BroDeal said:Virenque never tested positive, thus he rode cleaner than Armstrong.
VeloFidelis said:I love revisionist history as much as the next guy. So please tell us exactly when did Armstrong officially test positive, and what was the length his UCI suspension???
And please, after you exhaust all the inane "Fanboy" bulls!t, try and actually answer the question.
Vino made the high placings without doping, just ask him.kurtinsc said:His '99 samples tested positive well after the fact. The test was legitimate and official... but not binding for suspensions and such.
I beleive he tested positive for a corticosteroid as well... but got a TUE after the fact to excuse the test.
It's okay to not hate Lance but still admit he was doping. I don't think anyone in recent memory finished in the top 5 of the tour without some medicinal help.
kurtinsc said:His '99 samples tested positive well after the fact. The test was legitimate and official... but not binding for suspensions and such.
I beleive he tested positive for a corticosteroid as well... but got a TUE after the fact to excuse the test.
It's okay to not hate Lance but still admit he was doping. I don't think anyone in recent memory finished in the top 5 of the tour without some medicinal help.
VeloFidelis said:I don't believe for a minute that Lance raced cleaner than any other top pro, and I am well familiar with your examples. But they are neither official positives, and there were no sanctions. This is actual, and official history, despite what we all think we know.
BroDeal said:Virenque never tested positive, thus he rode cleaner than Armstrong.
Benotti69 said:you love french cancer![]()
VeloFidelis said:I love revisionist history as much as the next guy. So please tell us exactly when did Armstrong officially test positive, and what was the length his UCI suspension???
And please, after you exhaust all the inane "Fanboy" bulls!t, try and actually answer the question.
VeloFidelis said:I don't believe for a minute that Lance raced cleaner than any other top pro, and I am well familiar with your examples. But they are neither official positives, and there were no sanctions. This is actual, and official history, despite what we all think we know.
VeloFidelis said:But they are neither official positives, and there were no sanctions.
Thoughtforfood said:Some people recognize the difference between that and actual, and official reality. Some don't.
MacRoadie said:Ok, how about Virenque never had any "unofficial" positives either.
VeloFidelis said:Translation: You do, and all who disagree don't. Surprise! Surprise!
VeloFidelis said:Yeah... and this is a fact not in dispute, so your point is?
BroDeal said:Virenque never tested positive, thus he rode cleaner than Armstrong.
VeloFidelis said:I love revisionist history as much as the next guy. So please tell us exactly when did Armstrong officially test positive, and what was the length his UCI suspension???
And please, after you exhaust all the inane "Fanboy" bulls!t, try and actually answer the question.
Thoughtforfood said:http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
After you read it and come back with the inane _____________________ bullsh!t explanation about how it couldn't be true, try and actually explain how Ashenden doesn't know what he is talking about...using actual science.![]()
Thoughtforfood said:Sorry, but the REALITY is that there was synthetic EPO in his urine. That is not an opinion, therefore terms like "disagree" are erroneous.
VeloFidelis said:Wow, that was a long read. I'm surprised you got through it. So what's to dispute? Looks pretty conclusive to me.
So now, since you obsession with him is "hors categorie", I am sure that you can tell us what the sanctions against Armstrong were. I can't seem to find any.
VeloFidelis said:I don't believe for a minute that Lance raced cleaner than any other top pro.
Polish said:Actually, it is a fact that Lance DID ride cleaner than many top pros.
Floyd revealed that Lance stopped using EPO while many other top pros continued to use.