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

[patricknd]

http://live.washingtonpost.com/lance-armstrong-accused-of-using-illegal-substances-chat.html

i like the part about vengeance cycles. think we're in one?

 

[Benotti69]

My uninformed opinion is the mere fact there are suspicious values is reason enough to consider it damning proof of a doping program.

I could see Public Strategies trying to blow the whole thing down to nothing with a vrijman-type obfuscation. To quote another famous denier, "It Depends on what the meaning of the word is is" In fact, I don't know why they aren't on the offensive with that kind of tactic.

Public stratalies are not doing well with 'obfuscation' lately. Hard to stem a rising tide of strong evidence.

I hope they have been paid up to date

 

[Mambo95]

wow I checked when I posted and it was there.

Now, I'm sure some posters on here can make this out to be some sort of conspiracy theory.

However, you don't seem to have posted the link properly. Try this:

http://www.homeluxury.net/lance-armstrongs-luxury-vacation-home-for-sale/

 

[ChrisE]

Jenkins....



The definition of a fanboy (fangirl).

What about LeMond, Betsy, Floyd, Bassons, Simeoni, Tyler, Walsh, the French........ etc., etc., etc.

Yeah, it was a good read.

Hard to believe somebody could be that clueless, thus my avatar change to offer her support. You should join with me and do the same....wth is that in your avatar?

i like the part about vengeance cycles. think we're in one?

I think we're in a vengence hurricane.

 

[ChrisE]

Now, I'm sure some posters on here can make this out to be some sort of conspiracy theory.

However, you don't seem to have posted the link properly. Try this:

http://www.homeluxury.net/lance-armstrongs-luxury-vacation-home-for-sale/

Those comments are priceless. Seems like some people have some explaining to do lol.

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah, it was a good read.

Hard to believe somebody could be that clueless, thus my avatar change to offer her support. You should join with me and do the same....wth is that in your avatar?



I think we're in a vengence hurricane.

It's Wouter Weylandts.

I'm thinking of helping Patrick support Betsy. Sally seems too far gone.

 

[ChrisE]

It's Wouter Weylandts.

I'm thinking of helping Patrick support Betsy. Sally seem too far gone.

Ouch. OK. I was hoping your avatar was you so I could jab you. I had it all worked out, all in jest of course.

Betsy has all the support she needs.....she is a national treasure. Sally obviously needs more help than Betsy does, so I implore you to reconsider. Thanks.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

vs. two riders who are known to have lied for years and who don't actually have first hand knowledge of the events?

How many riders did you say?? TWO.

Two riders, who didn't ride on USPS together - and they have both said it was a 'positive'. Not 'borderline', not a warning.

Also Hamilton would have been at the Tour when the news broke. He said it was 'being taken care of'.
Landis was told in 2002 - LA told him he had a positive covered up.

 

[D-Queued]

Hey man I like the support with your new avatar. Is this a concerted effort?

I am supporting Sally Jenkins. After I read her powerful interview that was linked to earlier I think she needs some support as well. It is good reading for those that are still on the fence.

Still on the fence?

Somebody has to call you on that one!

With only one 'never' ("Lance can never disappoint me"), Sally isn't at the Verbruggen level of denial yet (Never, Never, Never) or that of Vrijman (31 uses of 'never'), but she is approaching it.

There is nothing related to fence-sitting with respect to Sally as she cannot even see any fence through her rose-colored shades.

Dave.

 

[ChrisE]

How many riders did you say?? TWO.

Two riders, who didn't ride on USPS together - and they have both said it was a 'positive'. Not 'borderline', not a warning.

Also Hamilton would have been at the Tour when the news broke. He said it was 'being taken care of'.
Landis was told in 2002 - LA told him he had a positive covered up.

To FL and TH LA could have said "I had some f-d up test results and discussions took place and it went away" or something to that effect. It is easy to see how from somebody's memory this could be remembered as you state. Heck even I could remember it that way. I am not debating their memory, or debating what LA said.

What this all boils down to is what is provable in court, to the point at which Joe six-pack on the jury will buy it. Now you've got the lab officials all over the map as MI has pointed out.

This whole issue will get aggressively defended by LA's team in court. All you need is one person to find doubt, and it is all over. I don't think that is a stretch, on this issue or many others surrounding what we think this investigation is about. I don't see LA pleading down....this will be a war.

 

[ChrisE]

Still on the fence?

Somebody has to call you on that one!
With only one 'never' ("Lance can never disappoint me"), Sally isn't at the Verbruggen level of denial yet (Never, Never, Never) or that of Vrijman (31 uses of 'never'), but she is approaching it.

There is nothing related to fence-sitting with respect to Sally as she cannot even see any fence through her rose-colored shades.

Dave.

You know how I am stingy with the emoticons at times, and how that gets me in trouble. Let me make up for it here for that post.

 

[D-Queued]

You know how I am stingy with the emoticons at times, and how that gets me in trouble. Let me make up for it here for that post.

Dave.

 

[ChrisE]

Dave.

OK. Will you be changing your avatar to support Sally?

You really do need an avatar even you it is not Sally. I can send you some suggestions if you like.

 

[Elagabalus]

To FL and TH LA could have said "I had some f-d up test results and discussions took place and it went away" or something to that effect. It is easy to see how from somebody's memory this could be remembered as you state. Heck even I could remember it that way. I am not debating their memory, or debating what LA said.

What this all boils down to is what is provable in court, to the point at which Joe six-pack on the jury will buy it. Now you've got the lab officials all over the map as MI has pointed out.

This whole issue will get aggressively defended by LA's team in court. All you need is one person to find doubt, and it is all over. I don't think that is a stretch, on this issue or many others surrounding what we think this investigation is about. I don't see LA pleading down....this will be a war.

Agreed. The only thing they have is what LA told FL and TH and perhaps, the context of the conversation i.e. LA saying "You shouldn't worry about doping. Everybody's doing it! And besides I tested positive in the TdS and it was taken care of! So, go ahead!" The rest should probably be tossed.

P.S. Sally Jenkins kinda' looks like Betsy's mother ...

 

[D-Queued]

OK. Will you be changing your avatar to support Sally?

You really do need an avatar even you it is not Sally. I can send you some suggestions if you like.

Ummm...

Can I quote her? Verbruggen? Vrijman? All of the above?

"Never"

Dave.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

BAck on topic. Further off-topic posts will be deleted.

Susan

 

[Polish]

Check out the CN Article:

Swiss lab director confirms meeting Bruyneel and Armstrong over "suspect" samples
Armstrong defence attorney denies

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swi...g-bruyneel-and-armstrong-over-suspect-samples


What did Armstrong Defence Attorney "deny'?
Can't seem to find it in the article.

Otherwise, a great article!

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Just re-read Jenkins Q&A in the WP. The final paragraph is really odd. She sounds like a lover who has discovered that she's been cheated on. I say that having cut my teeth as a young attorney doing matrimonial work. First there's the denial followed by anger and, sometimes, revenge that is more or less successful. Please note, I am NOT saying that Jenkins and Armstrong had an affair. Rather, the psychological relationship from writing two books together seems somewhat like a marriage. Betrayal on that level is nasty to deal with.

 

[thirteen]

Check out the CN Article:

Swiss lab director confirms meeting Bruyneel and Armstrong over "suspect" samples
Armstrong defence attorney denies

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swi...g-bruyneel-and-armstrong-over-suspect-samples

you're a little late to the party, Polish.

it's been discussed quite a bit.

 

[MR_Sarcastic]

"Remembering"

However, Saugy said that the meeting did not take place at the Swiss lab - as stated by Hamilton in the 60 Minutes TV show - but during a trip made to collect blood samples. "And it also wasn't about discussing a particular result or to cover up anything. I explained how the EPO test worked and why there were suspect samples as well as positive ones. This information was part of a lecture that I had been giving in various locations."

Armstrong's attorney Tim Herman, however, recently said in a statement that "neither Armstrong or Bruyneel have any recollection of meeting [Saugy] for any purpose at any time," and "Armstrong was never informed by anyone in 2001 or any other time about either a positive or 'suspicious' test".



If I was getting some sort of "secret info", I'd remember something from 10 years ago, If it was just banter, I wouldn't remember.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Check out the CN Article:

Swiss lab director confirms meeting Bruyneel and Armstrong over "suspect" samples
Armstrong defence attorney denies

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swi...g-bruyneel-and-armstrong-over-suspect-samples


What did Armstrong Defence Attorney "deny'?
Can't seem to find it in the article.

Otherwise, a great article!

Tim Herman said that Armstrong has no recollection of a meeting with the Swiss fellow. Herman also said that Armstrong was never advised that he had a positive test from the TdS in 2001.

The former statement is used when you don't want to box yourself in with a definitive yes or no answer. It doesn't play well in front of a petit jury. The later is just a parsing of words.

 

[Elagabalus]

.... If I was getting some sort of "secret info", I'd remember something from 10 years ago, If it was just banter, I wouldn't remember.

Of course, that also applies to TH and FL.

 

[webvan]

Google translation: Only the association, in this case, the charge of the uci cycling. In our laboratory, the samples were provided as usual with codes. We could and could not know who they were assigned. Until the early summer of 2002, we knew absolutely nothing, to who it is. Then there was some evidence that lance armstrong might be affected.

Wonder how/why ? Did they go back to previous tests after some more suspicious results, like the Dauphine 2002 ?

 

[Polish]

Tim Herman said that Armstrong has no recollection of a meeting with the Swiss fellow. Herman also said that Armstrong was never advised that he had a positive test from the TdS in 2001.

The former statement is used when you don't want to box yourself in with a definitive yes or no answer. It doesn't play well in front of a petit jury. The later is just a parsing of words.

Having no recollection of a meeting is not a "denial".
And Saugy himself says it was more of a "Lecture Series" than a meeting.
Not remembering a lecture is very different from denying it happened.

And "never being advised of a positive test from the TdS" is not a denial.
Saugy never said that happened. Never advised of a positive says Saugy
Seems Lance's defense is in agreement not denial.

Again, what did Saugy say in that article that Lance defense is denying?
Otherwise, a good article.

 

[Elagabalus]

Having no recollection of a meeting is not a "denial".
And Saugy himself says it was more of a "Lecture Series" than a meeting.
Not remembering a lecture is very different from denying it happened.

And "never being advised of a positive test from the TdS" is not a denial.
Saugy never said that happened. Never advised of a positive says Saugy
Seems Lance's defense is in agreement not denial.

Again, what did Saugy say in that article that Lance defense is denying?
Otherwise, a good article.

So...I guess you two are in agreement then ... Yes?