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

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

Who was paid to be at the trial?

 

[Max Power]

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

That better?

You're avoiding the substance of the issue and falling into trollery. Unfortunately this tends to happen after RR has done his thing of poisoning the well.

The point is, why would dope win seven and one third for LA and not have anything like the benefits for any of the other riders that were associated with top clinics, doping rings and doping doctors? They use different products each year (apparently), and blood transfusions, so the responder argument doesn't wash. This year is was supposed to be some pill that worked on muscle fibres. Nobody has given me a satisfactory answer to this critical question. I think that is because you are scared of the answer.

Doesn't this prove the hater charge? You've very meanspirited and spin the facts in the most negative light. It's very unfortunate. Anyhow bed time for me...

 

[BroDeal]

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).

Yeah, sure. After using more EPO in 1999 than any other rider in the race, giving strange urine samples with no EPO, artificial or natural in other Tours, and being on a team that was blood doping when FLandis was a member from 2002 to 2004, he had an attack of conscience and decided to stop doping in 2005 but for some reason decided to go back to transfusions during the 2009 Tour (as shown by his unexplainable blood parameters.) Uh-huh. That makes sense.

Funny how we now know why riders' urine samples had no EPO in them at all. They were using detergent to render their samples useless.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Max, i use to be a believer but once i recognised the FACTS. I converted. let race radio and dr maserati convert you from the dark side. Believe in the force.

 

[Max Power]

Yeah, sure. After using more EPO in 1999 than any other rider in the race, giving strange urine samples with no EPO, artificial or natural in other Tours, and being on a team that was blood doping when FLandis was a member from 2002 to 2004, he had an attack of conscience and decided to stop doping in 2005 but for some reason decided to go back to transfusions during the 2009 Tour (as shown by his unexplainable blood parameters.) Uh-huh. That makes sense.

Funny how we now know why riders' urine samples had no EPO in them at all. They were using detergent to render their samples useless.

So LA used more dope than anyone else for seven years in a row? You see, this is my point. You could make that charge for perhaps one or two tours, but it's nonsense to believe that could be done every year. We know this year his crit didn't go past 45 at it's height and remained a few below that, yet still third after four years out at 37 years old. I'm not buying it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You're avoiding the substance of the issue and falling into trollery. Unfortunately this tends to happen after RR has done his thing of poisoning the well.

The point is, why would dope win seven and one third for LA and not have anything like the benefits for any of the other riders that were associated with top clinics, doping rings and doping doctors? They use different products each year (apparently), and blood transfusions, so the responder argument doesn't wash. This year is was supposed to be some pill that worked on muscle fibres. Nobody has given me a satisfactory answer to this critical question. I think that is because you are scared of the answer.

Doesn't this prove the hater charge? You've very meanspirited and spin the facts in the most negative light. It's very unfortunate. Anyhow bed time for me...

Please show where I have "spun' the facts??

 

[Max Power]

Who was paid to be at the trial?

If your point is Armstrong paid his witnesses too, that doesn't change the point about Michael Ashenden. It's the same for all witnesses - once your paid off then you stick to that line from then on.

 

[Max Power]

Please show where I have "spun' the facts??

By putting them in their most negative light and ignoring my points. My first post on this thread explains it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If your point is Armstrong paid his witnesses too, that doesn't change the point about Michael Ashenden. It's the same for all witnesses - once your paid off then you stick to that line from then on.

Where did I ever say Armstrong paid his witnesses?

So again - who was paid to testify?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

By putting them in their most negative light and ignoring my points. My first post on this thread explains it.

Ok - then, explain it again. In one sentence - I will be happy to answer.

Unfortunately I think doping to win is disgraceful and ruins the most magnificent sport in the world - so forgive me if I fail to to put a positive spin on Armstrong's doping history.

 

[BroDeal]

So LA used more dope than anyone else for seven years in a row? You see, this is my point. You could make that charge for perhaps one or two tours, but it's nonsense to believe that could be done every year. We know this year his crit didn't go past 45 at it's height and remained a few below that, yet still third after four years out at 37 years old. I'm not buying it.

You don't have a point other than finding a rationalization to somehow make Armstrong's wins praiseworthy.

The fact that Armstrong, a rider who could never time trial or climb anywhere near the top of the sport until he employed Dr. Ferrari, continued to win says that it was possible to race every year without being caught. Ullrich doped his entire career and was never popped for a PED.

Hematocrit stopped being meaningful a few years after 1997. Initially many riders, big riders, would occasionally test over 50%. That stopped happening. Quick question: Who was the last big time rider to test over 50% and when did it happen? The last I remember is Isidro Nozal, and he was hardly big time. Even though hematocrits went down, performances did not, which says the riders continued to dope.

Since Armstrong'b funky reticulocyte values this year tell us how he got third, that accomplishment means nothing. If I get to use marked cards, I could win the world poker championship.

 

[Digger]

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

Find even one source.

 

[Mellow Velo]

At least this thread has cleared up the mystery of what happened to Sprocket.
Must admit, that a new username spices up the old runaround debate.

All the evidence, but not a plausible counter argument in sight.

 

[MrContador]

We know this year his crit didn't go past 45 at it's height and remained a few below that...

But his hematocrit-level did jump from 41 to 43 towards the end of the Tour. For a clean rider, the level should fall, not rise after almost three weeks of racing. To have your crit going up in the final week is almost impossible without using blood transfusions or EPO.

 

[B.Rasmussen]

At least this thread has cleared up the mystery of what happened to Sprocket.
Must admit, that a new username spices up the old runaround debate.

All the evidence, but not a plausible counter argument in sight.

Just too bad he will be allowed to ruin threads for way too long before getting banned again.

 

[workingclasshero]

Just too bad he will be allowed to ruin threads for way too long before getting banned again.

aye. the admins tell us they don't have time to read all posts so we must use the report button. but it doesn't seem to make a change. Funny how they find time to censor criticism of cyclingnews though (note: criticism, not foul language)

and how exactly do they work out that it makes sense to ban max power (obviously he's been acting up to get banned) then allow him back not ten minutes later.

Their latest idea, to allow him back on "as long as he doesn't use the words pro cycling" is an embarrassment to cycling news as well

do they think we'll not realise it's the same person back? why is he let back on? do cn need someone to defend the cashcow at any costs?

 

[Race Radio]

Max, i use to be a believer but once i recognised the FACTS. I converted. let race radio and dr maserati convert you from the dark side. Believe in the force.

Aribiter/BanProCycling/British Pro Cycling/ Max Power is not interested in facts or conversion. As we have seen over the last 6-8 months his only goal is to disrupt threads, ask inane questions that have been answered many times, and pretend he is persecuted. I am sure we can all agree this is trolling.

 

[elizab]

Frankie's notarized deposition states the ole "don't know/don't remember" regarding if he saw lance inject himself with a doping product.
Let me use this analogy: If you see me drinking from a coffee mug, is it safe to assume I'm drinking coffee? Probably. Do you have any proof? No.
Frankie and I have both testified under oath that your hero doped.
Frankie's teammates (to my knowledge) did not see Frankie inject himself with epo either.
Are you now saying the smoking gun is whether or not Frankie actually saw him dope? That is really stupid. Not getting into the detail of the sca trial, we both said in our depositions we had knowledge of his doping.
Get some self esteem, Max Power and you won't have to find it in another person.

 

[Race Radio]

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

Using Max Troll's philosophy your refusal to engage in the discussion means that you agree with all of the points.

Welcome to the Hater Nation

 

[Bala Verde]

aye. the admins tell us they don't have time to read all posts so we must use the report button. but it doesn't seem to make a change. Funny how they find time to censor criticism of cyclingnews though (note: criticism, not foul language)

and how exactly do they work out that it makes sense to ban max power (obviously he's been acting up to get banned) then allow him back not ten minutes later.

Their latest idea, to allow him back on "as long as he doesn't use the words pro cycling" is an embarrassment to cycling news as well

do they think we'll not realise it's the same person back? why is he let back on? do cn need someone to defend the cashcow at any costs?

We just noticed he is back - mainly because forum members stay alert - and we are working on a solution.

 

[Max Power]

We just noticed he is back - mainly because forum members stay alert - and we are working on a solution.

What is the meaning of this "final solution" you are working on? Sounds very authoritarian. What is wrong with this thread? Before I came along this thread was pretty dead. I don't know what's wrong with you people. Don't you want debate?

Later I have a question about the 99 testing during the first week.

 

[Big GMaC]

What is the meaning of this "final solution" you are working on? Sounds very authoritarian. What is wrong with this thread? Before I came along this thread was pretty dead. I don't know what's wrong with you people. Don't you want debate?

Later I have a question about the 99 testing during the first week.

Before you came along the thread was not dead, you just played your normal tactic of post bombing and baiting exasperated replies out of everyone. THAT IS NOT DEBATE, is trolling/flaming...

can you answer why his crit went UP in the last week of the tour?

 

[BroDeal]

Before you came along the thread was not dead, you just played your normal tactic of post bombing and baiting exasperated replies out of everyone. THAT IS NOT DEBATE, is trolling/flaming...

can you answer why his crit went UP in the last week of the tour?

To be more accurate, his hematocrit and hemoglobin were higher at the end of the Tour than at the start, and his reticulocytes were half their normal value. This is a completely different pattern than what happened to his values during the Giro. His values from the Tour form a population distinct from values taken the rest of the year.

 

[Anonymous]

Valid question from someone trying to learn:

With all this mounting evidence pointing against LA why has he been so elusive for the Doping agencies to catch him thus far? You'd think he'd be target #1 and they'd have gotten him by now.

Or is he like an old mob boss and has the "judges" and "politicos" in his back pocket?

Or like others, will it take 14+mos for them to release the non-negatives results?

 

[red_flanders]

Do you think if someone commited perjury in that case they should be prosecuted? Serious question? I may remind you that Frank Andreu said he had never seen Armstrong using EPO and had never talked about it. If it's true that Armstrong was using EPO that year, it seems extraordinary that his training partner, who confessed to using it, wouldn't have known anything about that. Should Frank Andreu be prosecuted?

It doesn't necessarily mean they are bias, but once they have been paid to take a position in a trial, their subsequent career will be to back up their position at that trial. Everything will be seen through the lense of their stance at that time. And he was already involved in a dispute with professor Coyle even at that point. Ashenden is not a neutal party.

OK. We get that you are suggesting Ashendon has some bias. I will allow that this is a remote possibility, but you have not given any evidence to suggest it's true. So you are speculating and calling his integrity into question with no more than the mere fact that he testified. He is not in a dispute with Coyle, he disputes Coyle's findings. Do you really not see the difference? It's called "peer review".

Do you have any rebuttal to the testimony of Ashendon? Yes or no?

Again, not a rebuttal to Ashendon himself. A rebuttal to his testimony.

Do you have any whatsoever? Do you know of any?