How to co-exist with a LA fanboy??

[Race Radio]

not that I disbelieve Assendon... but those samples could have been doctored... Lance could be the Messiah getting framed by the evil forces that want to defile the inspirational saviour of cancer - ness?

Ahh, the great French Conspiracy excuse.....or do you think the samples were altered by Nazi Frogmen? Regardless this possibly was discussed in detail by Ashenden and dismissed.

Change your IP address again?

 

[ravens]

LOL at the SNL skit, but back on topic....
My brother actualy HAS cancer and the whole Livestrong thing inspires him. I try to skate around the issue becouse ultimately it does not matter if he "knows the truth" or anything like that. If it gives him something to believe in, than that's fine by me (sort of).

It's kind of like religion, If you know someone you otherwise get along great with but they are at the opposite end of that spectrum, best to avoid the subject.
People have a history of lashing out at the bearers of bad news. Look at what the Catholic church did to Galileo...

Lance in the mainstream media seems totaly unstopable right now... No, I don't think that's a good thing. But Who's going to "out" him and who will listen? Or a better question: who in the mainstream?

I think if one has cancer, they have bigger issues then whether or not Lance is a fraud or not. You're right. Just be thankful they have SOMETHING to lean on.

That Gailileo dude had it comin'....

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

You can't have comedy without an element of truth. I consider that skit to be my high school biography. Like I said earlier, I think I have lots of company.

That's the great thing about satire: the element of truth.

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

My belief is based on overwhelming evidence of guilt yours is based on an unsupportable myth.

What about basing a belief on overwhelming evidence to the contrary of your overwhelming evidence?

 

[Race Radio]

What about basing a belief on overwhelming evidence to the contrary of your overwhelming evidence?

Really?

Dr. Ashedenden goes into overwhelming detail in this interview.
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Please provide a similar level of detail explaining why he is wrong.

No rush, we have all day.

 

[unsheath]

I will have to ask my sister but since he doesn't go out in public without a livestrong hat and pair of livestrong oakley's I would suspect so.

Get some T-shirts made parodying the Livestrong logo. Pharmstrong, Dopestrong, StrongArm captions should do the trick. If you want to lift it to the next level, make a t-shirt out of the yellow devil -human syringe man and Lance photo from last years TOC.

That should shut him up, and you don't even have to engage in verbal warfare.

 

[ravens]

No rush, we have all day.

Seriously! We have less than no life. We have negative life. We are running a deficit. If we died, the world outside of this forum would be oblivious.

And to top that siht, whatever you respond with, no matter how irrelevant or flimsy, will be dissected and parsed in excruciating detail.

God help us all!

 

[Ferdinand Artichoke]

Get some T-shirts made parodying the Livestrong logo. Pharmstrong, Dopestrong, StrongArm captions TOC.

That should shut him up, and you don't even have to engage in verbal warfare.

Don't forget LiveWrong
!

 

[53 x 11]

Don't forget LiveWrong
!

My fave atm is Nutstrong.

 

[Big GMaC]

My fave atm is Nutstrong.

is that because is can sound like NOTstrong, a perfect sumation of his current form?

 

[burninglegs]

Mellow out (no pun intended).
There must be more important things in life than discussing Lance!
No one is perfect and you have to accept people the way they are(warts and all).
If cycling and cycling discussions are a big part of your life, criticize intelligently and with a civil tongue. Respect his point of view even if you don't agree.
Again, isn't your sister's marriage and future husband more important than Lance?

 

[Campione1]

Sh00t him

We'll first you could check to see if he is like so many other Fan boy's - he's probably only followed cycling since the Lance starting wininng races and now thinks he's a god damn authority on the subject. Tell him to eat sheit live and breath bike racing for at least 20 or so years and then his opinion might mean something.

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

Really?

Dr. Ashedenden goes into overwhelming detail in this interview.
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Please provide a similar level of detail explaining why he is wrong.

No rush, we have all day.

What you've done here is the fallacy of appealing to authority. You've taken a claim by an authoritative figure and used it to support your claim. Asheden offered no proof, just evidence. He even explained (in a link from your article) how one would spike those samples, something I find stangely suspicious...like OJ's book, "If I did it." But I digress.

I'm not saying Lance didn't dope; I'm saying there isn't enough evidence to prove he did. There is just a great a possibility those samples were spiked as he doped. One suspicious sample in a career that spans over a decade isn't overwhelming support. It is all speculation.

If you criticize Lance for his lack of maturity in handling the AC situation, his level of commitment to cancer awareness, etc, I very well may agree with you. Even I could criticize him to some degree in that regard. In regards to doping, however, I need more than questionable (perhaps mishandled) samples, and an array of speculation. But that's just me. Like I said to another poster, I still haven't found that proverbial straw, and believe me, I have looked.

 

[ravens]

What constitutes overwhelming evidence ?

What you've done here is the fallacy of appealing to authority. You've taken a claim by an authoritative figure and used it to support your claim. Asheden offered no proof, just evidence. He even explained (in a link from your article) how one would spike those samples, something I find stangely suspicious...like OJ's book, "If I did it." But I digress.

I'm not saying Lance didn't dope; I'm saying there isn't enough evidence to prove he did. There is just a great a possibility those samples were spiked as he doped. One suspicious sample in a career that spans over a decade isn't overwhelming support. It is all speculation.

If you criticize Lance for his lack of maturity in handling the AC situation, his level of commitment to cancer awareness, etc, I very well may agree with you. Even I could criticize him to some degree in that regard. In regards to doping, however, I need more than questionable (perhaps mishandled) samples, and an array of speculation. But that's just me. Like I said to another poster, I still haven't found that proverbial straw, and believe me, I have looked.

To me it is a settled question and I am over the fact that some people just will not accept the evidence that is out there.

But...what proof would it take for you to believe that he is a doper? I think we can rule out any admission on his part, though seeing some baseball players finally come clean is refreshing. Don't give up hoping.

We need 'Believers Passports' for folks who have looked over all the proof that shows him very very likely to be a doper and still don't accept it so we don't have to continuously have this argument. Once you get the passport, we know not to bother arguing now or any future evidence that may come out.

I personally think that most/all of the top guys are doping. Even the one I want to see win the most. I guess I am part of the problem since I still watch and care even knowing that. Call me a hypocrite.

 

[Race Radio]

I'm not saying Lance didn't dope; I'm saying there isn't enough evidence to prove he did. There is just a great a possibility those samples were spiked as he doped. One suspicious sample in a career that spans over a decade isn't overwhelming support. It is all speculation.

I can only assume you are joking.

Ashenden, and others, have explained in detail how difficult it would be spike the samples and achieve results that mimic the EPO usage methods at the time. The possibility of tampering is not remotely close to the possibility that Lance was doing the same things as many of his key competitors were, taking EPO.

The evidence against Armstrong if FAR more then "One suspicious sample". In fact is there were 6 positives for that Tour, 7 if you add the positive for Cortisone. You add to this the dumping of Actovigen in 2001, the admission of drug use to a room full of people, the statements of Swart, Anderson, Emma, The suspect blood values, The teammates that have witnessed injections and the involvement with the sports most notorious doping doctor and I think we can agree that the possibility that Armstrong is a doper far outweighs the possibility that he is not.

 

[BroDeal]

I'm not saying Lance didn't dope; I'm saying there isn't enough evidence to prove he did. There is just a great a possibility those samples were spiked as he doped. One suspicious sample in a career that spans over a decade isn't overwhelming support. It is all speculation.

Oh, B.S. The lab did not know which samples belonged to Armstrong. There was no way for anyone to know which samples to spike.

The question has been conclusively settled. Armstrong is a doper. There is a mountain of evidence to support the conclusion. Aside from testing positive for EPO six times, he admitted using PEDs in front of several witnesses. His personal assistant found steroids in his bathroom. His teammates have said he encouraged them to dope. It goes on an on. Murderers are convicted every day on much less evidence.

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

But...what proof would it take for you to believe that he is a doper? I think we can rule out any admission on his part, though seeing some baseball players finally come clean is refreshing. Don't give up hoping.

Fair question. To answer it is quite simple: positive A sample and B sample that were taken and tested without the possibility of mishandling. If that comes out a there was no other plausible explanation. I would accept him as a doper.

See the Landis case. He tested positive, there was no possibility of mishandling, and plausible excuse for his increased testosterone levels.

 

[Race Radio]

Basso, LeoGrande, Marion Jone, and most rational people would disagree that this is the level of evidence needed for a suspension. They all never tested positive.

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

But...what proof would it take for you to believe that he is a doper? I think we can rule out any admission on his part, though seeing some baseball players finally come clean is refreshing. Don't give up hoping.

Positive A sample, positive B sample, taken without possibility of mishandling.

I can only assume you are joking.

Ashenden, and others, have explained in detail how difficult it would be spike the samples and achieve results that mimic the EPO usage methods at the time. The possibility of tampering is not remotely close to the possibility that Lance was doing the same things as many of his key competitors were, taking EPO.

It would not be that difficult for a doctor, especially one that explained exaclty how you would go about it.

The evidence against Armstrong if FAR more then "One suspicious sample". In fact is there were 6 positives for that Tour, 7 if you add the positive for Cortisone. You add to this the dumping of Actovigen in 2001, the admission of drug use to a room full of people, the statements of Swart, Anderson, Emma, The suspect blood values, The teammates that have witnessed injections and the involvement with the sports most notorious doping doctor and I think we can agree that the possibility that Armstrong is a doper far outweighs the possibility that he is not.

Oh, B.S. The lab did not know which samples belonged to Armstrong. There was no way for anyone to know which samples to spike.

The question has been conclusively settled. Armstrong is a doper. There is a mountain of evidence to support the conclusion. Aside from testing positive for EPO six times, he admitted using PEDs in front of several witnesses. His personal assistant found steroids in his bathroom. His teammates have said he encouraged them to dope. It goes on an on. Murderers are convicted every day on much less evidence.

The Cortisone found was not enough to be in the positive range and was determined to be from a UCI approved saddle cream. The rest of what you said is speculation. How is that Lance passed countless drug tests even though teammates have seen him inject, he had an association with a doping doctor, etc, etc? I don't believe a word of what others said?

By the way, the only admission I know of is in his book where he admits to being prescribed EPO while undergoing cancer treatment, a common practice often necessary to keep cancer patients alive, hardly performance enhancing.

 

[BroDeal]

It would not be that difficult for a doctor, especially one that explained exaclty how you would go about it.

There you go again. The lab did not know which samples belonged to Armstrong. Thus spiking was impossible because there was no opportunity. Let's see you present one iota of evidence that Armstrong's samples were spiked. All I see is a ridiculous fantasy that has no more credibility that blaming Armstrong's positives on space aliens.

 

[Race Radio]

Positive A sample, positive B sample, taken without possibility of mishandling.

Basso, Leogrande, Marion Jones, all sanction without a positive test. Jan Ulrich career over without a positive test.

It would not be that difficult for a doctor, especially one that explained exaclty how you would go about it.

How would the tester know which samples to tamper with? Impossible.

The Cortisone found was not enough to be in the positive range and was determined to be from a UCI approved saddle cream. The rest of what you said is speculation. How is that Lance passed countless drug tests even though teammates have seen him inject, he had an association with a doping doctor, etc, etc? I don't believe a word of what others said?

It was not determined to be from a UCI approved saddle cream, this was an invention of a back dated TUE.

So you are saying that Emma, Swart, Frankie, Betsy, Anderson, etc. are all lying but Lance is telling the truth? I think we can all agree that Armstrong has a long history of lying and has Millions of rea$on$ to do so.

 

[Hugh Januss]

He doped.
Get over it, your life will go on even if you admit it to yourself.

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

Basso, Leogrande, Marion Jones, all sanction without a positive test. Jan Ulrich career over without a positive test.

True. Fair point.

How would the tester know which samples to tamper with? Impossible.

Appeal to authority. You're basing that belief on Asheden's statement. How can we be sure Asheden isn't exaggerating the level of difficulty?

It was not determined to be from a UCI approved saddle cream, this was an invention of a back dated TUE.

Could you give me a source for this? Not being a smart ***. Perhaps I missed something.

So you are saying that Emma, Swart, Frankie, Betsy, Anderson, etc. are all lying but Lance is telling the truth? I think we can all agree that Armstrong has a long history of lying and has Millions of rea$on$ to do so.

They also had millions of rea$on$ to do so. Or perhaps Lance left them jaded and bitter.

 

[Digger]

Positive A sample, positive B sample, taken without possibility of mishandling.



It would not be that difficult for a doctor, especially one that explained exaclty how you would go about it.






The Cortisone found was not enough to be in the positive range and was determined to be from a UCI approved saddle cream. The rest of what you said is speculation. How is that Lance passed countless drug tests even though teammates have seen him inject, he had an association with a doping doctor, etc, etc? I don't believe a word of what others said?

By the way, the only admission I know of is in his book where he admits to being prescribed EPO while undergoing cancer treatment, a common practice often necessary to keep cancer patients alive, hardly performance enhancing.

Wrong...Lance says the incident never took place in the hospital room.
His lawyer meanwhile says that it took place, but that the people there misheard what was said. Truth does not vary.

Secondly, aside from it being almost impossible to spike in the minute quantities, and in the pattern seen in the Tour (before key stages), the samples were anonymous, and the success of spiking the correct samples were 480/1.

Witness statements (Emma, Frankie, Stephen, Mike Andersen, Betsy, Greg Lemond (Include Julien De Vriese with Greg), blood profiles, positive for EPO, positive for cortisone (eventhoug he denied for two weeks that he took it) working with the most notorious doctor in the sport (in secret), all his rivals caught, his obliteration of same rivals, former team mates convicted, former team mates admitting that doping took place on that team, doping products being found dumped, huge variations in HCT, even bigger transformation from a guy losing 20 mins on mountain stages to the leader (with only two pound weight loss), his refusal to condemn convicted dopers, his bulllying of riders who speak out against doping, Stephanie Schrenk blowing the whistle on half a million going to the UCI, when Lance says it was about 25,000, eventhough this is a huge conflict of interest.
A and B sample you say? Well if lance said that aliens tampered with it, you'd believe that story rather than face the truth.

 

[BroDeal]

Appeal to authority. You're basing that belief on Asheden's statement. How can we be sure Asheden isn't exaggerating the level of difficulty?

Again you avoid the elephant in the room. How did the Nazi frogmen know which samples to spike? Answer that.