USADA - Armstrong

[ChewbaccaD]

10. Wouldn't that be George?

They've all got their little toes and fingers crossed that George isn't that 10th guy. If I were them, I'd go get a rabbit's foot, a 4 leaf clover, and rub a fat man's* belly.


*I wouldn't advise that person be McQuaid.

 

[sniper]

Ah, you need look no further than the in previous paragraph of the above post.

you apparently hadn't read my post and thus ended up accusing me of not reading GBJ's post.
That's classic. The pot calling the kettle black.

That reminds me: I don't recall ever hearing you say "ow, ok, my bad", regardless of how often you are in dispute with other posters. A mere chance calculation would suggest that you too might occasionally be misinterpreting other's posts.
that's really nothing to be ashamed of Doc.

p.s.
"things" is broad. "things" is plural.
I spoke of one (1) aspect being the same: that you cannot win without juicing. how is that "things" being the same now as in the 90s? "things" clearly aren't the same now as they were in the 90s.
but you still cannot win without doping.

 

[lean mean &green]

Does somebody need some attention? Hmmmm? Posting the same thing it two threads to get reaction. Go ask daddy to play baseball with you one more time, and tell him what you did because he said "no" the first time. Run along tiger.

why must you quote the entire *** post?

 

[henryg]

Hmmm...wonder who that could be?!?!

1) Floyd
2) Tyler
3) Frankie
4) Betsy

Anybody else I missed that claims first hand knowledge?

Leipheimer, Zabriskie, Vaughters, Vand Velde, Hincapie...

There are more then 10. Only Lance declined to cooperate. His teammates gave testimony under oath.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

you apparently hadn't read my post and thus ended up accusing me of not reading GBJ's post.
That's classic. The pot calling the kettle black.

That reminds me: I don't recall ever hearing you say "ow, ok, my bad", regardless of how often you are in dispute with other posters. A mere chance calculation would suggest that you too might occasionally be misinterpreting other's posts.

p.s.
"things" is broad. "things" is plural.
I spoke of one (1) aspect being the same: that you cannot win without juicing. how is that "things" being the same now as in the 90s? "things" clearly aren't the same now as they were in the 90s.
but you still cannot win without doping.

Ok- just to end this quickly.
Do you believe Bassons was clean or dirty? It's one or the other.
Because he won in the 90 s.

As for admitting mistakes - I am not the one who has to go back and edit their posts.

 

[JRTinMA]

10. Wouldn't that be George?

A lot of people believe George will roll into town and drive the last nail in LA's coffin. I'm not sure George is that guy, I tend to think he's a lot like Lance, just quieter and a lot smarter. George pulls a Pettitte and thinks he may remember something, maybe 50/50.

 

[sniper]

Ok- just to end this quickly.
Do you believe Bassons was clean or dirty? It's one or the other.
Because he won in the 90 s.

As for admitting mistakes - I am not the one who has to go back and edit their posts.

that's a YOU-message.
admitting should be an I-message.
nothing to be ashamed of, Doc. try it, it's fun.
like me saying "Yes, I occasionally go back and EDIT my posts".
big fun

 

[MarkvW]

you said I hadn't seen GBJ was talking about the 90s. I had.
the rest is not about understanding, it's about an opinion, mine being that you couldn't win without doping in the 90s, and cannot win without doping in the present era either.

Vortexology 101. The Gateway to the Vortex:
(1). Maserati decides what he wants your post to mean. Consider yourself extremely lucky if his interpretation coincides with your intentions.
(2). At this point, you may be tempted to engage with Maserati to clarify your meaning. Be forewarned: Maserati knows your meaning better than you do, so be prepared to prove that you really mean what you really mean.
(3). Maserati does not care what you really mean.
(4). Maserati will then provide a counterexample that tends to disprove his interpretation of your meaning. THIS IS THE GATEWAY TO THE MASERATI VORTEX. Abandon all hope of discussing or debating the point that you thought you were trying to make in the first place.
(5). You will now be challenged to provide links that disprove Maserati's counterexample or links that support Maserati's interpretation of your meaning. Only the hardiest dare venture into this domain.

 

[JRTinMA]

Ok- just to end this quickly.
Do you believe Bassons was clean or dirty? It's one or the other.
Because he won in the 90 s.

As for admitting mistakes - I am not the one who has to go back and edit their posts.

Bassons never won a race as a pro so he never doped.

 

[sniper]

Vortexology 101. The Gateway to the Vortex:
(1). Maserati decides what he wants your post to mean. Consider yourself extremely lucky if his interpretation coincides with your intentions.
(2). At this point, you may be tempted to engage with Maserati to clarify your meaning. Be forewarned: Maserati knows your meaning better than you do, so be prepared to prove that you really mean what you really mean.
(3). Maserati does not care what you really mean.
(4). Maserati will then provide a counterexample that tends to disprove his interpretation of your meaning. THIS IS THE GATEWAY TO THE MASERATI VORTEX. Abandon all hope of discussing or debating the point that you thought you were trying to make in the first place.
(5). You will now be challenged to provide links that disprove Maserati's counterexample or links that support Maserati's interpretation of your meaning. Only the hardiest dare venture into this domain.

thanks
we understand each other.

 

[cleanmarine]

Vortexology 101. The Gateway to the Vortex:
(1). Maserati decides what he wants your post to mean. Consider yourself extremely lucky if his interpretation coincides with your intentions.
(2). At this point, you may be tempted to engage with Maserati to clarify your meaning. Be forewarned: Maserati knows your meaning better than you do, so be prepared to prove that you really mean what you really mean.
(3). Maserati does not care what you really mean.
(4). Maserati will then provide a counterexample that tends to disprove his interpretation of your meaning. THIS IS THE GATEWAY TO THE MASERATI VORTEX. Abandon all hope of discussing or debating the point that you thought you were trying to make in the first place.
(5). You will now be challenged to provide links that disprove Maserati's counterexample or links that support Maserati's interpretation of your meaning. Only the hardiest dare venture into this domain.

Yes the burden of proof is on Maserati. He spins his yahoo Texan double speak. Boom you now have the burden of proof.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Vortexology 101. The Gateway to the Vortex:
(1). Maserati decides what he wants your post to mean. Consider yourself extremely lucky if his interpretation coincides with your intentions.
(2). At this point, you may be tempted to engage with Maserati to clarify your meaning. Be forewarned: Maserati knows your meaning better than you do, so be prepared to prove that you really mean what you really mean.
(3). Maserati does not care what you really mean.
(4). Maserati will then provide a counterexample that tends to disprove his interpretation of your meaning. THIS IS THE GATEWAY TO THE MASERATI VORTEX. Abandon all hope of discussing or debating the point that you thought you were trying to make in the first place.
(5). You will now be challenged to provide links that disprove Maserati's counterexample or links that support Maserati's interpretation of your meaning. Only the hardiest dare venture into this domain.

Hi Mark,
It's actually quite simple - if you can back up what you say then there should be no problem providing links.

Watch this as an example:

Bassons never won a race as a pro so he never doped.

Christophe Bassons - stage 7 Dauphine Libere 1999.
Here is the link. http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/1999/jun99/dauphine99.html

 

[Condorman]

Bassons never won a race as a pro so he never doped.

Bassons won stage 8 of 1999 Dauphiné Libéré.

 

[JRTinMA]

Watch this as an example:

Christophe Bassons - stage 7 Dauphine Libere 1999.
Here is the link. http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/1999/jun99/dauphine99.html

Filthy doper

 

[thehog]

http://www.denverpost.com/lunchspec...e-armstrongs-possible-demise-be-linked-garmin

The latest controversy should not affect the rep of Garmin-Barracuda, known as "Team Clean" for its mandatory weekly doping tests. It's not the best timing to have two of its star cyclists linked, however speculative, with a USADA investigation.

But giving USADA testimony doesn't mean Vande Velde or Zabriskie ever doped. If they did, it was well before they joined Garmin-Barracuda. Vaughters is forgiving of cyclists' pasts as evidenced by the positive impact and results of David Millar, who signed in 2008 after serving a two-year doping ban.

It could be much worse news for Armstrong. Maybe the worst yet.

 

[JRTinMA]

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/1999/jun99/dauphine99.html[/url]

Bassons won stage 8 of 1999 Dauphiné Libéré.

Hmmm, what are the chances he won two days in a row.

 

[thehog]

http://www.denverpost.com/lunchspec...e-armstrongs-possible-demise-be-linked-garmin

The latest controversy should not affect the rep of Garmin-Barracuda, known as "Team Clean" for its mandatory weekly doping tests. It's not the best timing to have two of its star cyclists linked, however speculative, with a USADA investigation.

But giving USADA testimony doesn't mean Vande Velde or Zabriskie ever doped. If they did, it was well before they joined Garmin-Barracuda. Vaughters is forgiving of cyclists' pasts as evidenced by the positive impact and results of David Millar, who signed in 2008 after serving a two-year doping ban.

It could be much worse news for Armstrong. Maybe the worst yet.

.................

 

[sniper]

Hi Mark,
It's actually quite simple - if you can back up what you say then there should be no problem providing links.

must be tough being as smart as you.
is your real name Alec, by any chance?
you remind of a certain Alec. a real smart guy as well.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Filthy doper

TBF though, he finished 40 minutes back over all in a one week race.

 

[andy1234]

Hi Mark,
It's actually quite simple - if you can back up what you say then there should be no problem providing links.

Watch this as an example:

Christophe Bassons - stage 7 Dauphine Libere 1999.
Here is the link. http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/1999/jun99/dauphine99.html

A better example than Bassons ....
Actually 41 better examples.

Chris Boardman
1993 - 2 Chrono des Herbiers GP Eddy Merckx

1994 - 8 Tour of Murcia prologue Tour or Murcia stage Dauphine Libere prologue Two Dauphine Libere stages Tour of Switzerland stage Tour de France prologue World Championship time trial

1995 - 4 Tour de l'Oise stage Four Days of Dunkirk stage Dauphine Libere stage Midi Libre stage

1996 - 8 Paris-Nice stage Criterium International overall Four Days of Dunkirk stage Route du Sud stage GP des Nations GP Eddy Merckx Chrono des Herbiers Josef Vogeli Memorial

1997 - 7 Tour of Valencia stage Tour of Romandy prologue Tour of Romandy stage Two Tour of Catalonia stages Dauphine Libere stage Tour de France prologue

1998 - 8 PruTour prologue PruTour stage one Two Tour of Catalonia stages Dauphine Libere prologue Dauphine Libere stage Tour de France prologue Tour de l'Ain stage

1999 - 4 Paris-Nice stage Criterium International stage PruTour stage Josef Vogeli Memorial

 

[JRTinMA]

TBF though, he finished 40 minutes back over all in a one week race.

You're confusing the hell out of me, Not a doper! Only because 99 was the cleanest year in cycling since Lemond retired to present day.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

thanks
we understand each other.

You appear to understand each other - Mark had a habit of avoiding direct questions too.
So, you want another crack at the Bassons question (now that we have established he did indeed win a Pro race in the 90s)

 

[MarkvW]

You appear to understand each other - Mark had a habit of avoiding direct questions too.
So, you want another crack at the Bassons question (now that we have established he did indeed win a Pro race in the 90s)

And how is this esoterica relevant to Armstrong's USADA case?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And how is this esoterica relevant to Armstrong's USADA case?

It's isn't - just as your post mentioning me wasn't.
What, don't want to play now?

 

[sniper]

Doc "no room for error" Maserati,
let's go back for a sec, shall we?

you said:

If you actually read GJBs post he says clearly the 90 s.

but what I had actually posted was:

Bleow, GBJ is making my point very clear. The state he describes for the 90s is of course still in force.

realizing you were off and wrong, your temperature must have risen dramatically (because docs are flawless), so in a moment of panic you decided to spin it, now suddenly claiming:

You acknowledge it but don't understand it.

whatever makes you happy.