8 Things On Lance Armstrong From The "Other Side Of The Grass" - Page 13 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 12-03-09, 14:46
buckwheat buckwheat is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: street
Posts: 1,778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HL2037 View Post
It's beginning to look really strange. What's the point in banning the guy again and again, when they let him back the next day under a different username. Do you think he could be actually working for LA?

When he is allowed to drown any attempt of constructive debate in a tsunami of nonsensical hairsplitting, and even to get a thread closed, then he has reached his goal: To obstruct the rational and informed discussion and censor the voices of the people he don't agree with.

I hope the moderators are able to reckognize this.
Don't worry. The fall of Lance is going to be even bigger news than the fall of Tiger and it will take millions upon millions of such non sensical, parasitic, sycophantic, idol worshipping, fanatical, chamois sniveling "people" to hold back that tide.

Oh, I forgot. I'm in the U.S. Anything is possible.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 12-03-09, 18:23
Gee333
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

So once LA takes the fall will everyone be continuing the anti-doping crusade against the other suspected dopers dating back to the 80's, 70's, 60's, etc?

We can start with Merckx, Sean Kelly, Roche, Fignon, Anquetil, Coppi...
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 12-03-09, 18:55
workingclasshero's Avatar
workingclasshero workingclasshero is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 721
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gee333 View Post
So once LA takes the fall will everyone be continuing the anti-doping crusade against the other suspected dopers dating back to the 80's, 70's, 60's, etc?

We can start with Merckx, Sean Kelly, Roche, Fignon, Anquetil, Coppi...
yes but only after we've danced on lance's grave throughout the night btw can't remember those people you mentioned using cancer to look good and make big bucks
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 12-03-09, 19:34
Gee333
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
yes but only after we've danced on lance's grave throughout the night btw can't remember those people you mentioned using cancer to look good and make big bucks
Hahahaha!! I think there'd be a huge party that would last more than just one night!

And although they don't use a cause for gains they are essentially dopers as well, the main reason everyone cites for LA's success on the bike. So they should still be scrutinized all the same.

Although you bring up a very good point. If LA hadn't started his cancer crusade would everyone still be on him so hard? Or would they just write him off as a jerk and go on with their lives?
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 12-03-09, 19:42
hektoren hektoren is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 690
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
yes but only after we've danced on lance's grave throughout the night btw can't remember those people you mentioned using cancer to look good and make big bucks
Killing off LA is a bit like spilling the beans on Santa Claus as the original pedophile. (Candy AND gifts? HO-HO-HO) It just won't go down well with most people. LA's story, "don't give up, spit in the face of the grim reaper and succeed", is just too good a story, ensnaring politicians, figureheads sporting the yellow bracelet all world around. Most people "want to" believe in him as kind of a second coming of JC. (He suffers for all of us).

On the other hand there's all the evidence. LA is, most of all, pathetic. What makes him tick is all too evident, and he really has excelled in two of the seven original sins: Vanity and Greed. I, for one, can't wait to see the back of him.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 12-03-09, 20:29
poupou's Avatar
poupou poupou is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 578
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gee333 View Post
Hahahaha!! I think there'd be a huge party that would last more than just one night!

And although they don't use a cause for gains they are essentially dopers as well, the main reason everyone cites for LA's success on the bike. So they should still be scrutinized all the same.

Although you bring up a very good point. If LA hadn't started his cancer crusade would everyone still be on him so hard? Or would they just write him off as a jerk and go on with their lives?
LA's problem began in Tarbes 19 July
From http://chipdoc.tripod.com/TdF99/AStageRest2.html

Quote:
Lance held his press conference today. I went because I was curious; I had never been to one before. It was held in an auditorium and there were probably a hundred journalists. There were lots of dumb questions and normal questions. Ironically the first two doping questions came from two American journalists. Lance asserted his innocence and told all the journalists that his racing life, personal life, and health were open to questions. Not one of the journalists that had previously bad-mouthed him in the papers asked one question. They always print what they want. Lance also talked about how hard it is having the jersey: all the extra obligations with the press, fans, and the Tour have made it more difficult for him to get his rest. He said he is not used to this much attention. I believe him.
Frankie Andreu didn't report all other doping questions like those about EPO or a EPO TUE, reporters were stupefied at that time by Lance's transformation from a donkey in mountain to a mountain goat. Of course we have to remember it was just after Festina. People had learnt a lot about EPO and its effects.
That is that day that he became a liar for everyone especially after the backdated TUE for the alleged saddle-sore cream.

Add: 20 july
Quote:
Lance Armstrong, the Tour leader, spent the rest day answering claims in the French press that he could be winning only by using artificial stimulants.

Armstrong, who called a conference near his Tarbes hotel, said: "After what happened in the Tour last year, I think the winner this year, and probably the next, will always be suspected of taking dope.

Last edited by poupou; 12-04-09 at 12:52. Reason: complement
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 12-04-09, 14:49
guilder guilder is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Race Radio View Post
Why is it that Armstrong's groupies are unable to actually discuss the mountain of evidence and instead resort to calling anyone who questions him a hater?
Speaking of groupies, why is it LA haters refuse to recognize the virulent cult they've formed, outnumbering tenfold the number of Lance fans that even care to engage them in their Lance hating spew?

If there was any evidence the French would have taken him down by now.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 12-04-09, 15:51
Hugh Januss's Avatar
Hugh Januss Hugh Januss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: socal
Posts: 5,842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guilder View Post
Speaking of groupies, why is it LA haters refuse to recognize the virulent cult they've formed, outnumbering tenfold the number of Lance fans that even care to engage them in their Lance hating spew?

If there was any evidence the French would have taken him down by now.
And right on time, one shows up to prove Race Radio's point.
__________________
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings."

Proud member of the Clinic 1200
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 12-04-09, 16:33
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,096
Default

We know for a fact that almost all of Armstrong's rivals over those seven Tours were doping - Zulle, Pantani, Ullrich, Basso, Botero, Hamilton, Landis, Mayo, Vinokourov, Kloden, Virenque, Beloki, Heras, Mancebo, Rumsas, Rasmussen, etc etc.

Ignoring for the moment the 6 EPO tests and working with Ferrari and all of the other evidence that points to Armstrong doping, what I'd most like to hear (and have yet to hear) is a rational explanation as to how Armstrong managed to beat all of those doping riders by an average of about 3-5 minutes (and upward of ~7 minutes) for seven straight years without doping himself.

To me, that's the most damning evidence right there. There's simply not a chance in hell that a clean rider can win a three-week Tour 7 years in a row by minutes over numerous doping rivals. None. Zero. Zip.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 12-04-09, 16:41
BYOP88's Avatar
BYOP88 BYOP88 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,960
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
We know for a fact that almost all of Armstrong's rivals over those seven Tours were doping - Zulle, Pantani, Ullrich, Basso, Botero, Hamilton, Landis, Mayo, Vinokourov, Kloden, Virenque, Beloki, Heras, Mancebo, Rumsas, Rasmussen, etc etc.

Ignoring for the moment the 6 EPO tests and working with Ferrari and all of the other evidence that points to Armstrong doping, what I'd most like to hear (and have yet to hear) is a rational explanation as to how Armstrong managed to beat all of those doping riders by an average of about 3-5 minutes (and upward of ~7 minutes) for seven straight years without doping himself.

To me, that's the most damning evidence right there. There's simply not a chance in hell that a clean rider can win a three-week Tour 7 years in a row by minutes over numerous doping rivals. None. Zero. Zip.
Because Lance trained really really really really really really really hard no matter what the weather was like, and he also has a heart the size of the universe.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:56.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.