Log in:  

Register

Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

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

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen

Re: Re:

21 Aug 2017 16:33

86TDFWinner wrote:
kingjr wrote:Yeah, that was one of the two videos that convinced me he was doping apart from his performance on the bike. His initial reaction to the question half a minute in is just so weird.


Like I've said prior, I thought he was suspicious and definitely doping as far back as 97/98ish. After his second TDF win, I definitely knew he was on something other than bread and water, then subsequent wins proved it even further. Was never a believer in "Cancer Jesus" from the get go, as I always thought there was something shady about him from the beginning.

Pre-doping Wonderboy, Finished no better than what was it 24th(please correct me if I'm wrong here gang) in the Tour.


Pre-doping Wonderboy?

Pre-Ferrari doping. Armstrong always doped since his teenage years in Triathlons.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,042
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re:

21 Aug 2017 16:46

absolutely_not wrote:
ScienceIsCool wrote:
absolutely_not wrote:If it's the best answer you can come with I will be compasionate and leave it here so you can have your little moment and enjoy it.

If not, feel free to point specificly what you don't agree with in my previous post and try to articulate an argument

Up to you...


He was a fast one day specialist. Then he got cancer and... got faster at all disciplines? Sounds legit. I'll leave the "Reasoned Decision" as a plausible scenario. Now get off that chair!! And buy a Livestrong bracelet for the cause. It's ".com", not ".org".

John Swanson



:confused: :confused: :confused: What the hell are you talking about :confused:

Who even SUGGESTED he didn't dope?
All I said is you can't take the results of a low octane rider vs high octane rider to mesure the potential of a low actane rider.
And you can't take the result of someone chasing stages victories to mesure what his potential would be if he was aiming at the GT classment.

You can't even hear that without turning mid-crazy and attacking a poster?

I don't know you but I honestly hope you're 13 or something like that. If not... well, I try not to get personal here but let just say that's "pas normal"

Good luck to you


Yup! 14 in January!!!

So if the playing field was level, he wouldn't have had to level the playing field? Is that the thesis? Really? Paging Dr. Ferrari.
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,440
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

Re: Re:

21 Aug 2017 17:06

Benotti69 wrote:
86TDFWinner wrote:
kingjr wrote:Yeah, that was one of the two videos that convinced me he was doping apart from his performance on the bike. His initial reaction to the question half a minute in is just so weird.


Like I've said prior, I thought he was suspicious and definitely doping as far back as 97/98ish. After his second TDF win, I definitely knew he was on something other than bread and water, then subsequent wins proved it even further. Was never a believer in "Cancer Jesus" from the get go, as I always thought there was something shady about him from the beginning.

Pre-doping Wonderboy, Finished no better than what was it 24th(please correct me if I'm wrong here gang) in the Tour.


Pre-doping Wonderboy?

Pre-Ferrari doping. Armstrong always doped since his teenage years in Triathlons.


Yeah. Either pre-epo or pre-ferrari. It goes without saying he wasn't clean in 92-95

It's well known (or strongly assumed) he is one of the juniors who got doped by Carmichael in the development team. But I don't know anything about triathlon.

You have some infoor sources about that? I'm interested if you do
absolutely_not
Junior Member
 
Posts: 56
Joined: 14 Nov 2013 13:06

Re: Re:

21 Aug 2017 17:21

ScienceIsCool wrote:
absolutely_not wrote:
ScienceIsCool wrote:
absolutely_not wrote:If it's the best answer you can come with I will be compasionate and leave it here so you can have your little moment and enjoy it.

If not, feel free to point specificly what you don't agree with in my previous post and try to articulate an argument

Up to you...


He was a fast one day specialist. Then he got cancer and... got faster at all disciplines? Sounds legit. I'll leave the "Reasoned Decision" as a plausible scenario. Now get off that chair!! And buy a Livestrong bracelet for the cause. It's ".com", not ".org".

John Swanson



:confused: :confused: :confused: What the hell are you talking about :confused:

Who even SUGGESTED he didn't dope?
All I said is you can't take the results of a low octane rider vs high octane rider to mesure the potential of a low actane rider.
And you can't take the result of someone chasing stages victories to mesure what his potential would be if he was aiming at the GT classment.

You can't even hear that without turning mid-crazy and attacking a poster?

I don't know you but I honestly hope you're 13 or something like that. If not... well, I try not to get personal here but let just say that's "pas normal"

Good luck to you


Yup! 14 in January!!!

So if the playing field was level, he wouldn't have had to level the playing field? Is that the thesis? Really? Paging Dr. Ferrari.


Now it make sense!

So to answer your question : No. It's not the thesis. It's never been. Nowhere has anyone said that.
The thesis is - for the third time - you can't take 36th as a good calibration to what his results would have been had he and the entire peloton been clean. Because I think he wasn't focusing on his classment so much that year and because he was probably less doped that a good part of the peloton that year

You can babble about yellow bracelet and cancer and statements no-one made for a third time if you want but I will stop here

Try to focus next time. While you're in middle school it's easy, but once you're in high school you might have difficulties to follow if you don't read carefully

bye
absolutely_not
Junior Member
 
Posts: 56
Joined: 14 Nov 2013 13:06

Re: Re:

21 Aug 2017 17:23

absolutely_not wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:
86TDFWinner wrote:
kingjr wrote:Yeah, that was one of the two videos that convinced me he was doping apart from his performance on the bike. His initial reaction to the question half a minute in is just so weird.


Like I've said prior, I thought he was suspicious and definitely doping as far back as 97/98ish. After his second TDF win, I definitely knew he was on something other than bread and water, then subsequent wins proved it even further. Was never a believer in "Cancer Jesus" from the get go, as I always thought there was something shady about him from the beginning.

Pre-doping Wonderboy, Finished no better than what was it 24th(please correct me if I'm wrong here gang) in the Tour.


Pre-doping Wonderboy?

Pre-Ferrari doping. Armstrong always doped since his teenage years in Triathlons.


Yeah. Either pre-epo or pre-ferrari. It goes without saying he wasn't clean in 92-95

It's well known (or strongly assumed) he is one of the juniors who got doped by Carmichael in the development team. But I don't know anything about triathlon.

You have some infoor sources about that? I'm interested if you do


The time frame of junior cyclist and triathlete overlapped. He raced with Subaru Montgomery in 1990. If you know anything about US cycling, I will not have to explain any more to you.
User avatar spetsa
Member
 
Posts: 549
Joined: 03 Aug 2010 13:45
Location: between a bar stool and a bike saddle

Re: Re:

21 Aug 2017 17:43

spetsa wrote:
absolutely_not wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:
86TDFWinner wrote:
kingjr wrote:Yeah, that was one of the two videos that convinced me he was doping apart from his performance on the bike. His initial reaction to the question half a minute in is just so weird.


Like I've said prior, I thought he was suspicious and definitely doping as far back as 97/98ish. After his second TDF win, I definitely knew he was on something other than bread and water, then subsequent wins proved it even further. Was never a believer in "Cancer Jesus" from the get go, as I always thought there was something shady about him from the beginning.

Pre-doping Wonderboy, Finished no better than what was it 24th(please correct me if I'm wrong here gang) in the Tour.


Pre-doping Wonderboy?

Pre-Ferrari doping. Armstrong always doped since his teenage years in Triathlons.


Yeah. Either pre-epo or pre-ferrari. It goes without saying he wasn't clean in 92-95

It's well known (or strongly assumed) he is one of the juniors who got doped by Carmichael in the development team. But I don't know anything about triathlon.

You have some infoor sources about that? I'm interested if you do


The time frame of junior cyclist and triathlete overlapped. He raced with Subaru Montgomery in 1990. If you know anything about US cycling, I will not have to explain any more to you.


Oh! So he wasn't implying he doped just as a 16 yo triathlete? cycling and triathlon did overlap but just for a few months. I wouldn't say he doped "since his teenage years in Triathlons" if I only meant he started when he got into cycling, that's why I though Benotti69 had others infos
absolutely_not
Junior Member
 
Posts: 56
Joined: 14 Nov 2013 13:06

21 Aug 2017 18:32

Scientific American published the results of the physilogical tests done for JO on Lance Armstrong that mentionned average recovering abilities, so he was advised to focus on races with few days. How could he be a TDF contender in that condition in a clean field?
User avatar poupou
Member
 
Posts: 701
Joined: 18 Jul 2009 23:27

Re: Re:

21 Aug 2017 18:33

absolutely_not wrote:
bye


So long!! Find a worthy chair!

Poor sweet, cancer Jesus. Never did get a fair shake. If only everyone else would play by the rules, everyone would know he was worth every chair he ever sat on.

John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,440
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

Re:

21 Aug 2017 18:35

poupou wrote:Scientific American published the results of the physilogical tests done for JO on Lance Armstrong that mentionned average recovering abilities, so he was advised to focus on races with few days. How could he be a TDF contender in that condition in a clean field?


Cancer. Changed his body. Heart the size of three men. Will of a champion.

John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,440
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

21 Aug 2017 18:37

absolutely_not, you have no clue what you are talking about. "overlapped for a couple months". He was racing bikes at the same time he was doing triathlons. He won a tri national championship in 1990 and had exposure to USA Cycling in 1988. Yes, I grew up racing at the same time, against and in some cases with, the same people.
User avatar spetsa
Member
 
Posts: 549
Joined: 03 Aug 2010 13:45
Location: between a bar stool and a bike saddle

Re:

21 Aug 2017 19:55

spetsa wrote:absolutely_not, you have no clue what you are talking about. "overlapped for a couple months". He was racing bikes at the same time he was doing triathlons. He won a tri national championship in 1990 and had exposure to USA Cycling in 1988. Yes, I grew up racing at the same time, against and in some cases with, the same people.


You are inventing the "couple of months" quote :rolleyes:
I talked of "a few months" and what I really meant was about a year or so. Considering he was a cyclist for almost 20 years and did tri for 4-5 years, the period of time he was seriously involved in both is relatively short. I could be wrong but I think he really started focusing on cycling in 89 and did his last tri in 90.

But it doesn't actually matter if it overlapped for 6 months or 18. We know he probably was doped by his trainers as a junior when he got into cycling. I was under the impression that Benotti69 was implying he doped even before that - before cycling when he was just a 15-17yo triathlete.
This is new to me. If he (or you) has informations about that, I'm curious to hear it. If not, it's just an infortunate formulation from Benotti69 since it leads people to believe Armstrong's doping originated in tris and not in cycling
absolutely_not
Junior Member
 
Posts: 56
Joined: 14 Nov 2013 13:06

Re: Re:

21 Aug 2017 21:09

absolutely_not wrote:
spetsa wrote:absolutely_not, you have no clue what you are talking about. "overlapped for a couple months". He was racing bikes at the same time he was doing triathlons. He won a tri national championship in 1990 and had exposure to USA Cycling in 1988. Yes, I grew up racing at the same time, against and in some cases with, the same people.


You are inventing the "couple of months" quote :rolleyes:
I talked of "a few months" and what I really meant was


Where have we heard that before.
User avatar spetsa
Member
 
Posts: 549
Joined: 03 Aug 2010 13:45
Location: between a bar stool and a bike saddle

Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

23 Aug 2017 22:13

absolutely_not wrote:The bits that have been leaked from the depositions tend to suggest the contrary : Tylor Hamilton backpedalling on some of his statements and blaming Daniel Coyle for them.
So anything is possible but I wouldn't hold my breath for Hamilton having some secret card if I were you.
For all we know, Hamilton made some sweet arangments with the truth in his book as Aragon and fmk_rol previously said. It doesn't fit with what you expect.
Point conceded.

However, is it possible that Hamilton and Landis might still have something on Armstrong that they haven't disclosed yet?

That was actually the whole point of my initial post. (And if it was wrong of me to ask this I will just go and hang my head in shame in the nearest corner.)
User avatar Tricycle Rider
Member
 
Posts: 1,715
Joined: 09 Feb 2013 11:12

Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

24 Aug 2017 07:24

Tricycle Rider wrote:
absolutely_not wrote:The bits that have been leaked from the depositions tend to suggest the contrary : Tylor Hamilton backpedalling on some of his statements and blaming Daniel Coyle for them.
So anything is possible but I wouldn't hold my breath for Hamilton having some secret card if I were you.
For all we know, Hamilton made some sweet arangments with the truth in his book as Aragon and fmk_rol previously said. It doesn't fit with what you expect.
Point conceded.

However, is it possible that Hamilton and Landis might still have something on Armstrong that they haven't disclosed yet?

That was actually the whole point of my initial post. (And if it was wrong of me to ask this I will just go and hang my head in shame in the nearest corner.)


I'm not sure one of the party involved in a trial is allowed to keep an evidence to themselve. If so, then yes it is impossible.

Even if not impossible per se it is still very very very unlikely

Hamilton doesn't stand anything to win or to loose in this trial. His big shot was the book The secret race 5 years ago. As it has already been said, he bent the truth in his book so it suits him better. I don't see any reason for him to do that while not using some other major info he could have on Armstrong.

Landis is a different story. He doesn't want the trial to happen.
1- The ods are he is going to loose (or at least win much less he could have had Armstrong and the government settle the case)
2- It will remind the rest of the world who doesn't follow the story closely who he is : someone who sell his former teamates for money and one of the biggest hypocrite out there. It might not be true, but when people are reminded he denied for years, then finally admit only to set motion to the Qui Tam a few days after people won't try to look any further. Especially since he failed to demonstrate what harm had really cause to him Armstrong and Bruyneel.
It will also remind people all the other things he was involved : asking the average guy to donate money for his Floyd Fairness Fund, and not respecting his obligations to pay back in the years that follow 2012. Repete the very personal thing Greg Lemond had told him which lead to Lemond being harassed and blackmailed by Landis friend. That story of him being involved in the hacking of a french lab, what was it again?
Anyway, Landis would be better without a trial (so does Armstrong obviously but that's another story). Had he had some more info he could have use to win the trial before it happens - by being granted victory by the juge or by forcing Armstrong to settle - you can be damn sure he would have used it already
absolutely_not
Junior Member
 
Posts: 56
Joined: 14 Nov 2013 13:06

Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

24 Aug 2017 13:33

absolutely_not wrote:
Tricycle Rider wrote:
absolutely_not wrote:The bits that have been leaked from the depositions tend to suggest the contrary : Tylor Hamilton backpedalling on some of his statements and blaming Daniel Coyle for them.
So anything is possible but I wouldn't hold my breath for Hamilton having some secret card if I were you.
For all we know, Hamilton made some sweet arangments with the truth in his book as Aragon and fmk_rol previously said. It doesn't fit with what you expect.
Point conceded.

However, is it possible that Hamilton and Landis might still have something on Armstrong that they haven't disclosed yet?

That was actually the whole point of my initial post. (And if it was wrong of me to ask this I will just go and hang my head in shame in the nearest corner.)


I'm not sure one of the party involved in a trial is allowed to keep an evidence to themselve. If so, then yes it is impossible.

Even if not impossible per se it is still very very very unlikely

Hamilton doesn't stand anything to win or to loose in this trial. His big shot was the book The secret race 5 years ago. As it has already been said, he bent the truth in his book so it suits him better. I don't see any reason for him to do that while not using some other major info he could have on Armstrong.

Landis is a different story. He doesn't want the trial to happen.
1- The ods are he is going to loose (or at least win much less he could have had Armstrong and the government settle the case)
2- It will remind the rest of the world who doesn't follow the story closely who he is : someone who sell his former teamates for money and one of the biggest hypocrite out there. It might not be true, but when people are reminded he denied for years, then finally admit only to set motion to the Qui Tam a few days after people won't try to look any further. Especially since he failed to demonstrate what harm had really cause to him Armstrong and Bruyneel.
It will also remind people all the other things he was involved : asking the average guy to donate money for his Floyd Fairness Fund, and not respecting his obligations to pay back in the years that follow 2012. Repete the very personal thing Greg Lemond had told him which lead to Lemond being harassed and blackmailed by Landis friend. That story of him being involved in the hacking of a french lab, what was it again?
Anyway, Landis would be better without a trial (so does Armstrong obviously but that's another story). Had he had some more info he could have use to win the trial before it happens - by being granted victory by the juge or by forcing Armstrong to settle - you can be damn sure he would have used it already



Yeah we get it. It was Floyd's fault. You sure seem to know nothing about a lot of things, and a lot of things about nothing.
User avatar spetsa
Member
 
Posts: 549
Joined: 03 Aug 2010 13:45
Location: between a bar stool and a bike saddle

24 Aug 2017 14:53

You, on the other hand, seem to know a lot of things. Unfortunately you don't share your knowledge.

Hey! I've got an idea! Why, instead of attacking a poster because you don't like what he said, don't you actually respond to the post and really explain why you disagree?

You already made a good start by underlying the parts that annoy you the most. Now go ahead : Explain to us why you think it's likely Hamilton or Landis still have something on Armstrong they haven't disclosed yet. Explain why you think Landis has good chance of winning big with the trial. I'm looking forward to your explaination on why you think most people love the idea of an ex doper denouncing other dopers and trying to make money out of it (we probably don't live in the same environment, that would explain it). And please remind us what exactly did Bruyneel and Armstrong did to him except not hiring him. I sure know nothing but fortunately you're here. And to finish, I'm waiting for you to tell us why Landis is looking forward to the trial even tho he said himself he wish he didn't have to go through this and wish Armstrong had settle the case.

Thank you in advance for all your answers. I will know way more things about a lot of stuff tonight thanks to you (Lucky me)
absolutely_not
Junior Member
 
Posts: 56
Joined: 14 Nov 2013 13:06

Re:

24 Aug 2017 15:03

absolutely_not wrote:You, on the other hand, seem to know a lot of things. Unfortunately you don't share your knowledge.

Hey! I've got an idea! Why, instead of attacking a poster because you don't like what he said, don't you actually respond to the post and really explain why you disagree?

You already made a good start by underlying the parts that annoy you the most. Now go ahead : Explain to us why you think it's likely Hamilton or Landis still have something on Armstrong they haven't disclosed yet. Explain why you think Landis has good chance of winning big with the trial. I'm looking forward to your explaination on why you think most people love the idea of an ex doper denouncing other dopers and trying to make money out of it (we probably don't live in the same environment, that would explain it). And please remind us what exactly did Bruyneel and Armstrong did to him except not hiring him. I sure know nothing but fortunately you're here. And to finish, I'm waiting for you to tell us why Landis is looking forward to the trial even tho he said himself he wish he didn't have to go through this and wish Armstrong had settle the case.

Thank you in advance for all your answers. I will know way more things about a lot of stuff tonight thanks to you (Lucky me)


You have one major thing fundamentally wrong. Floyd and Tyler are not suing LA. The US Government is. Floyd and Tyler will most likely not even be witnesses at trial. I will leave the speculating about their inner thought processes to you.
User avatar spetsa
Member
 
Posts: 549
Joined: 03 Aug 2010 13:45
Location: between a bar stool and a bike saddle

Re:

24 Aug 2017 15:24

absolutely_not wrote:You, on the other hand, seem to know a lot of things. Unfortunately you don't share your knowledge.

Hey! I've got an idea! Why, instead of attacking a poster because you don't like what he said, don't you actually respond to the post and really explain why you disagree?

You already made a good start by underlying the parts that annoy you the most. Now go ahead : Explain to us why you think it's likely Hamilton or Landis still have something on Armstrong they haven't disclosed yet. Explain why you think Landis has good chance of winning big with the trial. I'm looking forward to your explaination on why you think most people love the idea of an ex doper denouncing other dopers and trying to make money out of it (we probably don't live in the same environment, that would explain it). And please remind us what exactly did Bruyneel and Armstrong did to him except not hiring him. I sure know nothing but fortunately you're here. And to finish, I'm waiting for you to tell us why Landis is looking forward to the trial even tho he said himself he wish he didn't have to go through this and wish Armstrong had settle the case.

Thank you in advance for all your answers. I will know way more things about a lot of stuff tonight thanks to you (Lucky me)


Have you ever considered the possibility of Floyds anger actually being directed at members of Tailwind Sports that never through a leg over a bicycle. Why don't you explain to us who it was that actually started the Floyd Fairness Fund and where the initial contributions came from.
User avatar spetsa
Member
 
Posts: 549
Joined: 03 Aug 2010 13:45
Location: between a bar stool and a bike saddle

24 Aug 2017 15:33

You are wrong.

I'm fully aware Hamilton is not suing Armstrong. That's why I explained tricycle rider that it would be ridicoulous for him to keep info undisclosed. You are wrong on claiming I said something different.

Landis IS part of the trial. He has his own lawyer. He was suing people the government wasn't (Armstrong's friend : Knaag and co) He is a full entity of the trial to come.

Both Landis and Hamilton have been deposed. Weither or not they will be called as witnesses remain to be seen. Armstrong wants to call Landis as a witness, Landis and the government asked the judge to prevent it to happen. We will know the judge answer probably by the end of september.

But this has nothing to do with my previous post that annoyed you so much. You interjected yourself in an conversation I was having with someone else - which is ok, this is a forum - but ou did so by going personal and are now failing to argumenting what was so wrong in my previous post.
So again, can you explain like an adult what is it you disagree so much without pretending I said Hamilton was suing Armstrong?
Thanks
absolutely_not
Junior Member
 
Posts: 56
Joined: 14 Nov 2013 13:06

Re: Re:

24 Aug 2017 15:46

spetsa wrote:
absolutely_not wrote:You, on the other hand, seem to know a lot of things. Unfortunately you don't share your knowledge.

Hey! I've got an idea! Why, instead of attacking a poster because you don't like what he said, don't you actually respond to the post and really explain why you disagree?

You already made a good start by underlying the parts that annoy you the most. Now go ahead : Explain to us why you think it's likely Hamilton or Landis still have something on Armstrong they haven't disclosed yet. Explain why you think Landis has good chance of winning big with the trial. I'm looking forward to your explaination on why you think most people love the idea of an ex doper denouncing other dopers and trying to make money out of it (we probably don't live in the same environment, that would explain it). And please remind us what exactly did Bruyneel and Armstrong did to him except not hiring him. I sure know nothing but fortunately you're here. And to finish, I'm waiting for you to tell us why Landis is looking forward to the trial even tho he said himself he wish he didn't have to go through this and wish Armstrong had settle the case.

Thank you in advance for all your answers. I will know way more things about a lot of stuff tonight thanks to you (Lucky me)


Have you ever considered the possibility of Floyds anger actually being directed at members of Tailwind Sports that never through a leg over a bicycle. Why don't you explain to us who it was that actually started the Floyd Fairness Fund and where the initial contributions came from.


How would I know such things? Landis never explained it as far as I know. If he did, he failed to put the message out there. Why would he remain in a position where the average guy will likely think he denounced his former friends in order to enrich himself if he actually has a good explaination is beyond me.
How is anyone not privy to him or his entourage supposed to know it?
absolutely_not
Junior Member
 
Posts: 56
Joined: 14 Nov 2013 13:06

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 15 guests

Back to top