The truth about L.A

[destimo]

http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/search/label/Doping

The audio tapes at bottom of the page are the interesting ones. PURE GOLD.

 

[Lion of Flanders]

http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/search/label/Doping

The audio tapes at bottom of the page are the interesting ones. PURE GOLD.

Yes, you all should listen to the phone conversation between Greg Lemond and Stephanie, the Oakley employee. It rambles on for ever, but bear with it because you get to the PURE GOLD stuff in the second half.

1) Stephanie asks Greg if he's recording the converation. Greg says "no". That's class.
2) When Stephanie comments that George Hincapie's baby will be deformed because George is such a doper, they both laugh. That shows real character.
3) The key moment is when Lemond clears it all up for us. It has been pretty apparent for years that Lemond's problem with Lance is that Lance accomplished more on the bike than Lemond did. Lemond states (roughly quoted) "My VO2max was X and Lance's is Y (lower) therefore it is impossible for Lance to do these things (i.e. go faster than me)" Both he and Stephanie (cycling expert to be sure) agree that Lance winning the fastest tour ever by "these kinds of margins" shows that he must be a doper.

This 30 minute conversation should be listened to by all who want to get an idea of the motivations behind Greg and his type. They are obsessed with "proving" that Lance is a cheater. They are really sad cases who need to have something in their lives other than Lance. The recording is really telling about how small these people are.

Maybe some of these people hate Lance because he has impacted them financially. Maybe they hate him because he's an ***. Some say he is. Maybe he is. I don't know the guy. I don't care if he's an ***. He's an athlete who I watch on TV and on the roads of France. I'll say what I've been saying for years: Come up with some real evidence of doping or be quiet.

...and "testimony" from people who stand to gain in one way or another from attacking Lance doesn't count as real evidence.

 

[red_flanders]

I want royalties on the name and avatar or I'm having LA sue you.

But I'll give you that your flag is way cooler than mine.

Oh hey, did you miss the part in the tape where she admits she heard Lance admit to using dope? In conflict with her own testimony? I guess you must have missed that part while working up your character assassination angle.

 

[scribe]

cycling is a strange culture. These tapes show the truth about that culture, moreso than the truth about Armstrong.

 

[scribe]

I want royalties on the name and avatar or I'm having LA sue you.

But I'll give you that your flag is way cooler than mine.

I think he has a different disposition about this stuff than you too. I had to check the post count for a clue. haha

 

[red_flanders]

I think he has a different disposition about this stuff than you too. I had to check the post count for a clue. haha

It's BPC, the douche posted under this name/avatar a while back. Idiotic.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

I agree it wasn't very classy of Greg to lie to Stephanie McIllwaine about taping that telephone conversation, especially as she indicates she wouldn't lie if subpoened. I guess Greg did have a lot to lose at that point and his actions were an example of real politik. People do unconscionable things when they're scared and under stress. And governments and organisations do it as a matter of course. (Edit: It still doesn't explain how it was leaked, though.)

Ms McIllwaine didn't have anything to gain, and she spoke candidly and in good faith. I think the info she volunteered about Lance in the conversation was true.

I was reading the Mike Anderson deposition on cozy beehive, anyone know how that story ended?

 

[Lion of Flanders]

I want royalties on the name and avatar or I'm having LA sue you.

But I'll give you that your flag is way cooler than mine.

Oh hey, did you miss the part in the tape where she admits she heard Lance admit to using dope? In conflict with her own testimony? I guess you must have missed that part while working up your character assassination angle.

Yes, I did hear that part. "I totally know I was there" or something similar. Did you read the actual under oath testimony that was given by Betsy Andreu in the arbitration hearing? I did. Lemond, and all the rest gave accounts of this and that, much of which was contradicted by the other party involved. It just isn't credible. These people's character should make one doubt their testimony. Do you recall the email from Betsy Andreu titled "Why I hate Lance Armstrong". This woman was so obsessed with LA that the attorney for the insurance company , i.e. the party that stood to gain from Lance being shown as a doper, stopped taking her calls!

Remember, this whole business from the arbitration hearing was decided by an independent party not just in favor of Lance, but an extra $2.5MM was awarded because the claims were so unfounded.

"Character assassination"? Indeed. It doesn't take much. What did Stephanie say about Kevin Livingston? "what a ***" or some such. Listen to the words...they say it all.

Let's assume Lance used EPO and other drugs. There must be credible witnesses at some point over all these years (what are we on 18 years now?). Landis states that the whole team, including Lance transfused in full view of the "bus driver". Let's find this guy. There must be dozens of people at least who were involved over the years.

We've all head stories. I've heard many stories about Greg Lemond that he was a doper. There was one that supposedly came from a Z Team guy about how they had to check on Greg throughout the night in 1989 because his blood was so thick that they were worried his heart would stop. Do I believe this crap? No, I do not. Does that mean that I know Greg was clean? No, it does not. However, like Lance and all the rest, I will assume that Greg was clean until some credible evidence surfaces to the contrary.

....and I have always thought that the all black Flanders flag is much cooler. I am new to this board, but I have been Lion of Flanders for more than a decade on boards around the web, so I'm sitting on solid ground We should agree to disagree, my friend.

 

[red_flanders]

blah, blah, blah...

You're BPC and have been banned on this forum at least 40 times at this point. Give it a rest, and consider getting help.

 

[Anonymous]

Babble, babble, really stupid babble

Wow, Betsy isn't credible but the guy who abandoned his family, bullied anyone who challenged him, and had EPO in his urine is trustworthy? What a loser you are you mentally ill little troll.

Post flagged. See you later BPC.

 

[Lion of Flanders]

You're BPC and have been banned on this forum at least 40 times at this point. Give it a rest, and consider getting help.

Sorry, I didn't know what the BPC reference was about so I ignored it. I am who I am and I don't need to worry about what strangers on the internet think. As I wrote earlier, I am new to this forum, but not to cyclingnews.com I was a reader (and occasional reader contributor) to this site going back to the "Bill's Web Page" days in 1995.

I have never bothered to spend time bantering with faceless mobs on the internet about cycling related issues, as it really is pointless, i.e. you can't change people's minds once they are set. Why do I strap on my helmet today? Who knows, I guess I just have always been annoyed at 1) Half truths that get told often enough so that they become accepted as facts, 2) Angry people who stand to gain from accusations being treated as credible witnesses, and 3) The idea that if an athlete is better than the rest (and some of the rest have been shown to have cheated), then the athlete must be a cheat.

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry, I didn't know what the BPC reference was about so I ignored it. I am who I am and I don't need to worry about what strangers on the internet think. As I wrote earlier, I am new to this forum, but not to cyclingnews.com I was a reader (and occasional reader contributor) to this site going back to the "Bill's Web Page" days in 1995.

I have never bothered to spend time bantering with faceless mobs on the internet about cycling related issues, as it really is pointless, i.e. you can't change people's minds once they are set. Why do I strap on my helmet today? Who knows, I guess I just have always been annoyed at 1) Half truths that get told often enough so that they become accepted as facts, 2) Angry people who stand to gain from accusations being treated as credible witnesses, and 3) The idea that if an athlete is better than the rest (and some of the rest have been shown to have cheated), then the athlete must be a cheat.

Pure fantasy. You live in a world of pure fantasy.

 

[BYOP88]

Sorry, I didn't know what the BPC reference was about so I ignored it. I am who I am and I don't need to worry about what strangers on the internet think. As I wrote earlier, I am new to this forum, but not to cyclingnews.com I was a reader (and occasional reader contributor) to this site going back to the "Bill's Web Page" days in 1995.

I have never bothered to spend time bantering with faceless mobs on the internet about cycling related issues, as it really is pointless, i.e. you can't change people's minds once they are set. Why do I strap on my helmet today? Who knows, I guess I just have always been annoyed at 1) Half truths that get told often enough so that they become accepted as facts, 2) Angry people who stand to gain from accusations being treated as credible witnesses, and 3) The idea that if an athlete is better than the rest (and some of the rest have been shown to have cheated), then the athlete must be a cheat.

Yeah that one balled Texan has never never never never ever done that.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Sorry, I didn't know what the BPC reference was about so I ignored it. I am who I am and I don't need to worry about what strangers on the internet think. As I wrote earlier, I am new to this forum, but not to cyclingnews.com I was a reader (and occasional reader contributor) to this site going back to the "Bill's Web Page" days in 1995.

I have never bothered to spend time bantering with faceless mobs on the internet about cycling related issues, as it really is pointless, i.e. you can't change people's minds once they are set. Why do I strap on my helmet today? Who knows, I guess I just have always been annoyed at 1) Half truths that get told often enough so that they become accepted as facts, 2) Angry people who stand to gain from accusations being treated as credible witnesses, and 3) The idea that if an athlete is better than the rest (and some of the rest have been shown to have cheated), then the athlete must be a cheat.

You posts remind me of another poster who visits this site when Mr. Armstrong is in some bother.

Since you appear to know the details of the Hospital confession - perhaps you could succeed where they failed by answering this very simple question.

How many people were in the Hospital room when Lance admitted to taking EPO & other PEDs?

*Bonus points available if you can name them all.

 

[mr. tibbs]

[...] Landis states that the whole team, including Lance transfused in full view of the "bus driver". Let's find this guy. [...]

I think the bus driver was one of the team "trainers." He's still employed at Radio Shack--I read that he puts the cereal on the table in the morning for the riders.

Others may be able to verify this, I'm only going off of something I recall being mentioned, but he may not have been driving the bus during the year in question. Dunno.

Anyone know for sure?

 

[Lion of Flanders]

You posts remind me of another poster who visits this site when Mr. Armstrong is in some bother.

Since you appear to know the details of the Hospital confession - perhaps you could succeed where they failed by answering this very simple question.

How many people were in the Hospital room when Lance admitted to taking EPO & other PEDs?

*Bonus points available if you can name them all.

Better question: How many credible witnesses were there? Your point is a good one in that the supposed "witnesses" to the "confession" couldn't significantly corroborate each others' testimony, true?

Also...is Mr. Armstrong in a bother? I really don't think so. You never know what ASO might do, I mean they could reject RS invitation to the Tour because they feel like it, but I really doubt that (without any real evidence) this Landis business will be seen by any other than the Lance haters for more than what it is: unfounded allegations by a guy who got shafted by "the system" and is lashing out wherever he can in hopes of financial gain or retribution.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Better question: How many credible witnesses were there? Your point is a good one in that the supposed "witnesses" to the "confession" couldn't significantly corroborate each others' testimony, true?

Also...is Mr. Armstrong in a bother? I really don't think so. You never know what ASO might do, I mean they could reject RS invitation to the Tour because they feel like it, but I really doubt that (without any real evidence) this Landis business will be seen by any other than the Lance haters for more than what it is: unfounded allegations by a guy who got shafted by "the system" and is lashing out wherever he can in hopes of financial gain or retribution.

Or an even better question.

If you do not know how many 'witnesses' there were how do you know how many are 'credible'?

Is Lance in bother - hmmm, given all the new members who have joined this forum recently coming up with long posts void of facts I would say yes.

 

[Neworld]

Better question: How many credible witnesses were there? Your point is a good one in that the supposed "witnesses" to the "confession" couldn't significantly corroborate each others' testimony, true?

Also...is Mr. Armstrong in a bother? I really don't think so. You never know what ASO might do, I mean they could reject RS invitation to the Tour because they feel like it, but I really doubt that (without any real evidence) this Landis business will be seen by any other than the Lance haters for more than what it is: unfounded allegations by a guy who got shafted by "the system" and is lashing out wherever he can in hopes of financial gain or retribution.

LOF,

The 'story' here is not about Lemond or others (who by the way are not currently cycling for money or riding to support their pseudointerest in cancer research) but about the biggest lie in sports' history.

And yes the ASO should ban LA and RS, if they want to be consistent; but we know that consistency is a punch-line for them. We could make a list of all the riders and teams that have been excluded from GTs without 'real evidence'. And, personal teammate admission by FL of diffuse PED throughout the worst years of pro cycling, implicating LA and others should have them all 'taking a rest' until an investigation is done. Don't worry though it looks like the FDA and maybe the FBI will be doing it anyway.

Good riddance to bad baggage Lance. At the very least your future political days are a miniscule smear on the sidewalk.

NW

 

[pmcg76]

Better question: How many credible witnesses were there? Your point is a good one in that the supposed "witnesses" to the "confession" couldn't significantly corroborate each others' testimony, true?

Also...is Mr. Armstrong in a bother? I really don't think so. You never know what ASO might do, I mean they could reject RS invitation to the Tour because they feel like it, but I really doubt that (without any real evidence) this Landis business will be seen by any other than the Lance haters for more than what it is: unfounded allegations by a guy who got shafted by "the system" and is lashing out wherever he can in hopes of financial gain or retribution.

I wonder what people would have said if Landis had gone down this road in 06 when he was busted instead of trying to BS everyone. Would people have believed him then?

What Landis is now suggesting re doping at Postal is in line with the team-wide doping described by Jesus Manzano(Kelme) and the doping programmes at teams like Liberty Seguros/T-Mobile/Phonak. Its not really out there and seems quite accurate in terms of what was going on in the sport at the time. People always act the same when people spill the beans which is why so few people break the silence.

I have no doubt what Landis is saying is accurate, it is no different from what went on at other teams. If you bully riders who are anti-doping or willing to speak the truth, have a doctor whom is most well known for doping, have a load of fromer team-mates test positive or admit to doping, have 6 samples containing EPO which you then refuse to have re-tested using the most up-to-date technology and then have a former close team-mate go into details about doping practices on your team which were common amongst many teams, I dont think there can be any doubt about Lance doping.

 

[Lion of Flanders]

Yeah that one balled Texan has never never never never ever done that.

My favorite half truth is the "positive corticosteroid test in 1999". This particular one was just reprinted in the New York Times (must be true, then eh?)

The actual facts are that Lance had a concentration of less than one one thousandth of what would be considered a positive for the drug. The result was leaked to the media, and a storm erupted. I'm sure Lance was positive for caffeine and salicylic acid as well if the same tolerances were applied.

The other top half truth is that Lance's 1999 urine was found to contain EPO. This one is a bit trickier because the facts are unclear. I have no idea whether or not evidence of EPO were in the 1999 urine. However, what I do know is that the samples were (supposedly) frozen for 6 years with no audits on chain of possession during that time. There is no way of knowing if the samples were handled properly or that they were even the same samples.

There are many others, but those are the top of the list.

Athletes aren't saving the World, they are entertainers who compete for cash. Some will cheat in order to win. In the 1990s, when you had a drug that was safe, undetectable and made you better (EPO) I have no doubt that most were using. Today, it looks like most of the dopers are being caught. If they haven't caught your favorite doper yet, they probably will eventually.

For all who are about to type that that statement makes me a naive fool, consider that 10 years from now, somebody somewhere with nothing to gain, will come out and provide some real evidence that Lance and/or others doped to win his TDFs. You know it will happen. Maybe it will be that bus driver for Postal with his video recording of Lance juicing. Let's just wait and see.

Meanwhile, the Tour this year looks to be loaded with possibilities for good racing. I'm looking forward to it. I won't waste my life hand wringing that Contador is a drug cheat, therefore the Tour is invalid. Maybe Contador is, but for me, he's innocent until proven guilty and I'll enjoy watching him attack the Tour just like I'll enjoy watching Vino, Basso, Wiggins, Nibali, the Schlecks, and even Lance Armstrong.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

My favorite half truth is the "positive corticosteroid test in 1999". This particular one was just reprinted in the New York Times (must be true, then eh?)

The actual facts are that Lance had a concentration of less than one one thousandth of what would be considered a positive for the drug. The result was leaked to the media, and a storm erupted. I'm sure Lance was positive for caffeine and salicylic acid as well if the same tolerances were applied.

The other top half truth is that Lance's 1999 urine was found to contain EPO. This one is a bit trickier because the facts are unclear. I have no idea whether or not evidence of EPO were in the 1999 urine. However, what I do know is that the samples were (supposedly) frozen for 6 years with no audits on chain of possession during that time. There is no way of knowing if the samples were handled properly or that they were even the same samples.

<snipped for brevity>.

Could you post a link to Lane having "a concentration of less than one one thousandth of what would be considered a positive" and why if this is the case he had not a TUE for it which was a requirement.

Then you might explain why did Ludo Dierckxsens get pulled from the same Tour for the same drug?

 

[Johnny Rotten]

It Is Simple

OK I have it all figured out.

If Lance wants to prove what nasty horrible people Betsy, Greg, and Floyd, etc... all are, he needs to do is to agree to a independant Polygraph test.

Simple he could prove them all wrong and then maintain his stance that he is the "Truth in a sea of lies".

So there you have it.

Johnny Rotten

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

OK I have it all figured out.

If Lance wants to prove what nasty horrible people Betsy, Greg, and Floyd, etc... all are, he needs to do is to agree to a independant Polygraph test.

Simple he could prove them all wrong and then maintain his stance that he is the "Truth in a sea of lies".

So there you have it.

Johnny Rotten

Already been suggested. Not gonna happen.

 

[Johnny Rotten]

Already been suggested. Not gonna happen.

I know, I just wanted to prove my point.

Lance said the other day they have nothing to hide. If that is true he should put the record straight.

I don't know if he doped, but to tell you the truth, I myself would noty bet the farm that he did'nt.

 

[woodburn]

Yes, I did hear that part. "I totally know I was there" or something similar. Did you read the actual under oath testimony that was given by Betsy Andreu in the arbitration hearing? I did. Lemond, and all the rest gave accounts of this and that, much of which was contradicted by the other party involved. It just isn't credible. These people's character should make one doubt their testimony. Do you recall the email from Betsy Andreu titled "Why I hate Lance Armstrong". This woman was so obsessed with LA that the attorney for the insurance company , i.e. the party that stood to gain from Lance being shown as a doper, stopped taking her calls!

Remember, this whole business from the arbitration hearing was decided by an independent party not just in favor of Lance, but an extra $2.5MM was awarded because the claims were so unfounded.

"Character assassination"? Indeed. It doesn't take much. What did Stephanie say about Kevin Livingston? "what a ***" or some such. Listen to the words...they say it all.

Let's assume Lance used EPO and other drugs. There must be credible witnesses at some point over all these years (what are we on 18 years now?). Landis states that the whole team, including Lance transfused in full view of the "bus driver". Let's find this guy. There must be dozens of people at least who were involved over the years.

We've all head stories. I've heard many stories about Greg Lemond that he was a doper. There was one that supposedly came from a Z Team guy about how they had to check on Greg throughout the night in 1989 because his blood was so thick that they were worried his heart would stop. Do I believe this crap? No, I do not. Does that mean that I know Greg was clean? No, it does not. However, like Lance and all the rest, I will assume that Greg was clean until some credible evidence surfaces to the contrary.

....and I have always thought that the all black Flanders flag is much cooler. I am new to this board, but I have been Lion of Flanders for more than a decade on boards around the web, so I'm sitting on solid ground We should agree to disagree, my friend.

Lemond didn't ride on the Z Team in 1989.

--

Would this be credible?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5508863

LeMond's account is backed up by a veteran cycling photographer and journalist named James Startt. He was also deposed in the case last year. Under oath, Startt said he ran into McIlvain at the 2004 Tour de France, and they had a brief conversation. Startt had heard about Armstrong's alleged admission of performance-enhancing drug use. In his testimony, Startt said "I asked her did it definitely happen. And she said, yes it did."

NPR called McIlvain to ask about the discrepancy between her sworn testimony and the statements by Startt and LeMond. She said she'd rather not comment. McIlvain's lawyer said "we refuse to talk under any circumstances."