Road Cycling · Public discussion

Dammit Brian

Started by Steve G. · · Last activity · 20 posts · 655 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Road Cycling
Published
3 March 2006
Last activity
8 March 2006
Original author
Steve G.
Posts
20
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
655
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 20
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. I now believe you Brian. After reading the Fox article,
    http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,18326785-23218,00.html
    on Lance I cannot give him the benefit of doubt. He was a doper.

    First Tyler and now Lance. What comes of it ?

    Was there a medical reason for him to use something ? Did the doctors turn
    him into a modern day 6 million dollar man ?

  2. "Steve G." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    I now believe you Brian. After reading the Fox article,
    http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,18326785-23218,00.html
    on Lance I cannot give him the benefit of doubt. He was a doper.

    "There was no protocol so the results cannot be proven nor accepted as
    proven. Finally, the rider only allowed his samples to be kept by the 'lab'
    for research purposes.

  3. Steve G. said:

    I now believe you Brian. After reading the Fox article,
    http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,18326785-23218,00.html
    on Lance I cannot give him the benefit of doubt. He was a doper.

    i agree, we should've all have the intelligence that lafferty has to
    see that vayer calculations and blue cooler stories all add up to one
    thing.

  4. Steve G. said:
    Quoted message said:

    I now believe you Brian. After reading the Fox article,
    http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,18326785-23218,00.html
    on Lance I cannot give him the benefit of doubt. He was a doper.

    amit said:

    i agree, we should've all have the intelligence that lafferty has to
    see that vayer calculations and blue cooler stories all add up to one
    thing.

    Aliens !

  5. "Steve G." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    I now believe you Brian. After reading the Fox article,
    http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,18326785-23218,00.html
    on Lance I cannot give him the benefit of doubt. He was a doper.

    First Tyler and now Lance. What comes of it ?

    Was there a medical reason for him to use something ? Did the doctors turn
    him into a modern day 6 million dollar man ?

    I was never about the bike.

  6. B. Lafferty said:

    "Steve G." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    I now believe you Brian. After reading the Fox article,
    http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,18326785-23218,00.html
    on Lance I cannot give him the benefit of doubt. He was a doper.

    First Tyler and now Lance. What comes of it ?

    Was there a medical reason for him to use something ? Did the doctors turn
    him into a modern day 6 million dollar man ?

    I was never about the bike.

    Is it not about the needle.

  7. Steve G. said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    First Tyler and now Lance. What comes of it ?
    Was there a medical reason for him to use something ? Did the doctors turn
    him into a modern day 6 million dollar man ?

    B. Lafferty said:
    Quoted message said:

    I was never about the bike.

    steve said:

    Is it not about the needle.

    This thread is getting worn out.

  8. Steve G. said:

    I now believe you Brian. After reading the Fox article,
    http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,18326785-23218,00.html
    on Lance I cannot give him the benefit of doubt. He was a doper.

    First Tyler and now Lance. What comes of it ?

    Was there a medical reason for him to use something ? Did the doctors turn
    him into a modern day 6 million dollar man ?

    There were other Americans staying where we were before the
    Alpe d'Huez stage in 2001, the one with 'The Look'. One of
    them was a CTS customer and a huge, huge fan of LANCE.

    I remember expressing the opinion that the chances of a rider
    that was working with a guy that had become a millionaire
    designing doping programs for cyclists being clean seemed
    kind of remote.

    I will never forget the look on that guy's face when I said
    that.

    Bob Schwartz

  9. "Steve G." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    I now believe you Brian. After reading the Fox article,
    http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,18326785-23218,00.html
    on Lance I cannot give him the benefit of doubt. He was a doper.

    First Tyler and now Lance. What comes of it ?

    Was there a medical reason for him to use something ? Did the doctors turn
    him into a modern day 6 million dollar man ?

    The White House should hire Brian as a spin artist.

  10. routebeer said:

    The White House should hire Brian as a spin artist.

    He might even be able to wiretap HIM if HE makes any calls to Italy.

  11. Donald Munro said:
    routebeer said:

    The White House should hire Brian as a spin artist.

    He might even be able to wiretap HIM if HE makes any calls to Italy.

    Who you really need is Charlie Brown

    He'd set things to rights PDQ

    http://www.kontraband.com/show/show.asp?ID=3098&NEXTID=0&PREVID=3285&DISPLAYORDER=20060217224537&CAT=movies&NSFW=4&page=1&genre=0&rating=nsfw_sfw

    --
    Le Vent à Dos, Davey Crockett
    Libérez Ingrid Betancourt, Clara Rojas et les autres
    http://www.ingridbetancourt-idf.com/base/
    Free Ernst Zundel http://www.zundelsite.org/gallery/donations/index.html

  12. In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:

    I now believe you Brian. After reading the Fox article,
    http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,18326785-23218,00.html
    on Lance I cannot give him the benefit of doubt. He was a doper.

    First Tyler and now Lance. What comes of it ?

    Was there a medical reason for him to use something ? Did the doctors turn
    him into a modern day 6 million dollar man ?

    I think the following paragraph says it all:

    "The procedure used for these samples was one used for research purposes and
    didn't follow the protocol for samples tested for possible disciplinary
    proceedings."

    I'm really surprised Lance hasn't sued anyone yet.
    -----------------
    Alex

  13. In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
    says...

    Quoted message said:

    The White House should hire Brian as a spin artist.

    Please. The white house has true pros. Brian just does this in his spare
    time. 🙂
    ----------------
    Alex

  14. "Donald Munro" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Steve G. said:
    Quoted message said:

    I now believe you Brian. After reading the Fox article,
    http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,18326785-23218,00.html
    on Lance I cannot give him the benefit of doubt. He was a doper.

    amit said:

    i agree, we should've all have the intelligence that lafferty has to
    see that vayer calculations and blue cooler stories all add up to one
    thing.

    Aliens !

    Not just aliens but physically identical but superior beings.

  15. "Alex Rodriguez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
    says...
    I'm really surprised Lance hasn't sued anyone yet.

    Lance is a multimillionaire who has better things to do with his time. Do
    you think of a minute that he'd bother to even laugh at Brian Lafferty? That
    would be giving him more credit than he's worth.

    If it came down to the UCI trying to remove one of his records now, you'd
    see the UCI becoming a vastly reduced engine of finance.

  16. Alex Rodriguez said:


    I think the following paragraph says it all:

    "The procedure used for these samples was one used for research purposes and
    didn't follow the protocol for samples tested for possible disciplinary
    proceedings."


    Which basically means that witnesses were not present during the
    unsealing of the sample. The final result is still scientifically valid
    and correct.

    Quoted message said:

    I'm really surprised Lance hasn't sued anyone yet.


    I'm not. If there will be no sanction there will be no leg for him to
    stand on. If he forces the scientists to reveal their methods it will
    open the door to other scientists weighing in with their support. And it
    will take away the opportunity for the rbr pseudo-scientific monkeys to
    disregard the evidence based on poor science.

  17. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Kyle Legate said:
    Alex Rodriguez said:


    I think the following paragraph says it all:

    "The procedure used for these samples was one used for research purposes and
    didn't follow the protocol for samples tested for possible disciplinary
    proceedings."


    Which basically means that witnesses were not present during the
    unsealing of the sample. The final result is still scientifically valid
    and correct.

    For certain values of valid and correct. The laboratory
    procedure was carried out once. Not reproduced elsewhere.
    Not reproduced on clean and spiked samples that were
    stored five years. No journal article. No peer review.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I'm really surprised Lance hasn't sued anyone yet.


    I'm not. If there will be no sanction there will be no leg for him to
    stand on. If he forces the scientists to reveal their methods it will
    open the door to other scientists weighing in with their support. And it
    will take away the opportunity for the rbr pseudo-scientific monkeys to
    disregard the evidence based on poor science.

    --
    Michael Press

  18. "Kyle Legate" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Alex Rodriguez said:


    I think the following paragraph says it all:

    "The procedure used for these samples was one used for research
    purposes and didn't follow the protocol for samples tested for
    possible disciplinary proceedings."


    Which basically means that witnesses were not present during the
    unsealing of the sample. The final result is still scientifically
    valid and correct.

    Your perception of it maybe.

    Phil H

  19. "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "Kyle Legate" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Alex Rodriguez said:


    I think the following paragraph says it all:

    "The procedure used for these samples was one used for research purposes
    and didn't follow the protocol for samples tested for possible
    disciplinary proceedings."


    Which basically means that witnesses were not present during the
    unsealing of the sample. The final result is still scientifically valid
    and correct.

    Your perception of it maybe.

    You know - valid and correct in the Kveck sort of way - where no procedures
    are followed but we're all supposed to believe that they REALLY REALLY knew
    what they were doing.

    And that' completely without the latest knowledge that someone can show up
    positive simply with other proteins in their urine. Kveck will argue that
    someone that is just a year out of chemotherapy and radiation treatments has
    fully functional kidneys.

  20. "Steve G." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Kunick, Get out of my thread.

    You want to kiss my what?

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.