Why LA is not a doper (seriously)

[Kennf1]

No e it didn't.

I will say very clearly, the suspicions surrounding DiLuca did not convict him. The positive dope test did.

If the suspicions surrounding him convicted him, he never would have raced this years Giro.

For the record, there are also suspicions, from Greg LeMond no less, that indicate Alberto Contador doped during this year's Tour? Is he guilty now?

Menchov beat a doped DiLuca, such things clearly raise suspicions. Is Menchov guilty?

Levi Leipheimer also used Dr. Ferrari. That raises suspicion, is Levi Leipheimer guilty?

To be very clear, again, suspicion is used to target and provide a verifiable, testable result. That is what happened to DiLuca.

The Anti-doping establishment had ther suspicions about bith what he was using, thus they found and appropriate test, and when he was using it, and THAT allowed them to test and verify the drug use.

Now, when similar suspicion is likewise tested, and no proof is found, that is also exoneration.

Unfortunately, our press only releases those who fail the process, but to assume that there has been no targeting of LA would be in my opinion, a very bad assumption.

But Leipheimer has denied working with Ferrari. Do you believe him?

 

[Izoard]

I prefer this source: http://tinyurl.com/38q28x

That should fill in some holes.

Now that is a funny read!

 

[Kennf1]

So far only 5 people that were in the room have said what they heard that day. Lance says he did not say it. Betsy, Frankie, Stephanie, and Stapleton all say he did.

Now what about Ashenden? Why does Gree avoid address that a world renowned expert has given an exhaustive, detailed, analysis of why the 99 samples prove Armstrong doped. While his words per post count is huge I have yet to see GreeO address any Ashenden's very valid points.

Public Strategies is still working on the talking points for that.

 

[Izoard]

For the record, there are also suspicions, from Greg LeMond no less, that indicate Alberto Contador doped during this year's Tour? Is he guilty now? Menchov beat a doped DiLuca, such things clearly raise suspicions. Is Menchov guilty? Levi Leipheimer also used Dr. Ferrari. That raises suspicion, is Levi Leipheimer guilty?

Actually, it appears quite a number of people believe Contador, Menchov and Leipheimer are guilty of doping. However, Armstrong has been around longer, he tends to bring forth stronger reactions, and I think this thread is about him and not the others.

 

[gree0232]

So far only 5 people that were in the room have said what they heard that day. Lance says he did not say it. Betsy, Frankie, Stephanie, and Stapleton all say he did.

Now what about Ashenden? Why does Gree avoid address that a world renowned expert has given an exhaustive, detailed, analysis of why the 99 samples prove Armstrong doped. While his words per post count is huge I have yet to see GreeO address any Ashenden's very valid points.

I have read many articles similar to Ashedden's no doubt exhaustive study. I have read an equal number that strenuously disgree with him.

That is why I have set teh standard that such conjecture and analysis must produce a result that is teatable and verifiable.

The samples from 99 may very well contain EPO, I conceed the point. However, the samples were not conducted in any sort of mannerthat can produce a testable verifiable positive. In fact, the case, handled throughL
Equip rather than anti-doping channels, never actually arises to the standard that a formal accussation is made against Lance.

And with very good reason. There are serious issues with the methodology behind those test, and because it was handled the way it was handled, the idea that the remainng amples can be tested with any sort of interity has essentially been thrown into doubt.

WADA and Lance both demand in their statements the independant body recommended in the Vrijman report move forward. To date, and despite their desire to exonerante themselves, WADA still refuses to release the internal notes that would do so (or quite possibly convinct them) or cooperate in any manner that would move this comission along.

WADA has now effectively placed itself in a position that it must validate the chain of custody, in exhaustion, along with procedures, etc. because the end result of the 1999 'story' is that those samples are now as much about WADA/LNDD's reputation and integrity as they are about Lance's. The idea that no corners would be bent under those circumstances will forever cast doubt on the results .... until the comission demanded by both Lance and WADA moves forward.

**** Pound may very well have done Lance a favor by using rumor, innuendo, and leaked news analysis as his weapon of choice rather than sound, scientific methods to produce results. The failure surrounding the 1999 tests is about **** Pound's leadership, and we are stuck with the results of his mis-handleing of the situation.

There could have been proof, but an opportunity was lost and an avenue of exploration blocked by **** Pound's actions.

For the record, I wonder if you remember Pound's other statements regarding the NHL? The ones he retracked in a NY Times articles were he said he made them up n order to put pressure on the NHL to clean up their act. In short, he lied and admitted as such.

**** Pound was a politician, and wasnot above doing the exact same thing with cycling. In a general sense, Pound was right about cycling (and probably about the NHL), but you cannot convict individuals with generalities.

 

[Eva Maria]

I have read many articles similar to Ashedden's no doubt exhaustive study. I have read an equal number that strenuously disgree with him.

That is why I have set teh standard that such conjecture and analysis must produce a result that is teatable and verifiable.

The samples from 99 may very well contain EPO, I conceed the point. However, the samples were not conducted in any sort of mannerthat can produce a testable verifiable positive. In fact, the case, handled throughL
Equip rather than anti-doping channels, never actually arises to the standard that a formal accussation is made against Lance.

And with very good reason. There are serious issues with the methodology behind those test, and because it was handled the way it was handled, the idea that the remainng amples can be tested with any sort of interity has essentially been thrown into doubt.

WADA and Lance both demand in their statements the independant body recommended in the Vrijman report move forward. To date, and despite their desire to exonerante themselves, WADA still refuses to release the internal notes that would do so (or quite possibly convinct them) or cooperate in any manner that would move this comission along.

WADA has now effectively placed itself in a position that it must validate the chain of custody, in exhaustion, along with procedures, etc. because the end result of the 1999 'story' is that those samples are now as much about WADA/LNDD's reputation and integrity as they are about Lance's. The idea that no corners would be bent under those circumstances will forever cast doubt on the results .... until the comission demanded by both Lance and WADA moves forward.

**** Pound may very well have done Lance a favor by using rumor, innuendo, and leaked news analysis as his weapon of choice rather than sound, scientific methods to produce results. The failure surrounding the 1999 tests is about **** Pound's leadership, and we are stuck with the results of his mis-handleing of the situation.

There could have been proof, but an opportunity was lost and an avenue of exploration blocked by **** Pound's actions.

For the record, I wonder if you remember Pound's other statements regarding the NHL? The ones he retracked in a NY Times articles were he said he made them up n order to put pressure on the NHL to clean up their act. In short, he lied and admitted as such.

**** Pound was a politician, and wasnot above doing the exact same thing with cycling. In a general sense, Pound was right about cycling (and probably about the NHL), but you cannot convict individuals with generalities.

You again confuse word count with content. You may want to actually read the Ashenden interview as he shows how you are completely wrong.

You wrote you "have read an equal number that strenuously disgree with him."

Please post one that disproves what he says.

 

[Anonymous]

I have read many articles similar to Ashedden's no doubt exhaustive study. I have read an equal number that strenuously disgree with him.

That is why I have set teh standard that such conjecture and analysis must produce a result that is teatable and verifiable.

The samples from 99 may very well contain EPO, I conceed the point. However, the samples were not conducted in any sort of mannerthat can produce a testable verifiable positive. In fact, the case, handled throughL
Equip rather than anti-doping channels, never actually arises to the standard that a formal accussation is made against Lance.

And with very good reason. There are serious issues with the methodology behind those test, and because it was handled the way it was handled, the idea that the remainng amples can be tested with any sort of interity has essentially been thrown into doubt.

WADA and Lance both demand in their statements the independant body recommended in the Vrijman report move forward. To date, and despite their desire to exonerante themselves, WADA still refuses to release the internal notes that would do so (or quite possibly convinct them) or cooperate in any manner that would move this comission along.

WADA has now effectively placed itself in a position that it must validate the chain of custody, in exhaustion, along with procedures, etc. because the end result of the 1999 'story' is that those samples are now as much about WADA/LNDD's reputation and integrity as they are about Lance's. The idea that no corners would be bent under those circumstances will forever cast doubt on the results .... until the comission demanded by both Lance and WADA moves forward.

**** Pound may very well have done Lance a favor by using rumor, innuendo, and leaked news analysis as his weapon of choice rather than sound, scientific methods to produce results. The failure surrounding the 1999 tests is about **** Pound's leadership, and we are stuck with the results of his mis-handleing of the situation.

There could have been proof, but an opportunity was lost and an avenue of exploration blocked by **** Pound's actions.

For the record, I wonder if you remember Pound's other statements regarding the NHL? The ones he retracked in a NY Times articles were he said he made them up n order to put pressure on the NHL to clean up their act. In short, he lied and admitted as such.

**** Pound was a politician, and wasnot above doing the exact same thing with cycling. In a general sense, Pound was right about cycling (and probably about the NHL), but you cannot convict individuals with generalities.

Again, take the Ashenden interview from earlier this year and show me where it has been refuted. You say there are many that do, cite them please. Or, if you wish, take it point by point and refute the actual science he discusses. I particularly would like to see the any evidence you have that counters the FACT that it is impossible by any means known to mankind to "spike" a sample with EPO and have it appear as a positive.

Also note that you make an interesting leap in your diatribe. You admit that there is NO evidence that the chain of custody is problematic. Just that there has been no evidence either way. You then conveniently conclude that there were problems in a very indirect manner. Clever, but it doesn't pass the smell test.

Also, quote the test from the Vrijman report that refutes the SYNTHETIC EPO problem.

Then, explain why Mr Armstrong won't sue anyone who uses these tests to say (not suggest) that CLEARLY he doped in 1999. He sued EVERYONE up until that point, and now he just talks about it in the press. Funny, I wonder why? Oh, I know why, in a civil trial, the weight of evidence clearly shows he doped. Mr Armstrong and his lawyers know this, and they also all know he doped. He also has the problem that others know he doped, and that many such as Ms Andreau would be unwilling to lie under oath.

Now, 4 of the people in the room have admitted they heard Mr Armstrong admit to using performance enhancing drugs. Your only counter to that is to keep saying 8 people say differently (though one of them wasn't even in the room). What say you?

Also, please, for shits and giggles, explain what Dr Ferrari does as a physician. What is Mr Ferrari's opinion of EPO usage? What is Dr Ferrari's reputation among anyone who knows anything about cycling? Now, honestly, do you believe that Lance was using Dr Ferrari for body fat calculations or suggestions on training rides? I mean, really?

Why would a guy who isn't doping chase down a rider who said in court that Dr Ferrari consulted on doping practices? Why would not a clean rider support such a man? What about a guy who was talking about riding clean? Why would Mr Armstrong chase down such a man? Why would a clean rider not go with him in his break and show the world that two clean riders could win?

Why would FLandis say "Just so you know, Lance doped" to a reporter?

Why would a rider claim before the Tour that he had no TUE, then test positive, and then claim to have a TUE? The facts of that one are in dispute nowhere. It is right there with dates and articles.

How can a rise in VO2 max like the one in evidence on Mr Armstrong happen naturally when scientists clearly say that it is impossible?

What you and your ilk claim is a massive conspiracy, obsessed people with no lives wanting the spotlight, jealous behavior on the part of many, and that urine samples magically sprout SYNTHETIC EPO over time.

I say that this is an easy call. Email or twitter Lance and tell him to sue and stop this injustice. Tell him to name everyone including me in his suit. I would LOVE to see all of the evidence against him presented in a civil court. LOVE to see it. Here is your problem, Lance doped, and if that were to happen, it would be the end of him professionally and personally, and lets face it, there is good money in "cancer awareness" and he would never threaten that, now would he?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Email or twitter Lance and tell him to sue and stop this injustice. Tell him to name everyone including me in his suit. I would LOVE to see all of the evidence against him presented in a civil court. LOVE to see it.

I would like to be sued by him too. I tried it in many different ways. Unlucky it never happened to me too.

 

[issoisso]

rant

Take 5 off. I'll cover for ya.


*clears throat*

So, Mr. gree0232. This is the part where we continue to present logical arguments and you continue to wave them off with a flick of the wrist, pretending they're not there, thus continuing your reputation as an illogical, irrational laughing stock.

Let's see what we have as arguments here.....


Let's see...

First there's the cancer that methastasized waaay too fast for it to be possible in anyone not taking HGH.
There's also the fact that the cancer should've been picked up much, much earlier than it was, because in the early stages of testicular cancer, certain markers that indicate cancer show up in doping tests and are so obvious they are impossible to miss.....unless you're using masking agents to conceal drug use. In which case those markers are masked as well.

Then there's Betsy Andreu testifying that she and Frankie Andreu (Lance's long term friend and teammate of many tours) were there in the room when Lance told his oncologist "Yes, I took corticosteroids, EPO, HGH, testosterone, cortisone(...)", but I guess she's lying, huh? After all, who wouldn't throw away her and her husband's career, friendships and basically destroy their lives just for 5 minutes of "fame" in specialized cycling media :roll:?
There's an e-mail lance sent frankie andreu in december 2003 about frankie and his wife being quizzed by David Walsh. Here's a quote: "I know Betsy is not a fan, and that's fine, but by helping to bring me down is not going to help your situation at all. There is a direct link to all of our success here and I suggest you remind her of that."

Riddle me this: Armstrong's haematocrit in 1999, when there was no EPO test, but only a 50% haematocrit limit, was constantly around 49%. Now it's 43-44%. There are three possible explanations for that:
1. He rode the 1999 Tour severely dehydrated to the point of near death
2. He rode the 1999 Tour pregnant
3. He rode the 1999 Tour on EPO and blood transfusions
I'd like to see you try to explain that away. Hint: any other possibility other than those three is medically impossible (and it goes without saying that option 2 is as well).

There's the team soigneur (Emma O'Reilly) that testified she found corticosteroids in Lance's luggage. Also that during a massage armstrong said "My haematocrit is 41%, way below the max allowed (50%), so I'm gonna do what everyone does"

There's the statement of the team's mechanic (Mike Anderson) that he found a box of steroids in lance's apartment.

There's lance's "misterious" millionaire "donation" for some misterious blood machine that's never been quite explained.

There's teammate Steve Swart's statement that he (swart) and all others on the team were doping.

There's the fact he chased down Simeoni for testifying in court what everyone already knew and had been proven in several cases before: that Dr. Ferrari, the italian Fuentes, (with whom armstrong has admitted time and time and time again to working with and defended) is no more than a dope salesman. Incidentally, the list of Ferrari's clients that have tested positive is quite big.

There's the fact that he chased down Christophe Bassons, the rider who Virenque, Zülle, Moreau and the others testified was the only clean rider on the Festina team. Armstrong went up to Bassons and flat out said "Why don't you just go away?", then proceded to yell at Bassons in detail just how his public acknowledgement of widespread doping in the peloton was bad for everyone involved and how Bassons should shut up and leave cycling.

There's the IM conversation between Lance's long time teammates Jonathan Vaughters and Frankie Andreu where they detail Postal/Discovery's doping practices in some detail.

There's the re-testing of 1999 Tour samples where Lance tested positive 6 different times for EPO, in ways in which, with the doses of EPO being as they are in each individual test, the samples being contaminated is impossible (high dosage on the morning of each important stage, lower doses in between, just as you'd expect from a normal doping regimen).
I'd like to point out that the usual blind lance fan's argument against this is the stupidest ever: "the samples were kept for 6 years before being re-tested. they were no longer proper".
First of all, clinical trials were started in 1972 by preserving samples to see for how many years they would still be reliably testable. We're in 2009 and still counting, and that's far longer than 6 years.
Second of all, even if the time for a sample to be reliable were extremely short, say for instance only 2 weeks, exogenous EPO doesn't "magically" appear in urine out of thin air.

There's Lance consistently denying that he had any TUEs to declare several times during the first two weeks of the Tour, only for his teammate Kevin Livingston to run into the room in a hurry screaming "****! they're testing us for corticosteroids!" two weeks later, at which point Armstrong coincidentally "remembered" that he had a TUE to declare after all, and...what a coincidence...a TUE for corticosteroids precisely. One that was later established was in fact a backdated prescription. Needless to say Lance tested positive. But he got away on account of having a prescription. Pierre Ballester has the audio records of an interview in that Tour, before Lance tested positive where Lance says, and I quote: "No. No TUEs whatsoever"

There's, to anyone who's familiar with the climbing powers (in watts, since we want to be scientifical) of riders throughout the years in Tour de France climbs, it's painfully obvious that Lance's regular climbing power in his Tour winning years is far, faaaaaaaar beyond what is possible clean, even for the theoretically perfect athlete. I don't care that he's "a freak of nature", or that "his heart is as big as a plate" or he "produces much less lactate" or that he has only one ball and is thus more aerodynamic. All those excuses are just that....excuses. His climbing power isn't a little over what's believable in the most extreme case....it's aeons above it. Fact is, no one, before EPO came into the sport, EVER, and I do mean EVER went above 390 watts on a climb. EPO made its entrance and suddenly everyone of the top climbers was at 460-480 watts. Lance was consistently at 460 watts. That's impossible clean.

His nickname in the pack in his early days was "Cortisone neck". What do you think that says?

There's the fact that at the 2001 Tour, when the EPO test was new and feared by the riders, when by the admission of several now retired riders "everyone was so scared that they were riding pretty much clean", lance's (as well as everyone else's) climbing powers are light-years below their performances of other years. Lance at 380watts....

There's Armstrong working for years with doctors such as Ferrari, constantly defending them, constantly stating they were not supplying riders with doping products....until it was proven they were and Lance suddenly stopped talking about them or training with them.

There's Armstrong making a living hell out of the lives of anyone who tried to come to public with evidence that he was doped, using his political leverage to make people lose their jobs (his Oakley liaison Stephanie and her husbamd, anyone?), credibility, race wins, contracts. heck, he flat out told Vaughters that if he gave Matt DeCanio a contract with Garmin, armstrong would have Trek withdraw sponsorship of the team.

There's countless of his teammates leaving his team, only to test positive despite their performance not increasing even a slight bit compared to when they were riding for him.

How come he's sued everyone that wrote even the slightest bit of innuendo about him, but not random house? Simple. He doesn't want to open up a can of worms. We can all say whatever we want about Lance doping because he will not put us in court. He never has anyone and never will. Because in court the evidence that he doped would be put against him and no court in the world would rule in his favour. Not to mention that whenever he sues someone for saying he doped, he's NEVER let it go to court. He's always either settled or withdrawn the lawsuits.

More obviously, there's the fact that lance and his cohorts can't even get their goddamned stories straight. Their court statements are contradictory. Bill Stapleton's statements even contradict himself!

There's surely more that I'm forgetting. But I guess that will do for now.

Armstrong is the face of the omerta. he's the one most concerned with upholding it, and has demonstrated it time and time and time again.

By the way, my personal favorite in all this is when Betsy Andreu was testifying in court what lance had said to his oncologists (see above), Tim Herman (lance's legal counsel) jumps up and yells "YOU MISUNDERSTOOD THEM! HE SAID HE WAS USING THAT STUFF TO FIGHT THE CANCER!"...................so how did she misunderstand the doctors if lance's entire defence is based on saying that that meeting never happened and those doctors are fictional people made up by Mrs. Andreu?





If you want anyone to respect you in even the slightest, then take the time to respond to these arguments one by one with either agreement or counter-argumentation. Basically the opposite of your usual "pretend that doesn't matter" that gets you nothing but a very bad reputation.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

1+

You should write a book kinda called "From Lance to Landis: Reloaded"

 

[Anonymous]

even better rant than mine

I forgot about the doping tests not picking up elevated hCG before he was diagnosed. Only four ways around that one, either several failed tests that were never reported (and they didn't tell him to get checked for testicular cancer, because anyone reading the results would CLEARLY have seen the problem and known that one possible cause was TESTICULAR CANCER), he was masking, he didn't have testicular cancer, or he had the fastest growing cancer ever seen in the history of testicular cancer. (fanboys will go with the last one because it will show his superiority in everything) I have NEVER heard any Lance fan tackle that one. I personally believe it was masking for testosterone usage.

Note to gree: Don't tap dance on that one because there is NO WAY he had testicular cancer and didn't have a HIGHLY elevated hCG. In fact, in the hospital his test was THROUGH the roof as it should have been. And also note that Lance himself reports symptoms dating back much further than a couple of months before he was diagnosed.

Come on, I want to hear you tackle something Mr Armstrong hasn't put out a press release about. No talking points to refer to will make it tough, but you seem like a big boy, come on, put up or shut up.

 

[issoisso]

1+

You should write a book kinda called "From Lance to Landis: Reloaded"

Who says I haven't?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Who says I haven't?

When does it come out?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Hi Gree... how is the google search coming along?

Let me give you a hand:

1. Lance Armstrong
2. Btesy Andreu
3. Frankie Andreu
4. ____________
5. ____________
6. ____________
7. ____________
8. ____________
9. ____________
10. ___________
11.____________
12 Chuck Norris?

 

[Anonymous]

I think we scared him off. They always think they have all the answers, and can just spout the same lines as the last guy. When confronted with overwhelming evidence that Mr Armstrong doped, they never have any real answers. Just press releases by Mr Armstrong and his attorney. Oh well, another one bites the dust.

 

[Eva Maria]

Take 5 off. I'll cover for ya.


*clears throat*

So, Mr. gree0232. This is the part where we continue to present logical arguments and you continue to wave them off with a flick of the wrist, pretending they're not there, thus continuing your reputation as an illogical, irrational laughing stock.

Let's see what we have as arguments here.....


Let's see...

First there's the cancer that methastasized waaay too fast for it to be possible in anyone not taking HGH.
There's also the fact that the cancer should've been picked up much, much earlier than it was, because in the early stages of testicular cancer, certain markers that indicate cancer show up in doping tests and are so obvious they are impossible to miss.....unless you're using masking agents to conceal drug use. In which case those markers are masked as well.

Then there's Betsy Andreu testifying that she and Frankie Andreu (Lance's long term friend and teammate of many tours) were there in the room when Lance told his oncologist "Yes, I took corticosteroids, EPO, HGH, testosterone, cortisone(...)", but I guess she's lying, huh? After all, who wouldn't throw away her and her husband's career, friendships and basically destroy their lives just for 5 minutes of "fame" in specialized cycling media :roll:?
There's an e-mail lance sent frankie andreu in december 2003 about frankie and his wife being quizzed by David Walsh. Here's a quote: "I know Betsy is not a fan, and that's fine, but by helping to bring me down is not going to help your situation at all. There is a direct link to all of our success here and I suggest you remind her of that."

Riddle me this: Armstrong's haematocrit in 1999, when there was no EPO test, but only a 50% haematocrit limit, was constantly around 49%. Now it's 43-44%. There are three possible explanations for that:
1. He rode the 1999 Tour severely dehydrated to the point of near death
2. He rode the 1999 Tour pregnant
3. He rode the 1999 Tour on EPO and blood transfusions
I'd like to see you try to explain that away. Hint: any other possibility other than those three is medically impossible (and it goes without saying that option 2 is as well).

There's the team soigneur (Emma O'Reilly) that testified she found corticosteroids in Lance's luggage. Also that during a massage armstrong said "My haematocrit is 41%, way below the max allowed (50%), so I'm gonna do what everyone does"

There's the statement of the team's mechanic (Mike Anderson) that he found a box of steroids in lance's apartment.

There's lance's "misterious" millionaire "donation" for some misterious blood machine that's never been quite explained.

There's teammate Steve Swart's statement that he (swart) and all others on the team were doping.

There's the fact he chased down Simeoni for testifying in court what everyone already knew and had been proven in several cases before: that Dr. Ferrari, the italian Fuentes, (with whom armstrong has admitted time and time and time again to working with and defended) is no more than a dope salesman. Incidentally, the list of Ferrari's clients that have tested positive is quite big.

There's the fact that he chased down Christophe Bassons, the rider who Virenque, Zülle, Moreau and the others testified was the only clean rider on the Festina team. Armstrong went up to Bassons and flat out said "Why don't you just go away?", then proceded to yell at Bassons in detail just how his public acknowledgement of widespread doping in the peloton was bad for everyone involved and how Bassons should shut up and leave cycling.

There's the IM conversation between Lance's long time teammates Jonathan Vaughters and Frankie Andreu where they detail Postal/Discovery's doping practices in some detail.

There's the re-testing of 1999 Tour samples where Lance tested positive 6 different times for EPO, in ways in which, with the doses of EPO being as they are in each individual test, the samples being contaminated is impossible (high dosage on the morning of each important stage, lower doses in between, just as you'd expect from a normal doping regimen).
I'd like to point out that the usual blind lance fan's argument against this is the stupidest ever: "the samples were kept for 6 years before being re-tested. they were no longer proper".
First of all, clinical trials were started in 1972 by preserving samples to see for how many years they would still be reliably testable. We're in 2009 and still counting, and that's far longer than 6 years.
Second of all, even if the time for a sample to be reliable were extremely short, say for instance only 2 weeks, exogenous EPO doesn't "magically" appear in urine out of thin air.

There's Lance consistently denying that he had any TUEs to declare several times during the first two weeks of the Tour, only for his teammate Kevin Livingston to run into the room in a hurry screaming "****! they're testing us for corticosteroids!" two weeks later, at which point Armstrong coincidentally "remembered" that he had a TUE to declare after all, and...what a coincidence...a TUE for corticosteroids precisely. One that was later established was in fact a backdated prescription. Needless to say Lance tested positive. But he got away on account of having a prescription. Pierre Ballester has the audio records of an interview in that Tour, before Lance tested positive where Lance says, and I quote: "No. No TUEs whatsoever"

There's, to anyone who's familiar with the climbing powers (in watts, since we want to be scientifical) of riders throughout the years in Tour de France climbs, it's painfully obvious that Lance's regular climbing power in his Tour winning years is far, faaaaaaaar beyond what is possible clean, even for the theoretically perfect athlete. I don't care that he's "a freak of nature", or that "his heart is as big as a plate" or he "produces much less lactate" or that he has only one ball and is thus more aerodynamic. All those excuses are just that....excuses. His climbing power isn't a little over what's believable in the most extreme case....it's aeons above it. Fact is, no one, before EPO came into the sport, EVER, and I do mean EVER went above 390 watts on a climb. EPO made its entrance and suddenly everyone of the top climbers was at 460-480 watts. Lance was consistently at 460 watts. That's impossible clean.

His nickname in the pack in his early days was "Cortisone neck". What do you think that says?

There's the fact that at the 2001 Tour, when the EPO test was new and feared by the riders, when by the admission of several now retired riders "everyone was so scared that they were riding pretty much clean", lance's (as well as everyone else's) climbing powers are light-years below their performances of other years. Lance at 380watts....

There's Armstrong working for years with doctors such as Ferrari, constantly defending them, constantly stating they were not supplying riders with doping products....until it was proven they were and Lance suddenly stopped talking about them or training with them.

There's Armstrong making a living hell out of the lives of anyone who tried to come to public with evidence that he was doped, using his political leverage to make people lose their jobs (his Oakley liaison Stephanie and her husbamd, anyone?), credibility, race wins, contracts. heck, he flat out told Vaughters that if he gave Matt DeCanio a contract with Garmin, armstrong would have Trek withdraw sponsorship of the team.

There's countless of his teammates leaving his team, only to test positive despite their performance not increasing even a slight bit compared to when they were riding for him.

How come he's sued everyone that wrote even the slightest bit of innuendo about him, but not random house? Simple. He doesn't want to open up a can of worms. We can all say whatever we want about Lance doping because he will not put us in court. He never has anyone and never will. Because in court the evidence that he doped would be put against him and no court in the world would rule in his favour. Not to mention that whenever he sues someone for saying he doped, he's NEVER let it go to court. He's always either settled or withdrawn the lawsuits.

More obviously, there's the fact that lance and his cohorts can't even get their goddamned stories straight. Their court statements are contradictory. Bill Stapleton's statements even contradict himself!

There's surely more that I'm forgetting. But I guess that will do for now.

Armstrong is the face of the omerta. he's the one most concerned with upholding it, and has demonstrated it time and time and time again.

By the way, my personal favorite in all this is when Betsy Andreu was testifying in court what lance had said to his oncologists (see above), Tim Herman (lance's legal counsel) jumps up and yells "YOU MISUNDERSTOOD THEM! HE SAID HE WAS USING THAT STUFF TO FIGHT THE CANCER!"...................so how did she misunderstand the doctors if lance's entire defence is based on saying that that meeting never happened and those doctors are fictional people made up by Mrs. Andreu?





If you want anyone to respect you in even the slightest, then take the time to respond to these arguments one by one with either agreement or counter-argumentation. Basically the opposite of your usual "pretend that doesn't matter" that gets you nothing but a very bad reputation.

Does this forum have a limit on the size of member signatures? If not i think I may have found mine

 

[Izoard]

Hi Gree... how is the google search coming along?

Let me give you a hand:

12 Chuck Norris?

Chuck Norris might have eaten him for a snack.

 

[scribe]

issoisso: Nice write up and very compelling. It is refreshing to see someone summarize their ideas sans insecure finger jabbing.

Now. Lance returned to the professional ranks with nothing to gain and everything to lose. He is racing in different venues and exposing himself to controls. They have mounds upon mounds of urine and blood. They want him badly. Here he is! If 'they' fail to make a positive, you have to accept the fact that the man can race with the world's best, at the age of 38. With no positives, it is fair to assume that he is just as capable of doing what he did at his prime.

 

[Eva Maria]

issoisso: Nice write up and very compelling. It is refreshing to see someone summarize their ideas sans insecure finger jabbing.

Now. Lance returned to the professional ranks with nothing to gain and everything to lose. He is racing in different venues and exposing himself to controls. They have mounds upon mounds of urine and blood. They want him badly. Here he is! If 'they' fail to make a positive, you have to accept the fact that the man can race with the world's best, at the age of 38. With no positives, it is fair to assume that he is just as capable of doing what he did at his prime.

How do you test for transfusions? HGH?

 

[broken chain]

Hello,my first post.I have read with great interest many of your opinions on whether or not LA has doped.Many are highly technical and seem to be well researched.I myself base my opinion on plain old common horse sense.Both Basso and Ullrich were both deemed to have doped.A proven fact.Arguably at one time the 2nd and 3rd best riders behind LA.I find it difficult to believe someone clean could take both those gentlemen to task so easily.I would love to believe LA could do it clean because it would be an amazing human interest story.Sadly I cannot.Just my opinion from a different angle.

 

[Izoard]

Hello,my first post.I have read with great interest many of your opinions on whether or not LA has doped.Many are highly technical and seem to be well researched.I myself base my opinion on plain old common horse sense.Both Basso and Ullrich were both deemed to have doped.A proven fact.Arguably at one time the 2nd and 3rd best riders behind LA.I find it difficult to believe someone clean could take both those gentlemen to task so easily.I would love to believe LA could do it clean because it would be an amazing human interest story.Sadly I cannot.Just my opinion from a different angle.

Thanks for posting this! This is what many reasonable people say - while they would like to believe LA did not dope because there is a nice human interest angle or story, there are certain things that just stretch it beyond the realm of rational belief.

 

[scribe]

Thanks for posting this! This is what many reasonable people say - while they would like to believe LA did not dope because there is a nice human interest angle or story, there are certain things that just stretch it beyond the realm of rational belief.

Cycling has a rich history of individuals who are 'heads and shoulders' above the competition. It is not outside of the realm of possible for someone to knife 5-10 minutes out of the nearest rivals during the course of a cycling event.

 

[scribe]

How do you test for transfusions? HGH?

Duh. It's simple.

Put the blood and urine into a reconfukulator, spin it around, give it two shakes, call in a pizza, and watch for the hemogoblins and Homohormones to float to the top.

 

[Anonymous]

Cycling has a rich history of individuals who are 'heads and shoulders' above the competition. It is not outside of the realm of possible for someone to knife 5-10 minutes out of the nearest rivals during the course of a cycling event.

With the amount of enhancement that systematic blood doping affords the user, it is illogical to believe an undoped athlete could compete. You simply do not understand how much better it makes you. If you did, you would realize just how impossible it is for him to have won clean. Everyone around him was dirty, and so was he.

 

[Izoard]

Cycling has a rich history of individuals who are 'heads and shoulders' above the competition. It is not outside of the realm of possible for someone to knife 5-10 minutes out of the nearest rivals during the course of a cycling event.

Cycling also has a rich history of doping.