French offer Armstrong a re-test of his 1999 Tour sample



Erzulis Boat said:
But if you lick it gently it will be delicious..................for a while.
very eloquent, impressive! You might want to think about writing speeches for a living. That was awesome man! :D :D lol
 
I think what some people fail to apply to this whole arguement is basic logic.


Imagine for a moment that you were an organisation (let's not mention names) that had the 'magic potion' - the existence of which is often implied but yet to be proven - why on earth would you use it on someone like LA? For one, he is nowhere near his physical peak. He has a very dark cloud over his head in relation to previous testing allegations. He might be good for 1 season (injury permitting).

A logical person would use some young up-and-coming star with an unblemished background that could be molded into the next big thing. I can assure all the LA haters out there of one thing - the peope smart enough to come up with the 'magic potion' are smart enough to know that people like DoctorSpoc are going to come up with the exact scenario that is being publically suggested. Like chess, strategy of any sort is about being a few moves ahead of your opponent. If there was an undetectable PED out there right now, ask yourselves a question - Why would they use it on LA? Do they want to get caught quicker? If anyone is going to find a test for it's existance it will not happen faster that if you were to give it to LA in his comeback year.

Bottom line is that LA will never agree to a re-test of his '99 b sample. Case closed - move on. LA is not using 'conventional' PED because only a pure idiot would make a comeback under these circumstances and scrutiny. That leaves only the wild suggestion involving the 'magic potion'.

If that's the only bullet you have in your anti-LA comeback campaign, you'd better hope he crashes or gets injured because that little gem is never going to get off the ground.
 
QikSmurf said:
I think what some people fail to apply to this whole arguement is basic logic.


Imagine for a moment that you were an organisation (let's not mention names) that had the 'magic potion' - the existence of which is often implied but yet to be proven - why on earth would you use it on someone like LA? For one, he is nowhere near his physical peak. He has a very dark cloud over his head in relation to previous testing allegations. He might be good for 1 season (injury permitting).

A logical person would use some young up-and-coming star with an unblemished background that could be molded into the next big thing. I can assure all the LA haters out there of one thing - the peope smart enough to come up with the 'magic potion' are smart enough to know that people like DoctorSpoc are going to come up with the exact scenario that is being publically suggested. Like chess, strategy of any sort is about being a few moves ahead of your opponent. If there was an undetectable PED out there right now, ask yourselves a question - Why would they use it on LA? Do they want to get caught quicker? If anyone is going to find a test for it's existance it will not happen faster that if you were to give it to LA in his comeback year.

Bottom line is that LA will never agree to a re-test of his '99 b sample. Case closed - move on. LA is not using 'conventional' PED because only a pure idiot would make a comeback under these circumstances and scrutiny. That leaves only the wild suggestion involving the 'magic potion'.

If that's the only bullet you have in your anti-LA comeback campaign, you'd better hope he crashes or gets injured because that little gem is never going to get off the ground.

Read doctorspoc's post if you want to know why most people don't want him back.
 
QikSmurf said:
Like chess, strategy of any sort is about being a few moves ahead of your opponent. If there was an undetectable PED out there right now, ask yourselves a question - Why would they use it on LA? Do they want to get caught quicker? If anyone is going to find a test for it's existance it will not happen faster that if you were to give it to LA in his comeback year.

Indeed.

When I read phrases like "a few moves ahead of your opponent".......in 1999 USPS assumed that they were "a few moves ahead" by using, what they thought, was an undetectable PED rEPO.
USPS assumed that their use of rEPO would remain undetectable.
It didn't (remain undetectable).


QikSmurf said:
Bottom line is that LA will never agree to a re-test of his '99 b sample. Case closed - move on. LA is not using 'conventional' PED because only a pure idiot would make a comeback under these circumstances and scrutiny. .

Well Ricco using CERA must fall in the "pure idiot" category, as you put it.
You can throw in Landis in to your "pure idiot" category for resorting to use the well tried and trusted testosterone.

If anything, history shows that riders, thinking that their doping is undetectable, get caught.

Reflecting on it, at least Oscar Camezind had the good manners to retire as soon as he was caught.
It's a pity that others don't take his lead.




QikSmurf said:
If that's the only bullet you have in your anti-LA comeback campaign, you'd better hope he crashes or gets injured because that little gem is never going to get off the ground.

Fact is, he's already damaged goods.
 
QikSmurf said:
If there was an undetectable PED out there right now, ask yourselves a question - Why would they use it on LA?
Because he is the one with the money to pay for it. Pretty simple really.
 
So.....I'm LA and I've won 7 TDF. I'm retired now and I know you know about the you-know-what....There's a loop hole in the way the French have handled my wee-wee sample so, just like they can't re-try OJ Simpson, neither can they bust me. Seems simple enough, right? Wrong.

I wake up one morning and decide to give it another shot. Why? Ego. Vanity. Pride. Fame, Money...maybe all of the above. My dilemma is the whole I-know-you-know stuff. I can't use the same stuff again - I'll be busted for sure this time. My mate Ferrari has a new elixir which is undetectable. I give it a whirl.....run the Boston Marathon to see if it's working as described and....voila... presto I'm going for #8! I cross my fingers no one will find out and on ya bike (as we say in Oz).

No way....not in a million years.

As a last word OT....either way, Frenchie, the answer is NO! If I was clean I CERTAINLY wouldn't risk a B-sample to be tested after 10 years. If I was using EPO then the answer would be the same...Go Get F&%$ed!

For all I care...call me Pharmstrong and come catch me! I'm going for #8 and I'm either using or I'm not.....it ain't going to change people's opinion by letting the French find what is obviously (now) in my '99 B-sample.
 
mitosis said:
Read doctorspoc's post if you want to know why most people don't want him back.
By most people do you mean the contrived minority in this forum?

No offence, my neighbourly friend, but 'most people' is an overused phrase which rarely stands up to the literal meaning.

FWIW, I have read the good doctor's post and he makes a very good argument. Unfortunatley for me I'm not like 'most people'......I do want him back!
 
QikSmurf said:
So.....I'm LA and I've won 7 TDF. I'm retired now and I know you know about the you-know-what....There's a loop hole in the way the French have handled my wee-wee sample so, just like they can't re-try OJ Simpson, neither can they bust me. Seems simple enough, right? Wrong.

I wake up one morning and decide to give it another shot. Why? Ego. Vanity. Pride. Fame, Money...maybe all of the above. My dilemma is the whole I-know-you-know stuff. I can't use the same stuff again - I'll be busted for sure this time.
"Busted for sure this time?" What makes you say that? Do you really think the majority of dopers in the present peloton have been busted?

As a last word OT....either way, Frenchie, the answer is NO! If I was clean I CERTAINLY wouldn't risk a B-sample to be tested after 10 years. If I was using EPO then the answer would be the same...Go Get F&%$ed!
There's plenty of stored, sealed, anonymous "b" samples from Tours '00-'02, ie before the EPO test was introduced. Let's retest all of those under proper UCI and WADA protocols and then match them up to the UCI's rider codes and see what we find. Make it a part of the terms for allowing Lance to ride the '09 Tour.
For all I care...call me Pharmstrong and come catch me!
And that's why most people don't want him back. Cycling is finally entering the Renaissance; Lance and company are part of the Dark Ages.
 
QikSmurf said:
So.....I'm LA and I've won 7 TDF. I'm retired now and I know you know about the you-know-what....There's a loop hole in the way the French have handled my wee-wee sample so, just like they can't re-try OJ Simpson, neither can they bust me. Seems simple enough, right? Wrong.

That's a very interesting yarn, that you spin.

Except that your yarn - doesn't make factual or scientific sense.

1.rEPO cannot metabolise of it's own volition within an existing sample.
2.Nor can rEPO be added to a sample of urine retrospectively.

Therefore rEPO must have been contained within the sample when the sample was taken from the rider.
It is the only conclusion.
And given that six separate samples, contained six separate amounts of rEPO..........



QikSmurf said:
.

I wake up one morning and decide to give it another shot. Why? Ego. Vanity. Pride. Fame, Money...maybe all of the above. .

He says he's pedalling again to raise cancer awareness.
You might conclude that his statement has something to do with ego/vanity/pride/fame/money too.



QikSmurf said:
No way....not in a million years.

As a last word OT....either way, Frenchie, the answer is NO! If I was clean I CERTAINLY wouldn't risk a B-sample to be tested after 10 years. If I was using EPO then the answer would be the same...Go Get F&%$ed!

For all I care...call me Pharmstrong and come catch me! I'm going for #8 and I'm either using or I'm not.....it ain't going to change people's opinion by letting the French find what is obviously (now) in my '99 B-sample.

see above rEPO in six separate samples.

They don't have to test his 1999 samples - six samples show rEPO.

He got lucky - when the 1999 A-sample gave a false negative test reading, it was disgarded.
 
QikSmurf said:
By most people do you mean the contrived minority in this forum?

No offence, my neighbourly friend, but 'most people' is an overused phrase which rarely stands up to the literal meaning.

FWIW, I have read the good doctor's post and he makes a very good argument. Unfortunatley for me I'm not like 'most people'......I do want him back!

Yeah fair point. Ok, how about: the general view of the cyclists that I mix with (social and racing) is pretty much in alignment with the view of doc.
 
No_Positives said:
This shows just how weak your arguments are.

what argument(s) are you talking about, and how does what i wrote show they are weak?

Merckx doped, everyone knows this and he doesn't deny it, he's also a likeable guy... everyone at the time was doing what he was doing and he rose to the top... people continue to like him and respect him...

Armstrong is a doper everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows this... but he denies it to the high heavens... like Merckx everyone around him was also doping and he rose to the top too... but he's also an arrogant a-hole... many people with limited knowledge of professional cycling really like him... these people really don't understand that he really has doped... lots of people, usually those with more intimate knowledge of pro cycling detest him... they understand he doped, understand that he's unrepentant and even screams his innocence, and they understand that he's an a-hole..

my argument is that in general people recognize someone as arrogant, unrepentant, a-hole they don't like them... if you disagree with that argument, that's fine.
 
doctorSpoc said:
what argument(s) are you talking about, and how does what i wrote show they are weak?

Merckx doped, everyone knows this and he doesn't deny it, he's also a likeable guy... everyone at the time was doing what he was doing and he rose to the top... people continue to like him and respect him...

Armstrong is a doper everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows this... but he denies it to the high heavens... like Merckx everyone around him was also doping and he rose to the top too... but he's also an arrogant a-hole... many people with limited knowledge of professional cycling really like him... these people really don't understand that he really has doped... lots of people, usually those with more intimate knowledge of pro cycling detest him... they understand he doped, understand that he's unrepentant and even screams his innocence, and they understand that he's an a-hole..

my argument is that in general people recognize someone as arrogant, unrepentant, a-hole they don't like them... if you disagree with that argument, that's fine.
Dummy, you have a personal dislike for Lance, so therefore you think he is a doper. That is flawed thinking. The facts are that he is the most tested athlete in history, and has passed every one. Even your doped-up hero Merckx agrees that Lance is clean.
 
No_Positives said:
Dummy, you have a personal dislike for Lance, so therefore you think he is a doper. That is flawed thinking. The facts are that he is the most tested athlete in history, and has passed every one. Even your doped-up hero Merckx agrees that Lance is clean.
You are such an idiot for believing PR.

Let me guess, you also believe that Palin is well versed in international politics.
 
No_Positives said:
Dummy, you have a personal dislike for Lance, so therefore you think he is a doper. That is flawed thinking. The facts are that he is the most tested athlete in history, and has passed every one. Even your doped-up hero Merckx agrees that Lance is clean.
Even in US Lance was very less tested than Marion Jones....

Most of Armstrong are lies, some of them proved :
- most tested athlete
- doping is not widespread, just few bad apples
- his win against insurance company was not because he was not doped but because the contract did not exclude winning by doping
- he never doped
- loss of a lot of weight after cancer
- physiology change

Lance's PR is similar as a sect so his fans are ready to jump from a bridge if Lance asked it!
 
No_Positives said:
Dummy, you have a personal dislike for Lance, so therefore you think he is a doper. That is flawed thinking. The facts are that he is the most tested athlete in history, and has passed every one. Even your doped-up hero Merckx agrees that Lance is clean.

being a doper has no bearing on MY like or dislike of Lance Armstrong and my dislike of Lance Armstrong has no bearing on whether i think he dopes or not.. i just don't like his style as a cyclist or as a person... i actually couldn't give a rats ass if a rider dopes or not... just don't get caught and screw up the sport for everyone else... and i wouldn't bat and eyelash if the ok'd the use of drugs tomorrow... it's probably time for cyclist to stop now because pro-cycling is going to be out of sponsors in a little while...

i figure anyone that finishes in the top 10 of a grand tour is on dope (how the hell did they beat all those doper clean... impossible!)... and i don't have a problem with most of the other guys in the top ten. i don't really like how Liepiemer and Evans ride... they are just not exciting riders... also many of the top guy's helpers are probably on dope too given the amount of work they have to do day in an day out... look at Yens Voigt and Fabian Cancellar in the last tour...

so you've got me pegged wrong a) Merckx is not my hero... he's before my time... i don't know where you got that from b) my dislike for Lance Armstrong has no bearing on whether i think Armstrong doped or not... it's just that given all we know... i just can't believe that there are people still out there that believe that Armstrong didn't dope... and given all we know think that because a person has passed a dope test that, that means they are clean... a few post ago i gave you just a few of the many example of riders who passed all their dope tests too and were proven to be dopers, so your logic there is severely flawed... c) i don't even have a really big problem with doping per se... it's just the press is fascinated with it the past while and so it's probably time to stop or see our sport go down in flames...

also if a person has passed all their dope test all you can conclude from that is that there is still a possibility that they may have not doped, but there is also a possibility that they have doped. if they fail a dope test then you know they have doped... actually even if they fail a dope test there is still a small possibility that they didn't dope too.. it's just highly probable that they did dope.
 
So which is it then? As a group - do we hate LA because he dopes or do we not care whether he does, did or wanted to?


One minute we hate him because he doped and he is a cheat. He is bringing the sport into disrepute. The sport of cycling is going through a reniessance and the likes of Lance are yesterday's villain. The next it doesn't bother us one way or the other - after all they all dope so what's the difference?

If the assumption is that all the top finishers are using PED of some variety, why is there so much dislike for one man? Envy is a curse.

Now logic is logic and the last post by doctorspoc is flawed. If docspoc is the voice of reason for the LA haters in this forum, you all need to get a different spokesman. 1/. you don't care one way or the other about the use of PED in pro cycling - this flies in the face of virtually every MORAL argument in this (and a hundred other) threads about LA. 2/. you assume the top cyclist in the sport are ALL using PED - this too seems to contradict the moral ethos that gets flung around these forums like ******** 3/. negative PED testing has no real bearing on whether the cyclist is using or not - now if you pick the stick up from one end you pick it up from the other ....you can't say that applies to LA and a small list of others and not have that logic apply to everyone.

Bottom line is that once you filter out all the BS you're left with a PERSONAL dislike for another human being. In Australia we call it the 'tall poppy' syndrome. In simple terms, it's much easier to bring a champion down than it is to bring one's self up to champion level.

If it's as simple as you suggest it is, take the PED's (if you aren't already doing so) and become a pro cyclist and beat LA at his own game. Actually, is there anyone on this forum that actually cycles for a living?....and then it dawns on me.....! LA symbolises every shortcoming that has prevented you from being on the cover of Sports Illustated yourselves. I know now why you hate him so much. You spend hours/days/months/years putting in miles and miles of training and yet you're not good enough. Maybe ok, but not good enough to wear the Yellow/Pink (etc) Jersey. After all, by doctorspoc's own admission, there are no hero's in pro cycling any more. Just a bunch of doped up cheats that stop the rest of us from getting to the top.
 
QikSmurf said:
So which is it then? As a group - do we hate LA because he dopes or do we not care whether he does, did or wanted to?
Because he treated everyone as fool, morons,... he accused others as responsible of his problems...he excluded journalists...
Did Merckx, Ullrich, Basso, ... that?

So he is "hated" just because of his asshole attitude like everyone who has not respect for the public who paid indirectly his salary.
 

Similar threads