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

[Dr. Maserati]

Thank you for linking to my post here. Your time reading this has been much appreciated. Please be aware if you want to link to it elsewhere, use http://bit.ly/5g4QHY.

Oh, and Betsy Andreu just commented there. Which was an honor.

The post was also expanded slightly to include news articles, quotes etc that will continue to supply the reader with good sources of information to make an informed decision. Ultimately what people want to think of LA is upto them but I think only a toddler would be so irresponsible as to believe LA was clean in '99 despite all the evidence.

Well done Ron on putting all the information on to one piece.

If you have read through this thread you will notice that although many have tried to undermine or criticize your posting no-one has actually managed to refute even a single piece of it.

For me that is the most striking testimony to the whole Armstrong saga.

 

[Cozy Beehive]

Speaking of groupies, why is it LA haters refuse to recognize the virulent cult they've formed, outnumbering tenfold the number of Lance fans that even care to engage them in their Lance hating spew?

If there was any evidence the French would have taken him down by now.

You're probably speaking of a loosely formed group of people, nevertheless rational people, not a cult.

A cult is like the flat earth society, continuing to disperse silly rubbish to the rest of the world that the earth is not round.

The members of cycling's flat earth society give in to a similar pasttime, an out of scale adoration for a crooked athlete - this demigod who performs miracles on a bike. They collectively ignore evidence that suggests he's not what they think he is - the morally sound, ethically clean, humanitarian superstar on wheels that they build of him in their own heads.

They identify themselves with merchandise bought off his website/sponsors and engage in this almost rabid ritual of pouring much money into funds here and there, pleasuring themselves in the idea that they're all doing great things for eradicating cancer and somehow they're all morally superior to others by doing so. While I have nothing for those who support the fight against disease through financial support, some get them get this narcissistic behavior, you know, a certain type of elitism, which makes them think they have the license and liberty to accuse any non-believers of this faith as being morally degraded, inferior etc.

If you accuse Armstrong as a doper, you must be against the fight against cancer!! You must hate people. You must have a thing against survivors!! That is simply jocular and irrational, a way to sidestep important matters, a way to dodge an otherwise straightforward debate.

 

[poupou]

Some food for better thoughts :
From
http://books.google.fr/books?id=AM-41f2ZlcEC&pg=PA409

What did Lance's hematocrit on last TDF?

Just for believers in Lance who prefer graphs for a better understanding

 

[SpeedWay]

The hater's rehash the same old sht ad nauseum like it's something we haven't quite heard yet.

same old sht

same old sht - but only a child or emotionally challenged individual would fixate on something that happened last century. You have to admire the haters for keeping true to their cause just as you would an individual how continually bangs his head against the wall just because he can. You also have to throw them a bone and give them an opportunity to show how smart they are when they lie and say all the evidence is on their side. BOTTOM LINE: There is no asterick by LA's name regarding tour wins and until you can put one there with all your "evidence" many will continue to laugh at you not with you.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/dutch-report-clears-armstrong/2006/06/01/1148956427078.html

 

[Race Radio]

same old sht - but only a child or emotionally challenged individual would fixate on something that happened last century. You have to admire the haters for keeping true to their cause just as you would an individual how continually bangs his head against the wall just because he can. You also have to throw them a bone and give them an opportunity to show how smart they are when they lie and say all the evidence is on their side. BOTTOM LINE: There is no asterick by LA's name regarding tour wins and until you can put one there with all your "evidence" many will continue to laugh at you not with you.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/dutch-report-clears-armstrong/2006/06/01/1148956427078.html

did you read the last post? Armstrong increased his Hct 10% in the last week was from this year, not last century.

You may want to actually read the Vrijman report. It makes no effort to explain how EPO got in Armstrong's samples, it just spends multiple pages slinging mud for the UCI. It is no surprise that WADA said

"The Vrijman report is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical," "Were the matter not so serious and the allegations it contains so irresponsible, we would be inclined to give it the complete lack of attention it deserves."


We understand that you are angry that your hero is a doper and you are unable to construct an argument to refute it, but you just come off as a hater if all you do is call names like a 7 year old.

 

[guilder]

If posters like yourself would not continue to deny the obvious nobody would have to remind you of the obvious.

If it's so obvious what are you worried about? You must have some other agenda.

What you refer to as the 'obvious' is actually just manipulated gossip that sounds like fact because it's repeated so often.

 

[Digger]

If it's so obvious what are you worried about? You must have some other agenda.

What you refer to as the 'obvious' is actually just manipulated gossip that sounds like fact because it's repeated so often.

Examples please.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Examples please.

He'll have none. It's gossip because he doesn't want to believe it.

 

[guilder]

Examples please.

Here's a few doozies:

1)Has bribed just about everyone you don't agree with.
2)Has a Liberty Bell sized heart off season and a Hummer during peak.
3)His cancer was caused by PEDs
4)He faked cancer
5)His numbers fluctuate therefore he's cheating, lying, or promoting.

 

[Race Radio]

Here's a few doozies:

1)Has bribed just about everyone you don't agree with.
2)Has a Liberty Bell sized heart off season and a Hummer during peak.
3)His cancer was caused by PEDs
4)He faked cancer
5)His numbers fluctuate therefore he's cheating, lying, or promoting.

1) Armstrong $500,000 donation is fact, not gossip. It was confirmed by Silvia Schenk, UCI board member and head of the Ethics committee.
2) You must be confused. The claim of Armstrong's oversized heart came from Armstrong, not anybody here.
3) There is evidence that Cortisone use enhance the possibility of getting Testicular cancer. It should be no surprise that 4 of Armstrong's U23 team teammates, who were doped with Cortisone by Carmichael, all developed heath issues that are all related. Ernie Lachuga even had the same type of Cancer as Armstrong.
4) I have never seen anyone here post this, do you have a link or did you just invent this?
5) Do you have another reason why Armstrong's numbers made such radical changes in the 3rd week of a GT? Many experts think there is only one cause.

 

[Digger]

Here's a few doozies:

1)Has bribed just about everyone you don't agree with.
2)Has a Liberty Bell sized heart off season and a Hummer during peak.
3)His cancer was caused by PEDs
4)He faked cancer
5)His numbers fluctuate therefore he's cheating, lying, or promoting.

Ironic post, considering the lies in it.

 

[Digger]

Here's a few doozies:

1)Has bribed just about everyone you don't agree with.
2)Has a Liberty Bell sized heart off season and a Hummer during peak.
3)His cancer was caused by PEDs
4)He faked cancer
5)His numbers fluctuate therefore he's cheating, lying, or promoting.

Ironic post, considering the lies in it. RR has refuted them better than I ever could. The only bribe 'we' have ever spoken about is the Sylvia Schrenk confirmed one.
ED Coyle is the one who has defended him against doping, and he is the one claiming the enlarged heart.
Fact is that members of the US Junior team, doped by CC, got seriously ill. Fignon himself has spoken about his cancer being brought on by PED usage.
Never heard about four.
His numbers, in his own site, do fluctuate. It's in black and white. In fact he ended up changing the numbers. Fact.
And the reality is that his numbers in relation to Haemoglobin, and the final week of the Tour, defy science, unless he is blood doping.
Just because you don't want to believe these points, does not make them false.

 

[BYOP88]

Ironic post, considering the lies in it. RR has refuted them better than I ever could. The only bribe 'we' have ever spoken about is the Sylvia Schrenk confirmed one.
ED Coyle is the one who has defended him against doping, and he is the one claiming the enlarged heart.
Fact is that members of the US Junior team, doped by CC, got seriously ill. Fignon himself has spoken about his cancer being brought on by PED usage.
Never heard about four.
His numbers, in his own site, do fluctuate. It's in black and white. In fact he ended up changing the numbers. Fact.
And the reality is that his numbers in relation to Haemoglobin, and the final week of the Tour, defy science, unless he is blood doping.
Just because you don't want to believe these points, does not make them false.

Yes I believe it's in that report where it states; "Armstrong who is 5'9'' has the heart size of a man of 6'6'' tall.

 

[Digger]

Yes I believe it's in that report where it states; "Armstrong who is 5'9'' has the heart size of a man of 6'6'' tall.

An interesting claim considering it was never measured by an echocardiogram.

 

[BroDeal]

Yes I believe it's in that report where it states; "Armstrong who is 5'9'' has the heart size of a man of 6'6'' tall.

Gary Seghi told me it was the size of the Great Pumpkin.

 

[BYOP88]

An interesting claim considering it was never measured by an echocardiogram.

You don't need to do medical tests and waste all that time and money for that when an educated guess will be sufficient to base the myth on(all the Lance fans if you wanna put the word "truth" in place of myth, you'll be ok and just remember it's all because I'm jealous or french or whatever else floats your boat ).

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1122051794849_117460994/?hub=CTVNewsAt11

 

[Hugh Januss]

Here's a few doozies:

1)Has bribed just about everyone you don't agree with.
2)Has a Liberty Bell sized heart off season and a Hummer during peak.
3)His cancer was caused by PEDs
4)He faked cancer
5)His numbers fluctuate therefore he's cheating, lying, or promoting.

See? I said it, nothing.

 

[Cozy Beehive]

DIGG it

Well done Ron on putting all the information on to one piece.

If you have read through this thread you will notice that although many have tried to undermine or criticize your posting no-one has actually managed to refute even a single piece of it.

For me that is the most striking testimony to the whole Armstrong saga.

Thank you for the support Dr. M. Yes, you're right. No one can challenge Betsy's or Ashenden's account of LA. Its because they don't know Armstrong to the level that these people know. Even I don't. But I didn't say those things. People who knew him and were honest did.

Do help me out. If you think the article is fine, DIGG it so that more people come across it so they know the level of corruption and lies in Armstrong's fairytale. Someone already did. Digg link : http://digg.com/d31ByP2

Thanks a bunch!

 

[Race Radio]

Thank you for the support Dr. M. Yes, you're right. No one can challenge Betsy's or Ashenden's account of LA. Its because they don't know Armstrong to the level that these people know. Even I don't. But I didn't say those things. People who knew him and were honest did.

Do help me out. If you think the article is fine, DIGG it so that more people come across it so they know the level of corruption and lies in Armstrong's fairytale. Someone already did. Digg link : http://digg.com/d31ByP2

Thanks a bunch!

Great site, I have been reading it for a while. The technical stuff is great.

 

[Earth Tribe]

same old sht - but only a child or emotionally challenged individual would fixate on something that happened last century.

I was thinking about that. It's interesting how the 1999 issue has become more important now than it was in 2005 when it first aired. At the time people thought "well we already knew what GC pros had to do to stay competitive in the 1990s, so it's not really news - what matters now is the future of the sport." But for somer reason its become the central issue of cycling for some reason even though it's now ten years ago.

 

[Earth Tribe]

poupou,

the small study into the effects of EPO you cite are interesting, but things like 50% increase in time to exhaustion is unlikely to occur to a pro athlete who is already at the top end of their game, and especially if their main rivals were also using it. There was also a 50% hematocrit cut off point for the pros even at that time. The allegation against Armstrong is later years, vague as it is, is that he used blood transfusions, so I wouldn't get too bogged down in the EPO issue.

The question about doping sort of misses the point. What we should be focusing on who was the best and toughest cyclist during those years, and the evidence points to Armstrong. That's why calling him a myth is a little unfair.

 

[Cozy Beehive]

Lance Armstrong Facebook thread

Great site, I have been reading it for a while. The technical stuff is great.

More interesting stuff coming next week! Stay tuned.

Oh, check out the Lance Armstrong Fanpage thread. Someone recently opened up the question of Lance's doping history in the discussion section of his fanpage. http://www.facebook.com/board.php?uid=64263459777 Debate there is interesting....

 

[Earth Tribe]

More interesting stuff coming next week! Stay tuned.

Oh, check out the Lance Armstrong Fanpage thread. Someone recently opened up the question of Lance's doping history in the discussion section of his fanpage. http://www.facebook.com/board.php?uid=64263459777 Debate there is interesting....

A little less of that over the top anti Armstrong stuff and it would be an even better blog.

 

[Cozy Beehive]

A little less of that over the top anti Armstrong stuff and it would be an even better blog.

"Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof," said who? So I should make it over the top, no? Otherwise, it won't be extraordinary I'm afraid.

FYI : Someone told me that the other day, in a much ruder tone, and I kindly asked him to drop a check in the mailbox so that I write like he dictates

 

[guilder]

I was thinking about that. It's interesting how the 1999 issue has become more important now than it was in 2005 when it first aired. At the time people thought "well we already knew what GC pros had to do to stay competitive in the 1990s, so it's not really news - what matters now is the future of the sport." But for somer reason its become the central issue of cycling for some reason even though it's now ten years ago.

The haters top priority is to create a perception that things are worse than they are. They want CN readers to believe the majority hate LA. I can think of only a few notorious people in the history of civilization who deserve the terabites and millions of hours of worthless effort exclusively devoted to hating Armstrong. They talk about LA being not a nice person? The haters should be ashamed.