lance and the hospital room

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

Quoted message said:

who are the women in the hospital room and why did they say no comment?

that

Quoted message said:

in and of itself is incriminating. I think people are delusional if they

don't

Quoted message said:

think he hasn't taken/takes performance enhancing drugs. how do you

explain

Quoted message said:

him being so above everybody else?

It's called "being the best", and he's definitely that. Every sport
eventually has someone that is heads and shoulders above everyone else - it
doesn't last forever. Lance works harder than anyone else and is
genetically gifted.
Jeff

Your argument is also based on the erroneous premise that everyone else is
clean.
"J Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

who are the women in the hospital room and why did they say no comment?

that

Quoted message said:

in and of itself is incriminating. I think people are delusional if

they

Quoted message said:

don't

Quoted message said:

think he hasn't taken/takes performance enhancing drugs. how do you

explain

Quoted message said:

him being so above everybody else?

It's called "being the best", and he's definitely that. Every sport
eventually has someone that is heads and shoulders above everyone else -

it

Quoted message said:

doesn't last forever. Lance works harder than anyone else and is
genetically gifted.
Jeff

Rdsleuths used 100% recycled electrons to write:

Quoted message said:

who are the women in the hospital room and why did they say no comment? that
in and of itself is incriminating. I think people are delusional if they don't
think he hasn't taken/takes performance enhancing drugs. how do you explain
him being so above everybody else?

I, as a Lance fan, would say this - BEFORE he has his bout with
cancer, do i think it is very likely that Lance took performance
enhancing drugs. That was the era of the sport that everyone took
drugs, hell a certain french team was caught with a freaking box of
the stuff during one race!!! You had to level the field, thus you had
to take stuff. So do I think that whole hospital room thing
incriminates him? In some ways, yes, PRE CANCER.

Post cancer is a different story. I think that at this point, Lance
has won his races cleanly. I think that he passes all his drug tests,
because he doesn't take anything to win. I mean, considering the
scrutiny that Lance is under, if he is doping, unless he is Houdini, I
don't see how he isn't caught.

One of the tell tail statements he has made is when he was asked
during the Discovery Channel press conference "Can you assure your
fans that you have never taken performance enhancing drugs?". His
answer was not "Yes." It was deflect question, then say "We do not
use performance enhancing drugs." (present tense).

That all being said, if we are going to get on this guy for being a
past doper, where is all the criticism on Virenque to be kicked out
now? Sure there is talk here on RBR about "[censored]", but still, he
doesn't get the scrutiny of Lance by the media, and he for sure used
the stuff!

RonB

--------------------------------------------------
"It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking"
--------------------------------------------------

Ron Blancarte [email protected] said:

One of the tell tail statements he has made is when he was asked
during the Discovery Channel press conference "Can you assure your
fans that you have never taken performance enhancing drugs?". His
answer was not "Yes." It was deflect question, then say "We do not
use performance enhancing drugs." (present tense).

The thing I've always wondered about is his spouses/girlfriends. Remember,
there have been like 3 during this whole wild ride. I would imagine (if
the needle marks are as obvious as the writers of that book would have you
believe and that they have to be covered with makeup) that someone who was
*with* him, would probably know he was taking something. Heck, just being
around someone that much would probably tip you off. So why hasn't his
ex-wife or Sheryl Crow said anything? Why would SC even be with him if he
was doping? I'm assuming she's made of better stuff than that morally. The
only thing I can guess is either they're all cheaters and they're all part
of one big scam, or they're all dumb (they meaning his loved ones around
him), or he's not doping. It just seems logical that given the stakes,
given the house of cards that would crumble if he were cheating, that all
these people wouldn't be around him if they didn't believe in him and that
he was clean. Maybe that's naive, but it just doesn't make sense that he'd
be cheating and either no one close to him would notice or they would be
culpible.

Preston

(Rdsleuths) said:

who are the women in the hospital room and why did they say no comment?
that in and of itself is incriminating. I think people are delusional if
they
don't think he hasn't taken/takes performance enhancing drugs. how do you
explain him being so above everybody else?

According to a good Dr. friend of mine and my wife and three of her friends
who
are HR specialist administering benefits, none of them believe a Dr. would
ask such
a sensitive question in front of others; unless of course Armstrong
authorized it. So the
likelihood that this event even happened is suspect. According to two
attorneys I work with
on a nearly daily basis, the fact that they answered no comment is simply
evidence of good
lawyering. They noted that Armstrongs legal team most likely requested all
who are involved (and friends of Armstrong so they would listen) to answer
no comment.
This allows the legal team total control of not only the info, but more
importantly of the
timing of release of info, providing maximum opportunity to embarass.

Why Armstrong is so much better, maybe the fact that he has ridden Alp de
Huez
more than 10 times since October 2003; the same time Ullrich was eating
schnitzel.

Ron Blancarte used 100% recycled electrons to write:

Quoted message said:

Rdsleuths used 100% recycled electrons to write:

Quoted message said:

who are the women in the hospital room and why did they say no comment? that
in and of itself is incriminating. I think people are delusional if they don't
think he hasn't taken/takes performance enhancing drugs. how do you explain
him being so above everybody else?

I, as a Lance fan, would say this - BEFORE he has his bout with
cancer, do i think it is very likely that Lance took performance
enhancing drugs. That was the era of the sport that everyone took
drugs, hell a certain french team was caught with a freaking box of
the stuff during one race!!! You had to level the field, thus you had
to take stuff. So do I think that whole hospital room thing
incriminates him? In some ways, yes, PRE CANCER.

Post cancer is a different story. I think that at this point, Lance
has won his races cleanly. I think that he passes all his drug tests,
because he doesn't take anything to win. I mean, considering the
scrutiny that Lance is under, if he is doping, unless he is Houdini, I
don't see how he isn't caught.

One of the tell tail statements he has made is when he was asked
during the Discovery Channel press conference "Can you assure your
fans that you have never taken performance enhancing drugs?". His
answer was not "Yes." It was deflect question, then say "We do not
use performance enhancing drugs." (present tense).

That all being said, if we are going to get on this guy for being a
past doper, where is all the criticism on Virenque to be kicked out
now? Sure there is talk here on RBR about "[censored]", but still, he
doesn't get the scrutiny of Lance by the media, and he for sure used
the stuff!

Let me also ask this: Should Lance have to answer questions about
events of 7-8 years ago? Especially from a past era of the sport
where the governing body was willing to turn a blind eye to this kind
of cheating?

RonB

--------------------------------------------------
"It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking"
--------------------------------------------------

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

Quoted message said:

According to two
attorneys I work with
on a nearly daily basis, the fact that they answered no comment is simply
evidence of good
lawyering.

Quoted message said:

They noted that Armstrongs legal team most likely requested all
who are involved (and friends of Armstrong so they would listen) to answer
no comment.

That's convenient, why go to all the trouble when a simple confirmation of
Armstrong's doping denial would put the matter to rest?

matabala said:

Quoted message said:

According to two
attorneys I work with
on a nearly daily basis, the fact that they answered no comment is
simply
evidence of good
lawyering.

Quoted message said:

They noted that Armstrongs legal team most likely requested all
who are involved (and friends of Armstrong so they would listen) to
answer
no comment.

That's convenient, why go to all the trouble when a simple confirmation of
Armstrong's doping denial would put the matter to rest?

You are either naive or disingenuous to believe it would put the matter to
rest, maybe for you but not Walsh,
they and other journalist would seek the opportunity to not stop their and
continue to
ask unrelated questions.

Attorneys will tell you that even if your innocent, responding openly to
questions can put you
more into hot water then extricate clarify. While your response may appear
innocent to you
often the unpracticed can offer answers that can easily be misconstrued by
those with an agenda.
No, no comment is usually the best response, saving the need to say keep the
story from
spinning out of control (more than it already has).

And besides you can loose any shock value you hope to use to embarass folks
with.

Armstrong's heart is a third larger than most people's and his heart rate can
go from 30s to over 200.

www.mimiforsyth.com

uths) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

who are the women in the hospital room and why did they say no comment? that
in and of itself is incriminating. I think people are delusional if they don't
think he hasn't taken/takes performance enhancing drugs. how do you explain
him being so above everybody else?

Results for 7/20/2004
1 Lance Armstrong (USA) US Postal p/b Berry Floor 4.40.30 (38.61 km/h)
2 Ivan Basso (Ita) Team CSC
3 Jan Ullrich (Ger) T-Mobile Team 0.03
4 Andreas Klöden (Ger) T-Mobile Team 0.06
5 Levi Leipheimer (USA) Rabobank 0.13
6 Richard Virenque (Fra) Quick Step-Davitamon 0.48
7 Michael Rasmussen (Den) Rabobank 0.49
8 Jose Azevedo (Por) US Postal p/b Berry Floor 0.53
9 Jens Voigt (Ger) Team CSC 1.04
10 Carlos Sastre (Spa) Team CSC 1.24

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

Quoted message said:

Your argument is also based on the erroneous premise that everyone else is
clean.

No it isn't. Only if drugs are proven to make so much difference as to
influence the outcome each time they are used.

If you took EPO, could you *definitely* beat anyone else that did not use it
(including Armstrong)? OK then, how much better does someone have to be in
order to stay clean and successfully compete against an athlete that uses
EPO? The answer is "not nearly as much as you apparently think".

Quoted message said:

"J Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

who are the women in the hospital room and why did they say no

comment?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that

Quoted message said:

in and of itself is incriminating. I think people are delusional if

they

Quoted message said:

don't

Quoted message said:

think he hasn't taken/takes performance enhancing drugs. how do you

explain

Quoted message said:

him being so above everybody else?

It's called "being the best", and he's definitely that. Every sport
eventually has someone that is heads and shoulders above everyone else -

it

Quoted message said:

doesn't last forever. Lance works harder than anyone else and is
genetically gifted.
Jeff

Preston Crawford said:

. So why hasn't his
ex-wife or Sheryl Crow said anything?

Why should they?

Quoted message said:

Why would SC even be with him if he
was doping? I'm assuming she's made of better stuff than that morally.

Maybe she believes or even knows that most other top riders are doping
too, so it's not so immoral.

JT

Preston Crawford said:

Quoted message said:

So why hasn't his
ex-wife ... said anything?

The alimony check?

Quoted message said:

Why would SC even be with him if he
was doping?

Rockers are dopers at one time or another almost by definition. Why isn't doping banned in rock?
It seems like an unfair advantage.

"how much better does someone have to be in
order to stay clean and successfully compete against an athlete that uses
EPO? The answer is "not nearly as much as you apparently think"

I'm not sure how you've reached this conclusion. I think elite level
athletes believe otherwise - sports like track, weight lifting, cycling are
rife with performance enhancing drugs because they believe they can't
compete without them.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Your argument is also based on the erroneous premise that everyone else

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

clean.

No it isn't. Only if drugs are proven to make so much difference as to
influence the outcome each time they are used.

If you took EPO, could you *definitely* beat anyone else that did not use

it

Quoted message said:

(including Armstrong)? OK then, how much better does someone have to be in
order to stay clean and successfully compete against an athlete that uses
EPO? The answer is "not nearly as much as you apparently think".

Quoted message said:

"J Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Rdsleuths" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> who are the women in the hospital room and why did they say no

comment?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that
> in and of itself is incriminating. I think people are delusional if

they

Quoted message said:

don't
> think he hasn't taken/takes performance enhancing drugs. how do you
explain
> him being so above everybody else?

It's called "being the best", and he's definitely that. Every sport
eventually has someone that is heads and shoulders above everyone

else -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it

Quoted message said:

doesn't last forever. Lance works harder than anyone else and is
genetically gifted.
Jeff

gwhite said:

Preston Crawford said:

Quoted message said:

So why hasn't his
ex-wife ... said anything?

The alimony check?

Quoted message said:

Why would SC even be with him if he
was doping?

Rockers are dopers at one time or another almost by definition. Why isn't doping banned in rock?
It seems like an unfair advantage.

I just guess I would think SC would see a world of difference between
smoking a joint and taking EPO. That's just a guess. I could be totally
wrong about her character and obviously given that she possibly broke up
the marriage, she's no angel. I'm just saying that regardless of how much
pot she's smoked or whatever, I don't get the impression that she'd be all
ra ra over a guy taking EPO.

Preston

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Preston Crawford said:

. So why hasn't his
ex-wife or Sheryl Crow said anything?

Why should they?

Quoted message said:

Why would SC even be with him if he
was doping? I'm assuming she's made of better stuff than that morally.

Maybe she believes or even knows that most other top riders are doping
too, so it's not so immoral.

If that's true, then that's truly sad and there's no point discussing the
Tour much less watching it, is there?

Preston

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 19:13:54 -0500, Preston Crawford
<[email hidden]> wrote:

[about Sheryl Crow]

Quoted message said:

obviously given that she possibly broke up
the marriage, she's no angel

"Obviously possible"? Really hedging your bets there, huh?

JT

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 19:13:54 -0500, Preston Crawford
<[email hidden]> wrote:

[about Sheryl Crow]

Quoted message said:

obviously given that she possibly broke up
the marriage, she's no angel

"Obviously possible"? Really hedging your bets there, huh?

JT

Bad wording. What I was trying to say was that it's distinctly possible (I
don't know, I wasn't there, nor do I know if something bad was already
going on in the marriage) if she's a homewrecker. Just that it's a
distinct possibility.

Preston

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

Quoted message said:

Rockers are dopers at one time or another
almost by definition. Why isn't doping
banned in rock?
It seems like an unfair advantage.

An advantage, for sure.
But what's unfair about it?

"And I forget just why I taste,
Oh yeah, I guess it makes me smile...."