The Tour de France...the Armstrong vs. Contador show

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 10, 2009
249
0
0
BroDeal said:
Maybe because Armstrong argued that it did not matter if he doped because the contract did not forbid it. The arbitrator agreed.

Armstrong's argument sounds just like the type of argument that Valverde would make.
Is that fact or speculation?
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
You Lance worshippers that come out of the woodwork for three weeks each year when the Tour gets going crack me up. The guy could get bused on video with a syringe in his arm and you'd say it was fake.

If there was a phtoto then it would have no chain of custody. A team of franch Nazi frogmen might have Photoshopped it.
 
Jun 26, 2009
276
1
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
You Lance worshippers that come out of the woodwork for three weeks each year when the Tour gets going crack me up. The guy could get bused on video with a syringe in his arm and you'd say it was fake.

You Lance [haters] that come out of the woodwork [after] three [years]when [he decideds to make a comeback to] the Tour . . . crack me up. The guy could [have all of the bogus allegations aired in a court with objectives arbiters of fact, win not only the case but also attorney's fees of $2.5 million] and you'd say it was fake.

http://velonews.com/article/10091

Alpe d'Huez said:
My mother in law is in chemo, and it's [EPO] used to help built her red blood cells back up. Lance even talks about it in his book, saying it helped saved his life [as part of prescribed cancer recovery regimen].

"You cycling wannabees that adopt pretentious online monikers like Alpe d'Huez crack me up."
 
Jun 10, 2009
249
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
You Lance worshippers that come out of the woodwork for three weeks each year when the Tour gets going crack me up. The guy could get bused on video with a syringe in his arm and you'd say it was fake.
As opposed to the people who spend every day on here blasting anybody who has anything positive to say about LA.
 
byu123 said:
You Lance [haters] that come out of the woodwork [after] three [years]when [he decideds to make a comeback to] the Tour . . . crack me up. The guy could [have all of the bogus allegations aired in a court with objectives arbiters of fact, win not only the case but also attorney's fees of $2.5 million] and you'd say it was fake.

He did not win the case. There was no judgement. SCA settled because the arbitrator accepted Armstrong's argument that it did not matter if he doped because the contract did not forbid it. As long as the TdF accepted Armstrong as the winner, SCA needed to pay up.

The arbitrator also declared that SCA was acting as an insurance company and was thus subject to a Texas law that might make them liable for treble the contracted amount, so the risk of proceeding went up considerably.
 
RightWingNutJob said:
As opposed to the people who spend every day on here blasting anybody who has anything positive to say about LA.

Are you sure about that?

And does your statement mean you agree that he doped, and the evidence is compelling proving it?

byu123, if it's that important that you know my name, PM me and I'll tell you who I am, my cycling background, and why I don't post with my real name. I'd also suggest you plan on sifting through the hundreds of posts I and others have made on this issue, and sticking around long after the Tour is over if you really love cycling the way those of us do that have been here since day 1.
 
Jun 10, 2009
249
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Are you sure about that?

And does your statement mean you agree that he doped, and the evidence is compelling proving it?

byu123, if it's that important that you know my name, PM me and I'll tell you who I am, my cycling background, and why I don't post with my real name. I'd also suggest you plan on sifting through the hundreds of posts I and others have made on this issue, and sticking around long after the Tour is over if you really love cycling the way those of us do that have been here since day 1.
Yes, I'm pretty sure. I think you would find it difficult, probably impossible to find a thread on here with LA attached to it where somebody doesn't come in to ruin the party.
My statement says nothing of weather he doped or not. I don't pretend to have the knowledge and access to material to determine that.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
RightWingNutJob said:
As opposed to the people who spend every day on here blasting anybody who has anything positive to say about LA.

Actually, the chain of custody on it goes something like this.

Realist: Lance doped, of that there is no doubt.
Fanboy: You are stupid and have no proof
Realist: Here, read all of this and then tell me there is no evidence
Fanboy: The French lab is a sham
Realist: Here, read this and try to understand the science of it
Fanboy: Scientists hate Americans and want their name in the paper
Realist: Here, read this and show me where it is possible to "spike" a sample
Fanboy: The French have no chain of custody and the journalists there made it all up
Realist: Here, read this and notice the tests occurred before Armstrong turned over the information necessary to link the test with his control number
Fanboy: Your (because most don't know its You're) a fu&king idiot you fu&king fu&ker fu&k fu&k
Realist: Ignorance is bliss, huh?
Fanboy: Lance saved everyone with cancer and without his efforts and his riding a bike everyone with cancer will die and not get any support
Realist: Livestrong.com is a for profit site, and the LAF is a poorly run charity.
Fanboy: Fu&k you, I know someone who once thought they had cancer, but it turned out his uncle had it, and Lance personally made him feel better
Realist: That is nice, but the effort to support cancer patients and cancer research will do just fine without people wearing yellow shoes.
Fanboy: Fu&k you, Lance is a great guy who kicks the as$ of everyone including all those people whose name I cannot pronounce, but rode way back in the 80's and 70's
Realist: There are many riders who won many more races than did Mr Armstrong, and diminishing their accomplishments is one of those things the rest of the world laughs at you about.
Fanboy: Fu&k you, you eat hater tots.
Realist: You do realize that Lance has also tried to destroy the lives and livelihood of riders who rode clean or spoke out against his ties to a doctor who specialized in doping practices.
Fanboy: Fu&k you, that guy taught him how to spin better and made him lose some weight.
Realist: Read this and then tell me that Dr Ferrari just put together "training plans"
Fanboy: Fu&k you, he was never sanctioned
Realist: That is because the tests were only on B samples and therefore were only intended to help perfect the test that is now used to detect synthetic EPO. However, that does not alter the fact that there was synthetic EPO in 6 samples that are linked to Mr Armstrong by control numbers that cannot be faked.
Fanboy: Fu&k you, you are a moron and I will give you my address in some fly over state and you can spend your money to come let me punch you in the mouth because I am really big and my mom won't let me travel by myself.
Realist: Really, you are that clueless
Fanboy: Fu&k you, you spelled something wronglyest
Realist: Your grammar skills are a bit suspect too
Fanboy: Fu&k you, Simoni deserved to get chased down because the whole world hates his guts except for you fu&king haters.
Realist: Its Simeoni
Fanboy: French names all sound the same to me
Realist: Both are Italian
Fanboy: Fu&k you
Realist: You are the smart one, aren't you?
Fanboy: Why does every thread turn into a Armstrong hater thread?
Realist: Why does every fanboy have to comment on threads being off topic without realizing they are not on topic? Isn't that ironic?
Fanboy: Fu&k you, shut up and stop being stupid
Realist: Did you read those things I posted for you?
Fanboy: Fu&k you, I don't read anything that conflicts with what Lance said happened.
Realist: Well, I guess we are done here
Fanboy: Fu&k you, hater, you......
 
Jun 10, 2009
249
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
Actually, the chain of custody on it goes something like this.

Realist: Lance doped, of that there is no doubt.
Fanboy: You are stupid and have no proof
Realist: Here, read all of this and then tell me there is no evidence
Fanboy: The French lab is a sham
Realist: Here, read this and try to understand the science of it
Fanboy: Scientists hate Americans and want their name in the paper
Realist: Here, read this and show me where it is possible to "spike" a sample
Fanboy: The French have no chain of custody and the journalists there made it all up
Realist: Here, read this and notice the tests occurred before Armstrong turned over the information necessary to link the test with his control number
Fanboy: Your (because most don't know its You're) a fu&king idiot you fu&king fu&ker fu&k fu&k
Realist: Ignorance is bliss, huh?
Fanboy: Lance saved everyone with cancer and without his efforts and his riding a bike everyone with cancer will die and not get any support
Realist: Livestrong.com is a for profit site, and the LAF is a poorly run charity.
Fanboy: Fu&k you, I know someone who once thought they had cancer, but it turned out his uncle had it, and Lance personally made him feel better
Realist: That is nice, but the effort to support cancer patients and cancer research will do just fine without people wearing yellow shoes.
Fanboy: Fu&k you, Lance is a great guy who kicks the as$ of everyone including all those people whose name I cannot pronounce, but rode way back in the 80's and 70's
Realist: There are many riders who won many more races than did Mr Armstrong, and diminishing their accomplishments is one of those things the rest of the world laughs at you about.
Fanboy: Fu&k you, you eat hater tots.
Realist: You do realize that Lance has also tried to destroy the lives and livelihood of riders who rode clean or spoke out against his ties to a doctor who specialized in doping practices.
Fanboy: Fu&k you, that guy taught him how to spin better and made him lose some weight.
Realist: Read this and then tell me that Dr Ferrari just put together "training plans"
Fanboy: Fu&k you, he was never sanctioned
Realist: That is because the tests were only on B samples and therefore were only intended to help perfect the test that is now used to detect synthetic EPO. However, that does not alter the fact that there was synthetic EPO in 6 samples that are linked to Mr Armstrong by control numbers that cannot be faked.
Fanboy: Fu&k you, you are a moron and I will give you my address in some fly over state and you can spend your money to come let me punch you in the mouth because I am really big and my mom won't let me travel by myself.
Realist: Really, you are that clueless
Fanboy: Fu&k you, you spelled something wronglyest
Realist: Your grammar skills are a bit suspect too
Fanboy: Fu&k you, Simoni deserved to get chased down because the whole world hates his guts except for you fu&king haters.
Realist: Its Simeoni
Fanboy: French names all sound the same to me
Realist: Both are Italian
Fanboy: Fu&k you
Realist: You are the smart one, aren't you?
Fanboy: Why does every thread turn into a Armstrong hater thread?
Realist: Why does every fanboy have to comment on threads being off topic without realizing they are not on topic? Isn't that ironic?
Fanboy: Fu&k you, shut up and stop being stupid
Realist: Did you read those things I posted for you?
Fanboy: Fu&k you, I don't read anything that conflicts with what Lance said happened.
Realist: Well, I guess we are done here
Fanboy: Fu&k you, hater, you......

Gotta love the Good vs. Evil argument.
 
Jun 10, 2009
249
0
0
Anyway, we are we all here on a friday night debating this nonsense. Shouldn't we be doing something more productive, like chasing drunk women at a bar. :D
 
May 30, 2009
32
0
0
And they haved already dumped Horner after stealing him from Evans then sending in the sheep in wolf's clothing ( Popo ) last year.
Chris has been riding for LA in all these poxy local races in the States then gets dumped............?
Then they stop him from trying to get aride with anyone else.
WTF ?
 
Apr 11, 2009
2,250
0
0
Vis the kerfuffle on this thread:

Don't think it's a reasonable proposition for someone to beat a range of proven dopers at TDF by wide margins and be clean, esp. given what we know about Armstrong's physical stats (VO2 max, weight), and his middling initial performances at the Tour.

Yes, he won the World Road Championships, but so did Boonen, Freire, Bettini, etc. Doesn't make them GT contenders. :rolleyes:

No, VO2 max is not determinative, but it's not reasonable to beat year after year a range/broad sample of OTHER riders by wide margins who:

1) had a range of much higher figures, including VO2 max, AND
2) are PROVEN dopers.

Willfully/energetically thinking otherwise is perhaps:

1) a form of naive positivism (not talking about positive thinking here, LOL) about negative tests, but not about the reasonable context above
2) maybe wishful thinking, and
3) perhaps part of a PAID public relations campaign. (There are a LOT of business interests / $'s at stake in Lance doing well at the Tour, lawyers included, lol :D). Wish I shared in them....

BTW: I really do hope Lance rides well at Tour from a competitive standpoint, esp. vs. Menchov and Schlecks.

AND, I don't believe Menchov or di Luca were clean at the Giro, but consider doping ceteris paribus among some at the top--including prob. Alberto/Bertie, vis his TTs--while enjoying the competition.

Here's to a great Tour!
 
Jun 26, 2009
276
1
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
It's that important that you know my name, PM me and I'll tell you who I am, my cycling background, and why I don't post with my real name.

No need. I gather from this the "wannabee" statement I made was very much unwarranted. If so, my sincere apologies . . . seriously. I had no way of knowing one way or another. If the moniker Alpe d'Huez suggests that you have competed at a world class level on "Alpe d'Huez" then I am very sorry for the unintended sleight. I recently read an article written by a sports reporter competing in a "pre-Tour de France" race for amatuers that adopts a Signature stage of that year's Tour as a chance for amatuers to experience and race part of it. That year the "pre-Tour" stage was Alp d'Huez. The reporter, an accomplished athlete, described the seemingly non-stop agony and pain that climb inflicts.

I have the utmost respect for dedicated athletes who train and suffer off the field of play to do what it takes to compete at a high level.

That brings me to the point of why I am here. I am not a cyclist. I have never raced as a cyclist. But I was an athlete at a fairly high level. (Division I starter for top 20 ranked BYU football team). As such I appreciate and am very intrigued by persons such as Lance Armstrong. Not because I have some particular love of cycling (although I am becoming a fan outside of an interest in Armstrong). I love the fact that a dedicated American is succeeding on the world stage and exhibiting excellence despite obstacles which most would say . . . "aw it can't be done!" (i.e. return from cancer, win TDF 7 times, come back at age 38).

That is what interests me and brings me here. As a former athlete, the appreciation of an another athlete at the level and dedication of Lance Armstrong. For the same reasons, one of the best sporting events I have ever witnessed was the 1980 victory of the Americans over the USSR . . . and I don't watch hockey on a regular basis (if anything I am an American football freak).

I just find very shallow and specious the baseless critiques of many who appear to have no appreciation for the dedication it takes to excel athletically at a high level. What Armstrong is doing in Aspen during the month of June is stunning. If he wins or excels at the TDF this year it will be because of that, not because of some baseless allegations of doping.

Again my apologies for the "wannabee" suggestion in my earlier post. I'll take your word for it that you are anything but.

I just have little to no appreciation for those that are not, don't know what it takes, and come on here and spew spiteful innuendo devoid of facts . . . especially given my experience as a clerk for a US Dist. Court judge, attorney, and FBI agent for 10 years. I have reviewed and seen the type of "case" Ashenden makes, that Armstrong doped, in similar circumstances/case and find it unconvincing and borderline unprofessional. It proves nothing. I find much more convincing and credible the hundreds of negative tests.
 
Jun 26, 2009
276
1
0
RightWingNutJob said:
Anyway, we are we all here on a friday night debating this nonsense. Shouldn't we be doing something more productive, like chasing drunk women at a bar. :D

I've got a good alibi. Being "Mr. Mom" to my 3 kids while wife works graveyard shift as nurse at hospital.
 
byu123 said:
I have reviewed and seen the type of "case" Ashenden makes, that Armstrong doped, in similar circumstances/case and find it unconvincing and borderline unprofessional. It proves nothing. I find much more convincing and credible the hundreds of negative tests.

You need to do some more reading because this is laughable. The testing is ineffective. Bernard Kohl passed two hundred tests before failing one. Why did he fail the test? The same reason that Armstrong did. He thought what he was using was undectable and a new test caught him out.

Specfically, what do you find wanting about Armstrong's six positives for EPO? Let's hear it.
 
Jun 26, 2009
276
1
0
BroDeal said:
Specfically, what do you find wanting about Armstrong's six positives for EPO? Let's hear it.

Lack of a chain of custody. Pure and simple. I could delve into the legal specifics but I won't "caste pearls before swine." There is a wide chasm of doubt that the characteristics of the sample, assuming it was even Armstrong's sample at all, from 1999, just after acquired, had the same exact unaltered charactersitics of the samples Ashenden tested 6 years later. Its really very simple. Degradation of sample, handling errors, tampering, contaminated equipment, etc. etc. etc. The list could go on and on. WHICH IS WHY ALL CREDIBLE SPORTING BODIES HAVE AN "A" AND A "B" SAMPLE TO DRASTICALLY MITIGATE SUCH ERRORS. Such "evidence" and "proof" as Ashenden implies would be laughed out of court. Why? because it is suspect and specious. Makes great fodder for Internet blogs but "proof" of doping??? Not by a long shot.