LANCE ARMSTRONG: When Will YOU Admit Cheating?



K

Kyle Schwitters

Guest
With BJARNE RIIS's admission that he used dope to win the1996 Tour de
France, isn't it WAY past time that Armstrong admitted:

1) Yes, he, too, used performance-enhancing drugs to win those 7
TDFs.

2) The made-up bogus story about overcoming, near-death, grave multi-
CANCERS, of which no one else has come forth to claim survival.

FACE IT deluded sports fans, America's obsession with celebrity and
"heros" is and has always been behind this "legend."

-----------------
"'96 Tour de France Winner Riis Admits Using EPO, Other Drugs"

The Washington Post
Sports
Saturday, May 26, 2007; E02


Bjarne Riis became the first Tour de France winner to admit using
performance-enhancing drugs to win the sport's premier race, further
eroding cycling's credibility after a series of doping confessions.

His admission yesterday means the top three finishers in the 1996 Tour
all have been linked to doping -- and two have admitted cheating.

The retired Dane said he used the blood-booster EPO from 1993 to 1998,
including during his 1996 Tour victory, confirming years of
speculation that he benefited from banned substances. He also admitted
taking cortisone and human growth hormone, but didn't say when.

"I have taken doping. I have taken EPO," Riis said at a televised news
conference. "I have made errors and I would like to apologize."

EPO -- or erythropoietin -- is a synthetic hormone that stimulates the
production of oxygen-carrying red blood cells.

Riis said he no longer considered himself a worthy winner of the Tour,
and indicated he would be willing to give back the title.

"My jersey is at home in a cardboard box," said Riis, now manager of
the Danish team CSC. "They are welcome to come and get it. I have my
memories for myself."

Cycling's governing body said even though time limits for sanctioning
Riis have expired, it "urges the former rider to return his yellow
jersey, the symbol of his victory."

Tour director Christian Prudhomme used even stronger words: "Bjarne
Riis said himself that he did not deserve to have won the Tour in 1996
because he cheated. I think the same thing, because he has soiled the
yellow jersey," Prudhomme told the Associated Press when reached by
telephone. "Seeing as he did not deserve to win, does he deserve to
lead a major cycling team?"

-- From News Services

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/25/AR2007052500647.html
 
R

RicodJour

Guest
On May 26, 7:53 am, Kyle Schwitters <[email protected]> wrote:
> With BJARNE RIIS's admission that he used dope to win the1996 Tour de
> France, isn't it WAY past time that Armstrong admitted:
>
> 1) Yes, he, too, used performance-enhancing drugs to win those 7
> TDFs.
>
> 2) The made-up bogus story about overcoming, near-death, grave multi-
> CANCERS, of which no one else has come forth to claim survival.
>
> FACE IT deluded sports fans, America's obsession with celebrity and
> "heros" is and has always been behind this "legend."


Riiiiight. Elective brain surgery and orchidectomy. Of course, it's
obvious, now that you've said it. Testicular cancer as a cry for
help.

Will the POTM moderator accept the OP's post as the inaugural entry in
a new POTM classification?
I'm thinking a classification something like: POTM - From Inside Your
Own Asshole.
POTM-FIYOA

R
 
A

alf

Guest
On 26 May, 14:30, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 26, 7:53 am, Kyle Schwitters <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > With BJARNE RIIS's admission that he used dope to win the1996 Tour de
> > France, isn't it WAY past time that Armstrong admitted:

>
> > 1) Yes, he, too, used performance-enhancing drugs to win those 7
> > TDFs.

>
> > 2) The made-up bogus story about overcoming, near-death, grave multi-
> > CANCERS, of which no one else has come forth to claim survival.

>
> > FACE IT deluded sports fans, America's obsession with celebrity and
> > "heros" is and has always been behind this "legend."

>
> Riiiiight. Elective brain surgery and orchidectomy. Of course, it's
> obvious, now that you've said it. Testicular cancer as a cry for
> help.
>
> Will the POTM moderator accept the OP's post as the inaugural entry in
> a new POTM classification?
> I'm thinking a classification something like: POTM - From Inside Your
> Own Asshole.
> POTM-FIYOA
>
> R


but they all use drugs, so its a fair race.
 
J

John of Aix

Guest
Kyle Schwitters wrote:
> With BJARNE RIIS's admission that he used dope to win the1996 Tour de
> France, isn't it WAY past time that Armstrong admitted:


He doesn't have to admit it, he chated, full stop. The urine test is
there to prove it.
 
R

RonSonic

Guest
On Sat, 26 May 2007 23:54:17 +0200, "John of Aix" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Kyle Schwitters wrote:
>> With BJARNE RIIS's admission that he used dope to win the1996 Tour de
>> France, isn't it WAY past time that Armstrong admitted:

>
>He doesn't have to admit it, he chated, full stop. The urine test is
>there to prove it.


The research experiment that was performed to see what can be measured in last
century's stale, frozen ****? The one that was never supposed to have anything
to do with any rider by name, and in which only one name was matched to anything
and then the result leaked contrary to the rules that were already being broken
by a lab of known sloppy procedure that finds far more positive results than
other labs of known sound procedure? That urine test?

Gotta do better than that.

See, maybe the guy was doped to the gills, but your blatantly dishonest test
from a discredited lab isn't gonna prove it.

Ron
 
R

Ro

Guest

>2) The made-up bogus story about overcoming, near-death, grave multi-
>CANCERS, of which no one else has come forth to claim survival.


Absolute ********.
I have had, and survived the exact same cancer as Lance Armstrong.
My cancer had advanced to just a little less than his before his was discovoured.I however did not have the VERY invasive chemo that Lance did.
I have ridden ever since and I also lost a lot of power and as yet cannot spin like he can. I never could. I am also over 60 years of age and find those that rubbish Lance's cancer and his recovery to be totally obnoxious, ill informed twerps who have no idea at all about the cancers thay post about.
I do not know if he doped or not, but consider this:
Even if he did dope, he STILL overcame a near death illness, recovered and went on to beat ALL the over performing dopers who had never been ill!!
It STILL Leaves Lance as one of the greatest cyclists the world has seen for decades.
And finally, No I do notlike Lance, his lifestyle, or his riding style.
Ro
 
D

Donald Munro

Guest
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> Here's the deal, Brian: if I was accused of doing something horrible,
> told that there was evidence which, while pointing to my guilt, could
> not be used to bring any sanction against me, and invited to watch while
> a confirmatory test was done, what would you, as my legal counsel,
> advise me to do?


Depends on whether you have the legal firm Lafferty & Taylor advising you.
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, Ro ('[email protected]') wrote:

>
>>2) The made-up bogus story about overcoming, near-death, grave multi-
>>CANCERS, of which no one else has come forth to claim survival.

>
> Absolute ********.
> I have had, and survived the exact same cancer as Lance Armstrong.
> My cancer had advanced to just a little less than his before his was
> discovoured.I however did not have the VERY invasive chemo that Lance
> did. I have ridden ever since and I also lost a lot of power and as yet
> cannot spin like he can. I never could. I am also over 60 years of age
> and find those that rubbish Lance's cancer and his recovery to be totally
> obnoxious, ill informed twerps who have no idea at all about the cancers
> thay post about. I do not know if he doped or not, but consider this:
> Even if he did dope, he STILL overcame a near death illness, recovered
> and went on to beat ALL the over performing dopers who had never been
> ill!! It STILL Leaves Lance as one of the greatest cyclists the world has
> seen for decades. And finally, No I do notlike Lance, his lifestyle, or
> his riding style.


Lance Armstrong had cancer. What we don't know is whether that cancer was
caused or at least worsened by the taking of performance enhancing drugs;
and to what extent his subsequent performance was enhanced by drugs. But
what is undoubted is that drugs which Armstrong as a cancer sufferer might
legally and justifiably be prescribed to aid his recovery do enhance
performance (he might perfectly justifiably have been prescribed EPO, for
example).

In particular, Armstrong lost a testicle, and people who lose testicles
normally have lower than normal testosterone. But looking at Lance's
behaviour and demeanour, particularly in his last two tours, you see
someone who acts and moves as though they have an almost pathological
excess of testosterone.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; If Python is executable pseudocode,
;; then Perl is executable line noise
-- seen on Slashdot.
 
On May 27, 11:05 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> It is the Armstrong smoke and mirrors that has created his myth for the
> gullible .


There might be some "gullible" people out there.

There might be some other people of various opinion (or belief if you
want) IRT the many details involved.

> The lab has asserted that the chain of custody is still complete
> as to the B samples ( and Armstrong can check that if he likes) and has
> offered to let Armstrong or his representative be present for retesting of
> the remaining b samples--they were not exhausted. There can be no UCI
> sanction, but it does show the reality that Sir Lance was not honest in
> 1999.


Of course the lab asserts in its favor.

What happened with the Landis representatives again, Brian? What's
that old saying about "f-bomb me once, shame on me, f-bomb me twice"?
Floyd and reps being #1, of course.

"They didn't follow the rules" when they didn't let Floyd's people in,
whatever the BS rationale was. Lance didn't fall off the turnip truck
on the way to town, if you haven't noticed yet.

Goes back to the same old thing-- "Let's have that positive test". A
real one. At another f-bombing lab, for Christ's sake. And and
explanation of why Marion Jones' EPO B test was negative after only a
few weeks of shelf rest, while LA's EPO endured for what, seven years?
Now there's a chain of custody for you!

Bad rules, bad enforcement, no accountability for the Power who have
set up the riders as scapegoats. And objects of personal vendettas,
like your own.

We were so much better off with Omerta.

The people, like Riis, who can afford to say they doped, and those who
are caught in the grindstones will "confess". And the show will go on,
with stupid rules that can't be enforced by simple, across-the-board,
race day enforcement. So how is that better, pray tell? --D-y
 
S

Sandy

Guest
Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
[email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On May 27, 11:05 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> It is the Armstrong smoke and mirrors that has created his myth for
>> the gullible .

>
> There might be some "gullible" people out there.
>
> There might be some other people of various opinion (or belief if you
> want) IRT the many details involved.
>
>> The lab has asserted that the chain of custody is still complete
>> as to the B samples ( and Armstrong can check that if he likes) and
>> has offered to let Armstrong or his representative be present for
>> retesting of the remaining b samples--they were not exhausted.
>> There can be no UCI sanction, but it does show the reality that Sir
>> Lance was not honest in 1999.

>
> Of course the lab asserts in its favor.
>
> What happened with the Landis representatives again, Brian? What's
> that old saying about "f-bomb me once, shame on me, f-bomb me twice"?
> Floyd and reps being #1, of course.
>
> "They didn't follow the rules" when they didn't let Floyd's people in,
> whatever the BS rationale was. Lance didn't fall off the turnip truck
> on the way to town, if you haven't noticed yet.
>
> Goes back to the same old thing-- "Let's have that positive test". A
> real one. At another f-bombing lab, for Christ's sake. And and
> explanation of why Marion Jones' EPO B test was negative after only a
> few weeks of shelf rest, while LA's EPO endured for what, seven years?
> Now there's a chain of custody for you!
>
> Bad rules, bad enforcement, no accountability for the Power who have
> set up the riders as scapegoats. And objects of personal vendettas,
> like your own.
>
> We were so much better off with Omerta.
>
> The people, like Riis, who can afford to say they doped, and those who
> are caught in the grindstones will "confess". And the show will go on,
> with stupid rules that can't be enforced by simple, across-the-board,
> race day enforcement. So how is that better, pray tell? --D-y


I really don't want to say it this way, but it's quicker.
All your views are supported by no more than unsubstantiated complaints from
interested parties.
None of the complaints have been verified by independent authorities, which
have, in fact, substantiated the exact opposite. (Incidentally, relying on
the guys who criticized LNDD requires you to suspend disbelief that their
financial interests in promoting their own equipment and software colors
their views.)
You want to believe. No prob. That's a splendid opinion that you're
entitled to. Frankly, I would like to believe that no one ever tested
positive really broke the rules. I would.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
 
B

Bill C

Guest
On May 27, 2:01 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dans le message denews:[email protected],
> [email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 27, 11:05 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> It is the Armstrong smoke and mirrors that has created his myth for
> >> the gullible .

>
> > There might be some "gullible" people out there.

>
> > There might be some other people of various opinion (or belief if you
> > want) IRT the many details involved.

>
> >> The lab has asserted that the chain of custody is still complete
> >> as to the B samples ( and Armstrong can check that if he likes) and
> >> has offered to let Armstrong or his representative be present for
> >> retesting of the remaining b samples--they were not exhausted.
> >> There can be no UCI sanction, but it does show the reality that Sir
> >> Lance was not honest in 1999.

>
> > Of course the lab asserts in its favor.

>
> > What happened with the Landis representatives again, Brian? What's
> > that old saying about "f-bomb me once, shame on me, f-bomb me twice"?
> > Floyd and reps being #1, of course.

>
> > "They didn't follow the rules" when they didn't let Floyd's people in,
> > whatever the BS rationale was. Lance didn't fall off the turnip truck
> > on the way to town, if you haven't noticed yet.

>
> > Goes back to the same old thing-- "Let's have that positive test". A
> > real one. At another f-bombing lab, for Christ's sake. And and
> > explanation of why Marion Jones' EPO B test was negative after only a
> > few weeks of shelf rest, while LA's EPO endured for what, seven years?
> > Now there's a chain of custody for you!

>
> > Bad rules, bad enforcement, no accountability for the Power who have
> > set up the riders as scapegoats. And objects of personal vendettas,
> > like your own.

>
> > We were so much better off with Omerta.

>
> > The people, like Riis, who can afford to say they doped, and those who
> > are caught in the grindstones will "confess". And the show will go on,
> > with stupid rules that can't be enforced by simple, across-the-board,
> > race day enforcement. So how is that better, pray tell? --D-y

>
> I really don't want to say it this way, but it's quicker.
> All your views are supported by no more than unsubstantiated complaints from
> interested parties.
> None of the complaints have been verified by independent authorities, which
> have, in fact, substantiated the exact opposite. (Incidentally, relying on
> the guys who criticized LNDD requires you to suspend disbelief that their
> financial interests in promoting their own equipment and software colors
> their views.)
> You want to believe. No prob. That's a splendid opinion that you're
> entitled to. Frankly, I would like to believe that no one ever tested
> positive really broke the rules. I would.
> --
> Bonne route !
>
> Sandy
> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Well I guess that all the tests are perfect, no need for B samples,
mistakes have never been made, nothing has ever been leaked, all the
documentation was kept perfectly, there was no testimony that everyone
involved must fall in line with the Wada position or else, and all the
scientists and lawyers who have questioned any of that are lying
scumbags.
Glad that's cleared up now.
Bill C
 
R

Ryan Cousineau

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> in message <[email protected]>, Ro ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> >
> >>2) The made-up bogus story about overcoming, near-death, grave multi-
> >>CANCERS, of which no one else has come forth to claim survival.

> >
> > Absolute ********.
> > I have had, and survived the exact same cancer as Lance Armstrong.
> > My cancer had advanced to just a little less than his before his was
> > discovoured.I however did not have the VERY invasive chemo that Lance
> > did. I have ridden ever since and I also lost a lot of power and as yet
> > cannot spin like he can. I never could. I am also over 60 years of age
> > and find those that rubbish Lance's cancer and his recovery to be totally
> > obnoxious, ill informed twerps who have no idea at all about the cancers
> > thay post about. I do not know if he doped or not, but consider this:
> > Even if he did dope, he STILL overcame a near death illness, recovered
> > and went on to beat ALL the over performing dopers who had never been
> > ill!! It STILL Leaves Lance as one of the greatest cyclists the world has
> > seen for decades. And finally, No I do notlike Lance, his lifestyle, or
> > his riding style.

>
> Lance Armstrong had cancer. What we don't know is whether that cancer was
> caused or at least worsened by the taking of performance enhancing drugs;
> and to what extent his subsequent performance was enhanced by drugs. But
> what is undoubted is that drugs which Armstrong as a cancer sufferer might
> legally and justifiably be prescribed to aid his recovery do enhance
> performance (he might perfectly justifiably have been prescribed EPO, for
> example).
>
> In particular, Armstrong lost a testicle, and people who lose testicles
> normally have lower than normal testosterone. But looking at Lance's
> behaviour and demeanour, particularly in his last two tours, you see
> someone who acts and moves as though they have an almost pathological
> excess of testosterone.


Mm. Because you've never met an angry girl.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
 
S

Sandy

Guest
Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
Bill C <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On May 27, 2:01 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dans le message
>> denews:[email protected],
>> [email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a
>> déclaré :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 27, 11:05 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> It is the Armstrong smoke and mirrors that has created his myth for
>>>> the gullible .

>>
>>> There might be some "gullible" people out there.

>>
>>> There might be some other people of various opinion (or belief if
>>> you want) IRT the many details involved.

>>
>>>> The lab has asserted that the chain of custody is still complete
>>>> as to the B samples ( and Armstrong can check that if he likes) and
>>>> has offered to let Armstrong or his representative be present for
>>>> retesting of the remaining b samples--they were not exhausted.
>>>> There can be no UCI sanction, but it does show the reality that Sir
>>>> Lance was not honest in 1999.

>>
>>> Of course the lab asserts in its favor.

>>
>>> What happened with the Landis representatives again, Brian? What's
>>> that old saying about "f-bomb me once, shame on me, f-bomb me
>>> twice"? Floyd and reps being #1, of course.

>>
>>> "They didn't follow the rules" when they didn't let Floyd's people
>>> in, whatever the BS rationale was. Lance didn't fall off the turnip
>>> truck on the way to town, if you haven't noticed yet.

>>
>>> Goes back to the same old thing-- "Let's have that positive test". A
>>> real one. At another f-bombing lab, for Christ's sake. And and
>>> explanation of why Marion Jones' EPO B test was negative after only
>>> a few weeks of shelf rest, while LA's EPO endured for what, seven
>>> years? Now there's a chain of custody for you!

>>
>>> Bad rules, bad enforcement, no accountability for the Power who have
>>> set up the riders as scapegoats. And objects of personal vendettas,
>>> like your own.

>>
>>> We were so much better off with Omerta.

>>
>>> The people, like Riis, who can afford to say they doped, and those
>>> who are caught in the grindstones will "confess". And the show will
>>> go on, with stupid rules that can't be enforced by simple,
>>> across-the-board, race day enforcement. So how is that better, pray
>>> tell? --D-y

>>
>> I really don't want to say it this way, but it's quicker.
>> All your views are supported by no more than unsubstantiated
>> complaints from interested parties.
>> None of the complaints have been verified by independent
>> authorities, which have, in fact, substantiated the exact opposite.
>> (Incidentally, relying on the guys who criticized LNDD requires you
>> to suspend disbelief that their financial interests in promoting
>> their own equipment and software colors their views.)
>> You want to believe. No prob. That's a splendid opinion that you're
>> entitled to. Frankly, I would like to believe that no one ever
>> tested positive really broke the rules. I would.
>> --
>> Bonne route !
>>
>> Sandy
>> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -

>
> Well I guess that all the tests are perfect, no need for B samples,
> mistakes have never been made, nothing has ever been leaked, all the
> documentation was kept perfectly, there was no testimony that everyone
> involved must fall in line with the Wada position or else, and all the
> scientists and lawyers who have questioned any of that are lying
> scumbags.
> Glad that's cleared up now.
> Bill C


Again, you misunderstand. But by morself :

I do not claim anything anytime can ever be perfect. There is no need for B
samples (IMO) because the first test A on sample A uses a test which is
unable to satisfactorily conclude correctly. So, the matter ought to have
ended with the wide ranging testimony (including a press report of LNDD's
directors words) that this is not a valid screening test. No test B nor
sample B should have been used.

Materials may have been leaked, but the primary claim about (Armstrong's)
results comes from material he authorized the disclosure of. Perhaps
prudence was not a component of his hubris.

Documentation was adequate. I suspect a video would not have satisfied
critics.

Even with the rule not to tell on your brother, WADA lab officials did not
give a complete bill of good health to the LNDD materials. They were less
critical of certain LNDD practices, but they did not avoid testifying to
their opinions. And, their obligation not to testify against a brother lab
was not breached - they simply answered questions from their own points of
view.

Lawyers are not all lying, cheating scumbags. However, no one seems to have
noticed that personal identifying health information was stolen from two
labs (Montréal and Köln) which is a clear violation of a person's rights to
the inviolability of personal medical history (under European law, at
least - don't know about Québec).

I think I answered your points.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
 
On May 27, 2:12 pm, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> In particular, Armstrong lost a testicle, and people who lose testicles
> normally have lower than normal testosterone. But looking at Lance's
> behaviour and demeanour, particularly in his last two tours, you see
> someone who acts and moves as though they have an almost pathological
> excess of testosterone.


I do not think you know as much as you think you know about the link
between testosterone and behavior.
 
S

ST

Guest
On 5/27/07 11:35 AM, in article
[email protected], "Ryan Cousineau"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> in message <[email protected]>, Ro ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> 2) The made-up bogus story about overcoming, near-death, grave multi-
>>>> CANCERS, of which no one else has come forth to claim survival.
>>>
>>> Absolute ********.
>>> I have had, and survived the exact same cancer as Lance Armstrong.
>>> My cancer had advanced to just a little less than his before his was
>>> discovoured.I however did not have the VERY invasive chemo that Lance
>>> did. I have ridden ever since and I also lost a lot of power and as yet
>>> cannot spin like he can. I never could. I am also over 60 years of age
>>> and find those that rubbish Lance's cancer and his recovery to be totally
>>> obnoxious, ill informed twerps who have no idea at all about the cancers
>>> thay post about. I do not know if he doped or not, but consider this:
>>> Even if he did dope, he STILL overcame a near death illness, recovered
>>> and went on to beat ALL the over performing dopers who had never been
>>> ill!! It STILL Leaves Lance as one of the greatest cyclists the world has
>>> seen for decades. And finally, No I do notlike Lance, his lifestyle, or
>>> his riding style.

>>
>> Lance Armstrong had cancer. What we don't know is whether that cancer was
>> caused or at least worsened by the taking of performance enhancing drugs;
>> and to what extent his subsequent performance was enhanced by drugs. But
>> what is undoubted is that drugs which Armstrong as a cancer sufferer might
>> legally and justifiably be prescribed to aid his recovery do enhance
>> performance (he might perfectly justifiably have been prescribed EPO, for
>> example).
>>
>> In particular, Armstrong lost a testicle, and people who lose testicles
>> normally have lower than normal testosterone. But looking at Lance's
>> behaviour and demeanour, particularly in his last two tours, you see
>> someone who acts and moves as though they have an almost pathological
>> excess of testosterone.

>
> Mm. Because you've never met an angry girl.



He probably has.....
It just means she has bigger balls than Simon
 
S

Sandy

Guest
Dans le message de news:[email protected],
Bill C <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> I konw that I have, and I think many others here, been under the
> impression for a long time that you unquestioningly support LNDD.


Unquestioningly ? Never. Supported ? No.
And please don't even suggest its location plays a role.
However, regular inspections and evaluations from independent authorities
have confirmed its competence. Learned individual scientists have
identified less than perfect, occasionally mediocre performance. The links
to the arb hearing remain available, should you want to endure all the
presentation of many points of view. Then you could let us know your
resulting opinion.

> There have been questions raised for years, including from other
> scientists and universities and I cant remember you ever admitting
> that there might have been a slight chance of them having made any
> error. I don't think they are "framing" anyone, but I do think that
> they are intense presure from Wada to produce the results that Pound
> says are out there. They are not allowed to speak out against, or
> question anything Wada does or says. They are accredited by Wada. In
> those circumstances I think anything that can evenly vaguely be
> interpreted as a positive result is, andf I do think they might
> recalibrate to get more of those because Pound says all these are
> positivie so if they aren't showing up that way then it must be that
> they need more adjustment or testing. Everyone wants to please their
> boss and keep the paycheck coming, and in this case they have an
> abusive boss to begin with, so I have very little trouble believing
> that they would grasp at straws to give Wada the positives they want,
> and fight to the death any questions.


I will make a broader charge. I believe (and wrote this several times
already) that the lust for power and money is driving this matter as well as
the entire cycling INDUSTRY. Look hard at the caps. It is just that. When
asked today (TF2 - Stade2) whether money is causing the evil that befalls
cycling, Christian Prudhomme said, in short, NO. Well, I think he is plain
wrong. As wrong as one can be. As close to a prevaricator as that sweet
euphemism allows.

The drug companies earn (600MM euros in quesitonable prescriptions in Italy
alone, last year) - the labs earn (more tests, more expensive tests, more
litigation expertises) - the sponsors earn (presuming their exposure
provides positive images) - the parasites of cycling earn (PR people,
lawyers, accountants, podium girls [nothing I want to lose!] -

AND

the players, the racers, EARN. Especially if they are willing to do what it
takes to put on a show, keep the jersey clean and visible, and do it in
silence.

AND

POUND earns - money, perks, power, prestige.

Everyone gets what they want, under the old systems, even the fans.
Especially European fans, who are more sanguine about doping that you are in
the USA.

With a few bad eggs sacrificed to show cycling has turned over yet another
new leaf, it could all go on again. And it will. July is nigh. Tell me
whether you expect a blank screen or not.

My other strong concern is that riders are sacrificing their health
seriously, whether or not they dope. And if they are in fragile health, is
there any reason to deprive them of proper treatment ?

The system of having only team doctors take care of a cyclist is a laugh.
Normal people have regular personal physicians who know them over years. In
a team doctor environment, they are forced to forego that, to change habits
[sic, myself] as they change teams or as the team changes doctors, never
really being able to assure themselves of an enduring presence of a person
who actually wants them to be well.

End of diatribe. But don't accuse me of giving away points to LNDD by
default. If it weren't Landis, or Armstrong, but some dumb schmuck of
medium talent, and from another country, this forum would never be as
populated or overwhelmed by messages. Well, of course the exception being
Virenque, but French-haters would always find a way.

Have I been clear about my position ?
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
 
M

Michael Press

Guest
In article
<[email protected]>
,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On May 27, 11:05 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > It is the Armstrong smoke and mirrors that has created his myth for the
> > gullible .

>
> There might be some "gullible" people out there.
>
> There might be some other people of various opinion (or belief if you
> want) IRT the many details involved.
>
> > The lab has asserted that the chain of custody is still complete
> > as to the B samples ( and Armstrong can check that if he likes) and has
> > offered to let Armstrong or his representative be present for retesting of
> > the remaining b samples--they were not exhausted. There can be no UCI
> > sanction, but it does show the reality that Sir Lance was not honest in
> > 1999.

>
> Of course the lab asserts in its favor.
>
> What happened with the Landis representatives again, Brian? What's
> that old saying about "f-bomb me once, shame on me, f-bomb me twice"?
> Floyd and reps being #1, of course.
>
> "They didn't follow the rules" when they didn't let Floyd's people in,
> whatever the BS rationale was. Lance didn't fall off the turnip truck
> on the way to town, if you haven't noticed yet.
>
> Goes back to the same old thing-- "Let's have that positive test". A
> real one. At another f-bombing lab, for Christ's sake. And and
> explanation of why Marion Jones' EPO B test was negative after only a
> few weeks of shelf rest, while LA's EPO endured for what, seven years?
> Now there's a chain of custody for you!
>
> Bad rules, bad enforcement, no accountability for the Power who have
> set up the riders as scapegoats. And objects of personal vendettas,
> like your own.
>
> We were so much better off with Omerta.
>
> The people, like Riis, who can afford to say they doped, and those who
> are caught in the grindstones will "confess". And the show will go on,
> with stupid rules that can't be enforced by simple, across-the-board,
> race day enforcement. So how is that better, pray tell? --D-y


The only reasonable strategy is to deny everything,
do not explain, do not complain.

--
Michael Press
 
B

Bill C

Guest
On May 27, 4:00 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dans le message denews:[email protected],
> Bill C <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
>
>
> > I konw that I have, and I think many others here, been under the
> > impression for a long time that you unquestioningly support LNDD.

>
> Unquestioningly ? Never. Supported ? No.
> And please don't even suggest its location plays a role.
> However, regular inspections and evaluations from independent authorities
> have confirmed its competence. Learned individual scientists have
> identified less than perfect, occasionally mediocre performance. The links
> to the arb hearing remain available, should you want to endure all the
> presentation of many points of view. Then you could let us know your
> resulting opinion.
>
>
>
>
>
> > There have been questions raised for years, including from other
> > scientists and universities and I cant remember you ever admitting
> > that there might have been a slight chance of them having made any
> > error. I don't think they are "framing" anyone, but I do think that
> > they are intense presure from Wada to produce the results that Pound
> > says are out there. They are not allowed to speak out against, or
> > question anything Wada does or says. They are accredited by Wada. In
> > those circumstances I think anything that can evenly vaguely be
> > interpreted as a positive result is, andf I do think they might
> > recalibrate to get more of those because Pound says all these are
> > positivie so if they aren't showing up that way then it must be that
> > they need more adjustment or testing. Everyone wants to please their
> > boss and keep the paycheck coming, and in this case they have an
> > abusive boss to begin with, so I have very little trouble believing
> > that they would grasp at straws to give Wada the positives they want,
> > and fight to the death any questions.

>
> I will make a broader charge. I believe (and wrote this several times
> already) that the lust for power and money is driving this matter as wellas
> the entire cycling INDUSTRY. Look hard at the caps. It is just that. When
> asked today (TF2 - Stade2) whether money is causing the evil that befalls
> cycling, Christian Prudhomme said, in short, NO. Well, I think he is plain
> wrong. As wrong as one can be. As close to a prevaricator as that sweet
> euphemism allows.
>
> The drug companies earn (600MM euros in quesitonable prescriptions in Italy
> alone, last year) - the labs earn (more tests, more expensive tests, more
> litigation expertises) - the sponsors earn (presuming their exposure
> provides positive images) - the parasites of cycling earn (PR people,
> lawyers, accountants, podium girls [nothing I want to lose!] -
>
> AND
>
> the players, the racers, EARN. Especially if they are willing to do whatit
> takes to put on a show, keep the jersey clean and visible, and do it in
> silence.
>
> AND
>
> POUND earns - money, perks, power, prestige.
>
> Everyone gets what they want, under the old systems, even the fans.
> Especially European fans, who are more sanguine about doping that you arein
> the USA.
>
> With a few bad eggs sacrificed to show cycling has turned over yet another
> new leaf, it could all go on again. And it will. July is nigh. Tell me
> whether you expect a blank screen or not.
>
> My other strong concern is that riders are sacrificing their health
> seriously, whether or not they dope. And if they are in fragile health, is
> there any reason to deprive them of proper treatment ?
>
> The system of having only team doctors take care of a cyclist is a laugh.
> Normal people have regular personal physicians who know them over years. In
> a team doctor environment, they are forced to forego that, to change habits
> [sic, myself] as they change teams or as the team changes doctors, never
> really being able to assure themselves of an enduring presence of a person
> who actually wants them to be well.
>
> End of diatribe. But don't accuse me of giving away points to LNDD by
> default. If it weren't Landis, or Armstrong, but some dumb schmuck of
> medium talent, and from another country, this forum would never be as
> populated or overwhelmed by messages. Well, of course the exception being
> Virenque, but French-haters would always find a way.
>
> Have I been clear about my position ?
> --
> Bonne route !
>
> Sandy
> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Where you object to the riders being subjected to team doctors, and I
agree with you, I object to the lab being confirmed and certified by
Wada and the IOC both of which have a horrible track record in being
honest and fair. It's like our Pentagon investigating itself.
I agree with you on just about everything but the lab itself and it's
credibility.
Bill C
 
R

RonSonic

Guest
On Sun, 27 May 2007 22:00:15 +0200, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Dans le message de news:[email protected],
>Bill C <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>
>> I konw that I have, and I think many others here, been under the
>> impression for a long time that you unquestioningly support LNDD.

>
>Unquestioningly ? Never. Supported ? No.
>And please don't even suggest its location plays a role.
>However, regular inspections and evaluations from independent authorities
>have confirmed its competence. Learned individual scientists have
>identified less than perfect, occasionally mediocre performance. The links
>to the arb hearing remain available, should you want to endure all the
>presentation of many points of view. Then you could let us know your
>resulting opinion.
>
>> There have been questions raised for years, including from other
>> scientists and universities and I cant remember you ever admitting
>> that there might have been a slight chance of them having made any
>> error. I don't think they are "framing" anyone, but I do think that
>> they are intense presure from Wada to produce the results that Pound
>> says are out there. They are not allowed to speak out against, or
>> question anything Wada does or says. They are accredited by Wada. In
>> those circumstances I think anything that can evenly vaguely be
>> interpreted as a positive result is, andf I do think they might
>> recalibrate to get more of those because Pound says all these are
>> positivie so if they aren't showing up that way then it must be that
>> they need more adjustment or testing. Everyone wants to please their
>> boss and keep the paycheck coming, and in this case they have an
>> abusive boss to begin with, so I have very little trouble believing
>> that they would grasp at straws to give Wada the positives they want,
>> and fight to the death any questions.

>
>I will make a broader charge. I believe (and wrote this several times
>already) that the lust for power and money is driving this matter as well as
>the entire cycling INDUSTRY. Look hard at the caps. It is just that. When
>asked today (TF2 - Stade2) whether money is causing the evil that befalls
>cycling, Christian Prudhomme said, in short, NO. Well, I think he is plain
>wrong. As wrong as one can be. As close to a prevaricator as that sweet
>euphemism allows.


Indeed. That's possibly the most dishonest thing we've heard lately.

>The drug companies earn (600MM euros in quesitonable prescriptions in Italy
>alone, last year) - the labs earn (more tests, more expensive tests, more
>litigation expertises) - the sponsors earn (presuming their exposure
>provides positive images) - the parasites of cycling earn (PR people,
>lawyers, accountants, podium girls [nothing I want to lose!] -
>
>AND
>
>the players, the racers, EARN. Especially if they are willing to do what it
>takes to put on a show, keep the jersey clean and visible, and do it in
>silence.
>
>AND
>
>POUND earns - money, perks, power, prestige.
>
>Everyone gets what they want, under the old systems, even the fans.
>Especially European fans, who are more sanguine about doping that you are in
>the USA.
>
>With a few bad eggs sacrificed to show cycling has turned over yet another
>new leaf, it could all go on again. And it will. July is nigh. Tell me
>whether you expect a blank screen or not.


That's the part I find offensive. If I had any confidence that the busts
represented the worst instead of the least lucky I'd feel a lot better. The
occasional random draconian penalty just creates one more spin of the wheel for
guys who are long accustomed to quirks of fate making the difference between
millionaire heros of the road and washing the tires of the bikes after they come
back from test spin.

>My other strong concern is that riders are sacrificing their health
>seriously, whether or not they dope. And if they are in fragile health, is
>there any reason to deprive them of proper treatment ?


Pretty much every professional athlete lays his health on the line.

>The system of having only team doctors take care of a cyclist is a laugh.
>Normal people have regular personal physicians who know them over years. In
>a team doctor environment, they are forced to forego that, to change habits
>[sic, myself] as they change teams or as the team changes doctors, never
>really being able to assure themselves of an enduring presence of a person
>who actually wants them to be well.


DId I miss something? Since when are there only team doctors?

>End of diatribe. But don't accuse me of giving away points to LNDD by
>default. If it weren't Landis, or Armstrong, but some dumb schmuck of
>medium talent, and from another country, this forum would never be as
>populated or overwhelmed by messages. Well, of course the exception being
>Virenque, but French-haters would always find a way.


It's always different if it's just a dumb schmuck of middling talent.

They just better never say nuthin' about Bettini.

>Have I been clear about my position ?


You're clear. You haven't been bashful in some of your criticism. You seem more
tolerant of the LNDD slop than some of us. It is an imperfect world and even lab
testing has its flaws. That is why the director of a lab must know that error is
possible so that measures can be taken to minimize the potential errors that are
within control. One can write a number neatly and accurately and make
corrections according to long established procedure. When one sees that
incredibly simple and obvious procedure violated it must raise a suspicion that
other "corrections" are being made in ways that violate procedure. And we know
that the IRMS testing as done does require corrections and that they are
performed without an audit trail or revision history. As if no error were
possible.

I think you see the lab as having problems, but basically sound. I just can't
see that a lab with those problems could possibly be sound.

Ron