Armstrong in the mire again. LeMonde reports

[progressor]

I wonder here how you here will learn to communicate here in the English language here in a permissible manner here your theorising [sic] here?

Should have checked that one The second here should be the word theories. Of course you wouldn't have focused on typo's as a means to dismiss the messenger, so you don't have to deal with the message. Because no-one would want to indulge in that oldest and lamest of internet forum deflections.

 

[Digger]

Should have checked that one The second here should be the word theories. Of course you wouldn't have focused on typo's as a means to dismiss the messenger, so you don't have to deal with the message. Because no-one would want to indulge in that oldest and lamest of internet forum deflections.

To be fair, it was too difficult have a debate with you, if your posts were too difficult to understand in the first place.
So, if you use an acceptable form of English again, I'm sure we can all continue the debate.

 

[progressor]

Judging by your posts I would guess that you are a devotee of Lyndon Larouche and convinced that the Queen of England is out to get Lance Armstrong.

Misrepresenting what I've posted again. Atempting to diminish and demean the poster rather than deal with the post... again.

 

[progressor]

To be fair, it was too difficult have a debate with you, if your posts were too difficult to understand in the first place.
So, if you use an acceptable form of English again, I'm sure we can all continue the debate.

Diminishing and demeaning the poster. You know full well there's nothing wrong with my english, if the post makes limited sense due to grammatical/spelling error then question what I mean.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Misrepresenting what I've posted again. Atempting to diminish and demean the poster rather than deal with the post... again.

What, like this one you mean?

LOL. You didn't actually write that in all seriousness did you??
Some of you dudes have seriously lost all perspective

Seems you are quite accomplished, too.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The dispute, it seems to me, is political. Making such a big deal about a slightly delayed inspection at 6am and blowing it up into criticism of the UCI inspectors has all the haul marks of politics. Astana, Contador and Armstrong were already huge targets that were tested more than the other teams. If anything there was bias against them because of their history and the big names. It's the silly season as far as I'm concerned.

There are more allegations made than just those around the Astana team - one includes not storing the samples at the correct temperature - which could spoil the samples.

It doesn't matter how often a rider or team is targeted - if you can delay the test or the samples are not stored correctly it effectively makes the test redundant.

 

[progressor]

It appears you do not know the history of the UCI and Armstrong.

Shortly after his positive test for Cortisone in 1999 Armstrong gave the UCI a "Donation" of $500,000. Silvia Schenck, head of the UCI ethics committee and UCI board member has said that this was a major conflict of interest and was the reason for the preferential treatment Armstrong received. This preferential treatment included advanced notice of out of competition testing. The conflict of interest is further enhanced by Armstrong and Verbruggen being partners on business deals, including an attempt to buy the Tour de France

I am confident Contador is a doper, but that is not the topic of this thread. If the team received preferential treatment it was because of Armstrong's connections to the UCI, not Contador's.

I've read that history, and I've read posts attempting to dismiss dissenting opinions around here 'as not knowing the history' before to.

Armstrong being listed in the thread title was dishonest as the material given was never about armstrong specifically - but astana. So I don't agree he is the topic of this thread - although clearly relevant to it - as is Contador and others.

 

[Digger]

Diminishing and demeaning the poster. You know full well there's nothing wrong with my english, if the post makes limited sense due to grammatical/spelling error then question what I mean.

Says the man who uses conpiracy theory references to describe some of the people on here.

 

[pmcg76]

People drop in here and they think all we talk about is Lance. Not true, guys like BroDeal, Big Boat, TFF and many, many more will and have called out many guys, even those with no connections to doping whatsoever. Put this into context, which cyclist receives more attention than any other cyclist, Lance. If there was no Lance, I can assure you these guys would be crucifying Contaodr, Schlecks etc just as much but we have listen to so much BS surrounding Lance that it annoys people no end and always ends up about him.

And as I never tire of pointing out, when another pro cyclist pulls an act like Lance did chasing down Simeoni, the vitriol will be hurled at that guy just as much. That little incident is why most on here reserve their disdain for Lance more than any other cyclist. People accuse us of being selective about this incident or we know about it because of the media profile of Lance. Not true, simply there has never been a similar incident played out in public, period.

The vast majority of 'haters' on here will discuss any subject concerning cycling, any rider, race, anything whilst the average Lance defender seems to comment only on Lance threads. Spot the difference.

 

[Race Radio]

I've read that history, and I've read posts attempting to dismiss dissenting opinions around here 'as not knowing the history' before to.

Armstrong being listed in the thread title was dishonest as the material given was never about armstrong specifically - but astana. So I don't agree he is the topic of this thread - although clearly relevant to it - as is Contador and others.

If the UCI gave Astana special treatment why do you think that was? Was it because Gregory Rast is Swiss and the UCI is based in Switzerland? The most obvious answer is it an extension of the preferential treatment Armstrong has received from them for the last 10 years.

If someones opinion is dismissed it is usually because they are uninformed and unable to present their position in a comprehensible manner.

 

[bianchigirl]

I presume Pat needs a neutral partner to keep the highly biased, sell to the highest bidder, corruption riddled UCI honest?

The only person sabotaging efforts to clean up the sport is the head of the UCI not Pierre Bordry. And the only people who play with the sport for political gain are the UCI and Verbruggen's sock puppet McQuaid. Absolute disgrace and time for him to go before he does any more damage

 

[Anonymous]

Should have checked that one The second here should be the word theories. Of course you wouldn't have focused on typo's as a means to dismiss the messenger, so you don't have to deal with the message. Because no-one would want to indulge in that oldest and lamest of internet forum deflections.

Brings dialogue from Apocalypse Now to mind:
Kurtz: Are my methods unsound?
Willard: I don't see any method at all, sir.

I think we might have a BPC sock puppet again...one he put on the shelf for safe keeping.

 

[Anonymous]

I've read that history, and I've read posts attempting to dismiss dissenting opinions around here 'as not knowing the history' before to.

Armstrong being listed in the thread title was dishonest as the material given was never about armstrong specifically - but astana. So I don't agree he is the topic of this thread - although clearly relevant to it - as is Contador and others.

A distinction without a difference. It's not dishonest to discuss this in relation to LA. Which other Astana riders have the UCI been accused of protecting in the past? This appears to be more of the same behaviour by the UCI towards LA so it's relevent.

 

[Anonymous]

I presume Pat needs a neutral partner to keep the highly biased, sell to the highest bidder, corruption riddled UCI honest?

The only person sabotaging efforts to clean up the sport is the head of the UCI not Pierre Bordry. And the only people who play with the sport for political gain are the UCI and Verbruggen's sock puppet McQuaid. Absolute disgrace and time for him to go before he does any more damage

Personally, I hope AFLD do throw a hand grenade Wednesday. Hopefully it will lead to Pat having so much egg on his face that he is forced to resign.

Now, all we need to do is wait for Vaughters to proffer his opinion on all of this considering his new found reverence for the UCI's drug policies. He practically wants to sleep with the blood passport. Dang, winning the TdF is really important to people.

 

[Anonymous]

Hey, I found the Armstrong Fanboy Handbook:

No wait, it would be yellow with a picture of The Uniballer...well, It must be the basis for it anyway...

 

[RhodriM]

The dispute, it seems to me, is political. Making such a big deal about a slightly delayed inspection at 6am and blowing it up into criticism of the UCI inspectors has all the haul marks of politics. Astana, Contador and Armstrong were already huge targets that were tested more than the other teams. If anything there was bias against them because of their history and the big names. It's the silly season as far as I'm concerned.

Well it was actually 7am but in any case being late for a drugs test shouldn't be a trivial thing.

At 7.35 the following morning Marco was called, via his team, for a UCI blood test. His presentation time, stipulated by the UCI regulations, was ten minutes later: 7.46am. In October 1998 the UCI had reduced the time between notification and testing from thirty minutes to ten, to limit the time available for diluting riders' blood to lower their haematocrit. Marco arrived at 8 a.m, a further 15 minutes outside the time limit. The UCI medical inspector, Antonio Coccioni, was told the delay was because Marco had slept at home that night. The times were recorded on the test certificate and Coccioni issued a warning to Marco and his team management. No further action was taken. In any case, the names of the teams to be tested had been leaked to the press beforehand; the surprise tests were anything but unannounced. For the record, Marco's haematocrit was 47.4 per cent. - Matt Rendell, The Death of Marco Pantani.

This sort of thing isn't new.

 

[Sprocket01]

...................

Either discuss the subject and not personalities, or don't write anything.

Susan

...........................

 

[peloton]

Let's keep the tone civil, please.

What does SSDD mean?

 

[RhodriM]

..............................................

I assume that's not in response to my last post? As an only sporadic user of these forums I know nothing of the personalities who post on here.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Let's keep the tone civil, please.

What does SSDD mean?

Same Sh*t Different Day

It was what Lance wrote on his Twitter in reply to the Danes for calling in to question his suspicious blood values.

https://twitter.com/lancearmstrong/status/3747005110

 

[Sprocket01]

I assume that's not in response to my last post? As an only sporadic user of these forums I know nothing of the personalities who post on here.

You assume correctly.

 

[peloton]

Same Sh*t Different Day

It was what Lance wrote on his Twitter in reply to the Danes for calling in to question his suspicious blood values.

Thanks, makes sense now.

 

[BikeCentric]

Personally, I hope AFLD do throw a hand grenade Wednesday. Hopefully it will lead to Pat having so much egg on his face that he is forced to resign.

My word TFF, did you really just make a statement that could be construed as optimistic and hopefull for the future of cycling?!

But seriously now, the best possible result that could come of this reports release is for it to spur some kind of shakeup at the UCI. However, I fear that the current management is far too entrenched especially given Pat's recent re-election.

 

[poupou]

Well it was actually 7am but in any case being late for a drugs test shouldn't be a trivial thing.

At 7.35 the following morning Marco was called, via his team, for a UCI blood test. His presentation time, stipulated by the UCI regulations, was ten minutes later: 7.46am. In October 1998 the UCI had reduced the time between notification and testing from thirty minutes to ten, to limit the time available for diluting riders' blood to lower their haematocrit. Marco arrived at 8 a.m, a further 15 minutes outside the time limit. The UCI medical inspector, Antonio Coccioni, was told the delay was because Marco had slept at home that night. The times were recorded on the test certificate and Coccioni issued a warning to Marco and his team management. No further action was taken. In any case, the names of the teams to be tested had been leaked to the press beforehand; the surprise tests were anything but unannounced. For the record, Marco's haematocrit was 47.4 per cent. - Matt Rendell, The Death of Marco Pantani.

This sort of thing isn't new.

Yes not new, Jean-Paul Escande (he was the predessor of Bordry before AFLD) on a french radio has reported that UCI had given explanation to beat the tests to riders, they did under the pretext :" there is bad guys that do that to beat the test, please don't do it!".
UCI of Verbruggen were idiot, we never would believe them.

http://www.france-info.com/chroniqu...see-sur-le-tour-de-france-352088-81-341.html#

 

[progressor]

Says the man who uses conpiracy theory references to describe some of the people on here.

This whole thread is pretty much theories on conspiracy. Everyone who theorised on a conspiracy is therefore a conspiracy theorist. How many people who did that I wonder use the term'conspiracy theorist' as a term of derision and dismissal?
I wasn't staying completely on topic with that one.