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

[Anonymous]

Exactly. And when Lance came back from cancer treatment, Dr F became more conservative. And the go-go EPO Era ended for the GT Dangermen too. EPO test in place.

History will show that Lance doped LESS than most of Dr F's clients.
A lot less I bet.

Sometimes you are just being a troll.

Now you are just being an idiot.

Per usual, Dylan said it best:

It was gravity which pulled us down and destiny which broke us apart
You tamed the lion in my cage but it just wasn’t enough to change my heart
Now everything’s a little upside down, as a matter of fact the wheels have stopped
What’s good is bad, what’s bad is good, you’ll find out when you reach the top
You’re on the bottom

I noticed at the ceremony, your corrupt ways had finally made you blind
I can’t remember your face anymore, your mouth has changed, your eyes
don’t look into mine
The priest wore black on the seventh day and sat stone-faced while the
building burned
I waited for you on the running boards, near the cypress trees, while the
springtime turned
Slowly into Autumn

Idiot wind, blowing like a circle around my skull
From the Grand Coulee Dam to the Capitol
Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth
You’re an idiot, babe
It’s a wonder that you still know how to breathe

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Exactly. And when Lance came back from cancer treatment, Dr F became more conservative. And the go-go EPO Era ended for the GT Dangermen too. EPO test in place.

History will show that Lance doped LESS than most of Dr F's clients.
A lot less I bet.

Hmm you mean a lot less than Ferrari's previous clients before the 50% HCT rule?
But LA still would have been doping more than his RIVALS....

I always enjoy the debates where we attempt to quantify just how much PEDs Armstrong abused throughout his career. Progress.

 

[Polish]

Hmm you mean a lot less than Ferrari's previous clients before the 50% HCT rule?
But LA still would have been doping more than his RIVALS....

I always enjoy the debates where we attempt to quantify just how much PEDs Armstrong abused throughout his career. Progress.

So you agree that Lance doped less than the previous clients?
Thats a good start. Baby steps.

But you say that Lance doped more than his rivals?
Ok, I see we still have some work to do here....
Do you have proof that Lance doped more?

 

[MarkvW]

Why can't you Mark??
Why is it that you can't say Armstrong was any worse than Vino or Ullrich?
Do you think they were the same?

Yes, they all led teams and they doped.
Why is Vino "morally repugnant"? Because he is a doper? An unapologetic doper?
Did Ullrich or the "morally repugnant" Vino pay off the UCI? Did they get OOC notification? Did they pay to beat a test?? Write books about how clean they were?

Are you seriously trying to compare them??
Its rather odd that you defend the only one of the 3 not to be sanctioned.

Defending Lance appears to equate with expressing a POV different from the Maserati POV. I'd say buying a race makes Vino morally repugnant. And you can't prove that Vino never bribed a UCI official either. It's ridiculous to assume that the UCI only took bribes from Lance.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So you agree that Lance doped less than the previous clients?
Thats a good start. Baby steps.

But you say that Lance doped more than his rivals?
Ok, I see we still have some work to do here....
Do you have proof that Lance doped more?

Bassons didn't dope - and as you admit Armstrong did, then Armstrong doped more. See that wasn't so hard.

Do you have "proof" of anyone doing more PEDs than Armstrong?
Are we talking weight (metric tonnes) or shall we calculate the $ amount? I like the $ amount because LA was spending more on PEDs than other riders earned.
Don't forget to include the non Private emails that I was looking for earlier,thanks.

 

[Anonymous]

So you agree that Lance doped less than the previous clients?
Thats a good start. Baby steps.

But you say that Lance doped more than his rivals?
Ok, I see we still have some work to do here....
Do you have proof that Lance doped more?

Do you have proof his rivals doped more than he did?

You made the assertion. Then you asked for those who disagree to prove what you originally proposed.

Lazy. You need to read some Rand and grab that mother****er by the throat and choke it yourself.

 

[thehog]

Beltran - ya, he was trying out his CX skills.
http://www.tv2.no/play/sport/sykling/beltran-280286.html

That's it! The look of utter shock..... "...but but Lance called? USPS yes?"

 

[Anonymous]

Defending Lance appears to equate with expressing a POV different from the Maserati POV. I'd say buying a race makes Vino morally repugnant. And you can't prove that Vino never bribed a UCI official either. It's ridiculous to assume that the UCI only took bribes from Lance.

Sjhit man, it is ridiculous to ask someone to prove a negative. You can't prove that you aren't a secret Lance fan. You can't prove that.

While we are at it, you can't prove that the 5th Amendment ALWAYS applies to testimony compelled by a grant of immunity either. Because it doesn't.

You can't prove that there wasn't a second gunnman either.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Defending Lance appears to equate with expressing a POV different from the Maserati POV. I'd say buying a race makes Vino morally repugnant. And you can't prove that Vino never bribed a UCI official either. It's ridiculous to assume that the UCI only took bribes from Lance.

No - you are the one to throw out terms like "morally repugnant", yet you can't seem to do that for Armstrong? Why?

See, you acknowledge that Armstrong bribed the UCI.
Yet you also want to accuse Vino of paying off the UCI ...... even though Vino was caught and sanctioned?? Do you think they give him his money back?

BTW - if you believe buying a race is "morally repugnant" then I assume you include Armstrong in that, as he bought off the race in the States where he won $1 million.

 

[Neworld]

So you agree that Lance doped less than the previous clients?
Thats a good start. Baby steps.

But you say that Lance doped more than his rivals?
Ok, I see we still have some work to do here....
Do you have proof that Lance doped more?

I think the reason that threads like this derail, like couple of weeks ago, is that some posters, like Polish, unabashedly post argumentative nonsense. By the way where is Aphro? Those obtuse posts affect the credibility of the entire thread, and are sometimes just regurgitations of previous concepts that were proven as close to fact as was possible. That display of intentional confusion and rubbish may explain why other posters get irritated as any level of logic is impeded and then the thread derails. It is well documented on this thread that some people still think Lance was the most tested, free from doping and a beacon to help clean up cycling. Are we still going to arguing about those issues? Can we not change what is discussed here?

Is it not possible to have a thread where moderators stop completely silly and nonfactual commentary. I know they warn about threats, insults etc... but maybe after a poster states the same nonfactual reference say three times there are excluded from a thread. The moderators are well versed in the historical malfeasance of Lance, they will know if something is not on. If there is debate about a 'fact' would a vote, say open for a month, work?

Hey, go ahead and disagree with me, offer up better suggestions no worries. For the most part I think this thread is going to take off 'sometime' this year...and it would be nice if we could streamline it a bit and exclude some of the fringe nonsense. There are many posters here that offer up interesting facts or ideas. Three of four usually offer adversarial, delusional, commentary.

Thoughts?

NW

 

[Velodude]

Defending Lance appears to equate with expressing a POV different from the Maserati POV. I'd say buying a race makes Vino morally repugnant. And you can't prove that Vino never bribed a UCI official either. It's ridiculous to assume that the UCI only took bribes from Lance.

UCI admit that the only rider they took "donations" from was Lance Armstrong.

So it is not an assumption that he was the only rider/donor.

 

[ChrisE]

UCI admit that the only rider they took "donations" from was Lance Armstrong.

So it is not an assumption that he was the only rider/donor.

Convenient we can pick and choose what to believe. Yes, the UCI admitted they only took donations from LA so that means their word is the truth. I'm sure you guys will go ahead and slam the UCI as a bunch of liars in a different thread, or even in this thread in an hour or two.

If I was the UCI of course I would just spill the beans and tell everybody who has given $ as "donations".

Oh, and somebody prove to me that Bassons doped less than anybody, including LA. That is not possible if you don't live with somebody 24/7. This is all a stupid little game y'all play in here to keep yourself amused. Polish really jerks the chains around here lol.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Convenient we can pick and choose what to believe. Yes, the UCI admitted they only took donations from LA so that means their word is the truth. I'm sure you guys will go ahead and slam the UCI as a bunch of liars in a different thread, or even in this thread in an hour or two.

I don't take the UCIs word on it.

However I do take the word of Schenk, but I know that annoys you.
She doesn't mention Vino or Ullrich or anyone else, just Armstrong.

If I was the UCI of course I would just spill the beans and tell everybody who has given $ as "donations".

Oh, and somebody prove to me that Bassons doped less than anybody, including LA. That is not possible if you don't live with somebody 24/7. This is all a stupid little game y'all play in here to keep yourself amused. Polish really jerks the chains around here lol.

Hey, you want to play the stupid game - then can you provide the "proof" that Polish can't of a rider who doped more than Armstrong.

 

[Velodude]

So you agree that Lance doped less than the previous clients?
Thats a good start. Baby steps.

But you say that Lance doped more than his rivals?
Ok, I see we still have some work to do here....
Do you have proof that Lance doped more?

Circumstantial evidence that LA doped more than his rivals:

He had an exclusive arrangement with Dr. Ferrari that the evil doctor was not to prepare any rival GC contenders (Source: "Lance Armstrong's War" - Daniel Coyle)

Armstrong was not a top competitive TTer and climber 1993-1996 but had no peer in those disciplines under Ferrari 1999-2005.

Armstrong stood on the top of the podium 1999-2005 in Paris and beat the best riders who have subsequently proven to have doped. Knowledgeable commentators have expressed the view it is impossible to win the Tour during the EPO/blood doping period without doping.

USPS/Discovery had generously funded teams 1999-2005 and with additional funds from investors, bike sales and creative accounting had the scope to run an internally funded, through alleged money laundering, doping program for the whole team.

Comparison - Festina doping program for the whole team in 1998 was funded out of riders' bonuses.

Quotes from Voet's book "Breaking the Chain"

The drugs concerned were EPO and a new arrival, growth hormone. It was decided that at the end of the season the cost of what each rider had consumed would be set against his bonuses and race winnings, which were shared out according to the races which he had started.

The system was adjusted slightly a year later. We had realised that the lesser riders had trouble affording expensive drugs - an ampoule of EPO was about 450 francs, a dose of growth hormone about 550 francs - but they still contributed to the good of the team. At the request of Virenque and Herve in particular, the riders voted by a show of hands for the equal division of the outlay on drugs.

 

[patricknd]

I thought he was a better responder. Can we get the story straight?

 

[ChrisE]

I don't take the UCIs word on it.

However I do take the word of Schenk, but I know that annoys you.
She doesn't mention Vino or Ullrich or anyone else, just Armstrong.

She doesn't annoy me, she may be right about the amount and I have no issue with the likelihood there was payoff because I believe that to be true. There are conflicting stories about how much was paid. Whatever.

What I do know is that she doesn't know everything that everybody does behind closed doors or under the table. Therefore, I don't play the agenda fool running around claiming LA was the only one because of what she says or because of what the UCI doesn't say. Nor do I claim I know somebody doesn't dope because somebody says so.

You do know spouses screw around all the time without their husband or wife knowing about it? Since that is possible, I conclude it is possible and not unlikely (considering the history of the sport or UCI BS) others were bribing the UCI as well without Schenk or le Equipe knowing about it. YMMV, there is no "proof" to this debate.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

She doesn't annoy me, she may be right about the amount and I have no issue with the likelihood there was payoff because I believe that to be true. There are conflicting stories about how much was paid. Whatever.

What I do know is that she doesn't know everything that everybody does behind closed doors or under the table. Therefore, I don't play the agenda fool running around claiming LA was the only one because of what she says or because of what the UCI doesn't say. Nor do I claim I know somebody doesn't dope because somebody says so.

You do know spouses screw around all the time without their husband or wife knowing about it? Since that is possible, I conclude it is possible and not unlikely (considering the history of the sport or UCI BS) others were bribing the UCI as well without Schenk or le Equipe knowing about it. YMMV, there is no "proof" to this debate.

Oh, but there is "proof" that Armstrong paid, he even admits it - they (UCI, LA, CSE) just can't their story straight on how much and when.

I have little doubt that others have got favors from the UCI, but even still there isn't even as much as a rumor that any other rider paid the UCI and when possible names are offered it turns out that they have been caught and sanctioned.

 

[thehog]

I think the reason that threads like this derail, like couple of weeks ago, is that some posters, like Polish, unabashedly post argumentative nonsense. By the way where is Aphro? Those obtuse posts affect the credibility of the entire thread, and are sometimes just regurgitations of previous concepts that were proven as close to fact as was possible. That display of intentional confusion and rubbish may explain why other posters get irritated as any level of logic is impeded and then the thread derails. It is well documented on this thread that some people still think Lance was the most tested, free from doping and a beacon to help clean up cycling. Are we still going to arguing about those issues? Can we not change what is discussed here?

Is it not possible to have a thread where moderators stop completely silly and nonfactual commentary. I know they warn about threats, insults etc... but maybe after a poster states the same nonfactual reference say three times there are excluded from a thread. The moderators are well versed in the historical malfeasance of Lance, they will know if something is not on. If there is debate about a 'fact' would a vote, say open for a month, work?

Hey, go ahead and disagree with me, offer up better suggestions no worries. For the most part I think this thread is going to take off 'sometime' this year...and it would be nice if we could streamline it a bit and exclude some of the fringe nonsense. There are many posters here that offer up interesting facts or ideas. Three of four usually offer adversarial, delusional, commentary.

Thoughts?

NW

Agreed. However theres no one anymore stating he was clean. Most of the "defenders" say "yes he doped - so what - no more than anyone else" and "prove it" and a load of rhetoric.

I agree with your approach. It's so obvisous Polish is going for the wind up. Problem being people take the bait and it all starts from there.

I'd just let it go.....

 

[Polish]

Agreed. However theres no one anymore stating he was clean. Most of the "defenders" say "yes he doped - so what - no more than anyone else" and "prove it" and a load of rhetoric.

There is hardly anyone saying that anyone is clean these days.
Be careful what you ask for you know.
Clean riders are called dirty dopers too grrr grrr.
They have to be. They must be. Who needs proof, just watch em.
Dopers.
SSDD.

 

[ChrisE]

Oh, but there is "proof" that Armstrong paid, he even admits it - they (UCI, LA, CSE) just can't their story straight on how much and when.

I have little doubt that others have got favors from the UCI, but even still there isn't even as much as a rumor that any other rider paid the UCI and when possible names are offered it turns out that they have been caught and sanctioned.

I'm not sure why you hammer this again because I admit there is proof that LA paid the UCI. With your sleuthing skills you cannot find a post of mine that says I don't think that happened, or that I think it was for the reason LA states.

Things happen, then rumors start. It is not a chicken/egg issue. Its a simpleton approach to take the "lack of rumor" card out to support your belief system. If AC's AAF and UCI attempted coverup wouldn't have leaked, would anybody have known about it? I guess in your world that would mean it didn't happen.

Yes, riders like JU were caught and sanctioned but that was after LA retired. We had this debate last summer and I never did the look up of test counts, but there were no major busts at the TdF during those 7 years. There were busts at the Giro and Vuelta, but not TdF. Why?

And, if LA had all of this blanket protection, why did Ferrari tell him to stop taking EPO in June 1991? I have asked that question several times over the last couple of years, though I don't believe a logical answer has emerged that fits well into the prevailing opinion in here.

Admittedly, these last 2 paragraphs kinda contradict eachother but I freely admit I don't know these answers. Neither do you, nor anybody else in here.

 

[Benotti69]

I think the reason that threads like this derail, like couple of weeks ago, is that some posters, like Polish, unabashedly post argumentative nonsense. By the way where is Aphro? Those obtuse posts affect the credibility of the entire thread, and are sometimes just regurgitations of previous concepts that were proven as close to fact as was possible. That display of intentional confusion and rubbish may explain why other posters get irritated as any level of logic is impeded and then the thread derails. It is well documented on this thread that some people still think Lance was the most tested, free from doping and a beacon to help clean up cycling. Are we still going to arguing about those issues? Can we not change what is discussed here?

Is it not possible to have a thread where moderators stop completely silly and nonfactual commentary. I know they warn about threats, insults etc... but maybe after a poster states the same nonfactual reference say three times there are excluded from a thread. The moderators are well versed in the historical malfeasance of Lance, they will know if something is not on. If there is debate about a 'fact' would a vote, say open for a month, work?

Hey, go ahead and disagree with me, offer up better suggestions no worries. For the most part I think this thread is going to take off 'sometime' this year...and it would be nice if we could streamline it a bit and exclude some of the fringe nonsense. There are many posters here that offer up interesting facts or ideas. Three of four usually offer adversarial, delusional, commentary.

Thoughts?

NW

why do the lance-o-philes get away with it? in the hope that Armstrong takes CN of his balcklist and lets all the products cycling related he endorses start advertising on CN again? possibily. Cant really see any other reason to let them continue derailing the arguments.

Not been much worthwhile on this thread for a longtime, but lots do good work keeping the minions in line.

 

[9000ft]

but I freely admit I don't know these answers. Neither do you, nor anybody else in here.

This is a very difficult concept for most who post here to grasp.

 

[pmcg76]

This is a very difficult concept for most who post here to grasp.

As difficult as it is for you to grasp the purpose/concept of an internet forum it seems. Dumb and dumber I guess.

 

[Cloxxki]

I thought he was a better responder. Can we get the story straight?

Good point. That's what I first accepted as most likely when I started to lose the dream. I didn't have all info available to mind (or read up on) that I have now.
While being a better responder is still part of it (no responder is the same after all), evidence does point towards LA's program being the very best one for performance vs. likelyhood of being caught. Or was it? He was caught, but other arrangement got him out of it. So he may have been doping more than his closest rival, who did not have positives, just loose lipped docs, open car trunks, etc.

 

[thehog]

Circumstantial evidence that LA doped more than his rivals:

He had an exclusive arrangement with Dr. Ferrari that the evil doctor was not to prepare any rival GC contenders (Source: "Lance Armstrong's War" - Daniel Coyle)

Armstrong was not a top competitive TTer and climber 1993-1996 but had no peer in those disciplines under Ferrari 1999-2005.

Armstrong stood on the top of the podium 1999-2005 in Paris and beat the best riders who have subsequently proven to have doped. Knowledgeable commentators have expressed the view it is impossible to win the Tour during the EPO/blood doping period without doping.

USPS/Discovery had generously funded teams 1999-2005 and with additional funds from investors, bike sales and creative accounting had the scope to run an internally funded, through alleged money laundering, doping program for the whole team.

Comparison - Festina doping program for the whole team in 1998 was funded out of riders' bonuses.

Quotes from Voet's book "Breaking the Chain"

The key element is one of “risk”. Every cyclist who dopes runs the risk of getting caught by testing positive. When you have the upper hand in knowing when you’re about to be tested and knowing that even if you do that you can exert pressure to have it removed provides a considerable advantage. Tyler Hamilton outlined his fears on the 60 Minutes interview and remarked how blasé Armstrong was in regards to getting caught. Having an exclusive program is one thing but doping without fear of being caught is the edge that makes the difference.