Official Lance Armstrong Thread **READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING**

[Dr. Maserati]

So you're suggesting it was all a mistake and he was clean. Go away fool.

I never suggested he was clean - you are the one suggesting it was a failed dope test, it wasn't.

 

[JRTinMA]

I am going to take a wild guess here - but none of your 10 people rode for USPS in 1999?
Frankie doped to get on the Tour team - so he didn't cheat your buddies out of anything because if they weren't willing to dope they wouldn't have made it on to Lances team.

Not a one. So all of LA's doper cronies are ok with you? FA doped to stay relevant, get over it.

 

[Granville57]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Not a one. So all of LA's doper cronies are ok with you? FA doped to stay relevant, get over it.

No they aren't - thanks for asking.

FA doped to get on the team and as he put it because he was tired of getting his ass kicked by riders who were not as good as him.

 

[JRTinMA]

I never suggested he was clean - you are the one suggesting it was a failed dope test, it wasn't.

It was equivalent. It was a failed test in all practical sense. I can't help those who flip flop between good dopers and bad. The clinic is made for you.

 

[JRTinMA]

Ahhhh...this thread has gone to hell anyway.




Nice back pedal. Troll much?

Why anyone continues to engage this idiocy is beyond me.

You want to call that trolling go ahead. *** edited by mod ****. Another apologist for the doped game of cycling.

 

[MacRoadie]

So, what happened to the 52% hematocrit diatribe? Got awfully quiet all of a sudden...

 

[Velodude]

I have done every example you list except TP a house, that's weird. I have never cheated at work, never once. I can't, I work in a business based on trust and have never cheated a penny from a client. Try again to defend the good dopers.

What! You never visited this forum and social network sites in work time, never used office communication systems for private purposes, never took office stationery home for personal and private use, never feigned sickness for a day off, etc.,?

 

[JRTinMA]

So, what happened to the 52% hematocrit diatribe? Got awfully quiet all of a sudden...

No, you're defense lacked any basis. He was a doper. You know it and I know it, 52% confirmed it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It was equivalent. It was a failed test in all practical sense. I can't help those who flip flop between good dopers and bad. The clinic is made for you.

It was not a failed dope test.

I don't flip flop between good or bad dopers because they are dopers, it is not a personality competition.

*** edited by mod ***

 

[JRTinMA]

What! You never visited this forum and social network sites in work time, never used office communication systems for private purposes, never took office stationery home for personal and private use, never feigned sickness for a day off, etc.,?

Never.....

 

[JRTinMA]

It was not a failed dope test.

I don't flip flop between good or bad dopers because they are dopers, it is not a personality competition.

Its true, I love Floyd Landis. Besides that I dole out the distaste evenly.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[MacRoadie]

No, you're defense lacked any basis. He was a doper. You know it and I know it, 52% confirmed it.

Right. The report I cited, probably the most definitive analysis of hematocrit and doping, dismisses 50% as an almost random number, yet you argue it has no basis.

Your problem is you're too thick to realize that none of us are pro-dopers. In fact we're all very strongly against doping.

We're also very much for logical, thorough scientific testing for the use of PED's, and not some half-assed, seat of the pants indictment of everyone or anyone as a doper, especially by using a metric (hematocrit) that is about as flawed as one can get. Why don't you just throw in rapid weight loss, or "dramatic" increases in performance as definitive proof of doping? Then try taking that to a AAA or CAS tribunal. Of course, that would mean Armstrong is a doper and we can't have that, right?

Me, I'll stick with validated scientific testing that is robust and that I can use to pin a doper to the wall and keep him there.

 

[JRTinMA]

Right. The report I cited, probably the most definitive analysis of hematocrit and doping, dismisses 50% as an almost random number, yet you argue it has no basis.

You problem is you're too thick to realize that none of us are pro-dopers. In fact we're all very strongly against doping.

We're also very much for logical, thorough scientific testing for the use of PED's, and not some half-assed, seat of the pants indictment of everyone or anyone as a doper, especially by using a metric (hematocrit) that is about as flawed as one can get. Why don't you just throw in rapid weight loss, or "dramatic" increases in performance as definitive proof of doping. Then try tasking that to a AAA or CAS tribunal.

Me, I'll stick with validated scientific testing that is robust and that I can use to pin a doper to the wall and keep him there.

He was clean then?

 

[JRTinMA]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Its true, I love Floyd Landis. Besides that I dole out the distaste evenly.

I am delighted you like Floyd - unlike you at least he could admit when he made a mistake.

 

[JRTinMA]

I am delighted you like Floyd - unlike you at least he could admit when he made a mistake.

I'm right. You on the other hand see degrees.

 

[D-Queued]

Thank you! BTW, all I said is Frankie had dope money in 99 and 2000. You have decided good dopers from bad.

No, that is not what you said. You made a gross overstatement in a vindictive post.

How much money did your husband make after his prime because of the dope? He would have long been washed up but the dope gave him his most lucrative years at USPS. You should be applauded for what you did but you reaped the benefits just the same. #justlikelancenowbothgoaway

Just like this was an uncalled for, and untrue, statement about Betsy.

I think its safe to say they are both obsessed with each other. She seems to follow him just as close.

Speaking of obsession, let's revisit your attempt to suggest you were speaking of Frank Schleck when you said Frankie.

Truth is in all of your 583 posts, that one post was the first time you ever mentioned "Scheck". You have mentioned Frankie 20 times, Schleck only once.

Perhaps you can forgive your audience for mistaking your intended use of Frankie.

Never mind. Might as well call a spade a spade. You were caught in a lie. After all, your audience has long observed the hate that you spew about Frankie and Betsy.

Dave.

 

[MarkvW]

FA doped to get on the team and as he put it because he was tired of getting his ass kicked by riders who were not as good as him.

A useless rationale. As useless as any rationale Arrmstrong would devise.

 

[MacRoadie]

He was clean then?

This is becomeing tiresome.

No one said he was clean, but using hematocrit for anything other than internet speculation means absolutely nothing. When a normal human being, randomly pulled off of any street in any city, can have a crit of 52%, then Pantani's number serves no scientific purpose. If it serves no purpose re: doping sanctions, then it serves no purpose in this discussion.

It's no better than saying anyone with a certain body fat content that falls as an outlyer in a general population is a doper.

I want to catch dopers. I don't want to use some metric that is about as useful as a roll of toilet paper to do so.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm right. You on the other hand see degrees.

No you are not. Pantani did not fail a dope test, ever.

Because if you want to get in to the 'degrees' of it as per your point then that means I can introduce Armstrong visiting Ferrari in march of 1999, long before the Giro.

 

[Granville57]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Dr. Maserati]

A useless rationale. As useless as any rationale Arrmstrong would devise.

Armstrong was the one pressuring him to go see Ferrari.

 

[JRTinMA]

No, that is not what you said. You made a gross overstatement in a vindictive post.



Just like this was an uncalled for, and untrue, statement about Betsy.



Speaking of obsession, let's revisit your attempt to suggest you were speaking of Frank Schleck when you said Frankie.

Truth is in all of your 583 posts, that one post was the first time you ever mentioned "Scheck". You have mentioned Frankie 20 times, Schleck only once.

Perhaps you can forgive your audience for mistaking your intended use of Frankie.

Never mind. Might as well call a spade a spade. You were caught in a lie. After all, your audience has long observed the hate that you spew about Frankie and Betsy.

Dave.

I believe you said in your last post you would not research my posting and then you did. What does that make you?

I was not caught in a lie, Frank or Frankie its the same. Only one sent money to Fuentes. To suggest otherwise is just BS.