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

[Dr. Maserati]

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

Well I asked a 'simple' question yesterday, so....

But here is your answer:
"So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour." Dr. Ashenden.

Now - I would be obliged if you could answer yesterdays questions.

 

[Ripper]

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.

Look doc, that information is well known to be 100% known to the knowers who are not drinking Hatoraide.

 

[Race Radio]

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

Simple question, looking for simple answer...instead I got nothing. No surprise. I will take your inability to answer my simple question as an admission that you hero is a doper. I am glad we can agree at last.

 

[tubularglue]

100% - non existent

“ It is unanimously agreed that statistics depends somehow on probability. But, as to what probability is and how it is connected with statistics, there has seldom been such complete disagreement and breakdown of communication since the Tower of Babel. Doubtless, much of the disagreement is merely terminological and would disappear under sufficiently sharp analysis. ”

— Savage (1954)

there is no santa claus

hombre-

"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?"

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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?!?!?!)

Your very first post was quite personal...

How do we know you did not change those values with photoshop just to make something up?

Your third...

Hey fab is that a HE or a SHE in your Avatar? Looks like a Pat.

This is interesting...

A blog ran by a mechanical Failure!

 

[tubularglue]

Not being known doesn't stop the truth from being true.

* Richard Bach

 

[Polish]

Converting FanGirls and FanBoys

I got a kick out of this post by Mr Cozy on the LAF Forum....
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"Lance changed it. He changed it because it looked suspicious with such a jump in his hematocrit-level....I can assure you, it's been discussed on real forums, where people actually can discuss actual matters without being banned or get their posts deleted. I suggest you go over to the cyclingnews forum (http://forum.cyclingnews.com/) where people actually has their own mindset, and hasn't been brainwashed by Lance and his lies.

I will honestly say that I was a supporter of Lance Armstrong. I started to follow cycling closely in 2003....Armstrong was my hero. He still was when he retired. When he came back, I was excited. When he started to trash Contador, I was skeptic. When he led the strike in the Giro just because he was to lazy to ride at a full tempo, I felt betrayed. And when he and Bruyneel left to the starting line twice, without bothering sending a car for Alberto, and also refusing to give him wheels, which he had to buy in Monaco before the start of the time trial, I disgusted him. I really started to hate the guy.

And props to you, skygirl32, to dare standing up to the majorities like that! I'm happy to convert you, and I'm glad you've got your own opinions. Finally, I will provide you with another link, wether you like it or not: http://www.velonews.com/media/report1999.pdf"
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Wow....Wow....The CyclingNews forum is a REAL Forum - and does not delete threads or Ban people? Where do you get your info Cozy?

 

[red_flanders]

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.

Are you actually suggesting there's not "concrete evidence" against Armstrong?

The evidence against Armstrong is more concrete than 90% of the riders who have been sanctioned in the last 10 years. It's more than good enough for me to have made my decision about him. That test was passed years ago.

If you need a video of him getting a blood transfusion while Ferrari administers it, that's fine.

For most reasonable people, a reasonable level of evidence was reached years ago. You can't seriously claim there isn't concrete evidence against Armstrong. That's just silly. IMO.

 

[ChrisE]

Well, Sysmex says that Lance paid for an XE-2100 that they produce. Street price on one of those is $107,000. So he obviously contributed at least this much.

http://www.sysmex.co.jp/en/news/press/2005/050729.html

Which, unless he paid for only $20,000 of that makes him a liar according to his own sworn testimony (deposition from November 1, 2005).

"Q. Okay. Do you know what UCI did with the money?
A. I don't know.
Q. Okay. Like they didn't buy some specific equipment
or something with it that you're aware of? It wasn't
earmarked --
A. Which part of I don't know do you not understand?
Q. You have no idea who you called, and just -- you just
sent a check for $25,000 to the UCI. You can't
remember why you did it, or who you talked to, or
what it was for.
A. You asked me again what have they done with the
money, and I said I don't know."

He even goes on to say that he has no idea who he paid the money to, or what the money paid for. It's impossible to believe that in three months (purchased end July) that he completely forgot that be bought a $107,000 piece of equipment. Sysmex was clear on it though!

I don't care what line of work you're in, that's as clear a case of corruption, undue influence, and breach of ethics as you're ever going to find. The exchange of large sums of cash behind closed doors with silence and denials that it ever took place is perhaps even criminal.

John Swanson

Please show in the deposition where LA says he paid for this machine, when questioned by the SCA lawyer. Thanks.

Also, since his deposition is such a blatant lie, per the UCI German rep, then why didn't the SCA lawyer jump all over it? Why wasn't he investigated for perjury?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Please show in the deposition where LA says he paid for this machine, when questioned by the SCA lawyer. Thanks.

Also, since his deposition is such a blatant lie, per the UCI German rep, then why didn't the SCA lawyer jump all over it? Why wasn't he investigated for perjury?

Lance couldn't remember - he should have asked Hein Verbruggen.
One of the last things he did was to pay for the UCI's new Sysmex blood testing machine, which measures the proportion of haemoglobin and reticulocytes in a rider's blood to determine whether they have been artificially manipulating their red cells.

How can someone be prosecuted for perjury if they "can't remember"?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Wait, what?

So the corporation called Sysmex issued a false press release about Lance Armstrong buying one of the their blood analysis units and donating it to the UCI?

What possible reason could there be? Do the Japanese and French governments have a secret cabal with the intent to *very subtly* plant information that will cause Lance Armstrong to accidentally perjure himself? A bit far-fetched don't you think?

I think the more reasonable explanation is that Lance Armstrong demonstrably lied his *** off during the deposition. The fact that the deposing lawyers did not have this damning piece of information (shocking that they didn't trawl the Japanese industrial press releases!) does not change anything.

Perhaps if this information was given to the relevant authorities in the relevant jurisdiction, they might actually pursue charges of perjury. Unlikely, however, given the cost and complexity of a prosecution, and the fact it had no bearing on the outcome of the arbitration.

John Swanson

 

[Casa de Hombre]

Are you actually suggesting there's not "concrete evidence" against Armstrong?

The evidence against Armstrong is more concrete than 90% of the riders who have been sanctioned in the last 10 years. It's more than good enough for me to have made my decision about him. That test was passed years ago.

If you need a video of him getting a blood transfusion while Ferrari administers it, that's fine.

For most reasonable people, a reasonable level of evidence was reached years ago. You can't seriously claim there isn't concrete evidence against Armstrong. That's just silly. IMO.

The problem, and I've said this from day one, is that nobody seems to know what those sample were doing or who they were being handled by in the intervening years. Nobody can verify the chain of custody, which means that no matter what the results are they can never be considered truly accurate.

 

[tubularglue]

the authorities do not believe in this so called problem'

 

[filipo]

If you need a video of him getting a blood transfusion while Ferrari administers it, that's fine.

That video was faked. Faked, I tell you! Anyway, we already know Ferrari is a liar -- so when he says he's "transfusing" "blood" he really could just be injecting orange juice. Which, as we know, is perfectly legal and no more harmful than, uh, nevermind.

I mean hey, while we're at it, it's been established (too many times to count) that Armstrong is a liar -- so even if the man himself were to stand up and admit to doping, I'd never believe him.

 

[ChrisE]

Lance couldn't remember - he should have asked Hein Verbruggen.
One of the last things he did was to pay for the UCI's new Sysmex blood testing machine, which measures the proportion of haemoglobin and reticulocytes in a rider's blood to determine whether they have been artificially manipulating their red cells.

How can someone be prosecuted for perjury if they "can't remember"?

He testified he didn't know what they used the money for; the dispute here is whether it is $500k or $25k at that time. He confirms he thought it was $25k.

To be fair RR posted a link when this cropped up a few weeks back where more "donations" were made late in his career. I don't recall if the amount was noted, and the context, which I ridiculed at the time, was how did his "donations" protect him from AAF's earlier in his career.

My point is specific to the SCA testimony. The other poster pasted this testimony and he looks silly doing so because it contradicts what the German lady says, as if that proves LA's sworn testimony backed up by others (and should be proven/disproven by financial records) is wrong about what he donated at that time.

 

[tubularglue]

That video was faked. Faked, I tell you! Anyway, we already know Ferrari is a liar -- so when he says he's "transfusing" "blood" he really could just be injecting orange juice. Which, as we know, is perfectly legal and no more harmful than, uh, nevermind.

I mean hey, while we're at it, it's been established (too many times to count) that Armstrong is a liar -- so even if the man himself were to stand up and admit to doping, I'd never believe him.

exactly ?

 

[ChrisE]

Wait, what?

.....

I think the more reasonable explanation is that Lance Armstrong demonstrably lied his *** off during the deposition. The fact that the deposing lawyers did not have this damning piece of information (shocking that they didn't trawl the Japanese industrial press releases!) does not change anything.

.....

John Swanson

BS.

They knew exactly how much he donated and when he donated it. And, it would be verifiable if they didn't, after his testimony.

Don't act like LA went into the 4 corner stall to get to the conclusion of the case, to ward off any scrutiny of his testimony.

 

[Mellow Velo]

He is currently lying his *** off, over in the PC section, over next season's objectives.
I wonder if you fanboys truly believe he will be keeping his values nice and stable and fetching water for Levi and Klodi, at the Tour?

If you do, you should be very depressed, this Christmas.

Will you accept he's a liar, when the inevitable team leadership proclamation is made, or will you conveniently forget the facts..........yet again.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

BS.

They knew exactly how much he donated and when he donated it. And, it would be verifiable if they didn't, after his testimony.

Don't act like LA went into the 4 corner stall to get to the conclusion of the case, to ward off any scrutiny of his testimony.

How would the lawyers know that? I honestly don't think they subpeonaed all of Armstrong's financial data or that of the UCI or Verbruggen (couldn't if they wanted - outside of their jurisdiction) prior to a deposition in an *arbitration* case involving an *insurance* contract.

I believe that the evidence is showing that Lance Armstrong decided to play the "I don't remember" card in order to lie (i.e., decieve) about his large financial contributions to the UCI. There was very little risk in doing this since this was not a central issue to the terms of the insurance contract. And once the judge ruled on the merits of the contract, all the scrutiny went away.

Honestly, would you forget *all* the details of even a $25K donation to your professional society 3 months after you paid? After Lance lied and acted dumb, the lawyers next question should have been if Lance would give him a $10K gift. Follow up: Why give a large sum to one set of strangers without any idea of how they would spend it, and not another?

John Swanson

 

[VeloFidelis]

"Proof" by verbosity for the "I despise Armstrong support group."

Watch out! Displaying actual clarity of thought will get you branded as a "Fan Boy" around here.

 

[Casa de Hombre]

How would the lawyers know that? I honestly don't think they subpeonaed all of Armstrong's financial data or that of the UCI or Verbruggen (couldn't if they wanted - outside of their jurisdiction) prior to a deposition in an *arbitration* case involving an *insurance* contract.

I believe that the evidence is showing that Lance Armstrong decided to play the "I don't remember" card in order to lie (i.e., decieve) about his large financial contributions to the UCI. There was very little risk in doing this since this was not a central issue to the terms of the insurance contract. And once the judge ruled on the merits of the contract, all the scrutiny went away.

Honestly, would you forget *all* the details of even a $25K donation to your professional society 3 months after you paid? After Lance lied and acted dumb, the lawyers next question should have been if Lance would give him a $10K gift. Follow up: Why give a large sum to one set of strangers without any idea of how they would spend it, and not another?

John Swanson

Same story, same strength of allegations as all of the other times. Same posters claiming this story is true. Nothing new, nothing newsworthy.

 

[tubularglue]

i do not expect the story to change much : past,present,future

all contradictions, the spin goes on and on and on

 

[Hugh Januss]

Same story, same strength of allegations as all of the other times. Same posters claiming this story is true. Nothing new, nothing newsworthy.

Yup, nothing new. Still the same old head in the sand fanboy bullcrap. You should take some of the money that Lance is paying you and use it to buy a clue, because you haven't any.

 

[Casa de Hombre]

That video was faked. Faked, I tell you! Anyway, we already know Ferrari is a liar -- so when he says he's "transfusing" "blood" he really could just be injecting orange juice. Which, as we know, is perfectly legal and no more harmful than, uh, nevermind.

I mean hey, while we're at it, it's been established (too many times to count) that Armstrong is a liar -- so even if the man himself were to stand up and admit to doping, I'd never believe him.

More bluster. You got called out on your BS and you are scrambling for any excuse...even attacking to deflect

 

[Dr. Maserati]

More bluster. You got called out on your BS and you are scrambling for any excuse...even attacking to deflect

May I have a link to McQuaids comments please - as I am sure that will help clear up what the donation was spent on.

Verbruggen and McQuaid were asked about that werent they?
.