Betsy Andreu Appreciation Society

[elapid]

Armstrong was likely doping long before he got cancer, so this doesn't have a large part to do with anything. Changing his mental approach, his training and yes, weight loss

And no ... not weight loss. Same or heavier in 1999 compared to 1992 and 1993. These weights are documented, not porky pies being fed to you that you've taken as gospel.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You're repeating the question I have already answered.

Actually I have asked you the simple question - on numerous occasions - yet you still have not answered.

I apologise if this annoys you- but if I have made an error please point it out and I will correct it.

 

[Race Radio]

You're repeating the question I have already answered.

House! House has returned!

I missed you man. How are things? Still cleaning up the Clydesdale division of local Tri's?

 

[blackcat]

Great to get lectured on credibility from this guy...

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=2979

?

well, you could do a mean course in propaganda. The Israeli media department need your types, you could even teach them a thing or two.

 

[blackcat]

Do you think Wiggins spoke to Armstrong about how to fake weight loss? Was Vaughters the go-between? Maybe Wiggins paid Armstrong for the information on how to do it, where to get the plastic masks that change your face, but part of the deal was he couldn't beat Armstrong in the GC. That's why despite beating Armstrong on the early climb, later got dropped.

I knew something like that was going on.

Wiggins never had to talk about weight loss with Armstrong. It is cyclingpropaganda 101. You know, you wrote the book on it. You are the ba$tard lovechild of Joseph Goebbels and Edward Bernays.

And Wiggins, like Cancellara, was wise enough to know he had to strip the non-functional weight and get the optimum weight for GC riding. He DID lose weight. The myth is 1. it revolutionised his road potential, like Armstrong, and 2. like Armstrong, how much weight did he lose?

 

[Race Radio]

Therefore we must conclude it was the Ferrari training programme,

Finally we agree on something.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No it seems my answer is annoying you, since you keep repeating the question.

Facts can be spun, selected and assumed. Much of your "facts" are based on disputed hearsay, therefore they are not "facts" in the traditional sense of the word. They are opinions based on vague information. That all we have to go on - me too.
Hope that helps.

Again - please point out where I have made an error - I WILL correct it!

Its just that I went to a lot of hard work and would not like to misrepresent the facts - which is why I used the transcipts from the testimony - which are based on facts!

 

[Hugh Januss]

Again - please point out where I have made an error - I WILL correct it!

Its just that I went to a lot of hard work and would not like to misrepresent the facts - which is why I used the transcipts from the testimony - which are based on facts!

Your error, as TFF has mentioned previously is that you keep trying to debate with a troll.

 

[blackcat]

And you are David Icke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke

that guy? Nope, not me. Try again. There are about 6 billion people, I will give you another chance.

stop spewing disinformation and propaganda. Go read some Orwell, it should have been part of your reading in your B levels.

 

[Hugh Januss]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke

that guy? Nope, not me. Try again. There are about 6 billion people, I will give you another chance.

He seems a bit off!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Your error, as TFF has mentioned previously is that you keep trying to debate with a troll.

If he is a troll - then it was their error to debate with me

 

[blackcat]

He seems a bit off!

obviously BPC has a high opinion of me!

But then again, he is some relation to Goebbels, such a talented master weaver of narrative. Might actually be the son of Oswald Mosley or married to one of the Mitford sisters.

 

[pedaling squares]

At least you try to be a bit rational about it, so your category is not the worst.

Maybe you should start a new thread for the "Dr. Maserati Appreciation Society"

 

[elapid]

I've heard this before and it seems very strange, given he was a triathlete. Doesn't make a lot of sense. I'd have to see hard documentation for it and the pictures of him looking skinny. What we do know is he was significantly heavier in the mid 90s, and was probably taking dope (though no hard facts for this, but I assume it to be true). Therefore we must conclude it was the Ferrari training programme, weight loss and mental approach - key for tour winners - that changed the game for him.

WE definitely must NOT conclude that weight loss had anything to do with Armstrong's victories. Photos can be manipulated and can appear distorted depending on lens choice. The only definitive proof we have of Armstrong's weight is detailed in Coyle's paper on Armstrong (see table below). It is this paper that also portrayed the myth (word used in correct context BTW) that Armstrong lost weight. In this paper, Coyle states that Armstrong told him that his 1999 TdF racing weight was 72-74 kg. Firstly, Armstrong stated in the SCA Promotions trial that he was never 72 kg and 75 kg was more realistic. Secondly, Coyle did not ask or document Armstrong's racing weights in the 1992 and 1993 seasons. So we are left with preseason weights for 1992, 1993 and 1999 as the only proof of Lance's weight pre- and post-cancer. As you can see, Lance's preseason 1999 weight (4 months after the TdF) was actually heavier than preseason 1992 and 1993. There is no proof that Armstrong ever lost weight from pre- and post-cancer. Support your claims with hard evidence, not photos. To quote Grissom, "the evidence doesn't lie."

 

[Race Radio]

the Ferrari drug programme.

The only kind of program offer by Ferrari.

 

[Ozzie2]

There are three basic categories. ...............QUOTE]

can there be a 4th category for me?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I wasn't merely refering to this court case, but all Armstrong debate. Most of Walsh's book is based on assumptions, hearsay and probabilities, for instance - there are little hard facts. That's why I don't like the way you seem to claim you know the truth about everything Armstrong. You don't.

Its really simple- show me where I have made an error and I will correct it.

While you are going through my posts looking for something I posted in error you can add to that anywhere I have said that I have the truth on everything.

 

[elapid]

I wasn't merely refering to this court case, but all Armstrong debate. Most of Walsh's book is based on assumptions, hearsay and probabilities, for instance - there are little hard facts. That's why I don't like the way you seem to claim you know the truth about everything Armstrong. You don't.

You're not as bad as others, though, so don't feel too bad about it.

There are three basic categories. There is the trolls/loons, which blackcat, digger, and foodforthought are the leaders of. There are the people posing as impartical investigators, such as yourself, that are really aren't impartial at all. And then there are the grudge bearers, such as RaceRadio, who appears to have some personal issue to do with Lance or his team that he is coy about.

At least you try to be a bit rational about it, so your category is not the worst.

Do you feel better Dr. Maserati? Not only are you not the worst, but BPC has yet again not answered your question!

 

[blackcat]

I wasn't merely refering to this court case, but all Armstrong debate. Most of Walsh's book is based on assumptions, hearsay and probabilities, for instance - there are little hard facts. That's why I don't like the way you seem to claim you know the truth about everything Armstrong. You don't.

You're not as bad as others, though, so don't feel too bad about it.

There are three basic categories. There is the trolls/loons, which blackcat, digger, and foodforthought are the leaders of. There are the people posing as impartical investigators, such as yourself, that are really aren't impartial at all. And then there are the grudge bearers, such as RaceRadio, who appears to have some personal issue to do with Lance or his team that he is coy about.

At least you try to be a bit rational about it, so your category is not the worst.

facts? Facts in whose mind? All of those pieces of information are submittable into a court of law. A jury will make a finding on that basis. It provides the context. There is not a switch one can turn off with their rational thought.

What facts do you need? A positive? Well, there are too many drugs that cannot be tested for, one can autologous blood dope with impunity if they watch their parameters.

So you are in effect, instituting a system, where riders can effectively flout the system.

If you wish to progress a clean agenda, you need to broaden your thought and accept indirect notifiers and evidence. Sticking your head in the sand, and denying doping because the facts do not fit your definition, is not good for the sport.

 

[blackcat]

Politicians don't generally lie, they put spin on the facts. There is more than one way to look at Dr Ferrari, for instance, however I'm sure you would only focus on the drug side. Doesn't mean you are lying or even have "made an error" - it's just a matter of opinion and slant. Hope that clarifies what I am saying.

you voted for Blair I s'pose? He never lied right? No no no, politicians don't lie.

 

[elapid]

Politicians don't generally lie, they put spin on the facts. There is more than one way to look at Dr Ferrari, for instance, however I'm sure you would only focus on the drug side. Doesn't mean you are lying or even have "made an error" - it's just a matter of opinion and slant. Hope that clarifies what I am saying.

You do have the qualities of a politician. Not answering direct questions. Not letting facts get in the way of a good story. The odd episode of putting your foot in your mouth and making bumbling excuses for you gaff. Are you lining up for a job if and when LA runs for governor?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Politicians don't generally lie, they put spin on the facts. There is more than one way to look at Dr Ferrari, for instance, however I'm sure you would only focus on the drug side. Doesn't mean you are lying or even have "made an error" - it's just a matter of opinion and slant. Hope that clarifies what I am saying.

So you are now saying I haven't made an error - but that I spin the truth - ok then just show me an incident and I will correct it.

As for Politicians I find they usually try and squirm a way out of answering something that they have been directly asked.

I am impressed that you know about my contribution on Dr. Ferrari - I thought that was long before you joined.

 

[pedaling squares]

I am impressed that you know about my contribution on Dr. Ferrari - I thought that was long before you joined.

Hmmmmm

 

[Race Radio]

Politicians don't generally lie,

Starting to smell in here

 

[SpeedWay]

Politicians don't generally lie, they put spin on the facts. There is more than one way to look at Dr Ferrari, for instance, however I'm sure you would only focus on the drug side. Doesn't mean you are lying or even have "made an error" - it's just a matter of opinion and slant. Hope that clarifies what I am saying.

Good job BPC. You've got the jackals all stirred up. Very entertaining - BRAVO!!
The first mention of troll was 3 pages ago and they still can't help themselves. You're the master.