• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

“I think the riders are scared of Lance right now.” - Phil Liggett

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
RDV4ROUBAIX said:
I'm more "scared of" Phil, I've heard his breath smells like rotten sardines. That's why you see Paul lean back a bit when Phil turns his head towards him.

Tic-Tac anyone?
That's very funny. I think back in the 2003 Tour his peers were talking about how bad he smells too. He got a little upset. (Off Topic).
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Snake8 said:
And you get to pontificate about how that rider out-doped the king of dopers. Either way you are a WINNER!

Dang, you put a positive spin on it, thanks!
 
Jun 13, 2009
99
0
0
Visit site
RightWingNutJob said:
You can be certain that just as many people who want LA to win, want him to lose.

I very much doubt that! I think the average Lance hating forum knob jockey loses perspective on just how popular Lance is amongst sports fans and the general public. If Lance wins (and I don't think he will) it would be like the second coming .... and rightly so I guess.
 
Jun 16, 2009
647
0
0
Visit site
What you of course mean is that it will go down like the second coming in the US, and among the scattering of non-cycling fans who follow the tour because of Lance the world over.

Meanwhile, enlightened observers, those indifferent to the hype, and the more established cycling fan bases in "Old Europe" will shrug their shoulders and hope he doesn't come back in 2010. Or buy a team, or buy the race.
 
Mongol_Waaijer said:
What you of course mean is that it will go down like the second coming in the US, and among the scattering of non-cycling fans who follow the tour because of Lance the world over.

Meanwhile, enlightened observers, those indifferent to the hype, and the more established cycling fan bases in "Old Europe" will shrug their shoulders and hope he doesn't come back in 2010. Or buy a team, or buy the race.
(Sorry, a little off topic)

Hey Mongol,

I saw your message in another thread to Jackhammer and liked it. I did not know you were a cyclist. I hope you stick around and share some of your experiences with us.
Thanks.
 
Mar 10, 2009
182
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
I'm not scared in the slightest. See, its just a bike race. He wins, I get to pontificate about his methods for doing so on interweb forums. It doesn't affect my life in any real way outside of that.

He loses, then someone else won the tour.

Its just a bike race.

LOL! Such a comic you are.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Robert Merivel said:
Oh my, and all this time I thought you were a female poster!

Well bust my balls! Imagine that.

It is projection on your part, no worries. Not that there is anything wrong with being a woman. So how is the edge today edge liver? You are such a hero to everyone here. Hey, what are you today, an astronaut? It must be exciting to be able to make up what you are every day.
 
Jun 26, 2009
276
1
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
It is projection on your part, no worries. Not that there is anything wrong with being a woman. So how is the edge today edge liver? You are such a hero to everyone here. Hey, what are you today, an astronaut? It must be exciting to be able to make up what you are every day.

Here ya go TTF . . . testing of years old biological sample done right resulting in a finding of doping and exclusion from the Tour . . . .

"Under the World Anti-Doping Code, drug testers have the option of storing and re-examining old samples, as long as there is a sufficient quantity to allow a follow-up - or B sample - test. "
http://www.velonews.com/article/94103/dekker-positive-for-epo

So why didn't the conspiring French journalists and bias Australian doctor go this route on the six year old samples??? Oh . . . I know . . . because their sleight of hand charade resulting in . . . Voila! . . . Armstrong doped . . . probably wouldn't have worked if they had done it according to some accepted standard such as . . . oh . . . "the World Anti-Doping Code" as in this case.

Armstrong is clean. No one has proved or provided any credible evidence otherwise.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
byu123 said:
Here ya go TTF . . . testing of years old biological sample done right resulting in a finding of doping and exclusion from the Tour . . . .

"Under the World Anti-Doping Code, drug testers have the option of storing and re-examining old samples, as long as there is a sufficient quantity to allow a follow-up - or B sample - test. "
http://www.velonews.com/article/94103/dekker-positive-for-epo

So why didn't the conspiring French journalists and bias Australian doctor go this route on the six year old samples??? Oh . . . I know . . . because their sleight of hand charade resulting in . . . Voila! . . . Armstrong doped . . . probably wouldn't have worked if they had done it according to some accepted standard such as . . . oh . . . "the World Anti-Doping Code" as in this case.

Armstrong is clean. No one has proved or provided any credible evidence otherwise.

Nice try, but the tests were done on the B samples because the A samples were already disposed of because they did not test positive in the initial test (please note that during the initial test there was no EPO test done because there wasn't one in 1999). The B samples were stored but had never been tested because there was no reason to. Then in the process of developing the test for synthetic EPO, those samples were brought out of the freezer and tested as part of a blind study. 6 of the samples that tested positive were later linked to Mr Armstrong when Mr Armstrong allowed the UCI to release his control numbers from the 1999 Tour. The journalist got the numbers and with the collusion of a worker in the lab made the discovery. Mr Ashenden and the French lab never did a test such as the one you propose because they were just using the samples to perfect the test for synthetic EPO, and the UCI at the time could not sanction based on that scenario.
Mr Armstrong used synthetic EPO during the 1999 Tour de France.
 
Apr 1, 2009
1,488
0
0
Visit site
byu123 said:
Here ya go TTF . . . testing of years old biological sample done right resulting in a finding of doping and exclusion from the Tour . . . .

"Under the World Anti-Doping Code, drug testers have the option of storing and re-examining old samples, as long as there is a sufficient quantity to allow a follow-up - or B sample - test. "
http://www.velonews.com/article/94103/dekker-positive-for-epo

So why didn't the conspiring French journalists and bias Australian doctor go this route on the six year old samples??? Oh . . . I know . . . because their sleight of hand charade resulting in . . . Voila! . . . Armstrong doped . . . probably wouldn't have worked if they had done it according to some accepted standard such as . . . oh . . . "the World Anti-Doping Code" as in this case.

Armstrong is clean. No one has proved or provided any credible evidence otherwise.

Go find a nice mound of sand and bury your head in it:p
 
Mar 18, 2009
15
0
0
Visit site
Thanks BYU123 for stating something reasonable, I'd better get off here now and wait for the Lance Haters to jump on your post(TFF, Brodeal etc). They always attack people ,I am surprised that they are still allowed to post.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
byu123 said:
Here ya go TTF . . . testing of years old biological sample done right resulting in a finding of doping and exclusion from the Tour . . . .

"Under the World Anti-Doping Code, drug testers have the option of storing and re-examining old samples, as long as there is a sufficient quantity to allow a follow-up - or B sample - test. "
http://www.velonews.com/article/94103/dekker-positive-for-epo

So why didn't the conspiring French journalists and bias Australian doctor go this route on the six year old samples??? Oh . . . I know . . . because their sleight of hand charade resulting in . . . Voila! . . . Armstrong doped . . . probably wouldn't have worked if they had done it according to some accepted standard such as . . . oh . . . "the World Anti-Doping Code" as in this case.

Armstrong is clean. No one has proved or provided any credible evidence otherwise.

Here is a little Google project for you, look up the date that code was implemented; I think you will find the folly of your latest game of "gotcha'"
 
Apr 19, 2009
190
0
0
Visit site
byu123 said:
Armstrong is clean. No one has proved or provided any credible evidence otherwise.

I know in several threads ago you said that you were really new to cycling and that you didn't really follow it all that much before Armstrong.

Second, you were an FBI agent and were involved in the US law system for 17 years.


Its pretty weak for you to use the law/process as the reasons for saying Contador and Armstrong don't dope because they have never tested positive and that we need to provide you absolute proof. Being an agent I am sure you would have seen many guilty criminals in your day that were set free or never found guilty because their was lack of evidence or evidence that could not be submitted due to laws or process. Doesn't change the fact that they aren't guilty but in the eyes of the law they are innocent......Al Capone is a perfect example......

So, I am saying Contador and Armstrong doped but have never tested positive because the process in which to find them positive has never been achieved. You are too new to cycling to understand the efforts, the actual realities of the results of what Armstrong and others have done....none of which can be reproduced during the 80s.......and I am comparing the amount of WATTS the cyclist put out....not their bikes. 400 WATTS versus 480 is a huge difference......
 
May 14, 2009
34
1
0
Visit site
Epo

Was hoping to pick up a few vials for the Saturday group ride. Went to two local bike shops and when asked if I needed help I said yes I am looking a little EPO. You know tired of getting dropped a 3rd of the way through the ride. That county line sign is mine *****es. Apparently they either don't have any or do not understand the joke.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
byu123 said:
Here ya go TTF . . . testing of years old biological sample done right resulting in a finding of doping and exclusion from the Tour . . . .

"Under the World Anti-Doping Code, drug testers have the option of storing and re-examining old samples, as long as there is a sufficient quantity to allow a follow-up - or B sample - test. "
http://www.velonews.com/article/94103/dekker-positive-for-epo

So why didn't the conspiring French journalists and bias Australian doctor go this route on the six year old samples??? Oh . . . I know . . . because their sleight of hand charade resulting in . . . Voila! . . . Armstrong doped . . . probably wouldn't have worked if they had done it according to some accepted standard such as . . . oh . . . "the World Anti-Doping Code" as in this case.

Armstrong is clean. No one has proved or provided any credible evidence otherwise.


Thoughtforfood said:
Here is a little Google project for you, look up the date that code was implemented; I think you will find the folly of your latest game of "gotcha'"

I'll give you a hint: It was January 1, 2004

Now if you need even more help, since the urine samples were taken in 1999, that would mean they couldn't be used in the manner you described because the code to wit you refer was not in place then.

Dang.
 
Mar 10, 2009
182
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
It is projection on your part, no worries. Not that there is anything wrong with being a woman. So how is the edge today edge liver? You are such a hero to everyone here. Hey, what are you today, an astronaut? It must be exciting to be able to make up what you are every day.

"Hero? Astronaut?" Sounds like your getting desperate.

From the majority of responses to your posts, it really doesn't seem that you are appreciated here. Could it be that those who hear your incessant rants on DOPERS IN THE PELOTON might consider you a "know it all" (One who knows everything; hence, a person who makes pretension to great knowledge, especially one whose didactic conversational habit conspicuously reveals his belief that he has superior knowledge on many subjects; a wiseacre; a know-all) and most see through your self serving facade?

Your slip is showing. No pun intended. Touche!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Robert Merivel said:
"Hero? Astronaut?" Sounds like your getting desperate.

From the majority of responses to your posts, it really doesn't seem that you are appreciated here. Could it be that those who hear your incessant rants on DOPERS IN THE PELOTON might consider you a "know it all" (One who knows everything; hence, a person who makes pretension to great knowledge, especially one whose didactic conversational habit conspicuously reveals his belief that he has superior knowledge on many subjects; a wiseacre; a know-all) and most see through your self serving facade?

Your slip is showing. No pun intended. Touche!

Do you have mirrors in your home?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Robert Merivel said:
"Hero? Astronaut?" Sounds like your getting desperate.

From the majority of responses to your posts, it really doesn't seem that you are appreciated here. Could it be that those who hear your incessant rants on DOPERS IN THE PELOTON might consider you a "know it all" (One who knows everything; hence, a person who makes pretension to great knowledge, especially one whose didactic conversational habit conspicuously reveals his belief that he has superior knowledge on many subjects; a wiseacre; a know-all) and most see through your self serving facade?

Your slip is showing. No pun intended. Touche!

I think I have tried to give you this before and you refused, so this time, take it knowing that it is from the heart: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhwbxEfy7fg