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

[auscyclefan94]

Well maybe, but it's in the interests of people working for the sport to say this if they don't want to be smeared as "doping doctors". Nobody has proven Beullen to be wrong. It's just theories fighting other theories. At any rate I am confident the modern EPO test is sufficient. It's the early days of the test, which the experient that LA's test was involved in, that I don't have full trust in.



Once again I did address one of his points.



You're trolling again. I specifally pointed out why it is not a conspiracy.



I believe you did not respond because you know the answer might be favourable to Armstrong, which you cannot and will not accept under any circumstances whatsoever. That is what you are about.



I don't expect anything from you. I merely pointed out that your accusation of trolling against me is rather silly when you're the one with the snotty attitude and insults. Glass houses and all that.

max, just give up, you will be shot down time and time again. the true LA haters will knock you out in one blow. i don't think you are really acknowledging race radio's point's about AShenden.

You could be accused of baiting us "trolls" because whenever you stick out your bate (defence of LA) we "trolls" trouce all over it and rip it to shreads.

 

[Max Power]

I'm not going to get into the exact words and detail of it all. Where does it say that Frankie never saw lance use epo? What is the source?

Frankie has said numerous times that he never saw LA use doping products. Are you saying Frankie is lying?

 

[auscyclefan94]

I think we can all agree that, like all medicine, doping does not effect each rider in the same manner. Does anyone really believe that Riis, or Armstrong, would win one Tour with a level playing field? No rational person would be that silly.

Of course it only helps when you have Walter Viru (Recently busted for running a doping ring) is giving your team doctor advanced notice of "Surprise" controls. It does not hurt that the UCI and ASO look the other way when your team is caught dumping bags of dope.

Guess what team he is referring to...
U_ P _ _ _ _ L

 

[pedaling squares]

Do you think if someone commited perjury in that case they should be prosecuted? Serious question?

Well, I suppose that given that the justice systems of every western nation depend on witnesses providing honest testimony, I would have to say yes. Serious answer given on behalf of every one of us who deserves the protection of an open, credible, and functional justice system.

I can't really believe that you asked that question. You have suggested that witnesses who spoke only the truth as they knew it should not have done so. And now you question whether a witness who lied should have been punished for so doing. You accept dishonesty and are in favour of a cover-up... does that remind you of anyone you admire?

 

[Max Power]

Serious question - are you completely ***?

The incident was about what they heard in the hospital room - and the list of banned products Lance admitted to using.
Do you think Lance - or indeed any other athlete - is going to start shooting up like a junkie in front of others? Who saw Frankie use EPO?

No I am not ***.

So your position is that Frankie must be telling the truth when he said he never saw LA using doping products? Interesting.

 

[Max Power]

What part of BLOOD DOPING dont you understand?

I understand blood doping perfectly.

Now respond to my post.

 

[Max Power]

False-positive Epo test concerns unfounded

The brief report by Beullens et al1 is misleading regarding the urine test that the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) uses to detect recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEpo).
The WADA-recommended test is based on immunoelectorphoresis and double blotting (IEF/DB), and was developed by Lasne and de Ceaurriz in 2000.2

full article here: http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/content/full/108/5/1778?www.dopingjournal.org

Yes I've seen this. That is the response of other scientists. I also believe it's probably unfounded in the modern test. However it does raise concerns about the past.

 

[Race Radio]

No I am not ***.

So your position is that Frankie must be telling the truth when he said he never saw LA using doping products? Interesting.

You are going full ***, you might want to back it off a bit or you are going to get banned again.

Kevin Livingston rode with Ulrich for two seasons. He said he never saw Jan using EPO and Jan Hct was never over 39......that must mean that Jan was clean. Interesting.

It must get tedious every time you are banned and have to get a new IP address.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No I am not ***.

So your position is that Frankie must be telling the truth when he said he never saw LA using doping products? Interesting.

Name one person Jesus Manzano said he SAW dope?
Name one person Bernahrd Kohl said he SAW dope?
Name one person Patrick Sinkerwitz said he SAW dope?

Lots of riders dope - over 60 this year alone - they do so alone or with their trainers or soigneurs - not in front of other athletes.

 

[Max Power]

I think we can all agree that, like all medicine, doping does not effect each rider in the same manner. Does anyone really believe that Riis, or Armstrong, would win one Tour with a level playing field? No rational person would be that silly.

Ah, now we're getting down to the issue. When I asked you about this before you didn't want to respond.

Different products are used every year, if we are to believe the doping experts, and I'm sure you agree with Dr Maserai and myself that blood doping was likely the drug of choice in LA's later tours (if he doped). Now, given this, can we really believe that LA somehow responded better than everyone else to every type of doping product, and blood doping, for seven tours in a row and a comeback third? That doesn't make sense to me. This would also be against people that were using top clinics that rival anything Armstrong had access to. Surely any fair accessment would have to conclude that there is more to the Armstrong story than doping? Someone can respond well to one drug, but not a whole array of drugs and maintain such consistency.

I think you are scared of the answer to this because it means you might have to credit Armstrong. Why do you think you have such trouble doing that?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I understand blood doping perfectly.

Now respond to my post.

Do you??
I mentioned Autologous Blood transfusion - that is where an athlete draws their own blood, stores it and transfuses it back during an event - it gives the same benefit as EPO - and is undetectable.

 

[Max Power]

You are going full ***, you might want to back it off a bit or you are going to get banned again.

What would I get banned for? All I'm doing is talking about the issue in a reasonable manner. I'm not the person using insults and dodging questions. I don't understand your attitude. If you want to accuse others of trolling then you should get your own house in order first.

 

[Max Power]

Do you??
I mentioned Autologous Blood transfusion - that is where an athlete draws their own blood, stores it and transfuses it back during an event - it gives the same benefit as EPO - and is undetectable.

Your answering a different point to my post. Here is what I wrote:

So you agree it's unlikely EPO was used in every tour, at least not to any significant amount. This is my point. Why would Armstrong win seven in a row, and a comeback third, all down to doping? There were just as many suspicions about his rivals through the same period, but they were much more inconsistent. Pantani didn't win seven in a row. Ulrich didn't win seven. Many other riders were associated with top clinics that could rival anything Armstrong was contacted with. It seems to me there is more to the story than dope, therefore Armstrong still deserves the credit for his achievements EVEN IF he doped for most of his wins (which I personally don't believe he did).

 

[Max Power]

Name one person Jesus Manzano said he SAW dope?
Name one person Bernahrd Kohl said he SAW dope?
Name one person Patrick Sinkerwitz said he SAW dope?

Lots of riders dope - over 60 this year alone - they do so alone or with their trainers or soigneurs - not in front of other athletes.

Okay, yes. But purely for hypothetical purposes, of course, if someone said that he never saw Armstrong dope in the trial - as he has said in many interviews - and this was not true, do you believe that person should be prosecuted?

 

[Max Power]

Well, I suppose that given that the justice systems of every western nation depend on witnesses providing honest testimony, I would have to say yes. Serious answer given on behalf of every one of us who deserves the protection of an open, credible, and functional justice system.

Interesting.....over to you, Betsy.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Name one person Jesus Manzano said he SAW dope?
Name one person Bernahrd Kohl said he SAW dope?
Name one person Patrick Sinkerwitz said he SAW dope?

Lots of riders dope - over 60 this year alone - they do so alone or with their trainers or soigneurs - not in front of other athletes.

I think the riders would actually try to make it that the less people who know about it the better. I think that may be one of LA's mistake that some of team mates knew of his doping.

 

[Anonymous]

If mountain goat is prepared to argue each one of the 8 points with credible evidence then I'm quite prepared to listen - go ahead, mountain goat, shoot them down. But until someone can refute the compelling evidence from the likes of Ashenden and Andreu then I'm on the sporting fraud side of the fence.

That would be a monumental task. Good forum strategy tho, ask the person trying to prove innocence to dismantle 8 points/essays/reports, the first of those points consisting of 50 pages and somehow relay this onto a forum?

That would take forever, will you pay me to do it?
Maybe it could be my PhD?
Should I email my supervisor and tell him i'm changing topics?
Just reading the 50 page power point slide, its hardly a neutral perspective is it?

An equally monumental task would be for me to ask you to unconditionally proove LA doped, and the only acceptable proof will be if you convince LA to say the words, in public, "I doped" by his own free will.
See how silly that is? Forum strategy can only get you so far.

I'm a little frustrated at this thread, I think i might go for a ride.

Good work Max Power for posting counter arguments. it's a shame people resort to name-calling. Ironically, that was the point of my first post, that when these guys can't accept a counter argument they turn to childish name-calling

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Your answering a different point to my post. Here is what I wrote:

So you agree it's unlikely EPO was used in every tour, at least not to any significant amount. This is my point. Why would Armstrong win seven in a row, and a comeback third, all down to doping? There were just as many suspicions about his rivals through the same period, but they were much more inconsistent. Pantani didn't win seven in a row. Ulrich didn't win seven. Many other riders were associated with top clinics that could rival anything Armstrong was contacted with. It seems to me there is more to the story than dope, therefore Armstrong still deserves the credit for his achievements EVEN IF he doped for most of his wins (which I personally don't believe he did).

Ok - to be honest I find it hard to respond to something that makes absolutely no sence.........but since you insist.

Pantani was dead, Ulrich was fat - neither they nor Armstrong deserve even the slightest credit for their achievements as they were chemically enhanced.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Ok - to be honest I find it hard to respond to something that makes absolutely no sence.........but since you insist.

Pantani was dead, Ulrich was fat - neither they nor Armstrong deserve even the slightest credit for their achievements as it they were chemically enhanced.

Armstrong's said his main competition was a ullrich who is a "fat guy". no wonder he won 7 tours.

 

[skidmark]

Your answering a different point to my post. Here is what I wrote:

So you agree it's unlikely EPO was used in every tour, at least not to any significant amount. This is my point. Why would Armstrong win seven in a row, and a comeback third, all down to doping? There were just as many suspicions about his rivals through the same period, but they were much more inconsistent. Pantani didn't win seven in a row. Ulrich didn't win seven. Many other riders were associated with top clinics that could rival anything Armstrong was contacted with. It seems to me there is more to the story than dope, therefore Armstrong still deserves the credit for his achievements EVEN IF he doped for most of his wins (which I personally don't believe he did).

Uh, I think he agrees with your 'point', if it's simply that he might not have used EPO in every Tour. But your next sentence contradicts your first when you say 'why would armstrong win... all down to doping?' So, 3 questions:

1) Do you understand that "EPO" and "doping" are not synonymous?
2) Do you realize that the 'points' you make in the rest of your post have been addressed by others, namely in the posts that state how riders respond differently to dope?
3) Do you understand that if one believes that Armstrong doped, and that he responds to dope better than others (not to mention having greater resources to obtain and mask said doping than others, due to his celebrity status and endorsement deals), that people might not be willing to give him total credit for his victories?

That is all I ask for, direct response to those questions. They can be answered in 2 ways: 'yes' or 'no'. Thank you in advance for your response.

 

[Max Power]

I think the riders would actually try to make it that the less people who know about it the better. I think that may be one of LA's mistake that some of team mates knew of his doping.

They say it's quite common in a team training camp for everybody to be in on the doping and sharing advice. Especially if you are living with your team leader before the tour, and especially if their is a program, as there often was with teams in the 1990s.

 

[Max Power]

Ok - to be honest I find it hard to respond to something that makes absolutely no sence.........but since you insist.

Pantani was dead, Ulrich was fat - neither they nor Armstrong deserve even the slightest credit for their achievements as they were chemically enhanced.

That's just petty.

 

[auscyclefan94]

They say it's quite common in a team training camp for everybody to be in on the doping and sharing advice. Especially if you are living with your team leader before the tour, and especially if their is a program, as there often was with teams in the 1990s.

Pepole have seen know how riders like, Andreu, Jachse, kohl and Sinkerwitz have spoken openly about doping and all the methods of how they do it and the riders mindsets. Their giving info to the authorities on how it's done.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That's just petty.

"Im sorry you don't believe in miracles".

That better?

 

[Max Power]

That would take forever, will you pay me to do it?
Maybe it could be my PhD?
Should I email my supervisor and tell him i'm changing topics?
Just reading the 50 page power point slide, its hardly a neutral perspective is it?

An equally monumental task would be for me to ask you to unconditionally proove LA doped,

If you're a paid witness at a trial then anything you say after that point must be seen in that light. If you don't want the finger of doubt then don't take the money and give your evidence on prinicple.