The Mike Anderson story

[Benotti69]

Thanks for the support. The best response to him is no response. Bringing the plight of the oppressed worker to bear on Mike was bad enough; doubling down by bringing it into a response to me makes enough of its own putrid gravy to announce its presence without any aiding or abetting by anyone else. A first year HS debate team member wouldn't use such craptastic rhetoric, so lets just let it present its odious presence without further comment.

The game the newbie brigade is playing is called "plausible deniability." It's best to just ignore the lot of them as the whole point of that game is to avoid taking a direct hit. Let them have the prizes of their game as nobody is fooled in reality. Intertubes winning isn't that hard, but they still have to wake up in the physical world, and in that world, Armstrong is a busted doping narcissist. All the talk of the global worker will never change that, nor will expounding upon your lengthy legal career and the fees you charge, nor will using the name of a psychic.

I may not like ChrisH, but at least he doesn't pretend to be something he isn't. I'll take his antagonism any day to this tired old game that has been played many times before in relation to Armstrong.

Cheers.

Your welcome.

 

[aphronesis]

You're still giving it thought...recognition of reality isn't your strong suit, is it?

Giving what thought?

Are you saying that thinking about something and recognition of reality are mutually incompatible?

Not sure how you got through that first year on the HS debate team.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You're the only one who invoked that category: both imagining it to have existed in my post and then writing it in your own. You've been doing with me a lot lately. Maybe a bit too much time sparring with the rubes on Slowtwitch....

It's not clear to me why you think that any disagreement with the terms or interpretation of the situation makes you think that it's an attempt to deny what has happened?

I'd bet serious cash that you were still in front of the television huzzahing LA long after I stopped giving it any thought what so ever.

And riddle me this Batman, if I was so far off base, how did you know I was even referencing your post?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Giving what thought?

Are you saying that thinking about something and recognition of reality are mutually incompatible?

Not sure how you got through that first year on the HS debate team.

Look dude, you're the one who said you weren't giving it any thought what so ever. (meaning, "none"<- look that up in your dictionary for reference) All I did was point out the glaring ridiculousness of that statement. Don't blame me, blame reality.

 

[aphronesis]

And riddle me this Batman, if I was so far off base, how did you know I was even referencing your post?

Frankly I didn't as there's someone else's to which it could equally apply, but since you've been rather careless with what I've actually written and said in recent days, I'm not interested in rearticulate distorted positions on a daily basis.

 

[aphronesis]

Look dude, you're the one who said you weren't giving it any thought what so ever. (meaning, "none"<- look that up in your dictionary for reference) All I did was point out the glaring ridiculousness of that statement. Don't blame me, blame reality.

Look dude at a certain point you stop discussing any points (regardless of topic) and revert to a "Lance is busted; deal with reality rhetoric," which, while I won't speak for the others accused of being apologists in this thread, has nothing to do with my posts.

You revile him. I got that. I don't care; can you get that? He played for high stakes, he got busted. That happens. My interest is how this story gets told and retold, week to week, month to month, year to year.

If you think that's strictly a neutral matter on any side of the media discussion, then you're being incredibly naive.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Frankly I didn't as there's someone else's to which it could equally apply, but since you've been rather careless with what I've actually written and said in recent days, I'm not interested in rearticulate distorted positions on a daily basis.

And yet you attempt do just that (problem is that they aren't distorted)...seriously, you are not really good at this reality thing at all.

 

[aphronesis]

And yet you attempt do just that (problem is that they aren't distorted)...seriously, you are not really good at this reality thing at all.

When you misquote me (as you did in the USADA) thread, then they're distorted.

That's pretty basic.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Look dude at a certain point you stop discussing any points (regardless of topic) and revert to a "Lance is busted; deal with reality rhetoric," which, while I won't speak for the others accused of being apologists in this thread, has nothing to do with my posts.

You revile him. I got that. I don't care; can you get that? He played for high stakes, he got busted. That happens. My interest is how this story gets told and retold, week to week, month to month, year to year.

If you think that's strictly a neutral matter on any side of the media discussion, then you're being incredibly naive.

Oh, now we bring in the global problem of journalism and my failure to adequately address that in relation to your bull****? Dude, seriously, dude. If I am expected to produce a recitation regarding the global themes of any given point in relation to Armstrong, you are really expecting too much. I mean, this is the intertubes, and while it would seem that any person in the legal profession (as evidenced by QS) would be able to write a tome in each post, I assure you that my real point is pithy response plus I don't have the time. If you want my real attention, you need to become my wife, child (i'd consider adoption) or one of my professors. Past that, you are just going to have to be satisfied with the scraps.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

When you misquote me (as you did in the USADA) thread, then they're distorted.

That's pretty basic.

Okay, you're right, I am being a **** now. In all honesty, I just didn't like the tenor of some of the things thrown at Mike as it seemed (not just to me) to be demeaning, even if only slightly.

It is why I am suspicious at this point, as this is not my first rodeo, and the plausible deniability is a pretty common troll tactic. If I sprayed you in error, you'll have to excuse me as discerning your posts from those who are not as pure at heart is a bit hard in an electronic format.

Note, I lobbied for you to be allowed to return. I don't regret that, but it doesn't mean I buy your line 100% either.

 

[DominicDecoco]

Great read.

A lot of unsavory comments below the article, though.

 

[DominicDecoco]

Oh, and litterally everywhere I read a Lance article with a comment section I see the name Beatriz Perez in it. Some of the nonsense in her comments is unbelieveable.

 

[jonny testaronny]

There are some people we are not allowed to challenge here, and I should be more respectful of that.

Go Mike! And congrats LL--you just made my Ignore List.

 

[JRTinMA]

Go Mike! And congrats LL--you just made my Ignore List.

Why do people feel compelled to announce the ignore list? First, nobody ****ing cares and second thats just what a troll wants to see.

 

[MarkvW]

You're still giving it thought...recognition of reality isn't your strong suit, is it?

Maybe he just doesn't like the way you "invoke" your "categories."

 

[the big ring]

One of the things that keeps coming to mind from the article was the following:

and his training didn’t seem to be as solid, which I concluded was the result of his new bachelorhood.

then

Training commenced in the hills around Girona much like before, though it didn’t last as long, which was surprising. After a short visit from Ferrari, whose presence was always pointedly kept on the down-low, Armstrong and Ferrari departed suddenly for Tenerife.

This is far along in the TdF streak and sounds like LA was depending more and more on medical intervention vs the "training harder than anyone else" schtick we get hit with so often.

We get told often that LA passed 500 tests. But it's not true.

Currently there seems to be a lot of acceptance that LA trained harder than anyone else - but is there any proof of this?

Mike was there to see the training and then the change in the person and his training.

Given LA only really raced the Tour and little else, with significant medical help, I'm beginning to wonder if this "training harder than anyone else" is just more smoke screen. That in fact his training was below everyone else, but his medical program made up the difference - for the last couple of tours at least.

 

[MarkvW]

One of the things that keeps coming to mind from the article was the following:



then



This is far along in the TdF streak and sounds like LA was depending more and more on medical intervention vs the "training harder than anyone else" schtick we get hit with so often.

We get told often that LA passed 500 tests. But it's not true.

Currently there seems to be a lot of acceptance that LA trained harder than anyone else - but is there any proof of this?

Mike was there to see the training and then the change in the person and his training.

Given LA only really raced the Tour and little else, with significant medical help, I'm beginning to wonder if this "training harder than anyone else" is just more smoke screen. That in fact his training was below everyone else, but his medical program made up the difference - for the last couple of tours at least.

Reviews I've read of the book say that Tyler makes the point that the "treatments" were worthless unless you worked way harder. It's not like you can take the dope and suddenly get improvement; it's that the dope enables you to train harder and longer and recover faster. It enables you to work more than a clean cyclist (because the clean cyclist needs more recovery time).

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Why do people feel compelled to announce the ignore list? First, nobody ****ing cares and second thats just what a troll wants to see.

Not so. First, trolls succumb to starvation in very short order. Second, jonny testaronny's post validates the decisions of those of us who already are ignoring her, and emboldens others who were leaning toward taking that same decision.

 

[thehog]

One of the things that keeps coming to mind from the article was the following:



then



This is far along in the TdF streak and sounds like LA was depending more and more on medical intervention vs the "training harder than anyone else" schtick we get hit with so often.

We get told often that LA passed 500 tests. But it's not true.

Currently there seems to be a lot of acceptance that LA trained harder than anyone else - but is there any proof of this?

Mike was there to see the training and then the change in the person and his training.

Given LA only really raced the Tour and little else, with significant medical help, I'm beginning to wonder if this "training harder than anyone else" is just more smoke screen. That in fact his training was below everyone else, but his medical program made up the difference - for the last couple of tours at least.

I've said this countless times. He used blocks of hard training but was never the hard trainer that he made out to be in his books etc.

He drank a lot in the off season and really only got going till about April.

His medical program coupled with his ability to use at a better level during races made him superior.

 

[131313]

Reviews I've read of the book say that Tyler makes the point that the "treatments" were worthless unless you worked way harder. It's not like you can take the dope and suddenly get improvement; it's that the dope enables you to train harder and longer and recover faster. It enables you to work more than a clean cyclist (because the clean cyclist needs more recovery time).

That's not entirely true. It depends on the dope, obviously, but some doping protocols do actually pretty much replace training; it depends what response you're trying to elicit. Without question, one potential benefit would the ability to accomplish the same adaptations while training less. Certain markers of aerobic fitness are only going to increase so much and those thresholds may be met pretty early (mitochondrial density, for instance).

 

[Race Radio]

Reviews I've read of the book say that Tyler makes the point that the "treatments" were worthless unless you worked way harder. It's not like you can take the dope and suddenly get improvement; it's that the dope enables you to train harder and longer and recover faster. It enables you to work more than a clean cyclist (because the clean cyclist needs more recovery time).

He does not say this. Doping does allow you to train harder but even without training harder EPO helps. He also talks about how you have to expand the idea of what your limits are. EPO allows you to push yourself and recover in races much more. It takes a while for a rider to understand this.

 

[Benotti69]

Did Tyler detail his doping with Ferarri? I have not seen anyone mention it!

 

[LauraLyn]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/the_inside_dope_wVH5SsdUpW4oUgENUCNExO

Way to go, Mike. Another re-telling of the Great Mike Anderson Story.

 

[MarkvW]

He does not say this. Doping does allow you to train harder but even without training harder EPO helps. He also talks about how you have to expand the idea of what your limits are. EPO allows you to push yourself and recover in races much more. It takes a while for a rider to understand this.

Fair enough. I was focused more on the training part.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/the_inside_dope_wVH5SsdUpW4oUgENUCNExO

Way to go, Mike. Another re-telling of the Great Mike Anderson Story.

Great post & link. Thank you for the information.