> such.
>>>> >> don't want to start a whole thread about this but there's been plenty
>>>> >> uncovered on his foundation on how much REALLY gets accounted for
>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >> OBRA mailing list
>>>> >> obra@list.obra.org
>>>> >> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>>>> >> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>>> >>
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > OBRA mailing list
>>> > obra@list.obra.org
>>> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>>> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OBRA mailing list
>> obra@list.obra.org
>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>

Eric

What the sport needs is a firm "drop dead" date, everybody doing before that
date -- admitted or not -- got away with it, everybody after gets hammered,
maybe the two year suspension is fair, maybe a lifetime ban on a first
positive would be more appropriate. Thing is, everything has to be done
fairly and accurately.

== Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
Behalf Of Josh Spivey
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 9:16 AM
To: obra@list.obra.org
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance

We all know that the sport is riddled with a history of drug use. There are
plenty of accounts of former athletes testifying to this. In the early days
it was amphetamines. The horror stories of syringes stuck under riding
shorts ready to be injected when the moment was right are out there already.
Riders have died with EPO and even on the bike using speed.

When you're livelihood depends on winning or doing work for a winner, we
would all consider doing drugs if it meant our families wouldn't starve. I'm
not talking about the Contadors and the Armstrongs. I'm talking about the
guy on that small pro team trying to make as many races as possible to
scrape together a decent living.

I sympathize with the USADA on a certain level, they are using Lance as a
example to tell athletes that they will do anything (even if it's slightly
outside the lines) to stop drug use and set a level playing field. But they
will never catch up. I'm sure they feel like this will make a difference.

They cannot be allowed to go back in time to steal away victories. If they
don't catch you red-handed, then you are not in violation. It's very, very
simple. If they have not caught up with the current drug of choice and
testing, then it sucks to be them. The should spend their money where it
matters - fixing the problem, not advertising that it used to happen 20
years ago.

On 8/29/12 6:48 AM, "Steve Brown" wrote:

> The bigger question is how deep and how far back does this go. Big Mig,
The
> Badger, The Cannibal. USADA has gone too far. They have put themselves in
> front of the sport with hearsay testimony and lack of direct evidence with
the
> bar lower than our judicial system would allow.
> That is why the Fed's had to drop their case. USADA has become the
performer
> not the referee.
>
>
> Steve Brown
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Aug 29, 2012, at 8:34 AM, dacrizzow wrote:
>
>> sorry, what lance does (or doesn't) do for cancer has nothing to do with
>> wether he doped or not. two separate subjects and should be treated as
such.
>> don't want to start a whole thread about this but there's been plenty
>> uncovered on his foundation on how much REALLY gets accounted for
>> _______________________________________________
>> OBRA mailing list
>> obra@list.obra.org
>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

jeff@ultrafreaks.net

Well then let's line up The Badger, The Cannibal, LeMond, etc, and we'll have to
exhume Laurent, Marco and others. Take core samples and analyze them, question
their friends and competitors, then burn their effigies when we find something
questionable. Wouldn't be fair to be selective in our campaign. Unfortunately
that means we'll also have to test all the second place winners too... just in
case.

If USADA is doing what they were created to do, then I think it's misguided. I
think Lance bowed out of the fight because his team knows that the public has
tired of the discussion and largely supports him as a hero regardless.

I don't condone doping in any sport, nor do I tolerate cheaters, but let's fix
things by looking forward.

-j

On August 29, 2012 at 12:07 PM J Bravard wrote:

> USADA is doing what they were created to do and what they have done in
> the past. Armstrong is not being treated differently than BALCO or
> Marion Jones, who, not surprisingly, also stood behind all her "clean"
> doping control tests until she finally admitted guilt. The IOC and UCI
> have both signed on to WADA/USADA oversight for doping, just like
> IAAF/USATF (track & field).
>
> Despite widespread misconceptions, hearsay testimony IS admissible as
> evidence in our judicial system under many circumstances. It's
> certainly plausible that one of the reasons Lance bowed out of the
> fight (while still proclaiming his innocence) is that the testimony,
> under oath, in arbitration hearings could have been enough to re-open
> the criminal case.
>
> USADA is doing their job and I hope this case has a deterrent effect
> going forward.
>
>
> On Aug 29, 2012, at 6:48 AM, Steve Brown wrote:
>
> > The bigger question is how deep and how far back does this go. Big Mig, The
> > Badger, The Cannibal. USADA has gone too far. They have put themselves in
> > front of the sport with hearsay testimony and lack of direct evidence with
> > the bar lower than our judicial system would allow.
> > That is why the Fed's had to drop their case. USADA has become the
> > performer not the referee.
> >
> >
> > Steve Brown
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Aug 29, 2012, at 8:34 AM, dacrizzow wrote:
> >
> >> sorry, what lance does (or doesn't) do for cancer has nothing to do with
> >> wether he doped or not. two separate subjects and should be treated as
> >> such. don't want to start a whole thread about this but there's been plenty
> >> uncovered on his foundation on how much REALLY gets accounted for
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OBRA mailing list
> >> obra@list.obra.org
> >> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> >> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > OBRA mailing list
> > obra@list.obra.org
> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Tom Orth

Back in the 80's, I was a Division III college track athlete. Once a year,
a few folks from my team would go to a large open invitational nearby.
Division I and pros/olympians attended the meet. In my Junior year, drug
testing went from being only at championship meets (regional/national
meets) to random meets. The idea was that if you tested at random meets,
you would prevent athletes from building their bodies up on steroids and
then tapering prior to drug testing meets. However, though the meets
chosen for testing were random, they did give about a weeks notice. Which
brings us back to the invitational near my college, which ended up being
selected for drug testing that year. Every single one of the Division I,
most of the Division II, and all of the pro/Olympic athletes developed a
scheduling conflict at the very last moment. So, 8 to 10 heats of the 100M
became 1 heat of Division III guys. 8-10 flights of the triple jump (my
event) became one flight of Division III guys, and on and on. Not even the
distance runners showed up!

How do I digest this information? When Marion Jones went to prison and
lost her medals, I rolled my eyes. Do you suppose anybody close to the
sport doesnt know for a fact that every athlete cheats? Of course they
do! By singling out one athlete like this, and pretending the sport in
general is clean, they are lying and cheating as much as the dopers. What
was the point of making a sacrificial lamb out of Jones? Have a look at an
image of Maria Mutola when she was early 20sand another in her mid-30s
to see what HGH can do to a person over the years. This spectacle is
wholly uninteresting to me for that reason. The interesting bit is in the
reactions of the average person.

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Rick Johnson wrote:

> +1
> Well said.
>
> Rick Johnson
> Bend Oregon
>
> * * *
>
> This news has been sanitized for your preconceptions
>
>
> On 8/29/2012 8:40 AM, jeff@ultrafreaks.net wrote:
>
> Cutting it more finely, a fifth group:
>
> Those that admire his work off the bike, think that, while he may have
> been an a$$ at times, he was a tremendous athlete and competitor regardless
> of allegations, and that feel you cannot judge the past with today's lens.
>
>
>
> Fact is he passed all of the tests and satisfied the requirements of the
> races he participated in. That is the only thing that matters with regards
> to his wins. He played by the rules of the time and he won. Whether or
> not he actually doped is immaterial at this point except as a social
> thought experiment.
>
>
>
> To do otherwise is revisionist history. Many things in athletic
> competition have changed in the last few decades: timing accuracy,
> starting guns, video analysis, clothing, etc. Would it be fruitful to go
> back and analyze track or swimming events to determine if the finishing
> order might be different if all the competitors had had the benefit of
> today's technology? Or, how about we start exhuming the bodies of former
> medalists and do chemical analysis to determine if they took illicit drugs,
> and strip them of their medals if they did? Drag out films of Wimbledon
> tennis tournaments and use digital analysis to look for uncalled foot
> faults?
>
>
>
> Better for the FDA, WADA and UCI to spend their resources improving tests
> on a go-forward basis than to focus on the past with a stupid, fruitless
> witch hunt.
>
>
>
> -j
>
>
> On August 29, 2012 at 1:41 AM Jon Ragsdale wrote:
>
> > There are also the 4th group. The group that doesn't care, his work off
> the
> > bike is what's important.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of olivier
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:09 PM
> > To: obra@list.obra.org
> > Subject: [OBRA Chat] Lance
> >
> > I figure there are three camps: First those who think Lance doped and
> > deserves to be stripped of his Tour wins. Second those who think Lance
> > doped but so did everybody else so what what's the big deal. Third
> those
> > who still believe Lance was clean. Only the first two are relevant.
> The
> > third is in LaLa land.
> > _______________________________________________
> > OBRA mailing list
> > obra@list.obra.org
> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OBRA mailing list
> > obra@list.obra.org
> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing listobra@list.obra.orghttp://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>

Ormerod, Gilbert

From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On Behalf Of jeff@ultrafreaks.net
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:41 AM
To: Jon Ragsdale; obra@list.obra.org
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance

Fact is he passed all of the tests and satisfied the requirements of the races he participated in. That is the only thing that matters with regards to his wins. He played by the rules of the time and he won. Whether or not he actually doped is immaterial at this point except as a social thought experiment.

Sorry, but this is not really as well said as many have commented.

Dig a little deeper. What hopefully will be accomplished by this investigation is that the UCI will be exposed as bending the rules of the time. The facts will likely show that Lance did not, indeed, pass(ed) all of the tests of the races he participated in. What will hopefully be shown is that the UCI was complicit in the doping of athletes in that they turned a blind eye to what they knew was taking place. The various federations who followed this charade of cleanliness may also be exposed, and the example of notifications of impending out-of-competition drug testing for select athletes by USAC comes to mind in this regard.

________________________________
This message is intended for the sole use of the addressee, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee you are hereby notified that you may not use, copy, disclose, or distribute to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email and delete this message.

Mike Richardson

Thanks, Jeff. My sentiments exactly.

Mike

On Aug 29, 2012, at 8:55 AM, Kevin wrote:

> +2
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> What is happening in Kevin's corner of the bike world?
> http://the-whir-of-spokes-in-air.blogspot.com
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
> From: Rick Johnson
> To: "jeff@ultrafreaks.net"
> Cc: obra@list.obra.org
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance
>
> +1
> Well said.
>
> Rick Johnson
> Bend Oregon
>
> * * *
>
> This news has been sanitized for your preconceptions
>
> On 8/29/2012 8:40 AM, jeff@ultrafreaks.net wrote:
>> Cutting it more finely, a fifth group:
>> Those that admire his work off the bike, think that, while he may have been an a$$ at times, he was a tremendous athlete and competitor regardless of allegations, and that feel you cannot judge the past with today's lens.
>>
>> Fact is he passed all of the tests and satisfied the requirements of the races he participated in. That is the only thing that matters with regards to his wins. He played by the rules of the time and he won. Whether or not he actually doped is immaterial at this point except as a social thought experiment.
>>
>> To do otherwise is revisionist history. Many things in athletic competition have changed in the last few decades: timing accuracy, starting guns, video analysis, clothing, etc. Would it be fruitful to go back and analyze track or swimming events to determine if the finishing order might be different if all the competitors had had the benefit of today's technology? Or, how about we start exhuming the bodies of former medalists and do chemical analysis to determine if they took illicit drugs, and strip them of their medals if they did? Drag out films of Wimbledon tennis tournaments and use digital analysis to look for uncalled foot faults?
>>
>> Better for the FDA, WADA and UCI to spend their resources improving tests on a go-forward basis than to focus on the past with a stupid, fruitless witch hunt.
>>
>> -j
>>
>> On August 29, 2012 at 1:41 AM Jon Ragsdale wrote:
>>
>> > There are also the 4th group. The group that doesn't care, his work off the
>> > bike is what's important.
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
>> > Behalf Of olivier
>> > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:09 PM
>> > To: obra@list.obra.org
>> > Subject: [OBRA Chat] Lance
>> >
>> > I figure there are three camps: First those who think Lance doped and
>> > deserves to be stripped of his Tour wins. Second those who think Lance
>> > doped but so did everybody else so what what's the big deal. Third those
>> > who still believe Lance was clean. Only the first two are relevant. The
>> > third is in LaLa land.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > OBRA mailing list
>> > obra@list.obra.org
>> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > OBRA mailing list
>> > obra@list.obra.org
>> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OBRA mailing list
>> obra@list.obra.org
>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Josh Spivey

We all know that the sport is riddled with a history of drug use. There are
plenty of accounts of former athletes testifying to this. In the early days
it was amphetamines. The horror stories of syringes stuck under riding
shorts ready to be injected when the moment was right are out there already.
Riders have died with EPO and even on the bike using speed.

When you're livelihood depends on winning or doing work for a winner, we
would all consider doing drugs if it meant our families wouldn't starve. I'm
not talking about the Contadors and the Armstrongs. I'm talking about the
guy on that small pro team trying to make as many races as possible to
scrape together a decent living.

I sympathize with the USADA on a certain level, they are using Lance as a
example to tell athletes that they will do anything (even if it's slightly
outside the lines) to stop drug use and set a level playing field. But they
will never catch up. I'm sure they feel like this will make a difference.

They cannot be allowed to go back in time to steal away victories. If they
don't catch you red-handed, then you are not in violation. It's very, very
simple. If they have not caught up with the current drug of choice and
testing, then it sucks to be them. The should spend their money where it
matters fixing the problem, not advertising that it used to happen 20
years ago.

On 8/29/12 6:48 AM, "Steve Brown" wrote:

> The bigger question is how deep and how far back does this go. Big Mig, The
> Badger, The Cannibal. USADA has gone too far. They have put themselves in
> front of the sport with hearsay testimony and lack of direct evidence with the
> bar lower than our judicial system would allow.
> That is why the Fed's had to drop their case. USADA has become the performer
> not the referee.
>
>
> Steve Brown
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Aug 29, 2012, at 8:34 AM, dacrizzow wrote:
>
>> sorry, what lance does (or doesn't) do for cancer has nothing to do with
>> wether he doped or not. two separate subjects and should be treated as such.
>> don't want to start a whole thread about this but there's been plenty
>> uncovered on his foundation on how much REALLY gets accounted for
>> _______________________________________________
>> OBRA mailing list
>> obra@list.obra.org
>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

J Bravard

USADA is doing what they were created to do and what they have done in
the past. Armstrong is not being treated differently than BALCO or
Marion Jones, who, not surprisingly, also stood behind all her "clean"
doping control tests until she finally admitted guilt. The IOC and UCI
have both signed on to WADA/USADA oversight for doping, just like
IAAF/USATF (track & field).

Despite widespread misconceptions, hearsay testimony IS admissible as
evidence in our judicial system under many circumstances. It's
certainly plausible that one of the reasons Lance bowed out of the
fight (while still proclaiming his innocence) is that the testimony,
under oath, in arbitration hearings could have been enough to re-open
the criminal case.

USADA is doing their job and I hope this case has a deterrent effect
going forward.

On Aug 29, 2012, at 6:48 AM, Steve Brown wrote:

> The bigger question is how deep and how far back does this go. Big Mig, The Badger, The Cannibal. USADA has gone too far. They have put themselves in front of the sport with hearsay testimony and lack of direct evidence with the bar lower than our judicial system would allow.
> That is why the Fed's had to drop their case. USADA has become the performer not the referee.
>
>
> Steve Brown
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Aug 29, 2012, at 8:34 AM, dacrizzow wrote:
>
>> sorry, what lance does (or doesn't) do for cancer has nothing to do with wether he doped or not. two separate subjects and should be treated as such. don't want to start a whole thread about this but there's been plenty uncovered on his foundation on how much REALLY gets accounted for
>> _______________________________________________
>> OBRA mailing list
>> obra@list.obra.org
>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Kevin

+2

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What is happening in Kevin's corner of the bike world?
http://the-whir-of-spokes-in-air.blogspot.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

>________________________________
> From: Rick Johnson
>To: "jeff@ultrafreaks.net"
>Cc: obra@list.obra.org
>Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:47 AM
>Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance
>
>
>+1
>Well said.
>
>
>Rick Johnson
Bend Oregon * * * This news has been sanitized for your preconceptions
On 8/29/2012 8:40 AM, jeff@ultrafreaks.net wrote:
>
>Cutting it more finely, a fifth group:
>>Those that admire his work off the bike, think that, while he may have been an a$$ at times, he was a tremendous athlete and competitor regardless of allegations, and that feel you cannot judge the past with today's lens.
>>
>>Fact is he passed all of the tests and satisfied the requirements of the races he participated in. That is the only thing that matters with regards to his wins. He played by the rules of the time and he won. Whether or not he actually doped is immaterial at this point except as a social thought experiment.
>>
>>To do otherwise is revisionist history. Many things in athletic competition have changed in the last few decades: timing accuracy, starting guns, video analysis, clothing, etc. Would it be fruitful to go back and analyze track or swimming events to determine if the finishing order might be different if all the competitors had had the benefit of today's technology? Or, how about we start exhuming the bodies of former medalists and do chemical analysis to determine if they took illicit drugs, and strip them of their medals if they did? Drag out films of Wimbledon tennis tournaments and use digital analysis to look for uncalled foot faults?
>>
>>Better for the FDA, WADA and UCI to spend their resources improving tests on a go-forward basis than to focus on the past with a stupid, fruitless witch hunt.
>>
>>-j
>>
>>On August 29, 2012 at 1:41 AM Jon Ragsdale wrote:
>>
>>> There are also the 4th group. The group that doesn't care,
his work off the
>>> bike is what's important.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
>>> Behalf Of olivier
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:09 PM
>>> To: obra@list.obra.org
>>> Subject: [OBRA Chat] Lance
>>>
>>> I figure there are three camps: First those who think Lance
doped and
>>> deserves to be stripped of his Tour wins. Second those who
think Lance
>>> doped but so did everybody else so what what's the big
deal. Third those
>>> who still believe Lance was clean. Only the first two are
relevant. The
>>> third is in LaLa land.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OBRA mailing list
>>> obra@list.obra.org
>>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OBRA mailing list
>>> obra@list.obra.org
>>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list obra@list.obra.org http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>_______________________________________________
>OBRA mailing list
>obra@list.obra.org
>http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>
>

Candi Murray

I so agree

Candi

From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On Behalf Of jeff@ultrafreaks.net
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:41 AM
To: Jon Ragsdale; obra@list.obra.org
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance

Cutting it more finely, a fifth group:

Those that admire his work off the bike, think that, while he may have been an a$$ at times, he was a tremendous athlete and competitor regardless of allegations, and that feel you cannot judge the past with today's lens.

Fact is he passed all of the tests and satisfied the requirements of the races he participated in. That is the only thing that matters with regards to his wins. He played by the rules of the time and he won. Whether or not he actually doped is immaterial at this point except as a social thought experiment.

To do otherwise is revisionist history. Many things in athletic competition have changed in the last few decades: timing accuracy, starting guns, video analysis, clothing, etc. Would it be fruitful to go back and analyze track or swimming events to determine if the finishing order might be different if all the competitors had had the benefit of today's technology? Or, how about we start exhuming the bodies of former medalists and do chemical analysis to determine if they took illicit drugs, and strip them of their medals if they did? Drag out films of Wimbledon tennis tournaments and use digital analysis to look for uncalled foot faults?

Better for the FDA, WADA and UCI to spend their resources improving tests on a go-forward basis than to focus on the past with a stupid, fruitless witch hunt.

-j

On August 29, 2012 at 1:41 AM Jon Ragsdale wrote:

> There are also the 4th group. The group that doesn't care, his work off the
> bike is what's important.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
> Behalf Of olivier
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:09 PM
> To: obra@list.obra.org
> Subject: [OBRA Chat] Lance
>
> I figure there are three camps: First those who think Lance doped and
> deserves to be stripped of his Tour wins. Second those who think Lance
> doped but so did everybody else so what what's the big deal. Third those
> who still believe Lance was clean. Only the first two are relevant. The
> third is in LaLa land.
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Rick Johnson

+1
Well said.

Rick Johnson
Bend Oregon

* * *

This news has been sanitized for your preconceptions

On 8/29/2012 8:40 AM, jeff@ultrafreaks.net wrote:
>
> Cutting it more finely, a fifth group:
>
> Those that admire his work off the bike, think that, while he may have
> been an a$$ at times, he was a tremendous athlete and competitor
> regardless of allegations, and that feel you cannot judge the past
> with today's lens.
>
> Fact is he passed all of the tests and satisfied the requirements of
> the races he participated in. That is the only thing that matters
> with regards to his wins. He played by the rules of the time and he
> won. Whether or not he actually doped is immaterial at this point
> except as a social thought experiment.
>
> To do otherwise is revisionist history. Many things in athletic
> competition have changed in the last few decades: timing accuracy,
> starting guns, video analysis, clothing, etc. Would it be fruitful to
> go back and analyze track or swimming events to determine if the
> finishing order might be different if all the competitors had had the
> benefit of today's technology? Or, how about we start exhuming the
> bodies of former medalists and do chemical analysis to determine if
> they took illicit drugs, and strip them of their medals if they did?
> Drag out films of Wimbledon tennis tournaments and use digital
> analysis to look for uncalled foot faults?
>
> Better for the FDA, WADA and UCI to spend their resources improving
> tests on a go-forward basis than to focus on the past with a stupid,
> fruitless witch hunt.
>
> -j
>
>
> On August 29, 2012 at 1:41 AM Jon Ragsdale
> wrote:
>
> > There are also the 4th group. The group that doesn't care, his work
> off the
> > bike is what's important.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
> > Behalf Of olivier
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:09 PM
> > To: obra@list.obra.org
> > Subject: [OBRA Chat] Lance
> >
> > I figure there are three camps: First those who think Lance doped and
> > deserves to be stripped of his Tour wins. Second those who think Lance
> > doped but so did everybody else so what what's the big deal. Third
> those
> > who still believe Lance was clean. Only the first two are
> relevant. The
> > third is in LaLa land.
> > _______________________________________________
> > OBRA mailing list
> > obra@list.obra.org
> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OBRA mailing list
> > obra@list.obra.org
> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

jeff@ultrafreaks.net

Cutting it more finely, a fifth group:
Those that admire his work off the bike, think that, while he may have been an
a$$ at times, he was a tremendous athlete and competitor regardless of
allegations, and that feel you cannot judge the past with today's lens.

Fact is he passed all of the tests and satisfied the requirements of the races
he participated in. That is the only thing that matters with regards to his
wins. He played by the rules of the time and he won. Whether or not he
actually doped is immaterial at this point except as a social thought
experiment.

To do otherwise is revisionist history. Many things in athletic competition
have changed in the last few decades: timing accuracy, starting guns, video
analysis, clothing, etc. Would it be fruitful to go back and analyze track or
swimming events to determine if the finishing order might be different if all
the competitors had had the benefit of today's technology? Or, how about we
start exhuming the bodies of former medalists and do chemical analysis to
determine if they took illicit drugs, and strip them of their medals if they
did? Drag out films of Wimbledon tennis tournaments and use digital analysis to
look for uncalled foot faults?

Better for the FDA, WADA and UCI to spend their resources improving tests on a
go-forward basis than to focus on the past with a stupid, fruitless witch hunt.

-j

On August 29, 2012 at 1:41 AM Jon Ragsdale wrote:

> There are also the 4th group. The group that doesn't care, his work off the
> bike is what's important.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
> Behalf Of olivier
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:09 PM
> To: obra@list.obra.org
> Subject: [OBRA Chat] Lance
>
> I figure there are three camps: First those who think Lance doped and
> deserves to be stripped of his Tour wins. Second those who think Lance
> doped but so did everybody else so what what's the big deal. Third those
> who still believe Lance was clean. Only the first two are relevant. The
> third is in LaLa land.
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Eric

Merckx had several positive tests.

== Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
Behalf Of Steve Brown
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 6:49 AM
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance

The bigger question is how deep and how far back does this go. Big Mig, The
Badger, The Cannibal. USADA has gone too far. They have put themselves in
front of the sport with hearsay testimony and lack of direct evidence with
the bar lower than our judicial system would allow.
That is why the Fed's had to drop their case. USADA has become the
performer not the referee.

Steve Brown

Steve Brown

The bigger question is how deep and how far back does this go. Big Mig, The Badger, The Cannibal. USADA has gone too far. They have put themselves in front of the sport with hearsay testimony and lack of direct evidence with the bar lower than our judicial system would allow.
That is why the Fed's had to drop their case. USADA has become the performer not the referee.

Steve Brown
Sent from my iPad

On Aug 29, 2012, at 8:34 AM, dacrizzow wrote:

> sorry, what lance does (or doesn't) do for cancer has nothing to do with wether he doped or not. two separate subjects and should be treated as such. don't want to start a whole thread about this but there's been plenty uncovered on his foundation on how much REALLY gets accounted for
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>

dacrizzow

sorry, what lance does (or doesn't) do for cancer has nothing to do with wether he doped or not. two separate subjects and should be treated as such. don't want to start a whole thread about this but there's been plenty uncovered on his foundation on how much REALLY gets accounted for

Roger Joys (Maillists)

I usually don't chime in on these threads, but to me the real tragedy here seems to be that Lance and his foundation probably saved hundreds of lives and gave hope to countless people with cancer.

I think there are better targets in this world to "bring to justice".

I am not a Lance fanboy. I remember the pre-cancer Lance and he was a real jack-xxx. I also am frankly tired of watching him on beer commercials! However, I cannot wonder how all this publicity will impact the positive work of the foundation.

All our heroes have feet of clay. Let the man's foundation keep doing good things.

I am in the 4th camp.

On Aug 28, 2012, at 10:41 PM, Jon Ragsdale wrote:

> There are also the 4th group. The group that doesn't care, his work off the
> bike is what's important.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
> Behalf Of olivier
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:09 PM
> To: obra@list.obra.org
> Subject: [OBRA Chat] Lance
>
> I figure there are three camps: First those who think Lance doped and
> deserves to be stripped of his Tour wins. Second those who think Lance
> doped but so did everybody else so what what's the big deal. Third those
> who still believe Lance was clean. Only the first two are relevant. The
> third is in LaLa land.
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Jon Ragsdale

There are also the 4th group. The group that doesn't care, his work off the
bike is what's important.

-----Original Message-----
From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
Behalf Of olivier
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:09 PM
To: obra@list.obra.org
Subject: [OBRA Chat] Lance

I figure there are three camps: First those who think Lance doped and
deserves to be stripped of his Tour wins. Second those who think Lance
doped but so did everybody else so what what's the big deal. Third those
who still believe Lance was clean. Only the first two are relevant. The
third is in LaLa land.
_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

olivier

I figure there are three camps: First those who think Lance doped and deserves to be stripped of his Tour wins. Second those who think Lance doped but so did everybody else so what what's the big deal. Third those who still believe Lance was clean. Only the first two are relevant. The third is in LaLa land.

Chris Alling

As they say there are two kinds of bike racers those that have broke their collars bones and those that are about to.

Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:30:07 -0700
From: scottjones007@gmail.com
To: sbrown@stevebrowncompany.com
CC: obra@list.obra.org
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Lance

http://tiny.cc/um8LW

2009/3/23 Steve Brown

Lance. Collarbone? Details.
_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

_________________________________________________________________
Express your personality in color! Preview and select themes for Hotmail®.
http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/LearnMore/personalize.aspx?ocid=TXT_MSGTX_WL_HM_express_032009#colortheme

Scott Jones

** ** http://tiny.cc/um8LW

2009/3/23 Steve Brown

> Lance. Collarbone? Details.
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>

Steve Brown

Lance. Collarbone? Details.