Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 4 (Post-Settlement)

[86TDFWinner]

Is there any chance that, when quoting something I said, your reply could refer to what I actually said, and not what you want to imagine I said?

You introduced L-Carnitine suggesting it was an allegation some would want to sweep under the carpet. I fully engaged with the accusation. Yet you appear to be the one now trying to bury the story with fantasy replies and insults. Ironic, eh?

Sure, if there's any chance of you providing FACTUAL/CREDIBLE evidence that LeMond or Big Miggy doped(especially Greg) as you claimed earlier, when you referred to him as a "demon doper"?

As I mentioned to you before, if you feel better PMing it to me, thats fine too. Please keep in mind though, ANY info you provide MUST BE CREDIBLE and easily verifiable, not something your hamster told you. It Also MUST contain: dosages, who administered them, on what days/dates/times/multiple injections, locations, witnesses, what kind, by whom, etc.

BTW, I didnt "introduce" anything to you, i posted an article containing info about your doping hero, Wonderboy! You may take whatever from it that you wish.

Any issues you have with its validity or credibility, please contact the author of said article and ask him/her, as you'd get a better response, thanks.

PS, Please keep in mind going forward that this is a Wonderboy thread, post settlement(or admission), so any pertinent info regarding or mentioning Wonderboy, will be posted here, as that's the point of this thread.

 

[fmk_RoI]

BTW, I didnt "introduce" anything to you

This is getting crazy now. L-Carnitine didn't just spontaneously appear here. But 86TDFWinner wants to insist they didn't introduce it. So which one of you others did it and ran away? Come on now, 'fess up and let's get this over and done with.

ANY info you provide MUST BE CREDIBLE and easily verifiable, not something your hamster told you. It Also MUST contain: dosages, who administered them, on what days/dates/times/multiple injections, locations, witnesses, what kind, by whom, etc.

I don't know about you folk, but there's an echo of something in there for me. Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary proof? Something like that. Where did I get that? Was it something Spiderman said? Or was it Greg Lemond?

if there's any chance of you providing FACTUAL/CREDIBLE evidence that LeMond or Big Miggy doped(especially Greg) as you claimed earlier, when you referred to him as a "demon doper"?

So, we're back to Indurain not doping? And after @hrotha came to 86TDFWinner's aid too. Some people thought they'd never live to see the day of a sub-2 marathon, but I think the day that someone in the Clinic tried to argue Indurain was clean is even more unimaginable, especially without chemical aid.

 

[86TDFWinner]

This is getting crazy now. L-Carnitine didn't just spontaneously appear here. But 86TDFWinner wants to insist they didn't introduce it. So which one of you others did it and ran away? Come on now, 'fess up and let's get this over and done with.

I don't know about you folk, but there's an echo of something in there for me. Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary proof? Something like that. Where did I get that? Was it something Spiderman said? Or was it Greg Lemond?

So, we're back to Indurain not doping? And after @hrotha came to 86TDFWinner's aid too. Some people thought they'd never live to see the day of a sub-2 marathon, but I think the day that someone in the Clinic tried to argue Indurain was clean is even more unimaginable, especially without chemical aid.

So you're saying you have no proof of either doping, despite your claims?

Got it!

Get back to me when you find something on either, especially LeMond?

 

[Oldermanish]

So you're saying you have no proof of either doping, despite your claims?

Got it!

Get back to me when you find something on either, especially LeMond?

Lemond could party well after a victory and some of those party favors could have qualified as Controlled. Most are legal in a great part of the US but his teammates and Stateside opponents know he was real and frequently won without depth of support. He quit when he couldn't fight the tide and his own health reality...

Can't lend much other than opinion about the clients of noted Euro doctors, though.

 

[Aragon]

So you're saying you have no proof of either doping, despite your claims.

Of course the case that Indurain doped is mostly circumstantial, ie. that he could not've won clean.

I read somewhere one cyclist estimating that already at the 1991 Tour there were sixty or seventy cyclists on EPO and that it was practically impossible to win clean because Hct of doped riders was easily some 55 % whereas that of clean riders fell easily under 40 % after three weeks of riding.

Opinions are just opinions, and out of curiosity, do you believe that this guy with this view is just plain wrong or perhaps even dishonest?

 

[86TDFWinner]

Of course the case that Indurain doped is mostly circumstantial, ie. that he could not've won clean.

I read somewhere one cyclist estimating that already at the 1991 Tour there were sixty or seventy cyclists on EPO and that it was practically impossible to win clean because Hct of doped riders was easily some 55 % whereas that of clean riders fell easily under 40 % after three weeks of riding.

Opinions are just opinions, and out of curiosity, do you believe that this guy with this view is just plain wrong or perhaps even dishonest?

Yes! I also think he's a Wonderboy troll.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Lemond could party well after a victory and some of those party favors could have qualified as Controlled. Most are legal in a great part of the US but his teammates and Stateside opponents know he was real and frequently won without depth of support. He quit when he couldn't fight the tide and his own health reality...

Can't lend much other than opinion about the clients of noted Euro doctors, though.

Have anything at all to substantiate or back up your claims, other than your opinion?

If so, Please share any CREDIBLE proof that you have to back up your claims, just one? Not something your dog told you either. You can also PM it to me if you prefer, when can I expect this info?

 

[Aragon]

Yes! I also think he's a Wonderboy troll.

Just to clarify that I think that it hasn't been established just when EPO entered the peloton and someone must be wrong with the timelines. I actually think the estimates I referred to were sincere even if not accurate in the end, but are you maintaining that the guy with the "sixty or seventy on EPO in 91" and "impossible to win clean" is a dishonest pro Armstrong-idiot fanboy or in his payroll with anti-Indurain or anti-LeMond bias?

 

[hrotha]

So you're saying you have no proof of either doping, despite your claims?

Got it!

Get back to me when you find something on either, especially LeMond?

How about this? Pretty serious allegation regarding Indurain's doping from a trustworthy source right there.

 

[Oldermanish]

Have anything at all to substantiate or back up your claims, other than your opinion?

If so, Please share any CREDIBLE proof that you have to back up your claims, just one? Not something your dog told you either. You can also PM it to me if you prefer, when can I expect this info?

Some former teammates hold that opinion that Lemond was not an EPO user. Strongly and they're now old, too. Also several of his closest associates in his business that knew him from amateur days and current day. We have discussed all possibilities and they are not blind to cycling history but feel he was the real deal. He did party at times like almost every young athlete.

Have I met him? No. Did I live daily with him? No. Do I have intimate direct knowledge from his lips? No. Nor do you.
If you don't find that credible then you'll need to dredge up some CREDIBLE proof that convinces you of whatever it is you want to prove.
And I think it was Lance that said: Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary proof? That proof existed.

 

[aphronesis]

Came here looking for post-confession news and found some spittle flecked, name-calling insistence on the cleanliness of Big Mig (the truth is out there little brother) and the usual hagiographies of Captain America: that shining beacon of the Reagan era.

Anyway

Love him or loathe him, Lance Armstrong is back… and quite possibly here to stay | John Whitney

Has The Move podcast signalled the return of Lance Armstrong?

www.bikeradar.com

Lance is far and away from the first person I’d have a beer with, but surely more fun than the shut-ins who haven’t gotten over him.

 

[nevele neves]

Came here looking for post-confession news and found some spittle flecked, name-calling insistence on the cleanliness of Big Mig (the truth is out there little brother) and the usual hagiographies of Captain America: that shining beacon of the Reagan era.

Anyway

Love him or loathe him, Lance Armstrong is back… and quite possibly here to stay | John Whitney

Has The Move podcast signalled the return of Lance Armstrong?

www.bikeradar.com

Lance is far and away from the first person I’d have a beer with, but surely more fun than the shut-ins who haven’t gotten over him.

There are a few here where I have started to read that have some stability issues when it comes to Lance Armstrong. I just hope background checks has kept them from owning a gun.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Some former teammates hold that opinion that Lemond was not an EPO user. Strongly and they're now old, too. Also several of his closest associates in his business that knew him from amateur days and current day. We have discussed all possibilities and they are not blind to cycling history but feel he was the real deal. He did party at times like almost every young athlete.

Have I met him? No. Did I live daily with him? No. Do I have intimate direct knowledge from his lips? No. Nor do you.
If you don't find that credible then you'll need to dredge up some CREDIBLE proof that convinces you of whatever it is you want to prove.
And I think it was Lance that said: Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary proof? That proof existed.

So again, you have nothing?

Still waiting on that info, I keep checking my inbox here & nothing.

How did someone come to the conclusion that "LeMond doped too" or that Big Miggy doped, yet STILL haven't provided ANY SHRED of credible, factual info regarding either? The offer of PMing it to me, is open to EVERYONE. It must be credible/easily verifiable info, from credible sources, not something your dog Rusty told you, or you heard it from so and so, who got the info from so and so, who got that info from his best friends sisters cousins step uncle in law.

Please stop avoiding/dodging/deflectiing & just ANSWER by providing the info i asked about.


Not surprising.

 

[86TDFWinner]

There are a few here where I have started to read that have some stability issues when it comes to Lance Armstrong. I just hope background checks has kept them from owning a gun.

No background checks needed for me, I simply post articles/whatever IN A THREAD devoted to Wonderboy, good or bad(mostly bad). It's then that his ball washing disciples get all bent outta shape & still believe Cancer Jesus has done no wrong. Many of these folks often don't live in reality, or choose not to.

I get a chuckle out of their efforts to try to paint other riders as just as bad as their messiah.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Came here looking for post-confession news and found some spittle flecked, name-calling insistence on the cleanliness of Big Mig (the truth is out there little brother) and the usual hagiographies of Captain America: that shining beacon of the Reagan era.

Anyway

Love him or loathe him, Lance Armstrong is back… and quite possibly here to stay | John Whitney

Has The Move podcast signalled the return of Lance Armstrong?

www.bikeradar.com

Lance is far and away from the first person I’d have a beer with, but surely more fun than the shut-ins who haven’t gotten over him.

You're posting in a thread about Wonderboy, Are you not? Isnt that the purpose of the thread to begin with, post good or bad about him?

So perhaps you should direct your anger towards the CN boards or mods and ask them why they provide threads like this, for us to post on, as it appears they can't seem "to get over it"either?

 

[aphronesis]

Angry? I confuse. Maybe you can be a dear and explain what Indurain's cleanliness has to do with this thread topic?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Anyway

Love him or loathe him, Lance Armstrong is back… and quite possibly here to stay | John Whitney

Has The Move podcast signalled the return of Lance Armstrong?

www.bikeradar.com

Lance is far and away from the first person I’d have a beer with, but surely more fun than the shut-ins who haven’t gotten over him.

Not much of a podcast person, I have to confess, but friends who are rate The Move and rate Armstrong as a pundit. TBH, much as I dislike the guy, I'd probably prefer to listen to him than listen to, say, Millar: LA may be all about his own ego, but that's infinitely better than St David waving his pom-poms in the air with clowns like Ned Flanders. But that's not enough to make me actually want to tune in and put up with the Texan's ego.

Thing about his rehab is it's always been kinda inevitable. Part of it is the normal media cycle of build em up, knock em down, bring em back in from the wilderness. Part of it is inherent in the American psyche: anybody can be anything, even reformed crooks. The part of it I'm most drawn to is the cycling parallel. The same sort of people who tell you today that Armstrong was the baddest of the bad and nearly destroyed cycling will tell you that Maurice Garin nearly destroyed the Tour de France in winning the 1904 race. But, though banned for life for cheating en route to winning that second Tour, Desgrange still saw no trouble in inviting Garin to be a guest of honour at L’Auto’s Bordeaux-Paris race (he was a previous winner). And it’s not just the Father of the Tour who was forgiving, Desgrange’s protégé and successor Jacques Goddet had Garin as a guest of honour when the Tour turned fifty in 1953. And in 2002 Garin was among the first inductees into the UCI’s Hall of Fame. Cycling, it's very much a Catholic sport, and forgiveness is central to Catholicism.

I doubt the rehab will happen quick enough for ASO to forgive Armstrong by the time the Tour's next great milestone comes round in 2028 (although I'm tempted to bet on Rapha celebrating 25 years since his first Tour in 2024 with a retro jersey) but, who knows, by the time the race turns 150 in 2053, he could once again be among the parade of past winners still strutting their stuff. Him and Indurain, hand in hand, with Riis and Ullrich right behind them. The poster boys of Gen-EPO.

I don't think Armstrong will ever be as rehabilitated as Pantani, or even Simpson, I think (hope) he'll always be seen as the agent of his own destruction (the bullying will - rightly - always leave a stain). But you can see how a generation that wasn't part of the fight to get to the truth won't understand the anger of others. All they'll see is the YouTube videos, all they'll have is whatever he's saying now. Some of them will judge him arrogant, same as some of us judged him arrogant even before the cancer comeback. But for some, that arrogance will be as attractive as it first was to David Walsh, that's what they'll tune into Armstrong for.

 

[aphronesis]

The truth was always available in the US if one was actually paying attention. The scandal and umbrage seems to come primarily from those in the US who bought into the spectacle and hype and who felt that the US was finally (rightly) taking its place in the tradition of European cycling.

I'm willing to bet the rehabilitation goes much more quickly. A few posters here still hang on Betsy's words as gospel, but the rest of the world doesn't care. Even Floyd has said repeatedly that it's healthier and more ethically sound for everyone to let it go.

 

[fmk_RoI]

I'm willing to bet the rehabilitation goes much more quickly.

Quicker than him being on the Champs Élysées in 2053 or quicker than him being on the Champs Élysées in 2028?

 

[aphronesis]

Definitely before 53. I wouldn't bet against 28

 

[Oldermanish]

So again, you have nothing?

Still waiting on that info, I keep checking my inbox here & nothing.

How did someone come to the conclusion that "LeMond doped too" or that Big Miggy doped, yet STILL haven't provided ANY SHRED of credible, factual info regarding either? The offer of PMing it to me, is open to EVERYONE. It must be credible/easily verifiable info, from credible sources, not something your dog Rusty told you, or you heard it from so and so, who got the info from so and so, who got that info from his best friends sisters cousins step uncle in law.

Please stop avoiding/dodging/deflectiing & just ANSWER by providing the info i asked about.


Not surprising.

Again. I'm suggesting Lemond DID NOT DOPE. Teammates and close associates feel the same way so the evidence is.....there is no evidence. I won't disclose who I've spoken to about it as they don't need harassment on this count either.
I can see the need to provide specifics, particularly when alleging someone committed a violation of some sort.

 

[nevele neves]

Again. I'm suggesting Lemond DID NOT DOPE. Teammates and close associates feel the same way so the evidence is.....there is no evidence. I won't disclose who I've spoken to about it as they don't need harassment on this count either.
I can see the need to provide specifics, particularly when alleging someone committed a violation of some sort.

Hard to understand how you could suggest anyone in the pro peloton "DID NOT DOPE" that seems to be a very naive view of pro cycling.

 

[Oldermanish]

Hard to understand how you could suggest anyone in the pro peloton "DID NOT DOPE" that seems to be a very naive view of pro cycling.

Current history aside you're welcome to the generalized opinion.
When I reference the opinions or confirmations from riders that I know, trained/raced with, coached or represented in contract negotiations I have a real sense of their honesty. There are riders that went an entire pro career without doping and there are current riders that are clean. The two Americans on Jumbo are among them according to guys around here that raced with them. I can tell you that they displayed their true talent when they were juniors so I'm going to "suggest" that they aren't suspicious until someone like you puts in the research to prove otherwise. 86TDF may have another path, though. Not sure.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Hard to understand how you could suggest anyone in the pro peloton "DID NOT DOPE" that seems to be a very naive view of pro cycling.

Gilles Delion is one practically the whole peloton agreed on from LeMond's time. The blesséd Christophe Bassons is another from a later era. Team bosses like Paul Köchli are well known for having tried to run clean teams. Pierre Ducrot is a swannie known to have been against doping. They're just some of the names that are pretty much universally agreed on as having been clean. Suggesting that someone in the pro peloton did not dope is not a sign of naivety, it can be a sign of knowing the history. Which, on this one, I'm sorry, you don't seem to know.

 

[nevele neves]

Gilles Delion is one practically the whole peloton agreed on from LeMond's time. The blesséd Christophe Bassons is another from a later era. Team bosses like Paul Köchli are well known for having tried to run clean teams. Pierre Ducrot is a swannie known to have been against doping. They're just some of the names that are pretty much universally agreed on as having been clean. Suggesting that someone in the pro peloton did not dope is not a sign of naivety, it can be a sign of knowing the history. Which, on this one, I'm sorry, you don't seem to know.

Right and I don't believe a word any one of them says.
I only started watching cycling because of the current clean era , for example wiggans and frooms.