USADA - Armstrong

[Dr. Maserati]

Lance won the Tour 6 times being the favorite... so what's your point?



(provided you were referring to me
I'm not accusing, and not in the position to accuse, anybody.
I'm just saying what strikes me as common sense.



Fuentes? Del Moral? Marti? Celaya?
Spain? Dodgy? Suspicious? Naaa. ridiculous.



Unfortunately, the state of the art of cycling is this: you're suspicious if you start winning. That's not being pessimistic, that's being realistic.
if Garmin win the Giro, they're suspicious by definition.
The sad state is that a rider is dirty until proven clean. (Not legally, just common-sensically).


see above and below

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

If you agree with this premisse (and I clearly do), then how is Garmin going to be clean? (Not accusing, just talking common-sense)

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

 

[WinterRider]

Gag me with all this talk of how Lance ruined pro cycling. The sport was a going brothel long before Lance and it will be a going brothel long after Lance.

I like this line. Well said.

But its still important to root out all the dopers we can. Its the only hope going forward for cleaner sport.

 

[MarkvW]

This is more like the Mark I remember.

Firstly, GJB123 never said Amstrongs "is alone at the top" - he quite rightly pointed out what sets him aside, the scale of the fraud and that he knew he could get away with it.




Answer - pay Dr Ferrari a huge portion of your salary.
What do I win?

To the blue - like Billy you might show where someone said Lance ruined cycling. He didn't but if you can show another rider who paid off the UCI I would be very impressed.

Sorry, you win nothing. It was more than paying Ferrari. It was organized team doping. I'm sorry I didn't state the obvious.

I understand that you think that the basic goodness of McQuaid and Verbruggen precludes their acceptance of money from anyone other than Armstrong. I don't agree.

Not going to enter the Maserati Vortex on this issue.

 

[Race Radio]

Gag me with all this talk of how Lance ruined pro cycling.

I am kinda bummed the Tri Geeks banned him. I was looking forward to him ruining that sport as well

 

[MarkvW]

I like this line. Well said.

But its still important to root out all the dopers we can. Its the only hope going forward for cleaner sport.

Totally stole it from Paddy Chayevsky.

 

[MarkvW]

I am kinda bummed the Tri Geeks banned him. I was looking forward to him ruining that sport as well

I think he could make that sport worse. If he gets the rules changed to favor doping . . .

 

[thehog]

I am kinda bummed the Tri Geeks banned him. I was looking forward to him ruining that sport as well

Yes banning him from WTC was a masterstroke. That was funny and he has to be fuming over it. If only the UCI upheld its rules 15 years ago. So it’s the first time he’s been a sanctioned athlete? You never know. WTC probably just saved him from killing himself with dope.

 

[Maxiton]

This is more like the Mark I remember.

Firstly, GJB123 never said Amstrongs "is alone at the top" - he quite rightly pointed out what sets him aside, the scale of the fraud and that he knew he could get away with it.




Answer - pay Dr Ferrari a huge portion of your salary.
What do I win?

To the blue - like Billy you might show where someone said Lance ruined cycling. He didn't but if you can show another rider who paid off the UCI I would be very impressed.

In fairness, though, the lawyer-handlers, Hein, Pat, ASO, Versus (not to mention Trek and Nike), you name it, they all looked at Armstrong the way a pimp looks at an exceptionally hot, dumb blonde (or like Blogovich looked at that vacant senate seat he got to fill): A good looking cancer survivor who can handle himself in the press and wins races?! Omigod, this is gold, my gold, and I'm not letting it go for anything. The difference being that the hot blonde would presumably be mostly victim, and LA insisted on being among the victimizers.

 

[thehog]

In fairness, though, the lawyer-handlers, Hein, Pat, ASO, Versus, you name it, they all looked at Armstrong the way a pimp looks at an exceptionally hot, dumb blonde (or like Blogovich looked at that vacant senate seat he got to fill): A good looking cancer survivor who can handle himself in the press and wins races?! Omigod, this is gold, my gold, and I'm not letting it go for anything. The difference being that the hot blonde would presumably be mostly victim, and LA insisted on being among the victimizers.

He is not good looking. He has the funny eye thing gonig on.

 

[Maxiton]

He is not good looking. He has the funny eye thing gonig on.

True. That's the drugs and the personality. Still, he can be prettied up for commercials.

 

[mewmewmew13]

He looks like a guy whose face doesn't know how to smile.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Sorry, you win nothing. It was more than paying Ferrari. It was organized team doping. I'm sorry I didn't state the obvious.

I understand that you think that the basic goodness of McQuaid and Verbruggen precludes their acceptance of money from anyone other than Armstrong. I don't agree.

Not going to enter the Maserati Vortex on this issue.

No I think fat Pat & Hein are parasites - however you mentioned Saiz & Pavenage, if you are saying they paid off the UCI they gotta bad deal.
So - you have no-one else who paid off the UCI, thanks.

 

[sniper]

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

?

i read it and acknowledged it.

 

[cleanmarine]

Can we scratch the NYC Marathon results?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

?

i read it and acknowledged it.

You acknowledge it but don't understand it.
There was no test in the 90s for EPO - very little OOC testing nor even the Bio Passport. So to attempt to say that things are as they were in the wild west of the 90s is ridiculous.

 

[zigmeister]

I just finally got around to reading that USADA full letter against the "accused".

Just as I thought, it sounds like the re-hash of the Feds case.

The same line is repeated over for each person. "Riders and other witnesses will testify that..." or, "Numerous riders will testify that..."

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

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

Anybody else I missed that claims first hand knowledge?

It is obvious the end-game and ultimate goal of the USADA is pre-decided.

They will parade the crew in front of the "arbitration panel" (made up of whom?), give the accused a chance to respond, most won't likely show up or respond.

Then hand down their verdict how they are all guilty, then hand out some lifetime bans and take some previous victories away. This is all based on what Tyler, Floyd, Frankie and Betsy say of course, and some tests that are "indicative" of doping.

Am I missing something that makes this different from the Feds case, except the glaring fact that there are actual legal and constitutional rights people have in the normal court of law and proceedings, that the USADA doesn't follow or care about?

 

[Polish]

I just finally got around to reading that USADA full letter against the "accused".

Just as I thought, it sounds like the re-hash of the Feds case.

The same line is repeated over for each person. "Riders and other witnesses will testify that..." or, "Numerous riders will testify that..."

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

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

Anybody else I missed that claims first hand knowledge?

?

5) JoePapp
6) CVV
7) DZ
8) JV
9) Greg
10) JoePapp again wearing fake nose/mustache glasses.

 

[sniper]

You acknowledge it but don't understand it.
There was no test in the 90s for EPO - very little OOC testing nor even the Bio Passport. So to attempt to say that things are as they were in the wild west of the 90s is ridiculous.

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.

 

[lean mean &green]

Am I missing something...

yes

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

 

[JRTinMA]

5) JoePapp
6) CVV
7) DZ
8) JV
9) Greg
10) JoePapp again wearing fake nose/mustache glasses.

Lolz

.........

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

and where did I say that things are as they were in the wild west of the 90s? indeed, nowhere.
you're overgeneralizing, where I was speaking only about the correlation between winning and doping.

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

 

[TourOfSardinia]

5) JoePapp
6) CVV
7) DZ
8) JV
9) Greg
10) JoePapp again wearing fake nose/mustache glasses.

Lolz

.........

10. Wouldn't that be George?

 

[blackcat]

He is not good looking. He has the funny eye thing gonig on.

True. That's the drugs and the personality. Still, he can be prettied up for commercials.

He looks like a guy whose face doesn't know how to smile.

he looks like Gunderson

your mom shoulda told you "dont trust a man with no eyebrows, il diablo stole them"

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I just finally got around to reading that USADA full letter against the "accused".

Just as I thought, it sounds like the re-hash of the Feds case.

The same line is repeated over for each person. "Riders and other witnesses will testify that..." or, "Numerous riders will testify that..."

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

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

Anybody else I missed that claims first hand knowledge?

It is obvious the end-game and ultimate goal of the USADA is pre-decided.

They will parade the crew in front of the "arbitration panel" (made up of whom?), give the accused a chance to respond, most won't likely show up or respond.

Then hand down their verdict how they are all guilty, then hand out some lifetime bans and take some previous victories away. This is all based on what Tyler, Floyd, Frankie and Betsy say of course, and some tests that are "indicative" of doping.

Am I missing something that makes this different from the Feds case, except the glaring fact that there are actual legal and constitutional rights people have in the normal court of law and proceedings, that the USADA doesn't follow or care about?

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.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

he looks like Gunderson

your mom shoulda told you "dont trust a man with no eyebrows, il diablo stole them"

but that picture is from 2007 or before - may be he is improved by today