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

[sniper]

How many riders had mega million dollar business deals with many sponsers?
How many riders had an "Effect"? Jan Effect? Marco Effect?

Only Lance.

How many riders survived cancer with a altered physique?
How many riders had a lazer-like focus on the TdF?
How many paid strict attention to their diets and slept in tents?
How many had the 20+ other TdF Champion of Champion Attributes?

Only Lance.

How many riders won 7 TdFs In A Row?
(A streak that NO amount of money could buy btw)

Only Lance.

ehm...we know very little still, but one thing we now do seem to know (and I'm talking about a consensus here) is that he actually did buy his winning streak.
What the exact amount of money was is being discussed as we speak.

 

[ChrisE]

Good post, MI. I appreciate your input as always. It makes people think. BTW be easy on RR with his 99 sample BS. He is throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks on the rubes. Benotti and Damiano Machievelli will be along soon to feed at the trough.

Again, a point I made upthread is that if LA was protected, why not just use EPO? Why blood dope, when the evidence is much easier to come across by police authorities? And why don't FL and TH know WTF is going on? Why would Ferrari be out of this loop?

I insinuated upthread that the dam burst in 2006 not only because the protection of LA was gone for the peloton as a whole in races he cared about (ie that could effect his reputation) or for people he beat that would bring to question his cleanliness, but OP broke as well. All of this hit the fan at the same time, and how could the UCI keep up the farce with OP? They had no reason...LA was retired. It is plausibible IMO that LA saw this coming, or more than likely knew. Why would he retire when he would be the favorite to win in 2006 as you say? We all know the kid issue is BS. Then bam, all the issues 2006-2008, until he unretired and the payoffs started again to protect reputations and public personas to the benefit of all. Yeah, there was no CERA used in the 2009 TdF lol.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No they weren’t. LA had more positives than anyone else, but his total of 6 (maybe 8-9) was less than half of all the positives.

No, read what RR wrote:

Originally Posted by Race Radio

The results of the retro testing of the 99 samples say a lot. After Festina riders were scared. It shows in the test results. The vast majority of the positives were Armstrong's, who had no such concerns.

6 out of 13 positives is the vast majority - as RR said.
More significantly those other positives came at the start of the Tour - ie others used EPO up to the Tour but not during it, probably fearful of another Police bust.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Good post, MI. I appreciate your input as always. It makes people think. BTW be easy on RR with his 99 sample BS. He is throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks on the rubes. Benotti and Damiano Machievelli will be along soon to feed at the trough.

Again, a point I made upthread is that if LA was protected, why not just use EPO? Why blood dope, when the evidence is much easier to come across by police authorities? And why don't FL and TH know WTF is going on? Why would Ferrari be out of this loop?

I insinuated upthread that the dam burst in 2006 not only because the protection of LA was gone for the peloton as a whole in races he cared about (ie that could effect his reputation) or for people he beat that would bring to question his cleanliness, but OP broke as well. All of this hit the fan at the same time, and how could the UCI keep up the farce with OP? They had no reason...LA was retired. It is plausibible IMO that LA saw this coming, or more than likely knew. Why would he retire when he would be the favorite to win in 2006 as you say? We all know the kid issue is BS. Then bam, all the issues 2006-2008, until he unretired and the payoffs started again to protect reputations and public personas to the benefit of all. Yeah, there was no CERA used in the 2009 TdF lol.

Again you are the only one to insinuate this.

It wasn't that LA could dope with impunity - it is when he was caught he was given favorable treatment by the UCI.

 

[Polish]

ehm...we know very little still, but one thing we now do seem to know (and I'm talking about a consensus here) is that he actually did buy his winning streak.
What the exact amount of money was is being discussed as we speak.

C'mon sniper, use your head.

Just because Lance made donations and Lance won 7 in a row does not mean the donations bought his victories. C'mon, use your head.

You can NOT buy a 7 Tour Winning Streak.
No amount of money can buy you 7 in a row.
A few hundred thousand dollars can not buy 7 in a row.

Sure, making donations to the UCI helped Lance.
About as much as sleeping in a tent or weighing his food or a team with musketeer status or reconning couses. Higher cadence. Look at the Big Picture sniper. The Big Awesome Picture.

 

[Race Radio]

I'm not making any sense? You are the one saying LA had special protection above all others, while conveniently ignoring the lack of positives of other doped competitors in the tour during those years. Why won't you answer why? And why do you insist on sticking your neck out that he was the only one with payoffs or the UCI sweeping positives under the rug? How did Rumsas for example, the most blatant of all, skate testing? All you know is what is in the news and leaked from SCA, regardless of your reputation. FL and TH are not supporting what you are saying, ie LA had special protection and could dope more than others. The media and leaks are not the line in the sand where the truth is drawn, and the fact is nobody tested positive during those years in the tour. Nobody. You are the one not making sense my friend, blinded only by your hate for LA instead of using your brain.

JU testing positive, with a drug that is not a PED 6 months before the tour, has zero impact on this issue. It has zero impact on the bottom line which is the popularity of the sport in a huge market. JU getting popped for EPO during a rest day while 4 minutes down to LA is a big issue, because then it brings on the question of LA beating doped riders clean and totally impacts the fairy tale and the cash flow. I cannot make it any more clearer than this RR.

And BINGO. Yes, I am saying the UCI etal started covering up after LA started winning, thus Pantani in the 99 Giro (again, I am talking about the tour) makes no difference to me in this argument.

The vast majority of the ones tested in 99 were LA's because the vast majority of LA's pis were the ones that were tested in that tour. He was in yellow the majority of the time, and won I believe 4 stages. Do you know who the other positives were? No, so you should probably back off from this line, no offense. How many times was Zulle tested? Escartin? Verinque? And how many vials of their pis was retro tested? You don't know that answer for sure but you do know the answer is miniscule compared to LA, if they were tested at all. You are smarter than this and you know this.

Again you are not making sense. I have given you GC riders who were victims of surprise testing. Rumsas tested positive for EPO in 2003. You chose to ignore this. Floyd and Tyler do indeed support what I have said. Floyd has said that he was consistently surprised at the level of doping risk Armstrong took. Tyler has said that Lance was unconcerned, casual, when he found out that he has tested positive at the TdS. All samples from 99, and 98, were tested. 99 had far fewer positives, the outputs on the climbs were lower, but Armstrong pushed away. The only reason we know Armstrong's results is he was arrogant enough to let the UCI release his forms.

Even the independent observers report from 2009 talked in detail about how Lance, and his team, were given preferential treatment by the UCI.

So tell us, what other riders gave "Donations" to the UCI? Which were business partners with Verbruggen in Billion $$ deals? Which riders had agents that were IOC board members?

You can pretend that there was some kind of level playing field but we all know that it never existed.

 

[Polish]

You can pretend that there was some kind of level playing field but we all know that it never existed.

True, the playing field was never level at the TdF 1999-2005.
Obviously.
Lance was a LEVEL ABOVE.
Duh.

One Two Three Four Five Six Seven.

The playing field at the TdF has never been so one-sided.
Brash and Cocky Champion of the World and of France.
Patron of Patrons. Champion of Champions.

 

[GreasyMonkey]

Sniper, you LOSE.....

You're the first one to respond to the cone-head troll.....

I know it is tempting, but try to refrain I nearly succumbed too.

 

[MarkvW]

You're the first one to respond to the cone-head troll.....

I know it is tempting, but try to refrain I nearly succumbed too.

I think Polish generally agrees with you about the Lance-facts. For her, those facts just don't overcome her Lance-love.

 

[JRTinMA]

No, read what RR wrote:


6 out of 13 positives is the vast majority - as RR said.
More significantly those other positives came at the start of the Tour - ie others used EPO up to the Tour but not during it, probably fearful of another Police bust.

Less than half is a vast majority, its not even a majority? You can't make this stuff up, wait I guess you can.

 

[D-Queued]

Less than half is a vast majority, its not even a majority? You can't make this stuff up, wait I guess you can.

It is the highest bar on the pareto chart.

If we used it as a measure of dirt, then Lance is 6x dirtier.

Dave.

 

[Race Radio]

Less than half is a vast majority, its not even a majority? You can't make this stuff up, wait I guess you can.

Math is not your strong point. Did any other rider have 6 positives? Nope.

6 positives for Lance
1 for Beltran
1 for Hamburger
1 for Castelblanco
4 for a verity of other guys

Majority of positives were from Lance. As for the question if fewer riders used EPO in the 1999 Tour, the tests show that as well. The first test 1998 samples showed 14 positves, when retested with the better test they showed 40 out of 70 were positive.......1999 only had 13 positives. Most were from Lance and the others largely came at the start of the race.

Interesting that US Cycling ignored all of this....wonder why?

http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-09-07/news/tour-de-farce/

 

[Polish]

I think Polish generally agrees with you about the Lance-facts. For her, those facts just don't overcome her Lance-love.

It is a fact that you can not donate your way into 7 wins in a row.
That is as silly as saying you can pedal at a faster cadence to win 7 in a row.

There has never been a rider, before or after Lance, who would be able to donate a few hundred thousand dollars to win 7 in a row.

As the Sears man says - 'Grab your umbrella because it is raining Cold Hard Facts".

 

[Polish]

Math is not your strong point. Did any other rider have 6 positives? Nope.

6 positives for Lance
1 for Beltran
1 for Hamburger
1 for Castelblanco
4 for a verity of other guys

Majority of positives were from Lance. As for the question if fewer riders used EPO in the 1999 Tour, the tests show that as well. The first test 1998 samples showed 14 positves, when retested with the better test they showed 40 out of 70 were positive.......1999 only had 13 positives. Most were from Lance and the others largely came at the start of the race.

Interesting that US Cycling ignored all of this....wonder why?

http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-09-07/news/tour-de-farce/

ITS PEE PEE TIME YAAAAAA.
Thank you.

 

[MarkvW]

It is a fact that you can not donate your way into 7 wins in a row.
That is as silly as saying you can pedal at a faster cadence to win 7 in a row.

There has never been a rider, before or after Lance, who would be able to donate a few hundred thousand dollars to win 7 in a row.

As the Sears man says - 'Grab your umbrella because it is raining Cold Hard Facts".

But it is also a fact that winning seven tours in a row without a comprehensive doping program is not possible!

 

[sniper]

did LA have more talent than others? Controversial
did LA have a better program than others? Controversial
did LA have more money than others? Uncontroversial
did LA have better connections with Hein than others? Uncontroversial

 

[Polish]

But it is also a fact that winning seven tours in a row without a comprehensive doping program is not possible!

So true, so true.

Heck, its hard enough to win ONE in a row without a comprehensive doping program.

I can understand how some can have problems comprehending the awesomeness of Lance's Streak.
Have problems getting their head around that one.

"There must be a rational explanation"
"Lance must of purchased his victories"
"That it - Lance bought his way into 7"

Its not THAT hard to see the denial.
Not that hard to see the anger sometimes yikes.
But hopefully acceptance can someday come.
Its healthier after all.

 

[D-Queued]

did LA have more talent than others? Controversial
did LA have a better program than others? Controversial
did LA have more money than others? Uncontroversial
did LA have better connections with Hein than others? Uncontroversial

Did Lance have more positives than any other Tour winner, ever, and all other Tour winners combined? Uncontroversial

Dave.

 

[Poursuivant]

Why did LA ignore Ferraris advice not to use EPO, in I think 2001? He calls him a genius but went against him on this. Did he just think Ferrari was being too careful?

 

[JRTinMA]

Math is not your strong point. Did any other rider have 6 positives? Nope.

6 positives for Lance
1 for Beltran
1 for Hamburger
1 for Castelblanco
4 for a verity of other guys

Majority of positives were from Lance. As for the question if fewer riders used EPO in the 1999 Tour, the tests show that as well. The first test 1998 samples showed 14 positves, when retested with the better test they showed 40 out of 70 were positive.......1999 only had 13 positives. Most were from Lance and the others largely came at the start of the race.

Interesting that US Cycling ignored all of this....wonder why?

http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-09-07/news/tour-de-farce/

Good try but its not what doc said, 6 of 13 is not a majority, end of story. A majority of the pos tests were from lance is a different statement all together and true. Stick with math you can do on a slide rule.

 

[python]

yeah, since the fake from mass told us he's firmly on the fence about texas doping, his deliberate thickness about the simple post by rr makes...yeah perfect proof of a firm fence sitter. fake !

 

[Polish]

Why did LA ignore Ferraris advice not to use EPO, in I think 2001? He calls him a genius but went against him on this. Did he just think Ferrari was being too careful?

The good Doctor was using Reverse Psychology.
Genius indeed.

 

[Velodude]

You must take into account that from 1999-2004, coincidentally the Novitzky target years, UCI had management and control of the dope testing regime.

After the 2004 TdF and before the 2004 Athens Olympics the UCI capitulated and signed up to the WADA code so cycling can continue to be included as an Olympic sport. Soccer/football and cycling vied to be the last sport to sign up.

UCI reluctantly signed in the face of a threatened walk out by professional cyclists to form their own governing body. Appears the pro cyclists were more than satisfied with UCI's handling of doping control.

It may be recalled that when the Puerto Operation scandal broke Mr Armstrong, then retired, said with Freudian slip words to the effect: "It could never happen under my watch"

 

[JRTinMA]

yeah, since the fake from mass told us he's firmly on the fence about texas doping, his deliberate thickness about the simple post by rr makes...yeah perfect proof of a firm fence sitter. fake !

hahahahahahahahahaha, the joy these posts bring me is indescribable. I love that you follow me around like a li'l puppy. Makes me want to do "intra-vinous" drugs...dope!

 

[python]

hahahahahahahahahaha, the joy these posts bring me is indescribable. I love that you follow me around like a li'l puppy. Makes me want to do "intra-vinous" drugs...dope!

you are wrong about my motivation - i love exposing flimsy fakes like you..,.b/c it's so easy, fanboy