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

[thehog]

I want charges so we can get this on the stand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUDJFlnOl8g&sns=em

Any ideas to the point he is making??

Strange man.

 

[Race Radio]

I want charges so we can get this on the stand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUDJFlnOl8g&sns=em

Any ideas to the point he is making??

Strange man.

Wow, that is some serious rambling babble.

 

[python]

Wow, that is some serious rambling babble.

i think he actually admitted to doping in the last phrase, no kidding.

i'm too lazy to replay, but he said something like, '...people have been cutting corners for a long time...look, i'm still here...'

 

[Berzin]

Well, we can always fall back on Indiana Jones Boulder Metaphors.

Exactly. The boulder metaphor was much more clever than anything you've ever come up with, which is why you remember it.

 

[Anonymous]

Evidence of trafficking, distribution, witness tampering and bribes etc?
I do not think so. If there WAS evidence, Lance would have been indicted.
The FACT that Lance was not indicted shows there was no evidence. Sorry.

And why has Lance spent money on lawyers?
Because of Floyd and the WitchHunt SmearJob that ensued.
SI/WSJ/ESPN/SundayTimes/AP/60Mins/ETC/ETC/ETC/
Lance's lawyers put an END to that.

RR, why do you continue to ask such simple questions? You really need to let it go. Its time to move on. 10 years of hating Lance. Let it go. Move on.

I used to be a hater too you know. Until I took an arrow to the knee. From the Quiver of Awesomeness.

Hope springs eternal. You Cubs fans sure are persistent.

Katie Casey was baseball mad,
Had the fever and had it bad.
Just to root for the home town crew,
Ev'ry soul
Katie blew.
On a Saturday her young beau
Called to see if she'd like to go
To see a show, but Miss Kate said "No,
I'll tell you what you can do:

Take me out...

 

[sherer]

I want charges so we can get this on the stand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUDJFlnOl8g&sns=em

Any ideas to the point he is making??

Strange man.

As you know full well he is making the very point all of you post in the Clinic for. Cycling has a host of problems which he admits and says they are in a lose lose situation, they catch cheats and he creates bad publicity but cycling does more to catch cheats than other sports.

No he doesn't admit to doping as everyone knows full well. What he says is that despite the cheats etc he's still watching the sport as are the fans and media

 

[Polish]

I want charges so we can get this on the stand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUDJFlnOl8g&sns=em

Any ideas to the point he is making??

.

It almost as if Lance regrets Breaking the Omerta.

Regrets sending that e-mail to WADA and the ASO raising the flag on blood doping. Regrets making that donation to buy the Sysmex Machine.
In hindsight, the backlash and ranting from the anti-doping zealots has hurt the sport he loves. We all love.

But I think at the end of the day, when Lance is having a quiet moment with his own thoughts - he knows he was right with breaking the Omerta.
Absolutely.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

As you know full well he is making the very point all of you post in the Clinic for. Cycling has a host of problems which he admits and says they are in a lose lose situation, they catch cheats and he creates bad publicity but cycling does more to catch cheats than other sports.

No he doesn't admit to doping as everyone knows full well. What he says is that despite the cheats etc he's still watching the sport as are the fans and media

Sorry, but you say LA "does not admit to doping" but that he admits "cycling has a host of problems" - isn't that exactly cyclings problem?

Also, Armstrong is not a commentator on the problems of cycling, he is one of its causes.

 

[Polish]

Sorry, but you say LA "does not admit to doping" but that he admits "cycling has a host of problems" - isn't that exactly cyclings problem?

Also, Armstrong is not a commentator on the problems of cycling, he is one of its causes.

I disagree - Lance IS a "commentator" like Eddy and Hinault are.
An important commentator actually. Carries a LOT of weight.

And saying Lance is one of the "causes of problems"?
C'mon blah blah. If anything, he was part of the solution.
Is still part of the solution. Lots of real evidence.

 

[sherer]

Sorry, but you say LA "does not admit to doping" but that he admits "cycling has a host of problems" - isn't that exactly cyclings problem?

Also, Armstrong is not a commentator on the problems of cycling, he is one of its causes.

I was just replying to the Hog who posted the link to start with and then claimed he didn't have a clue what he is talking about. I wasn't putting words into his mouth or leaving any out just listing the point he was making which the Hog knew very well.

 

[The Hitch]

Talks sence in the first minute. Says cycling has done more than soccer Swimming, track and field, against doping and has recieved no credit, but just got **** on for it.

100% true.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Talks sence in the first minute. Says cycling has done more than soccer Swimming, track and field, against doping and has recieved no credit, but just got **** on for it.

100% true.

Saying cycling has done a lot more than other sports is not "talking sense".
Talking about something and actually implementing it are two different things..

 

[Race Radio]

Talks sence in the first minute. Says cycling has done more than soccer Swimming, track and field, against doping and has recieved no credit, but just got **** on for it.

100% true.

Nope, both Soccer and track performed more tests then cycling. Track has had OOC testing for decades.

It is just more deflection from the king of deflection

 

[MarkvW]

Thanks, I aim to entertain

...but back to the question, why will Armstrong not be charged? What are we missing? Why do we have "No Idea"?

Sorry RR. I'm not going to defend another position I have never taken. Besides, why rehash the same ground over and over again? The person advocating that Lance will be charged has just about as much persuasive force as the person advocating that Lance will not be charged.

 

[Race Radio]

Sorry RR. I'm not going to defend another position I have never taken.

Really? What did you mean by this exchange?

I know you have this hope that this is all magically going to go away. It won't.

Whatever. You have no idea.

I have yet to see anything that points to this not leading to charges. The investigation has expand and is ongoing. Armstrong is spending millions on a world class legal team. Yet you say there is equal likelihood that he will not be charged. Why? I have seen nothing that supports this so perhaps you can share with us why this is the case and why we have "No Idea"

 

[Velodude]

It almost as if Lance regrets Breaking the Omerta.

Regrets sending that e-mail to WADA and the ASO raising the flag on blood doping. Regrets making that donation to buy the Sysmex Machine.
In hindsight, the backlash and ranting from the anti-doping zealots has hurt the sport he loves. We all love.

But I think at the end of the day, when Lance is having a quiet moment with his own thoughts - he knows he was right with breaking the Omerta.
Absolutely.

So Lancie broke the omerta cycling vow of silence and named names.

Polish, what name did they give to the investigation that arose from Armstrong's turncoat information? Who did he name?

Like "Operación Puerto" from Jesus Manzano's information or the "Lance Armstrong Investigation" from Floyd Landis' emails of US Postal's criminal activities

 

[The Hitch]

Nope, both Soccer and track performed more tests then cycling.

Soccers big stars admit they only get tested once or twice a season. And in 2006 the governing body said they wouldnt test for blood doping, because it doesnt happen.

When they get caught in Puerto, the names dont even get mentioned.

Its number 1 club admits to doping its best player and is given the ok. Its manager got caught with nadnrolone (not clenbuterol) and it didnt take no 1 and a half years to get him cleared.

Sounds to me a lot lot lot less than cycling.

It might be deflection, but all good lies have elements of truth, and what he said in that 1st minute was the truth.

 

[MarkvW]

Really? What did you mean by this exchange?



I have yet to see anything that points to this not leading to charges. The investigation has expand and is ongoing. Armstrong is spending millions on a world class legal team. Yet you say there is equal likelihood that he will not be charged. Why? I have seen nothing that supports this so perhaps you can share with us why this is the case and why we have "No Idea"

I didn't say "we" have no idea. I said that Maserati had no idea. It was a response made in a particular context where Maserati was projecting my personal thoughts. That particular line of discussion has been discouraged by the mods.

I didn't say that there is an "equal likelihood" of anything. You misquote me. What I am saying is quite different. I am saying that we spectators have insufficient knowledge with which to assess the likelihood of charging. It is similar to betting on a game where the bettor knows neither the players, nor the game.

It's great that you're sure that Lance is going to be charged. Enjoy your certainty. Maybe you'll still be certain, ten years from now, that charges are just around the corner.

 

[Race Radio]

I didn't say "we" have no idea. I said that Maserati had no idea. It was a response made in a particular context where Maserati was projecting my personal thoughts. That particular line of discussion has been discouraged by the mods.

I didn't say that there is an "equal likelihood" of anything. You misquote me. What I am saying is quite different. I am saying that we spectators have insufficient knowledge with which to assess the likelihood of charging. It is similar to betting on a game where the bettor knows neither the players, nor the game.

It's great that you're sure that Lance is going to be charged. Enjoy your certainty. Maybe you'll still be certain, ten years from now, that charges are just around the corner.

Nice spin, but we both know that is not what you wrote.

There has been significant evidence presented that would warrant charges. I have seen nothing that points to this not being the case but you claim that there is "as much persuasive force" behind the theory he will walk. Please share with us this persuasive force as so far all we have seen is deflection and obfuscation.

I am genuinely interested, have I missed something? Is there a legit case for Armstrong walking? This was all just media hype?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I didn't say "we" have no idea. I said that Maserati had no idea. It was a response made in a particular context where Maserati was projecting my personal thoughts. That particular line of discussion has been discouraged by the mods.

And I clearly showed you that I do have an idea, a good idea - to which your only rebuttal was "whatever".

I didn't say that there is an "equal likelihood" of anything. You misquote me. What I am saying is quite different. I am saying that we spectators have insufficient knowledge with which to assess the likelihood of charging. It is similar to betting on a game where the bettor knows neither the players, nor the game.

It's great that you're sure that Lance is going to be charged. Enjoy your certainty. Maybe you'll still be certain, ten years from now, that charges are just around the corner.

Again you are back discussing "charges" - your irrelevant circular argument.
For someone who says they have "insufficient knowledge" you DO claim a likelihood of how things proceed.
Don't get all hissy when it is pointed out that it is based on hope and nothing else.

 

[Race Radio]

Soccers big stars admit they only get tested once or twice a season. And in 2006 the governing body said they wouldnt test for blood doping, because it doesnt happen.

When they get caught in Puerto, the names dont even get mentioned.

Its number 1 club admits to doping its best player and is given the ok. Its manager got caught with nadnrolone (not clenbuterol) and it didnt take no 1 and a half years to get him cleared.

Sounds to me a lot lot lot less than cycling.

It might be deflection, but all good lies have elements of truth, and what he said in that 1st minute was the truth.

The numbers still don't support it. There are more tests in Soccer, more in Athletics and more positives in cycling.

Certainly both sports have a problem but I have seen little that points to doping in professional soccer being as ingrained in the culture and having as significant effect on the results as cycling.

regardless, I don't care what others sports are doing. I care about cycling. In his rambling diatribe Wonderboy calls those who expressed disappointment in the constant stream of doping in the sport "Haters"...... pathetic. Who do you think did more damage to the sport, Armstrong and his buddies with their bags of blood and experimental drugs or me on a message board?

No matter what Armstrong does to attempt to deflect it is clear where the blame lies.

 

[The Hitch]

The numbers still don't support it. There are more tests in Soccer, more in Athletics and more positives in cycling.

.

Cycling has about 3000 pro's whereas soccer has 3 million.

So yeah, even if they only get tested twice a year and the tests are for marijuana and alcochol breath, then there will be way more tests in soccer.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Soccers big stars admit they only get tested once or twice a season. And in 2006 the governing body said they wouldnt test for blood doping, because it doesnt happen.

When they get caught in Puerto, the names dont even get mentioned.

Its number 1 club admits to doping its best player and is given the ok. Its manager got caught with nadnrolone (not clenbuterol) and it didnt take no 1 and a half years to get him cleared.

Sounds to me a lot lot lot less than cycling.

It might be deflection, but all good lies have elements of truth, and what he said in that 1st minute was the truth.

To quote Oscar Pereiro "In 2006"?
In 2006 cycling were planning on doing less tests (then Puerto happened)...

At my meeting with the UCI in April 2006, I almost fell off my chair when Hein Verbruggen said that the UCI had so few positive drug tests that they had concluded there was not a drug problem in cycling after all and they were giving serious thought to reducing the number of tests they performed.

As I said earlier talking about something and actually implementing it are two different things.

 

[The Hitch]

To quote Oscar Pereiro "In 2006"?
In 2006 cycling were planning on doing less tests (then Puerto happened)...

As I said earlier talking about something and actually implementing it are two different things.

Yet Armstrong is talking in 2009, after Ricco Kohl and countless others had tested positive, so clearly cycling was doing more than soccer by the time he was speaking.

 

[thehog]

Cycling has about 3000 pro's whereas soccer has 3 million.

So yeah, even if they only get tested twice a year and the tests are for marijuana and alcochol breath (definately not for epo), then there will be way more tests in soccer.

You separate the message from the messenger. The Bernard Kohl reference was gold. The video was filmed at the height of Comeback 2.0. Catlin and SSDD was just what cycling needed - yeah right!

Throwing in the soccer & "other sports" don't test as much as cycling cliche was just brilliant. Taking cycling forward in leaps and bounds. Just what it needed.

Armstrong was p1ssing all over the sport and using the same old tired arguments of about "other sports".

I wonder how long after this interview he was on the photo to Ferrari for an update on the program.

It all so easy to reign on every other sport & all the cyclists when you know you can't test positive yourself...

He's a bit of a wee loser with his bullsh1t.... looking back that is.