Log in:  

Register

8 Things On Lance Armstrong From The "Other Side Of The Grass"

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

08 Dec 2009 21:49

Casa de Hombre wrote:why is it embarrassing for me? Seems like the second link was the original that obviously had an error. They corrected the error and move along. How about the UCI or USADA do they have the same results? Don't they post them somewhere so that they we can do a comparison?


"If it's not currently up on the internet it must be a lie!"

Whoops.

"It's a mistake, obviously!"

Uh...okay. Which is it again? A lie, or a mistake? I'm getting confused.

"The 500,000 number is a lie, by haters!"

Whoops.

"It's not illegal!"

You know what I learned in third grade? Liars continually change their stories. People telling the truth don't. Funny how the Armstrong sock puppets on this site and Armstrong himself are always saying one thing one day, then another the next. Then calling everyone else liars.

Yep. In third grade I learned that's what liars do.
User avatar red_flanders
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,453
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

08 Dec 2009 21:49

Casa de Hombre wrote:why is it embarrassing for me? Seems like the second link was the original that obviously had an error. They corrected the error and move along. How about the UCI or USADA do they have the same results? Don't they post them somewhere so that they we can do a comparison?


Short term memory loss is often a sign of mental illness or excessive drug use. You appear to have forgotten your very recent claim.

Casa de Hombre wrote:How do we know you did not change those values with photoshop just to make something up?


Followed by

Casa de Hombre wrote:Well if they are not up on the internet then one can not believe it. Just because a bunch of Message board people from all over the world said they saw it in real time does not make it true. I did not see it so does that make it false? Prove it that all I am asking. I doubt you can.


Why is it that the Armstrong Groupies explain everything with a conspiracy?
USADA and the UCI will only release the results with the consent of the athlete.
User avatar Race Radio
Senior Member
 
Posts: 11,339
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 14:01

08 Dec 2009 21:52

Casa de Hombre wrote:why is it embarrassing for me? Seems like the second link was the original that obviously had an error. They corrected the error and move along. How about the UCI or USADA do they have the same results? Don't they post them somewhere so that they we can do a comparison?


Can you provide a link to either of those sources of information - as it would help clear up the mess - or were they taken down too?

Also - can you show me where I can find the comments from Pat McQuaid on Lances generous contribution? Did either Pat or Hein say how many contributions, how much, what it was spent on? Again it would clear the air and not look like a bribe - which actually is illegal.
User avatar Dr. Maserati
Senior Member
 
Posts: 11,437
Joined: 19 Jun 2009 10:31

08 Dec 2009 22:09

Casa de Hombre wrote:why is it embarrassing for me?


Even asking is embarrassing! Quit drinking Hatoraide there Hombre :D
JimmyFingers wrote:Look I no way dispute Wiggins ... he is doping, he's at it all the time, and has been for years.
User avatar Ripper
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,511
Joined: 14 Sep 2009 03:41
Location: It's a surprise!

08 Dec 2009 22:27

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/sports/othersports/12cycling.html

Image

without Catlin’s analyzing a single blood or urine sample from Armstrong. The program was too complex and too costly

Still, Armstrong, who has been dogged by doping allegations throughout his career, made his private antidoping program one of the cornerstones of his comeback.

In September, Catlin said, “The key is to have the information out there for the public to see and to analyze, because it shows you have nothing to hide.”
[color="DarkGreen"]Having some pizza, learning about Cuba.
-Jeff Spiccoli[/color]

[color="Orange"]One Gold Coin per Post[/color]

TDW Sports photos

Biciticino Women's Gallery
User avatar tubularglue
Junior Member
 
Posts: 1,081
Joined: 02 Jul 2009 04:03

08 Dec 2009 22:41

Do we have any information indictating those values were the wrong number? Could just have been the person who writes it up correcting a typo otherwise.
Great White
 

08 Dec 2009 22:54

Great White wrote:Do we have any information indictating those values were the wrong number? Could just have been the person who writes it up correcting a typo otherwise.


We really shouldn't rule out that the space aliens who control the internet changed them....just like they spiked Armstrong's samples in 99.
User avatar Race Radio
Senior Member
 
Posts: 11,339
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 14:01

08 Dec 2009 22:59

Race Radio wrote:We really shouldn't rule out that the space aliens who control the internet changed them....just like they spiked Armstrong's samples in 99.


So I take it that you don't believe the person who writes up the site simply made a typo and changed it. The UCI have the numbers and it could have leaked out if were wrong, so I think it's unlikely that it was changed after the fact to a false number. And why change it? Surely it would be better to give the false number to begin with?
Great White
 

08 Dec 2009 23:05

Great White wrote:So I take it that you don't believe the person who writes up the site simply made a typo and changed it. The UCI have the numbers and it could have leaked out if were wrong, so I think it's unlikely that it was changed after the fact to a false number. And why change it? Surely it would be better to give the false number to begin with?


It's possible.

Here's a question--if you were Armstrong, and you were going to put numbers up to prove you were clean, how would you have handled such a discrepancy?

In my view Armstrong has a long history of PR events which never map to the facts. Seems to me the most likely scenario is that he can point to the chart and the addled masses will think, "ooh! Transparency". Those who see Armstrong for what he is will shout to each other in relatively small corners of the internet that it's more evidence that he's dirty.

Evaluate damage. Say nothing or announce the "adjustments" and get the press involved. Easy call. So it's either an error or an adjustment. Same damage equation.
User avatar red_flanders
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,453
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

08 Dec 2009 23:08

red_flanders wrote:It's possible.

Here's a question--if you were Armstrong, and you were going to put numbers up to prove you were clean, how would you have handled such a discrepancy?

In my view Armstrong has a long history of PR events which never map to the facts. Seems to me the most likely scenario is that he can point to the chart and the addled masses will think, "ooh! Transparency". Those who see Armstrong for what he is will shout to each other in relatively small corners of the internet that it's more evidence that he's dirty.

Evaluate damage. Say nothing or announce the "adjustments" and get the press involved. Easy call. So it's either an error or an adjustment. Same damage equation.


I don't think you can compare this to one of those cases. This is different to a promise that is not kept. It's a black and white chart.
Great White
 

08 Dec 2009 23:11

Great White wrote:So I take it that you don't believe the person who writes up the site simply made a typo and changed it. The UCI have the numbers and it could have leaked out if were wrong, so I think it's unlikely that it was changed after the fact to a false number. And why change it? Surely it would be better to give the false number to begin with?


The test was performed in California durinng training camp. More likely USADA and not the UCI.

If it was indeed a mistake then it would be easy to clear up, Armstrong would just authorize WADA to release the actual number. This would be in line with his promise of "complete transparency".

This issue has been discussed for months. Multiple requests for clarification have been submitted.....nothing. In fact quite the opposite, the numbers were taken off the site. Comments asking about it were deleted. When questions about his numbers started being asked what did Armstrong do? Simple, he stopped talking to reporters.

I think we can all agree the likelihood that this was a mistake is low. If it is then it would be very simple for Armstrong to correct this perception....instead he has just reinforced it by trying to cover it up.
User avatar Race Radio
Senior Member
 
Posts: 11,339
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 14:01

08 Dec 2009 23:13

Great White wrote:I don't think you can compare this to one of those cases. This is different to a promise that is not kept. It's a black and white chart.


It's two black and white charts with SEVERAL discrepancies in blood values. All curiously favoring a cleaner-looking rider in the second set. A second set which appeared after people started questioning the first.

Believe what you want, but the fact remains that there is no explanation for this set of errors being put forth by the UCI or Armstrong. None.
User avatar red_flanders
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,453
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

08 Dec 2009 23:17

red_flanders wrote:It's two black and white charts with SEVERAL discrepancies in blood values. All curiously favoring a cleaner-looking rider in the second set. A second set which appeared after people started questioning the first.

Believe what you want, but the fact remains that there is no explanation for this set of errors being put forth by the UCI or Armstrong. None.


True, it was more then just that one Hct number. Others were changed as well.

Livestrong needs to stop hiring homeless drunks with "The Shakes" for those data entry positions.
User avatar Race Radio
Senior Member
 
Posts: 11,339
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 14:01

08 Dec 2009 23:19

Race Radio wrote:The test was performed in California durinng training camp. More likely USADA and not the UCI.

If it was indeed a mistake then it would be easy to clear up, Armstrong would just authorize WADA to release the actual number. This would be in line with his promise of "complete transparency".

This issue has been discussed for months. Multiple requests for clarification have been submitted.....nothing. In fact quite the opposite, the numbers were taken off the site. When questions about his number started being asked what did Armstrong do? Simple, he stopped talking to reporters.

I think we can all agree the likelihood that this was a mistake is low. If it is then it would be very simple for Armstrong to correct this perception....instead he has just reinforced it by trying to cover it up.


You're saying there is no chance USADA or WADA would leak the number or take stronger action if Armstrong's people were changing numbers on his blood charts? I think that is very unlikely that Armstrong would take the risk. On this issue at least, you have to give Armstrong the benefit of the doubt. It makes no sense. Why didn't he change other numbers that were unsual? Why just this one number? If you think it through you can see it is not very likely.
Great White
 

08 Dec 2009 23:22

red_flanders wrote:It's two black and white charts with SEVERAL discrepancies in blood values. All curiously favoring a cleaner-looking rider in the second set. A second set which appeared after people started questioning the first.

Believe what you want, but the fact remains that there is no explanation for this set of errors being put forth by the UCI or Armstrong. None.


Do you have any evidence that lots of numbers were changed? This is a new allegation.

I don't see the logic in changing charts AFTER they have been put up. It would be a direct challenge to the doping authorities, and people would be able to see them changing the numbers. Go after Armstrong on other matters, but this doesn't smell right on any level.
Great White
 

08 Dec 2009 23:26

Casa de Hombre wrote:Thanks Huge I found that also. She says that “to my knowledge” and “there is speculation” that is hardly comments that state 100% without a doubt he paid that amount or that there was any other amount paid. If these comments were so credible then why not bring her over or go over to her for a deposition. They could have tried to get Lance on perjury or something like that. They did not so I am not at all surprised you “Hater’s” would hang your hats on those loose statements.


This has been rehashed many times, and I once got a bunch of posts deleted with a warning for bucking the company line here.

Repeat after me, hombre: German UCI chick says $500k, sworn depostion by LA and the guy Kathy Lemond "overheard" says much less. They cannot be trusted, thus it is $500k, in a time machine no less. It buys retroactive TUE's, etc. :D

There is even a powerpoint floating around that proves everything.

Now, straighten up or off to the ban bin with rhitaliano and logical cranium!
User avatar ChrisE
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,494
Joined: 18 May 2009 20:14

08 Dec 2009 23:30

Great White wrote:Do you have any evidence that lots of numbers were changed? This is a new allegation.

I don't see the logic in changing charts AFTER they have been put up. It would be a direct challenge to the doping authorities, and people would be able to see them changing the numbers. Go after Armstrong on other matters, but this doesn't smell right on any level.


The doping authorities you say. Okay. See Armstrong's relationship with said authorities over time. Get back to me.

If you want evidence of the different values in the charts, just look at the two links I already posted in this thread and compare the values. This is not a new allegation, it's an old fact, discussed ad nauseum on several cycling boards. Nothing new here, you just need to catch up.

If you're genuinely interested in what's happening, I think you'll find out that your questions are well-worn ground which I'm happy to talk to you about. If you've already decided that Lance is not worth "going after" in this case, then the conversation is going to be rather pointless.
User avatar red_flanders
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,453
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

08 Dec 2009 23:33

ChrisE wrote:This has been rehashed many times, and I once got a bunch of posts deleted with a warning for bucking the company line here.

Repeat after me, hombre: German UCI chick says $500k, sworn depostion by LA and the guy Kathy Lemond "overheard" says much less. They cannot be trusted, thus it is $500k, in a time machine no less. It buys retroactive TUE's, etc. :D

There is even a powerpoint floating around that proves everything.

Now, straighten up or off to the ban bin with rhitaliano and logical cranium!


Well, if you can't find the Schenk quote, you're not trying very hard.

Also see Stapleton with "repeated" donations and a lot of "i can't remember" from Armstrong. Compelling, credible stuff.
User avatar red_flanders
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,453
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

08 Dec 2009 23:39

Interestingly VeloNews has removed their article on the matter. Don't recall running into that for any other out-of-date stories, but it may in fact just be an artifact of restructuring the site architecture. Maybe not. Either way, it's too bad those dastardly french/cancer-loving trolls at Google actually cache pages for later viewing. Darn!

The former president of the German Cycling Federation (BDR), Sylvia Schenk, has hit out at the UCI for what she claims is the organization’s willingness to “brush aside” the Lance Armstrong affair.

Schenk, who has been at loggerheads with UCI president Hein Verbruggen for the past few months, said cycling's world ruling body is only interested in finding out who leaked information about the alleged positive doping tests of the seven-time Tour de France winner, and not in the case itself.

The German official told reporters that Verbruggen is more intent up finding the source of leaks than dealing with the allegations raised three weeks ago by the newspaper L’Equipe

"The UCI and its president Hein Verbruggen are more interested in finding the leak than clearing up the Armstrong doping case."

The French sports daily L'Equipe claimed Armstrong's 1999 urine samples tested positive for the banned blood booster EPO (erythropoietin).

Interestingly, in conference call with reporters on Thursday, World Anti-Doping Agency head **** Pound said he was convinced that the information L’Equipe used to link numbered-but-anonymous laboratory results to riders’ names actually came from Verbruggen himself.

Pound said he had a letter from Verbruggen that left him with the impression that it was the UCI president who provided the critical link to L’Equipe.

Since the fall-out from the allegations, Verbruggen - who is hoping his hand-chosen successor, Ireland’s Pat McQuaid, will be voted the new boss of world cycling next week - has refused to point the finger at the American.

Instead, in a recent interview with Le Figaro newspaper the Dutchman appeared more interested in slamming WADA’s Pound, who said following the Armstrong affair that it looked likely the American had been doping.


"We're going to be looking further into this affair,” Verbruggen said last week. “It's another heavy blow to cycling so we have to take it all the way. And I also want to know who exactly it was who gave out this information."

Schenk believes the UCI are burying their heads, and simply wanted to restrict their investigation to finding out who leaked the information to L'Equipe.

"Verbruggen is making slower progress than expected because it was thought that it was someone in the French Ministry," explained Schenk. "However, it could be that the informer is a UCI employee. The only thing the UCI are concerned with is finding out the identity of the informants who brought this case to light."

A UCI statement recently said they would take no action against Armstrong over the doping accusations and Schenk feels the American cycling icon has received special treatment.

"Since 1998 the UCI has done a lot to combat doping but everything is different where Armstrong is concerned," added Schenk, who stoked the flames a few months ago when she filed an official complaint with the UCI claiming that, against UCI rules, McQuaid was benefiting from UCI payments and an apartment in Switzerland.

Schenk also pointed to the fact that Armstrong, shortly after a damaging book – David Walsh’s “LA Confidential” - was published claiming he had regularly used doping products, handed Verbruggen a hefty check to be used in the fight against doping.

At the time, Verbruggen made no secret of the American's gift.

"There is obviously a strong relationship with Armstrong," Schenk added. "The UCI took a lot of money from Armstrong - to my knowledge 500,000 dollars - and now there is speculation that there are financial connections to Armstrong, as well as the American market. I do not know what sort of connections Verbruggen has."

Armstrong, who turns 34 on Sunday, has protested his innocence and said he is considering returning to the Tour next July as a result of the latest accusations.


The Germans love cancer as well, apparently.
User avatar red_flanders
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,453
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

08 Dec 2009 23:40

Great White wrote:Do you have any evidence that lots of numbers were changed? This is a new allegation.

I don't see the logic in changing charts AFTER they have been put up. It would be a direct challenge to the doping authorities, and people would be able to see them changing the numbers. Go after Armstrong on other matters, but this doesn't smell right on any level.


I count 13 mistakes! Unlucky for some.

http://www.livestrong.com/lance-armstrong/blog/armstrongs-testing-results-to-be-posted-at-livestrong-com/

http://cdn-community2.livestrong.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/10/12/0a7caf5c-0435-4e4f-acb0-05e2a39f17d2.Full.jpg
User avatar Dr. Maserati
Senior Member
 
Posts: 11,437
Joined: 19 Jun 2009 10:31

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 42x16ss, Aapjes, Bing [Bot], cadence, mewmewmew13 and 13 guests

Back to top