So what is it about Lance?

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Mambo95 said:
Yeah, but Walsh has an agenda, the same as anyone else*. He would hardly be the first journalist to ask make some supersitions to aid his cause. He's never been a football journalist (or a doctor). While a lot of his evidence has great weight, he does tend to overstretch at times. This is probably one of them.


*For example, see this analysis of his fanboy defences of Sean Kelly (and Maertens and Merckx) back in the day: http://www.podiumcafe.com/2010/11/10/1805511/on-doping-and-david-walsh
No - this is very simple, it is not about Walsh but it is what he wote is true or not - and I will get my issue of 'FLTL' and cite the piece.
You do not have to be a Doctor to understand the arguement that LAs cancer should have been noticed during any test he took in 1996.

You obviously have not read Walshs book on Kelly - as he went to great lengths to see why Kelly would take a drug that offered no enhancement for Kelly.
You can be sure that Walshs opinion on Kelly had changed when the full facts from Willy Voets book of the switched sample were released.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,394
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
You do not have to be a Doctor to understand the arguement that LAs cancer should have been noticed during any test he took in 1996.

No, it shouldn't. Unless the person who was analysing the tests knew what he was looking at. They were not testing for that hormone. Stubbs got lucky because the analyst knew what he was looking at.

Just because Walsh (who never covers football) has written it - it doesn't make it so. He overstretches himself at times. He needed to, to fill a book. But you lap it up, unable to do any basic questioning yourself. (eg You just assumed a player who made his name at Bolton and was capped by England was Scottish - no looking into it yourself).

You say you're not saying that Armstrong faked cancer. So what is your point? That the tests in 1996 weren't much good? Well that's hardly his fault is it? That he wasn't tested enough? Again not his fault.

Or are you just reciting things others have said without thinking about them? After all everything anti-Armstrong is automatically gospel truth and anything pro-Armstrong is automatically spin and lies, isn't it.

You tend to be more of the more sane, balanced and thoughtful posters on here, so please question 'evidence' rather than filing it into 'fits my point of view' or 'doesn't fit my point of view'.

(In case anyone is wondering, I think Armstrong doped. I don't really care what happens to him. I'm more interested in Contador's fate. If I have an agenda re. Armstrong, it is more a 'Rally to restore reason', than any pro or con perspective.).
 
Mambo95 said:
... He needed to, to fill a book. ...

... If I have an agenda re. Armstrong, it is more a 'Rally to restore reason', than any pro or con perspective.).
Interesting concept, kind of a reverse editing where instead of paring down you need to keep inserting more pages.

Ok, then when you decide to rally to restore reason can you let us know how many pages Walsh needed to fill in order to make a complete book?

Any other pages you think he needed to add to get over the critical number of pages requirement?

Dave.
 
Mambo95 said:
No, it shouldn't. Unless the person who was analysing the tests knew what he was looking at. They were not testing for that hormone. Stubbs got lucky because the analyst knew what he was looking at.

Just because Walsh (who never covers football) has written it - it doesn't make it so. He overstretches himself at times. He needed to, to fill a book. But you lap it up, unable to do any basic questioning yourself. (eg You just assumed a player who made his name at Bolton and was capped by England was Scottish - no looking into it yourself).

You say you're not saying that Armstrong faked cancer. So what is your point? That the tests in 1996 weren't much good? Well that's hardly his fault is it? That he wasn't tested enough? Again not his fault.

Or are you just reciting things others have said without thinking about them? After all everything anti-Armstrong is automatically gospel truth and anything pro-Armstrong is automatically spin and lies, isn't it.

You tend to be more of the more sane, balanced and thoughtful posters on here, so please question 'evidence' rather than filing it into 'fits my point of view' or 'doesn't fit my point of view'.

(In case anyone is wondering, I think Armstrong doped. I don't really care what happens to him. I'm more interested in Contador's fate. If I have an agenda re. Armstrong, it is more a 'Rally to restore reason', than any pro or con perspective.).
I think the point is why.

Was as you say, no reason for it to be picked up from one of his samples. Was it due to lax collection and testing procedures, was it because of doping messing with his numbers already, was it because he was protected, was it because he never actually had testicular cancer.

The first three seem the most likely, but never rule out the conspiracy theory!
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Mambo95 said:
No, it shouldn't. Unless the person who was analysing the tests knew what he was looking at. They were not testing for that hormone. Stubbs got lucky because the analyst knew what he was looking at.

Just because Walsh (who never covers football) has written it - it doesn't make it so. He overstretches himself at times. He needed to, to fill a book. But you lap it up, unable to do any basic questioning yourself. (eg You just assumed a player who made his name at Bolton and was capped by England was Scottish - no looking into it yourself).

You say you're not saying that Armstrong faked cancer. So what is your point? That the tests in 1996 weren't much good? Well that's hardly his fault is it? That he wasn't tested enough? Again not his fault.

Or are you just reciting things others have said without thinking about them? After all everything anti-Armstrong is automatically gospel truth and anything pro-Armstrong is automatically spin and lies, isn't it.

You tend to be more of the more sane, balanced and thoughtful posters on here, so please question 'evidence' rather than filing it into 'fits my point of view' or 'doesn't fit my point of view'.

(In case anyone is wondering, I think Armstrong doped. I don't really care what happens to him. I'm more interested in Contador's fate. If I have an agenda re. Armstrong, it is more a 'Rally to restore reason', than any pro or con perspective.).
Yes it should - because it is either true or false.
Unless you are suggesting that footballers drug tests are also sent off for analysis to see if they have cancer?

Again- the reason I brought in Stubbs story was as someone earlier asked why LAs tests in 1996 did not show an athlete who had testicular cancer.
(I am not going to spend the time researching the nationality of a player in a sport I care little about that has little to do with the point of his testicular cancer being highlighted during a drug test.)

I have never ever said nor do I think Armstrong 'faked his own cancer'.
 
Mambo95 said:
No, it shouldn't. Unless the person who was analysing the tests knew what he was looking at. They were not testing for that hormone. Stubbs got lucky because the analyst knew what he was looking at.
Actually they do reguarly test all samples for the hormone involved.

The hormone is HCG ... if it shows up it is an indication of doping (but cant remember off hand which banned substance it indicates). If the sample is then tested for the banned substance and is negative, it can be an indication of testicular cancer.

The test is very simple, as women produce this hormone when they are pregnant, so basically a simple home pregnancy test (a dipstick in the sample) will indicate whether it is present, and if it is, flag the sample for further testing for xxx substance.

Given that his cancer was not detected - it is a clear indication that eiether Lance was not tested in that time, or if he did give a sample, the sample was not tested for PED's. Any basic tests would include this test, and any posative is a red flag for further testing .....
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Mambo95 said:
No, it shouldn't. Unless the person who was analysing the tests knew what he was looking at. They were not testing for that hormone. Stubbs got lucky because the analyst knew what he was looking at.

Just because Walsh (who never covers football) has written it - it doesn't make it so. He overstretches himself at times. He needed to, to fill a book. But you lap it up, unable to do any basic questioning yourself. (eg You just assumed a player who made his name at Bolton and was capped by England was Scottish - no looking into it yourself).

You say you're not saying that Armstrong faked cancer. So what is your point? That the tests in 1996 weren't much good? Well that's hardly his fault is it? That he wasn't tested enough? Again not his fault.

Or are you just reciting things others have said without thinking about them? After all everything anti-Armstrong is automatically gospel truth and anything pro-Armstrong is automatically spin and lies, isn't it.

You tend to be more of the more sane, balanced and thoughtful posters on here, so please question 'evidence' rather than filing it into 'fits my point of view' or 'doesn't fit my point of view'.

(In case anyone is wondering, I think Armstrong doped. I don't really care what happens to him. I'm more interested in Contador's fate. If I have an agenda re. Armstrong, it is more a 'Rally to restore reason', than any pro or con perspective.).
Walsh is Senior Writer on The Sunday Times and regularly covers football(non doping stories). In fact he covers most sports, he was one the first to break the story on 3 time olympic gold medal winning Irish swimmer Michelle Smith-DeBruin to the complete indignation of the Irish nation till they realised she was a big time doper, when she made a mess of pouring a copious amount of whiskey into a urine sample when the testers came to her home.
 
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
AussieGoddess said:
Actually they do reguarly test all samples for the hormone involved.

The hormone is HCG ... if it shows up it is an indication of doping (but cant remember off hand which banned substance it indicates). If the sample is then tested for the banned substance and is negative, it can be an indication of testicular cancer.

The test is very simple, as women produce this hormone when they are pregnant, so basically a simple home pregnancy test (a dipstick in the sample) will indicate whether it is present, and if it is, flag the sample for further testing for xxx substance.

Given that his cancer was not detected - it is a clear indication that eiether Lance was not tested in that time, or if he did give a sample, the sample was not tested for PED's. Any basic tests would include this test, and any posative is a red flag for further testing .....
That test is systematically aprt of every anti-doping test since around 1988 !
So Lance' s cancer should have been detected in 1996, he had won many races include TourDuPont! I doubt that his urine samples was not tested at Fleche Wallone.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
poupou said:
That test is systematically aprt of every anti-doping test since around 1988 !
So Lance' s cancer should have been detected in 1996, he had won many races include TourDuPont! I doubt that his urine samples was not tested at Fleche Wallone.
But if this is true, then Mambo the apologist has no point...

Anyone familiar with this aspect of the record knows that Lance should have come up positive in 1996 for HCG because he had testicular cancer...unless he had the fastest growing cancer in the history of mankind.
 
roundabout said:
But why? It is an invitational race with great history that in the 90's took place about a week after the Tour. Do you think Armstrong would have passed the chance to collect some easy money for 28 minutes of racing? Or does he have to pay off the UCI in person?
I think you need to look more into this race, originally it was held earlier in the season when it WAS a prestigious race. Then it wasnt held from 80-96 when it re-emerged as a non-UCI sanctioned race in which mostly Swiss riders took place. **** there is loads of more famous races that Lance never raced e.g. Paris-Roubaix, Giro before 09, Romandy, Dunkirk, De Panne, the list goes on so rule out the prestige angle.

Money? If you really want to make money post Tour, you ride the big-name crits like he did every year after 01 and he always raced in more than one race. So he rode no post Tour races in 99/00, one race, Lausanne in 01 and the ususal crits after that. It just doesnt add up.
 
Jul 24, 2009
351
0
0
Dettol said:
It's clear that most posters believe Lance is guilty (for the record I do to). But the hatred that's comes his way is beyond the normal 'because he's a cheater'. There are many other athletes and cyclists that do not get the vittriol he does.

Is it the 'blatant' lies?
Is it the self grandising?
Is it the 'win at all costs' mentality off and on the bike?
Is it his Oedipal complex?
Is it because summing up everything together he is really a sociopath?

For me it's the 'win at all costs' mentalilty.
whats the oedipal complex? does he have one?

anyway, for me, i can handle all of those attributes what puts me off him is that he's a bully.
 
To think Lance never actually had cancer. Finally the proof to prove the Andreu's wrong. How could they hear the admission if Lance never had cancer and was never actually in hospital. This could turn the Feds case on it's side. They've got nothing but trumped up charges. Go Lance Go.
 
Sep 2, 2009
589
0
0
thehog said:
To think Lance never actually had cancer. Finally the proof to prove the Andreu's wrong. How could they hear the admission if Lance never had cancer and was never actually in hospital. This could turn the Feds case on it's side. They've got nothing but trumped up charges. Go Lance Go.
Oh, very sophisticated sence of humor....:rolleyes:
 
pmcg76 said:
I think you need to look more into this race, originally it was held earlier in the season when it WAS a prestigious race. Then it wasnt held from 80-96 when it re-emerged as a non-UCI sanctioned race in which mostly Swiss riders took place. **** there is loads of more famous races that Lance never raced e.g. Paris-Roubaix, Giro before 09, Romandy, Dunkirk, De Panne, the list goes on so rule out the prestige angle.

Money? If you really want to make money post Tour, you ride the big-name crits like he did every year after 01 and he always raced in more than one race. So he rode no post Tour races in 99/00, one race, Lausanne in 01 and the ususal crits after that. It just doesnt add up.
Don't get me wrong, you and the doc do make good points about Armstrong racing only in Lausanne in 2001. I am just not willing to commit to the idea that Armstrong had to be there in person to pay off Verbruggen.

Although i keep thinking that around the time the plan was for Armstrong to ride the Vuelta in support of Heras so he did come back to ride Burgos where he royally sucked and the Vuelta was dropped.
 
Aug 19, 2009
612
0
0
sars1981 said:
whats the oedipal complex? does he have one?

anyway, for me, i can handle all of those attributes what puts me off him is that he's a bully.
whats the oedipal complex?
It's a whacked out Freudian theory that suggests guys want to kill their fathers and have sex with their mothers. Referenced in The Doors song "The End" I believe. It's a *******ization of an old Sophocles play - Oedipus the King - where the character of Oedipus unknowingly kills his father, and again unknowingly marries his mother. Once Oedipus becomes aware of what he's done, he blinds himself and asks to be exiled.

does he have one?
There have been certain similarities between his mom, ex-wife, and girl-friends noted.
 
Bag_O_Wallet said:
whats the oedipal complex?
It's a whacked out Freudian theory that suggests guys want to kill their fathers and have sex with their mothers. Referenced in The Doors song "The End" I believe. It's a *******ization of an old Sophocles play - Oedipus the King - where the character of Oedipus unknowingly kills his father, and again unknowingly marries his mother. Once Oedipus becomes aware of what he's done, he blinds himself and asks to be exiled.

does he have one?
There have been certain similarities between his mom, ex-wife, and girl-friends noted.
Perhaps LA left his mom alone long ago. Substituted cycling and random blonds, and now is returning to Tri, because his self identity is singularly reliant on the limelight?

He is after all, a sad, sad man, with something but essentially nothing to prove. Sad, really.

Doping your way to self proclaimed greatness. Nothing but a hall of mirrors.
 
Jul 24, 2009
351
0
0
Bag_O_Wallet said:
whats the oedipal complex?
It's a whacked out Freudian theory that suggests guys want to kill their fathers and have sex with their mothers. Referenced in The Doors song "The End" I believe. It's a *******ization of an old Sophocles play - Oedipus the King - where the character of Oedipus unknowingly kills his father, and again unknowingly marries his mother. Once Oedipus becomes aware of what he's done, he blinds himself and asks to be exiled.

does he have one?
There have been certain similarities between his mom, ex-wife, and girl-friends noted.
ahhh. yeah i know what it is i was just wondering how it applied to lance. interesting :p
 
Sep 2, 2009
589
0
0
AussieGoddess said:
yeh I was a fan too ... :eek:. these threads here have some good links
one (though the threads pretty long and there is a lot of crap
two (the first article linked is great)
three

Other points
- Bribing UCI - good article here ... it asks the questions I wouldnt mind being answered.

- cheating - good article here

essentially its saying that TdF is a team event. You cant win without a great team (attacking, dragging back breaks, support etc), so even if HE didnt dope, its proven that many of his major support riders did (at least 5 that I can think of) .... so isnt that cheating by the team anyway?

Cancer - we dont know WHAT causes cancer .... but we do know that specific drugs (tobacco, alcohol etc) DO contribute substantially. Its not a stretch by any means to suggest that testosterone, HGH, EPO etc will be a substantial contributor.

As for the testing, HCG is a hormone found in pregnant women. If a mans urine has HCG in it - there is a good chance he is either doping or has testicular cancer. They test for it as an indication of doping, so any urine sample that was collected should have been tested (is a simple dipstick into the sample which I can buy for $1 off the internet .... so no excuse for not testing for it). Any BFP (big fat posative) should have been flagged and investigated. So yes, the cancer should have been picked up if he had actually been tested.....
I had a lot of time at hand, so I have been reading for several hours now. Almost done, but link nr. 3 will have to wait, I'm too tired now.

I'm not really sure whether or not, what I'm about to write now will amount to any significant point because I'm finding it difficult grasp everything, but I'm sure I will be sharp again tommorow.
Especially the first link was insane. You said it was a lot of crap. My god you were right. brain gymnastic on a higher level. 95rpm is insanly sharp and puplicus was a equal match.

But I'm glad i read the whole thing, it made me realize that there's more shades in this problem, than I initially thought.

I just wanted to thank you again. you definitely saved me valuable time.

cheers, good night...
 

Dettol

BANNED
Nov 10, 2010
98
0
0
Bag_O_Wallet said:
does he have one?
There have been certain similarities between his mom, ex-wife, and girl-friends noted.
He also seems to have a habit of rejecting 'father figures' from his life in particular if they were close to his mother as wel as himself. I think he used to shout back at coaches, 'You're not my dad' whenever they tried to give him advice.
 
Dettol said:
He also seems to have a habit of rejecting 'father figures' from his life in particular if they were close to his mother as wel as himself. I think he used to shout back at coaches, 'You're not my dad' whenever they tried to give him advice.
From Wikipedia:

"Armstrong refuses to meet his birth father and has described Terry Armstrong as deceitful"

Dave.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS