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

[Anonymous]

I sent BikeCentric a PM asking him to name just one instance of me trolling.

He sent back a post that was unable to do that, but finished with the line:

I suggest that you kill yourself and do one last act of good for yourself and the human gene pool.

Ugly stuff. That should be a straight banning.

Where is RaceRadio to tell me i have a persecution complex?

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Great White: Quit playing the injured innocent. Either stick to the topic or go away.

This applies to the rest of you, too.

Susan

 

[Anonymous]

I suggest that you kill yourself and do one last act of good for yourself and the human gene pool.

To which:

Great White: Quit playing the injured innocent. Either stick to the topic or go away.

Mind blowing. He is telling me to kill myself. Read what he wrote.

And then:

Either stick to the topic or go away.

I'm the one who was sticking to the topic! You know this!

This goes for the rest of you

Tagging that on at the end of the message really isn't good enough. Your comments should have been addressed to the person who was disrupting the thread, not to me and then a vague comment afterwards. I'm taking this matter further.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Deep joy. The Borg have returned. Another trollathon.
So Armstrong's dodgy values were a typo. Where have we heard that before?
Another conspiracy theory? Why is this excuse always dredged up to explain away unpalatable outcomes, by certain US factions?
I see even Hilary Clinton has got in on the act and the Italians are on the receiving end. You know, the dudes who gave us the renaissance?

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

Way to expensive.
Yet now, they can afford to splash out half a million on the "Rice Cake Man".
So surely, with a big sponsor to foot the bill, Armstrong could have gone transparent with Catlin, this season, no?

 

[tubularglue]

Way to expensive.
Yet now, they can afford to splash out half a million on the "Rice Cake Man".
So surely, with a big sponsor to foot the bill, Armstrong could have gone transparent with Catlin, this season, no?

costly = revealing.
complex = so complicated or intricate as to be hard to understand or deal with

not so black and white.

Did Catlin get a big fat check - on board/go away? Always wondered this.

*As far as the trolls go,I think they are paid for.

pulled this way, pushed that

commissi/omissus

 

[Hugh Januss]

My own theory on the Catlin thing is that he refused to "play ball" with Armstrong and wouldn't go along with the "fudge factor" required to make Armstrong look clean.

 

[Race Radio]

My own theory on the Catlin thing is that he refused to "play ball" with Armstrong and wouldn't go along with the "fudge factor" required to make Armstrong look clean.

Possibly. After consulting with "Family Friend" Ferrari it became clear that instead of the Keystone cops that they are used to dealing with Catlin would actually be a challenge to the "Program".

 

[Ripper]

Possibly. After consulting with "Family Friend" Ferrari it became clear that instead of the Keystone cops that they are used to dealing with Catlin would actually be a challenge to the "Program".

This is where I think it hit the wall. It would not surprise me in the least that Catlin had some innovative ideas on how to really make things transparent and these were not looked upon too favourably. We can all make some pretty logical conclusions as to why.

 

[pedaling squares]

Great White: Quit playing the injured innocent. Either stick to the topic or go away.

This applies to the rest of you, too.

Susan

Rhetorical question perhaps, but is this as tiring to moderate as it is to read?

 

[workingclasshero]

wow it's been busy on here in the last 24hrs but it's been a good read!

i want to say thank you to the latest trolls (great white, hombre et al) who keep bringing out the very best in some very knowledgeable people on here.

can you please stop pretending you don't see it when you're asked questions which you can't answer though, it's doing my head in! and it happens so often. just admit you don't have an answer to it!!

it must be annoying the fúck out of lance to know that knowledgeable cycling fans will never see his tour de france wins for anything else than a string of triumphs for dr. ferrari and the only ones acknowledging him as a cycling legend are those who don't really care about cycling he's like the simpletons' choice of god

ps. i just want to add. RACE RADIO FOR PRESIDENT dr. maserati as first lady please

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Rhetorical question perhaps, but is this as tiring to moderate as it is to read?

More so, because first I have to read it, then moderate it.

Susan

 

[Casa de Hombre]

Possibly. After consulting with "Family Friend" Ferrari it became clear that instead of the Keystone cops that they are used to dealing with Catlin would actually be a challenge to the "Program".

Can you please show me 100% stand up in court proof that he acheived this through cheating. Sorry, but nobody on any cycling forum can say with 100% certainty that he cheated or did not cheat, though some can say they have yet to see definitive proof of him cheating. What is worse wanting definitive proof or latching on to anything to claim that you "know" someone is guilty?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Can you please show me 100% stand up in court proof that he acheived this through cheating. Sorry, but nobody on any cycling forum can say with 100% certainty that he cheated or did not cheat, though some can say they have yet to see definitive proof of him cheating. What is worse wanting definitive proof or latching on to anything to claim that you "know" someone is guilty?

Same old lame fanboy defense deserves the same old response. So you think OJ was innocent too? Maybe we should all be helping him find the real killers instead of talking about evidence of Armstrong's doping?

 

[tubularglue]

I am not expecting any admission of quilt'

"Argumentum ad nauseam or argument from repetition or argumentum ad infinitum is an argument made repeatedly (possibly by different people) until nobody cares to discuss it any more. This may sometimes, but not always, be a form of proof by assertion".

100% / never tested positive


spin/sidestep/omit

 

[Casa de Hombre]

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.

There is even a powerpoint floating around that proves everything.

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

There was no argument...until BroFlock tried to turn it into an anti-LA rant. Once again how are my labels (based on facts) hurting my argument, but don't hurt the arguments of those that "know" LA doped? it's amazing how often someone plays cop on here...but only for one side.

 

[red_flanders]

Actually he did post his numbers online for year, as he said. But the drug testing program, that was abandoned for being too costly and complex for no benefit (who was going to believe in house testing?)

Again I want to thank you for teeing up the PR lies so nicely so they can be shown for what they are. Much appreciated.

This is one of my favorites. What you're suggesting is that Armstrong didn't know the cost of the program going in, didn't understand the cost or the complexity, and that no one would believe it anyway. You're also suggesting that Caitlin was to be an in-house doctor--an employee of Armstrong. All just great stuff.

So what you're saying is that he's a complete idiot who had a press conference announcing a program he knew nothing about (quite possible), couldn't afford (absurd) and that no one would believe anyway (I think a lot of people would believe it).

Here's the beauty of the whole thing. Even now, after he dropped Caitlin and pulled down his numbers off his site there are fans proclaiming his honesty and transparency.

He did what works. He crowed loudly in the press loud enough for those with a passing interest in the sport to hear about it. That's all they'll see or remember. A bulk of his fans will believe anything he says, so they're covered. Anyone else, who actually pays attention, uses logic, and cares about the sport sees through the lies. You're left will a very small group of people in this fringe sport (in the US), so the numbers work out. He's convinced a bunch of people that he's clean while lying outright.

A the power of the media and the bully pulpit.

The people who actually have all the information and still believe his lies are the ones who really amaze me. Cognitive dissonance is alive and well.

 

[Race Radio]

Can you please show me 100% stand up in court proof that he acheived this through cheating. Sorry, but nobody on any cycling forum can say with 100% certainty that he cheated or did not cheat, though some can say they have yet to see definitive proof of him cheating. What is worse wanting definitive proof or latching on to anything to claim that you "know" someone is guilty?

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Please tell us how Ashenden is wrong.

 

[Casa de Hombre]

Same old lame fanboy defense deserves the same old response. So you think OJ was innocent too? Maybe we should all be helping him find the real killers instead of talking about evidence of Armstrong's doping?

Hang on now, that's just crazy talk, everyone (i.e. those that "know" LA doped) will tell you he wasn't that good before he got cancer and that his world championship was merely luck. It's been posted on this forum many times.

 

[red_flanders]

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Please tell us how Ashenden is wrong.

It's not 100% proof.

It's only overwhelming preponderance of evidence. It's only beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you throw up a strawman which says "prove it 100%" (never mind that no one has claimed 100% proof) then you have an argument...with yourself, but you have an argument.

An utterly pointless, irrelevant argument, but it keeps the wheels spinning, and there's the goal!

 

[Hugh Januss]

There was no argument...until BroFlock tried to turn it into an anti-LA rant. Once again how are my labels (based on facts) hurting my argument, but don't hurt the arguments of those that "know" LA doped? it's amazing how often someone plays cop on here...but only for one side.

What's amazing is how often "new" posters turn up complaining about things that happened before they ever joined. And ChrisE you had posts deleted because of being a dill.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Please tell us how Ashenden is wrong.

But thats not 100% - and you are not allowed have an opinion unless it is court approved. I am getting new wheels - I hope the Judge allows me to get the tubs I really want. But first I have to go to court to decide where to go for lunch.

I have a good lawyer though - but wish me luck.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Hang on now, that's just crazy talk, everyone (i.e. those that "know" LA doped) will tell you he wasn't that good before he got cancer and that his world championship was merely luck. It's been posted on this forum many times.

Show me where that was said.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Show me where that was said.

And while you are looking for that - don't forget the information I requested yesterday.

Can you provide a link to either of those sources of information [USADA UCI posting LAs numbers]- 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.

 

[Casa de Hombre]

And while you are looking for that - don't forget the information I requested yesterday.

Can you provide a link to either of those sources of information [USADA UCI posting LAs numbers]- 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.

Simple questions looking for simple answers, but instead I get a question.

 

[Casa de Hombre]

It's not 100% proof.

It's only overwhelming preponderance of evidence. It's only beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you throw up a strawman which says "prove it 100%" (never mind that no one has claimed 100% proof) then you have an argument...with yourself, but you have an argument.

An utterly pointless, irrelevant argument, but it keeps the wheels spinning, and there's the goal!

I have never crucified anyone without concrete evidence. I have expressed my opinion about certain things but I never portray them as facts...unlike a lot of people on this forum. Keep in mind I also did not name any names specifically because of what I believe is appropriate and inappropriate around here. (Isn't it amazing that someone can stick to a belief around here instead of flip flopping when it benefits them?!?!?!)