LeMond and Trek Settle

[Digger]

And you're proud of that. Do your parents know you're on their computer again?

He has a point...all those riders he mentioned are downright hypocrites and are complicit in some way shape or form, in the doping problem. They are taking the road more travelled on....and that is why doping will be alive and well for ages to come. The dopers are idolised and feared by their fellow pros. So yeah, f*** Wiggins. He launched into scathing attacks on Vino and Moreni. His licking of Lance's a** also coincides with him transforming his own career. Blood brothers. It takes courage to question the status quo. If he was genuinely clean, he would look on in disgust at the guys that beat him to a podium finish. Or he would look on in digust at Frank Schleck winning at Grand Bornard, when he himself struggled big time. Why would a clean rider keep his mouth shut, when he saw Frank 'training plans but never met Fuentes just handed him ten thousand euro' Schleck winning? Either you have no balls or you are doping yourself.

 

[BikeCentric]

And you're proud of that. Do your parents know you're on their computer again?

So you're calling him a child because he had the balls to ask Wiggo a tough question. I guess we know what this makes you.

 

[patricknd]

So you're calling him a child because he had the balls to ask Wiggo a tough question. I guess we know what this makes you.

the balls? he did it on twitter for god's sake. yeah, that took tons of courage.

 

[BroDeal]

the balls? he did it on twitter for god's sake. yeah, that took tons of courage.

No ball. Maybe that is why Armstrong prefers to snipe at people from Twitter like a schoolgirl passing notes in class.

 

[patricknd]

No ball. Maybe that is why Armstrong prefers to snipe at people from Twitter like a schoolgirl passing notes in class.

who said anything about armstrong? you mention him a lot. sounds to me like you've got a little schoolboy crush.

 

[unsheath]

Better a crush than actually sniffing his ball!

 

[patricknd]

Better a crush than actually sniffing his ball!

ooh, score. what's next, genius? maybe a "yo mamma?"

when you have a meaningful contribution to make let us know.

 

[buckwheat]

ooh, score. what's next, genius? maybe a "yo mamma?"

when you have a meaningful contribution to make let us know.

Patrick,

Aren't you on bikeforums.net?

I'll just say this straightforwardly. Most people here know that Armstrong is a doper. It's not like bikeforums here. Give it a rest.

I asked Taylor Phinney if he read From Lance to Landis He called me an idiot for talking about things I know nothing about. I asked him why I'm an idiot for a legitimate question and he blocked me.

It's a straightforward question. How many pro cyclists do you think have read the book? Why would they read it or not read it. I was curious and read LA Confidentiel on the net and then FLTL. Pretty damning. Have you read them?

Oh here we go

@Christoph***** one word: Block.
11:08 AM Jan 16th from Tweetie in reply to Christoph*****
Reply Retweet @Christoph***** Don't speak on things you don't know anything about, it makes you sound like an idiot...
10:53 AM Jan 16th from Tweetie in reply to Christoph*****

 

[patricknd]

Patrick,

Aren't you on bikeforums.net?

I'll just say this straightforwardly. Most people here know that Armstrong is a doper. It's not like bikeforums here. Give it a rest.

never been on bikeforums.net, and i didn't say he wasn't. i'm pointing out the fact that conjecture and personal opinion are often the only basis for doping accuations, and that depending on the rider, it is perfectly acceptable or completely out of bounds. i like to point out bull **** when i see it.

 

[Race Radio]

never been on bikeforums.net, and i didn't say he wasn't. i'm pointing out the fact that conjecture and personal opinion are often the only basis for doping accuations, and that depending on the rider, it is perfectly acceptable or completely out of bounds. i like to point out bull **** when i see it.

Sorry Patrick, I do not agree with you. If you read what is posted here seldom is it conjecture or personal opinion. Could you give a specific example? I am not trying to be a A$$ i just do not see it as being as pervasive as you do.

 

[buckwheat]

And you're proud of that. Do your parents know you're on their computer again?

I'm not proud or ashamed of it. It's a frigging relevant question and it really deserves an answer.

I'm not all adult like you to have learned a sophisticated form of lying.

I read my Hans Christian Andersen as a child and the frigging Emperor is definitely not wearing any clothes.

You have anything else?

 

[buckwheat]

who said anything about armstrong? you mention him a lot. sounds to me like you've got a little schoolboy crush.

That *** blocked me too.

I questioned one of his ssdd tweets.

Jeez, ssdd, he's a fraud for goodness sake.

 

[flicker]

Why do people get so tweaked(myself included) on threads concerning Mr. LeMond and Mr. Armstrong?

 

[RTMcFadden]

Sorry Patrick, I do not agree with you. If you read what is posted here seldom is it conjecture or personal opinion. Could you give a specific example? I am not trying to be a A$$ i just do not see it as being as pervasive as you do.

I'll give you an example. You're contention that LeMond couldn't have used EPO in 89 because it didn't exist. When the fact is that is has existed in commerical form in 1986.

I'm feeling generous, so I'll give you another one. Armstrong's samples couldn't have been spiked because Ashenden said he did know how it could be done. Fact is, there is a WADA technical document that provides the instruction as to when a sample should be spiked to establish if the sample has been tampered with.

Fact is that most of the people on this board can't tell the difference between fact and conjecture. That's why they believe that conjecture and personal opinion are seldom used on this board. When the fact is that 99% of the stuff on this board is conjecture and personal opinion.

What's amazing, to me, is that I've been able to do this without having to resort to refuting the "ball licking" and "chamois sniffing" facts that are so often presented on this board.

 

[Digger]

I'll give you an example. You're contention that LeMond couldn't have used EPO in 89 because it didn't exist. When the fact is that is has existed in commerical form in 1986.

I'm feeling generous, so I'll give you another one. Armstrong's samples couldn't have been spiked because Ashenden said he did know how it could be done. Fact is, there is a WADA technical document that provides the instruction as to when a sample should be spiked to establish if the sample has been tampered with.

Fact is that most of the people on this board can't tell the difference between fact and conjecture. That's why they believe that conjecture and personal opinion are seldom used on this board. When the fact is that 99% of the stuff on this board is conjecture and personal opinion.

What's amazing, to me, is that I've been able to do this without having to resort to refuting the "ball licking" and "chamois sniffing" facts that are so often presented on this board.

No they couldn't have been spiked because they were anonymous.

You talk about conjecture, yet you're the one talking about samples being spiked with no evidence whatsoever.

Lemond using EPO...Do you think he doped?

 

[RTMcFadden]

No they couldn't have been spiked because they were anonymous.

You talk about conjecture, yet you're the one talking about samples being spiked with no evidence whatsoever.

Lemond using EPO...Do you think he doped?

The contention was that spiking the samples was not technically possible. When in fact it is.

Again, the contention was that LeMond could not have used EPO because it didn't exist. When in fact it did.

Do I think LeMond doped? In my pesonal opinion, no, I don't think he did.

 

[Digger]

The contention was that spiking the samples was not technically possible. When in fact it is.
Again, the contention was that LeMond could not have used EPO because it didn't exist. When in fact it did.

Do I think LeMond doped? In my pesonal opinion, no, I don't think he did.

480/1 chance.
And then the way the amounts changed according to the rest day and important stages....nonsense.

 

[BroDeal]

The contention was that spiking the samples was not technically possible. When in fact it is.

Sorry, requires means, motive, and opportunity. Since the samples were anonymous there was no opportunity. Could not have happened.

 

[Race Radio]

I'll give you an example. You're contention that LeMond couldn't have used EPO in 89 because it didn't exist. When the fact is that is has existed in commerical form in 1986.

I'm feeling generous, so I'll give you another one. Armstrong's samples couldn't have been spiked because Ashenden said he did know how it could be done. Fact is, there is a WADA technical document that provides the instruction as to when a sample should be spiked to establish if the sample has been tampered with.

Fact is that most of the people on this board can't tell the difference between fact and conjecture. That's why they believe that conjecture and personal opinion are seldom used on this board. When the fact is that 99% of the stuff on this board is conjecture and personal opinion.

What's amazing, to me, is that I've been able to do this without having to resort to refuting the "ball licking" and "chamois sniffing" facts that are so often presented on this board.

How was EPO commercially available in 1986 if the FDA did not approve it until 1989?

You may want to reread what Ashenden wrote about spiking the samples, as he gives detailed reasons why it is highly unlikely. Please share with use the WADA document you refer to......and why you are at it please share with us any evidence of the samples being spikes and a conspiracy involving the UCI and the LNDD because this is mandatory for the samples to have been spiked.

 

[RTMcFadden]

Sorry, requires means, motive, and opportunity. Since the samples were anonymous there was no opportunity. Could not have happened.

Yes, and the point I was addressing was the means. That is, it is technically possibile to introduce EPO into a sample. That's a fact. The rest, motive and opportunity, are conjecture. Believe what you will.

 

[Digger]

Yes, and the point I was addressing was the means. That is, it is technically possibile to introduce EPO into a sample. That's a fact. The rest, motive and opportunity, are conjecture. Believe what you will.

Not knowing the samples?

 

[RTMcFadden]

How was EPO commercially available in 1986 if the FDA did not approve it until 1989?

Because the final testing, known as Phase III clinical trials, is performed using commerical product. There is a suttle distinction in the use of the term commercial. It does not mean product for sale, it means product that is salable, or fit for sale. The only thing that prevents it from being sold is the approval of the FDA. Since the early 90's this usually means that the first commercial batch is producted 18 month before the FDA approves the product. Before that, it could have been years.

 

[BroDeal]

Yes, and the point I was addressing was the means. That is, it is technically possibile to introduce EPO into a sample. That's a fact. The rest, motive and opportunity, are conjecture. Believe what you will.

The lab technicians did not know which samples belonged to Armstrong. There was no opportunity. That is a fact. The conjecture about spiking is not just pure bullsh!t, it is idiocy. Believe what you will, but you might as well theorize that space aliens have replaced Obama's dog with a clone whose job is to spy on the Earth.

 

[mitchman]

Fact, They started human testing in or around 1969 with Erythropoietin....and human Epo in the mid 70's.........a lot of drugs that are in the pre-FDA testing phase are super easy to get a hold of b/c they are not under regulation....

 

[BYOP88]

The lab technicians did not know which samples belonged to Armstrong. There was no opportunity. That is a fact. The conjecture about spiking is not just pure bullsh!t, it is idiocy. Believe what you will, but you might as well theorize that space aliens have replaced Obama's dog with a clone whose job is to spy on the Earth.

You know about that, it was meant to be top secret!!!

With the Lab and spiking, if they really wanted to nail someone, surely they would have spiked all the samples just to be 100% of getting their man.