Dammit Brian

[Steve G.]

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 ?

 

[Jim Flom]

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

 

[amit]

Steve G. wrote:
> 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.

 

[Donald Munro]

Steve G. wrote:
>> 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 wrote:
> 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 !

 

[B. Lafferty]

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

 

[steve]

B. Lafferty wrote:
> "Steve G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >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.

 

[Donald Munro]

Steve G. wrote:
>> > 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 wrote:
>> I was never about the bike.

steve wrote:
> Is it not about the needle.

This thread is getting worn out.

 

[Bob Schwartz]

Steve G. wrote:
> 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

 

[routebeer]

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

 

[Donald Munro]

routebeer wrote:
> 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.

 

[Davey Crockett]

Donald Munro <[email protected]> writes:

> routebeer wrote:
> > 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...=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

 

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]ie says...
>
>
>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

 

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...

>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

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Donald Munro" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Steve G. wrote:
>>> 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 wrote:
>> 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.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Alex Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]ie
> 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.

 

[Kyle Legate]

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>
> 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.

> 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]

In article <[email protected]>,
Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:

> Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> >
> > 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.

> > 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

 

[Phil Holman]

"Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>> 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

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Steve G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Kunick, Get out of my thread.

You want to kiss my what?