Lance Armstrong wins #7?

I just want to say that I am a huge fan of Lance Armstrong. I have followed his career for many years and I am constantly amazed at his capabilities.

Just being a cancer survivor would be a great feat, but to go on and win the biggest cycling race in the world 6 times (often in the face of great adversity) is truly amazing.

I am humbled by his abilities and perseverence and take great hope from his resiliancy!

Here's hoping that he gets win #7 this year!

 

Flyer: I hear he needs a ghost writer...the last one didn't sell hard enough.

 

Anemia doping sales exceed 10 Billion US each year.

So, the best new bovine-based whatever, ought to help.

Maybe a WADA observers will jinx Lance in the farse that is drug testing.

Poor Tyler hit a blood doping snag.

 

However, having been a drug abuser in the past myself I can recognize that the temptation must be overwhelming at times. I am just happy to say that I am still convinced that Lance has not done so.

I am going through rehab as we speak and it's hard work. Now I can understand that when someone sets a goal (for me it's to get clean and sober) or to win a race like the TdF it's possible if you have the right support system.

 

Yes, yes of course. And I have always said: 'where there's smoke and whole bunch of people talking about the smoke, there must be a jealous conspiracy too.'

Check out LA's new undetectable sponsor:

http://www.ridiculopathy.com/news_detail.php?id=1108

It's not about the bike.

 

It would be interesting to see "Flyerdot's" IP address compared to those of current members on the board, perhaps something a mod could look into.

fallensparrow

 

This is crap.

Really? Then why post so often trying to show that lance is a doper, based on conspiracy theory. I think the problem is jealous. By the way, I think you are bipolar.

 

In case you didn't notice bspeedy00 ... "Flyer" isn't the same person as "Flyer." and is being done in an attempt to discredit and confuse our other forum members.

Old forum tactic seldom used anymore as banning "Flyerdots" IP from posting on the site for a month or two generally would be a deterent enough to discourage further attempts as misrepresenting yourself with multiple cyclingforums userid's.



fallensparrow

 

I hadn't noticed that slight difference. To "Flyer" (the one with all the lance gossip): you are pathetic.

 

To BSer speedy:

Sorry the brutal disclosures of doping, suspicious behavior and damning remarks by folks in the know, all of whom suffer from the fate of whistler blower counter attacks disturbs you so.

But, I have been down this road of folks in denial many times before in my life. Untimately, you will see that, if anything, I understated the case of doping in sports---and LA's duplicity in it too.

Then you will quietly go away--- never apologizing for your name-calling rants.

That's fine with me.

Meanwhile, read and weep.

 

Read and ponder how truthful professional cyclists are to the media and to their fans.

Can you ever believe these guys?

Here is Lance's buddy and his emphatic doping denial on January 21, 2004.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/3418361.stm

Just a few months later---Millar called Gaumont a 'nutter'. Vasseur, a former USPO rider never cracked or admitted doping---so we were spared the namecalling for him.

Only truth tellers get called bad names. It is a badge of honor.

 

I have PC double vision. Anyone got a "Flyer Swat"?

 

LA threatened Greg Lemond on the cellular phone, from New York on August 1, 2001. In that conversation LA accused Greg of EPO use, saying words to the effect of: Everyone uses EPO. Don't tell me you did not.

LA threatened sworn witness for the prosecution of Michele Ferrari, in an interview on April 18, 2003.

LA threatened Simeoni yet again, this time in person, during stage 18 of the 2004 TDF.

LA dispatched the whole USPO squad to chace him into Paris (not shown on OLN or French & American TV) That is a commercial override, eh? Then they
blew snott and cursed at Filippo. Lotta class.

Sounds like LA is both paranoid and lame.

He has every reason to be so.

Greg Lemond is not sure how much longer the LA doping secrets can be maintained.

Neither am I.

The levy is cracking and it may let go in 2005.

TDF or no TDF, it will make no difference as the the disclosures.

Stay tuned.

 

Yup, I'm not apologizing. You are pathetic. Arrogant too. Have a great life with that. Hahahaha.

 

Oh, one other piece of advice. Take a logic course. Lance could treaten everyone in cycling, and that does not show that he is guilty of what anyone claims, just that he is threatening people (for any reason). If people are killing your reputation, you would be pissed too. So keep on diggin for every bit of gossip, every sound-byte, and keep trying to link them all together, because really you dont have anything but rumors.

 

Just to reply the the original post; it'll be an interestng season alright... Will Armstrong have a good season and try to get a win in the new Pro-Tour? I hope he decides to take that on instead of just the TdF. We'll see more tours with top class riders! I think this is generally a good year for cycling...It encourages a more all round cyclist...

 

Your name-calling is your only response to the widespread message of doping in all pro sports--especially cycling which goes far beyond anabolic steroids and into blood doping for sustainable power.

No gossip yet, just damning facts.

You have no explanation for David Millar, Philipe Gaumomt, Jesus Manzano, Johan Museeuw, Lance's own admission of Actovegin & insulin on his very own website in December 2000, or that Lance has four junior teammates suing USA Cycling for doping.

Just name calling. Impressive logic?

You have no argument whatsoever.

Your just flat out wrong---and thanks for proving it.

 

I dont need an argument. I am simply pointing out the flaws in yours. Your premises are simple accusations or statements by armstrong opponents in the cycling community, which you think entitles the conclusion that lance dopes. The problem is that these accusations have not been shown true. I have an equally valid counter argument if I sum up all the statements supporting lances innocence, and thus conclude he is innocent. Both are equally unsound. So why not assume he is innocent until evidence surfaces? Why spend night and day on an internet forum just listing hearsay? There is no evidence that lance has doped. You dont seem to know what the definition of a fact. I am curious about something else, you seem to think you know a lot about biochemistry and performance enhancing drugs. Do you actually hold a degree in any related field (ie medicine, Ph.d)? Or are you just one of those people that reads yahoo and thinks they are now an expert?