Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[Netserk]

Can't we all agree to not respond to him and wait for the mods to arrive?

 

[T-Mobile fan]

While I think it is an interesting data point I am not convinced it is correct that they were using EPO in 93. It appears to be more of a blanket statement implies Armstrong was an active participant in doping. If it is true to destroys many of the narratives the groupies have tried to grasp on to but I am not convinced it is true.

There is much more to the book so perhaps it will be covered in other areas. The book is close to 500 pages, most focused on the personal side. Hopefully it clarifies the topic.

That's confusing? You're saying the groupies and trolls are correct?

Update: I should ask if there is anything else the groupies and trolls might be telling the truth about?

 

[T-Mobile fan]

I wonder how Bob Hamman is going to spend the $12 million he is going to get back from lance? Hope he throws a party. Maybe he can hire the Livestrong folks to organize it, they throw great parties.

The insurance company boss deserves that money a lot more than Armstrong. A lot of people don't know this, but Bob Hamman was one of the greatest bridge players of all time. As a huge fan of Bridge myself, I would rather see a bridge player get that money than a 7 time TdF winner.

Over on Bridge forum news we're all going nuts about it. We can't wait.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Can't we all agree to not respond to him and wait for the mods to arrive?

I can agree with that assessment

 

[andy1234]

While I think it is an interesting data point I am not convinced it is correct that they were using EPO in 93. It appears to be more of a blanket statement implies Armstrong was an active participant in doping. If it is true to destroys many of the narratives the groupies have tried to grasp on to but I am not convinced it is true.

There is much more to the book so perhaps it will be covered in other areas. The book is close to 500 pages, most focused on the personal side. Hopefully it clarifies the topic.

Be sure to let us know how true the statement is, once you have time to process it's implications.....
For now, take a step back and call it "interesting data point"

 

[Race Radio]

Be sure to let us know how true the statement is, once you have time to process it's implications.....
For now, take a step back and call it "interesting data point"

Don't worry Andy, you will be the first person I call.

The claim is not a positive one for Lance, it would mean he is lying again..... but that does not mean I think it is 100% accurate.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Be sure to let us know how true the statement is, once you have time to process it's implications.....
For now, take a step back and call it "interesting data point"

And be sure to come in and disagree with RRs assessment, whatever it may be, without having anything of substance to offer.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The insurance company boss deserves that money a lot more than Armstrong. A lot of people don't know this, but Bob Hamman was one of the greatest bridge players of all time. As a huge fan of Bridge myself, I would rather see a bridge player get that money than a 7 time TdF winner.

Over on Bridge forum news we're all going nuts about it. We can't wait.

No such person exists.

 

[Bosco10]

No such person exists.

lol.. Good catch!

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Be sure to let us know how true the statement is, once you have time to process it's implications.....
For now, take a step back and call it "interesting data point"

Want to convince everyone you're here for something other than trolling RR?

Maybe cede that you might agree on a point with him rather than sifting through to find a small point on which you don't.

Hog and Bro already have an uninterrupted desire to troll anything RR writes, don't be like them. Chart your own path.

 

[andy1234]

From the NYT article



Worlds on EPO. Yup.

One more troll talking point dies

Don't worry Andy, you will be the first person I call.

The claim is not a positive one for Lance, it would mean he is lying again..... but that does not mean I think it is 100% accurate.

OK, just let everyone know when you have run the statement through the implicationometer.
Truth is clearly a moveable feast.

For now let's just pretend its "worlds on EPO, errrrrr"

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I think the point is, that if the same journalist can be called out for stating Andreu was involved in buying races, she can be called out on other "facts"

It's worth noting that the generalisation of the doping products used early in Armstrong's career, is not in quotation marks, whereas other Henderson comments, are.

It wouldn't surprise me if Armstrong was chugging EPO earlier than other sources state, but all of a sudden a NYT article takes on more significance than sworn affidavits etc, because it suits someone's narrative?

I understood the point, and I hope you understand the negative implications of using that point. We all have agendas, including me.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

OK, just let everyone know when you have run the statement through the implicationometer.
Truth is clearly a moveable feast.

For now let's just pretend its "worlds on EPO, errrrrr"

Ease up man. Look, I didn't buy the implication that he was on EPO and HGH in 93...because it doesn't seem to add up at this point. I feel certain that he was doped up for sure, but the EPO charge doesn't seem to have much of a base other than one person's claim. Me, you, and RR have found some common ground.

Now, I can see where it will be tempting to then transfer the questionable memory to everyone else who has accused Armstrong, but don't fall for the trap. There are truths and lies in all of this. If you want to believe that Armstrong is just another liar, that's fine, but most people looking at his actions and words would not find that position to be warranted.

 

[andy1234]

Want to convince everyone you're here for something other than trolling RR?

Maybe cede that you might agree on a point with him rather than sifting through to find a small point on which you don't.

Hog and Bro already have an uninterrupted desire to troll anything RR writes, don't be like them. Chart your own path.

My path has been the same from day one. You of many people should know that.
Bro and Hog are latecomers to the party, but I will take it as a compliment.

I have challenged many posters, including RR, who show total bias re anything Armstrong. I am simply applying perspective.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

My path has been the same from day one. You of many people should know that.
Bro and Hog are latecomers to the party, but I will take it as a compliment.

I have challenged many posters, including RR, who show total bias re anything Armstrong. I am simply applying perspective.

Do you have to apply that perspective to every post? You and I are on friendlier terms not because we agree, but because at one point, we ceded the other had legitimate points. I don't see a lot of that in relation to RR. He's a polarizing figure for sure, but it might lend a less caustic atmosphere to all of this if RR wasn't treated like Satan with a keyboard for writing his first letter of a post.

 

[andy1234]

Ease up man. Look, I didn't buy the implication that he was on EPO and HGH in 93...because it doesn't seem to add up at this point. I feel certain that he was doped up for sure, but the EPO charge doesn't seem to have much of a base other than one person's claim. Me, you, and RR have found some common ground.

Now, I can see where it will be tempting to then transfer the questionable memory to everyone else who has accused Armstrong, but don't fall for the trap. There are truths and lies in all of this. If you want to believe that Armstrong is just another liar, that's fine, but most people looking at his actions and words would not find that position to be warranted.

I don't think he is just another liar.
However...and this should ring true for a legal beagle like yourself, I don't have time for consistently biased agenda, dressed up as reporting of facts.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I don't think he is just another liar.
However...and this should ring true for a legal beagle like yourself, I don't have time for consistently biased agenda, dressed up as reporting of facts.

We all have an agenda, and it is impossible to have one without bias of some sort.

 

[Race Radio]

OK, just let everyone know when you have run the statement through the implicationometer.
Truth is clearly a moveable feast.

For now let's just pretend its "worlds on EPO, errrrrr"

Post, not poster.

It appears in your eagerness to attack me personally and question some imaginary agenda you forgot to actually read my posts.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ease up man. Look, I didn't buy the implication that he was on EPO and HGH in 93...because it doesn't seem to add up at this point. I feel certain that he was doped up for sure, but the EPO charge doesn't seem to have much of a base other than one person's claim. Me, you, and RR have found some common ground.

Now, I can see where it will be tempting to then transfer the questionable memory to everyone else who has accused Armstrong, but don't fall for the trap. There are truths and lies in all of this. If you want to believe that Armstrong is just another liar, that's fine, but most people looking at his actions and words would not find that position to be warranted.

Well said.
There is also a broader context here - that EPO is some magical substance that you inject and guarantees a specific boost in performance.
It would not surprise me if LA was using EPO in 93. Or to put it in their lingo "experimented", and found it wasn't this miracle drug after all and provided just a small gain. That for a rider to get the max out of it required careful use together with a rigorous training plan.

 

[Benotti69]

I don't have time for consistently biased agenda, dressed up as reporting of facts.

Must be hard to read anything in the media then..............

 

[ChrisE]

And be sure to come in and disagree with RRs assessment, whatever it may be, without having anything of substance to offer.

Are you two dating?

Upthread he wrote this:

Worlds on EPO. Yup.

One more troll talking point dies

Now he writes this:

While I think it is an interesting data point I am not convinced it is correct that they were using EPO in 93. It appears to be more of a blanket statement implies Armstrong was an active participant in doping. If it is true to destroys many of the narratives the groupies have tried to grasp on to but I am not convinced it is true.

Way to crawfish. From winning the worlds on EPO and destroying troll talking points, to this mealy mouth garbage above.

And, maybe in the spirit of the vortex he can point out these groupies, assumed to be on CN forums, who have been stating LA was not doping prior to EPO.

 

[andy1234]

Do you have to apply that perspective to every post? You and I are on friendlier terms not because we agree, but because at one point, we ceded the other had legitimate points. I don't see a lot of that in relation to RR. He's a polarizing figure for sure, but it might lend a less caustic atmosphere to all of this if RR wasn't treated like Satan with a keyboard for writing his first letter of a post.

You have hit the nail on the head, when you say "we ceded the other had legitimate points".
I have lost count of the number if times legitimate points have been met with "fanboy" dismissals. RR has only one speed, and he doesn't change pace for anyone.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't think he is just another liar.
However...and this should ring true for a legal beagle like yourself, I don't have time for consistently biased agenda, dressed up as reporting of facts.

If RRs "facts" are wrong then you should be able to rebut his points with actual facts. Instead you go after the poster.
BPC has an agenda - they are entitled to it, and so what? I happily go through their posts and expose the spin.

 

[Race Radio]

My path has been the same from day one. You of many people should know that.
Bro and Hog are latecomers to the party, but I will take it as a compliment.

I have challenged many posters, including RR, who show total bias re anything Armstrong. I am simply applying perspective.

Please Andy, share with us your wisdom. The claim that Lance was using EPO in 1993 is clearly bad for Lance.....if I have a "Total bias" against Lance why would I question the veracity of such a claim?

 

[Race Radio]

Way to crawfish. From winning the worlds on EPO and destroying troll talking points, to this mealy mouth garbage above.

Instead of the insults how about addressing what I wrote?

I am not convinced that lance was using EPO in 93. I explained why I felt that the context of the claim was in error. If you feel it is true, that Lance was using EPO in 93, then please share with us why and drop the baiting