George Vesey On Armstrong, Cycling & Preparation

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/19/sports/othersports/19vecsey.html?pagewanted=print&position=

Quoted message said:

After writing an "article" that is basically a summary of the ESPN show,
Vecsey concludes:
"I find no reason to stop regarding Lance Armstrong as one of the great
athletes of his time. His sport really needs to get clean. "

Thanks for the profound insight, George.

If you read French Brian, you'll enjoy that article, although it is not
specifically on Armstrong.

http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=224595

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/19/sports/othersports/19vecsey.html?pagewanted=print&position=

Quoted message said:

.

If you read French Brian, you'll enjoy that article, although it is not
specifically on Armstrong.

http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=224595

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/19/sports/othersports/19vecsey.html?pagewanted=print&position=

Quoted message said:

.

Erik Lusseault said:

If you read French Brian, you'll enjoy that article, although it is not
specifically on Armstrong.

http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=224595

It's the same article he writes every year.

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Erik Lusseault said:

If you read French Brian, you'll enjoy that article, although it is not
specifically on Armstrong.

http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=224595

It's the same article he writes every year.

Who writes the same article every year?

Interesting. Thanks very much for the link.

"Erik Lusseault" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If you read French Brian, you'll enjoy that article, although it is not
specifically on Armstrong.

http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=224595

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/19/sports/othersports/19vecsey.html?pagewanted=print&position=

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

.

Erik Lusseault said:

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Erik Lusseault said:

If you read French Brian, you'll enjoy that article, although it is
not specifically on Armstrong.

http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=224595

It's the same article he writes every year.

Who writes the same article every year?

http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=126354

He's written basically the same article or given basically the same
argument in an interview about once a year since 2000.

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Erik Lusseault said:

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Erik Lusseault wrote:
> If you read French Brian, you'll enjoy that article, although it is
> not specifically on Armstrong.
>
> http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=224595

It's the same article he writes every year.

Who writes the same article every year?

http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=126354

He's written basically the same article or given basically the same
argument in an interview about once a year since 2000.

And therefore it is not a valid argument?

Erik Lusseault said:

And therefore it is not a valid argument?

Ooooh, touchy aren't we? I'm insufficiently knowledgeable to make a
statement on the theoretical limits of human power production. Perhaps
Coggan can. My statement is that Vayer has written (essentially) the same
article each year since 2000. My supposition, but not claim, is that Brian
was already familiar with Vayer's argument.

However, I think that the general approach of estimating the extreme or
limiting value to a distribution based on observations interior to the
distribution itself has not been universally fruitful.

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Erik Lusseault said:

And therefore it is not a valid argument?

Ooooh, touchy aren't we? I'm insufficiently knowledgeable to make a
statement on the theoretical limits of human power production. Perhaps
Coggan can. My statement is that Vayer has written (essentially) the same
article each year since 2000. My supposition, but not claim, is that Brian
was already familiar with Vayer's argument.

However, I think that the general approach of estimating the extreme or
limiting value to a distribution based on observations interior to the
distribution itself has not been universally fruitful.

Actually I'm not touchy (Or like once a year , and not a computer screen).
It was a true question.

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/19/sports/othersports/19vecsey.html?pagewanted=print&position=

.

Why do you keep posting this [censored]? It is different people reiterating
the same things over and over and over again!

1. All of cycling is dirty. Lance beats everyone therfore he must be
dirty too
2. Lemond says he's dirty, and we know that everything LeMond says is
true.
3. O'Rielly says she gave him drugs in a dark parking lot
4. O'Rielly Et. Al. claim he tested positive for Steriod and
manafactured a script for saddle sore cream.
5. He was a terrible cyclist pre cancer and magically got better post
cancer.

I think this about sums it up right?

So if you are so convinced answer these questions for me:

1. Given the hematocrit max of 50% I think I am being generous by say
that EPO increases performance by 5%. Are you suggesting that their
isn't a 5% variance in physiological characterstics that contribute to
cycling performance?

2. Why the hell should I trust Greg LeMond. Ignoring the fact that he
runs around claiming virtual tour wins and has shown a long standing
contempt and jelousy for Armstrong, why would I pay any attention to
anyone who provides no proof for his accustations?

3. Now Why would O'Rielly meet Armstrong in a dark parking lot a la
some cheesy suspense novel? Why would she stop over at his house?
Maybe give him a massage (her job after all) while she was at it?

4. His blood showed traces of A CORTICAL STERIOD. Not an ANABOLIC
STERIOD. Are we to assume that somehow the lab mistook two totally
different compounds for each other or are you try to assert that
somehow he was taking cortical steriods in some performance enhancing
way? If so explain what that would be? As far as I know the UCI and
WADA allow for fairly high levels of exogenous cortical steriods and
any high dosage or prolonged use of these substances would lead to
tendon deteroiration and exogenous cushings syndrome both would be
highly determental.

5. I think this is a well trodden trail but if you like I can restate
his career highlights pre-cancer if you would like.

If you would like to put fourth anymore evidence I would also like to
hear it.
but first answer these 5 simple questions.

Lastly, I would like to state that cycling in my opinion cycling is no
more or less dirty than say baseball where 7% of the ball players
failed an announced and scheduled drug test!!!!!!

Thank you.