Lance learns the truth...

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Alex Ravenel, Jul 15, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Paladin

    Paladin Guest

    bomba <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Paladin wrote:
    >
    > > Unlike most sports champions, Lance is a great role model, and when you consider what he's
    > > overcome, and how he's done it, and where's he gotten, even a hero. You won't hear that kinda
    > > talk from me about any other GR's, but Lance is the true exception to the rule.
    >
    > You may one day come to eat those words...

    Sure, no doubt it's possible, as it happens fairly regularly, but is there any aspect of the
    statement in particular you're focusing on? More roadies are good role models? Lance isn't a
    good one? ??

    Paladin
     


  2. Sorni

    Sorni Guest

    "Paladin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > bomba <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > > Paladin wrote:
    > >
    > > > Unlike most sports champions, Lance is a great role model, and when you consider what he's
    > > > overcome, and how he's done it, and where's he gotten, even a hero. You won't hear that kinda
    > > > talk from me about any other GR's, but Lance is the true exception to the rule.
    > >
    > > You may one day come to eat those words...
    >
    > Sure, no doubt it's possible, as it happens fairly regularly, but is there any aspect of the
    > statement in particular you're focusing on? More roadies are good role models? Lance isn't a
    > good one? ??

    Well, if anyone saw today's stage, a spectator snagged Lance's handlebar with a baseball cap, and he
    went down fast and hard. After some trouble getting going again (chain off?), he's starts grinding
    madly -- only to have his foot slip off pedal and suffer severe "rackage" on the top tube. Ouch!

    The pack with Ulrich waited until he was back in sync, and then watched as he stormed by 'em and won
    by ~40 seconds. The man has a heart the size of a 53-tooth chainring.

    Inspired Bill
     
  3. Bomba

    Bomba Guest

    Paladin wrote:

    >>You may one day come to eat those words...
    >
    >
    > Sure, no doubt it's possible, as it happens fairly regularly, but is there any aspect of the
    > statement in particular you're focusing on? More roadies are good role models? Lance isn't a
    > good one? ??

    I think one has to accept that the higher echelons of road cycling are deeply competitive and it
    pays to have a healthy scepticism when it comes to their performance. I'm not going to make any
    unfounded claims, but history has shown that 'Le Tour' is rife with those capitalising on
    performance enhancement.

    I forget the name of the doctor, but a specialist called as witness during the Festina trial
    testified that it was physically impossible for a human to have climbed the Alpe d'Huez in 2000(?)
    in the time that Armstrong did, without 'help'. Just worth bearing in mind.
     
  4. Super Slinky

    Super Slinky Guest

    bomba said...

    > I think one has to accept that the higher echelons of road cycling are deeply competitive and it
    > pays to have a healthy scepticism when it comes to their performance. I'm not going to make any
    > unfounded claims, but history has shown that 'Le Tour' is rife with those capitalising on
    > performance enhancement.

    I agree with your skepticism, but let's not forget that only a tiny amount of time over may hours of
    racing separates the top riders. Therefore if we are going to condemn one, we have to condemn them
    all. Lance has admitted to visiting at least one doctor who was known to dispense performance
    enhancing drugs, but if he does take these drugs he has managed to keep it a tidy secret. I have to
    wonder if such a secret could be kept over the years without a few particulars leaking out.

    Another thing to consider is that Lance's endurance may not be his only advantage. Let's not forget
    the vast resources of his sponsors. You can't buy Lance's bike at any bike dealer at any price. Some
    Europeans like to think that Americans are a bunch of illiterate morons, but the truth is that no
    other single country has such a huge reservoir of technical and manufacturing expertise, and Lance
    gets to tap into that.

    > I forget the name of the doctor, but a specialist called as witness during the Festina trial
    > testified that it was physically impossible for a human to have climbed the Alpe d'Huez in 2000(?)
    > in the time that Armstrong did, without 'help'. Just worth bearing in mind.

    I'm surprised that any scientist would make such a ridiculous statement. It is completely
    unprovable, therefore it is at best an opinion, not a fact. If a doctor actually said this, then it
    only reveals his personal bias, and it says a lot more about this doctor than it does about Lance
    Armstrong.
     
  5. Bomba

    Bomba Guest

    Super Slinky wrote:

    >>I think one has to accept that the higher echelons of road cycling are deeply competitive and it
    >>pays to have a healthy scepticism when it comes to their performance. I'm not going to make any
    >>unfounded claims, but history has shown that 'Le Tour' is rife with those capitalising on
    >>performance enhancement.
    >
    >
    > I agree with your skepticism, but let's not forget that only a tiny amount of time over may hours
    > of racing separates the top riders. Therefore if we are going to condemn one, we have to condemn
    > them all.

    My personal opinion is that they are competing on pretty much a level playing field, albeit a field
    on a different plain to everyone else.

    > Lance has admitted to visiting at least one doctor who was known to dispense performance enhancing
    > drugs, but if he does take these drugs he has managed to keep it a tidy secret. I have to wonder
    > if such a secret could be kept over the years without a few particulars leaking out.

    I think most want to prevent a repeat of the Festina affair, and if, as I suspect, everyone is in on
    it, then spilling the beans on one could bring the whole house of cards crashing down.

    > Another thing to consider is that Lance's endurance may not be his only advantage. Let's not
    > forget the vast resources of his sponsors. You can't buy Lance's bike at any bike dealer at any
    > price. Some Europeans like to think that Americans are a bunch of illiterate morons,

    ...not saying a thing... :)

    but the
    > truth is that no other single country has such a huge reservoir of technical and manufacturing
    > expertise, and Lance gets to tap into that.

    I think the quality of his bike is totally irrelevant.

    >>I forget the name of the doctor, but a specialist called as witness during the Festina trial
    >>testified that it was physically impossible for a human to have climbed the Alpe d'Huez in 2000(?)
    >>in the time that Armstrong did, without 'help'. Just worth bearing in mind.
    >
    >
    > I'm surprised that any scientist would make such a ridiculous statement. It is completely
    > unprovable, therefore it is at best an opinion, not a fact.

    I don't know under which criteria the claim was made, but I'm sure there was sufficient basis for
    his opinion.

    If a doctor actually said this, then it only reveals his personal
    > bias, and it says a lot more about this doctor than it does about Lance Armstrong.

    As I say, I don't know the ins and outs of the statement, but you don't get to be an expert witness
    in a trial of that magnitude without some sort of credence.
     
  6. Bob M

    Bob M Guest

    On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:43:32 +0200, bomba <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Super Slinky wrote:
    >
    >>> I think one has to accept that the higher echelons of road cycling are deeply competitive and it
    >>> pays to have a healthy scepticism when it comes to their performance. I'm not going to make any
    >>> unfounded claims, but history has shown that 'Le Tour' is rife with those capitalising on
    >>> performance enhancement.
    >>
    >>
    >> I agree with your skepticism, but let's not forget that only a tiny amount of time over may hours
    >> of racing separates the top riders. Therefore if we are going to condemn one, we have to condemn
    >> them all.
    >
    > My personal opinion is that they are competing on pretty much a level playing field, albeit a
    > field on a different plain to everyone else.
    >
    >> Lance has admitted to visiting at least one doctor who was known to dispense performance
    >> enhancing drugs, but if he does take these drugs he has managed to keep it a tidy secret. I have
    >> to wonder if such a secret could be kept over the years without a few particulars leaking out.
    >
    > I think most want to prevent a repeat of the Festina affair, and if, as I suspect, everyone is in
    > on it, then spilling the beans on one could bring the whole house of cards crashing down.
    >
    >> Another thing to consider is that Lance's endurance may not be his only advantage. Let's not
    >> forget the vast resources of his sponsors. You can't buy Lance's bike at any bike dealer at any
    >> price. Some Europeans like to think that Americans are a bunch of illiterate morons,
    >
    > ...not saying a thing... :)
    >
    > but the
    >> truth is that no other single country has such a huge reservoir of technical and manufacturing
    >> expertise, and Lance gets to tap into that.
    >
    > I think the quality of his bike is totally irrelevant.
    >
    >>> I forget the name of the doctor, but a specialist called as witness during the Festina trial
    >>> testified that it was physically impossible for a human to have climbed the Alpe d'Huez in
    >>> 2000(?) in the time that Armstrong did, without 'help'. Just worth bearing in mind.
    >>
    >>
    >> I'm surprised that any scientist would make such a ridiculous statement. It is completely
    >> unprovable, therefore it is at best an opinion, not a fact.
    >
    > I don't know under which criteria the claim was made, but I'm sure there was sufficient basis for
    > his opinion.
    >
    > If a doctor actually said this, then it only reveals his personal
    >> bias, and it says a lot more about this doctor than it does about Lance Armstrong.
    >
    > As I say, I don't know the ins and outs of the statement, but you don't get to be an expert
    > witness in a trial of that magnitude without some sort of credence.
    >
    >

    You just call yourself an expert (at least in the US). That's all it takes to be an expert
    in a trial.

    --
    Bob M in CT Remove 'x.' to reply
     
  7. bomba wrote:

    > Paladin wrote:
    >
    >>> You may one day come to eat those words...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Sure, no doubt it's possible, as it happens fairly regularly, but is there any aspect of the
    >> statement in particular you're focusing on? More roadies are good role models? Lance isn't a good
    >> one? ??
    >
    >
    > I think one has to accept that the higher echelons of road cycling are deeply competitive and it
    > pays to have a healthy scepticism when it comes to their performance. I'm not going to make any
    > unfounded claims, but history has shown that 'Le Tour' is rife with those capitalising on
    > performance enhancement.
    >
    > I forget the name of the doctor, but a specialist called as witness during the Festina trial
    > testified that it was physically impossible for a human to have climbed the Alpe d'Huez in 2000(?)
    > in the time that Armstrong did, without 'help'. Just worth bearing in mind.
    >
    So Mr. Armstrong is not a good model because he (and the rest of the sport) may be using performance
    enhancement drugs not discovered by the officals of the TdF (or the Giro or any other race most
    participate in). Is that the claim? How about Mr. Ullrich, who has been found to use drugs. Are you
    sure you are not getting Mr. Ullrich confused with Mr. Armstrong? (BTW, I'm not sure I consider Mr.
    Ullrich a bad role model, I tend to agree with Mr. Liggett states that Jan just went through
    "typical" growing pains, or something like that.)

    --
    Craig Brossman, Durango Colorado (remove ".nospam" to reply)
     
  8. Super Slinky

    Super Slinky Guest

    bomba said...

    > I think most want to prevent a repeat of the Festina affair, and if, as I suspect, everyone is in
    > on it, then spilling the beans on one could bring the whole house of cards crashing down.

    Maybe, but considering Lance's domination of the Tour, one would think that there would be plenty of
    people willing to blow the whistle on him if there was any dirty laundry lying around.

    > I think the quality of his bike is totally irrelevant.

    I think that his one of a kind, wind tunnel tested parts could easily account for the tiny advantage
    he has over the other riders if they don't have access to similar engineering muscle.

    > I don't know under which criteria the claim was made, but I'm sure there was sufficient basis for
    > his opinion.

    > As I say, I don't know the ins and outs of the statement, but you don't get to be an expert
    > witness in a trial of that magnitude without some sort of credence.

    But besides being ridiculous at face value, in a scientific sense the statement is unprovable, and
    therefore only so much hot air. Scientific opinions based on thorough and careful research come and
    go faster than teenaged fashions. Such a sweeping generality could never even begin to be researched
    and it means nothing except that one scientist got paid to shoot his mouth off. Who knows, maybe
    Lance is a genetic freak who has an extra muscle in his ass, or maybe he was bitten by a radioactive
    spider. Yes, I'm being silly, but the point is that we are all different and any so-called scientist
    who makes such an asinine statement is not an unbiased source of information.

    Your last statement about trials is naive, if you don't mind me saying so. In a trial you have two
    diametrically opposed sides. One side tries to make the defendant look as good as possible, the
    other tries to make them look as bad as possible. By definition, neither side is unbiased, and
    exaggeration and hyperbole abound. Experts can be hired by both sides to say just about anything.
    Some expert witnesses are hired to appear at trial after trial and make it part of their livelihood.
    It is the job of the judge and/or jury to sort out what they consider to be the truth amidst all the
    confusion and outright lies.
     
  9. Dave W

    Dave W Guest

    On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:43:32 +0200, bomba <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >I don't know under which criteria the claim was made, but I'm sure there was sufficient basis for
    >his opinion.

    *cough cough BULLSHIT cough*
    >
    >If a doctor actually said this, then it only reveals his personal
    >> bias, and it says a lot more about this doctor than it does about Lance Armstrong.
    >
    >As I say, I don't know the ins and outs of the statement, but you don't get to be an expert witness
    >in a trial of that magnitude without some sort of credence.

    **cough cough BULLSHIT cough cough**
     
  10. Paladin

    Paladin Guest

    bomba <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Paladin wrote:
    >
    > >>You may one day come to eat those words...
    > >
    > >
    > > Sure, no doubt it's possible, as it happens fairly regularly, but is there any aspect of the
    > > statement in particular you're focusing on? More roadies are good role models? Lance isn't a
    > > good one? ??
    >
    > I think one has to accept that the higher echelons of road cycling are deeply competitive and it
    > pays to have a healthy scepticism when it comes to their performance. I'm not going to make any
    > unfounded claims, but history has shown that 'Le Tour' is rife with those capitalising on
    > performance enhancement.
    >
    > I forget the name of the doctor, but a specialist called as witness during the Festina trial
    > testified that it was physically impossible for a human to have climbed the Alpe d'Huez in 2000(?)
    > in the time that Armstrong did, without 'help'. Just worth bearing in mind.

    There are always those claiming something can't be done getting passed by those actually doing it.
    The 4 minute mile. Man on the moon.

    Paladin
     
  11. Paladin

    Paladin Guest

    bomba <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Super Slinky wrote:
    >
    > >>I think one has to accept that the higher echelons of road cycling are deeply competitive and it
    > >>pays to have a healthy scepticism when it comes to their performance. I'm not going to make any
    > >>unfounded claims, but history has shown that 'Le Tour' is rife with those capitalising on
    > >>performance enhancement.
    >
    > I don't know under which criteria the claim was made, but I'm sure there was sufficient basis for
    > his opinion.
    >
    > If a doctor actually said this, then it only reveals his personal
    > > bias, and it says a lot more about this doctor than it does about Lance Armstrong.
    >
    > As I say, I don't know the ins and outs of the statement, but you don't get to be an expert
    > witness in a trial of that magnitude without some sort of credence.

    I wish that were true. Unfortunately, most of the time expert witnesses will say what they're paid
    very well to say, and the only one who doesn't know that is the jury.

    Paladin btdt
     
  12. Raptor

    Raptor Guest

    bomba wrote:
    > Paladin wrote:
    >
    >>> You may one day come to eat those words...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Sure, no doubt it's possible, as it happens fairly regularly, but is there any aspect of the
    >> statement in particular you're focusing on? More roadies are good role models? Lance isn't a good
    >> one? ??
    >
    >
    > I think one has to accept that the higher echelons of road cycling are deeply competitive and it
    > pays to have a healthy scepticism when it comes to their performance. I'm not going to make any
    > unfounded claims, but history has shown that 'Le Tour' is rife with those capitalising on
    > performance enhancement.

    Since the Festina affair in 1998(?), doping has been a huge taboo in the Tour de France. I almost
    said "pro cycling," but I'm not so sure about other venues.

    Last year, Raimondas Rumsas came out of nowhere to take second, and suspicious were raised high.
    His wife was jailed for many months after the Tour because she was caught with a ton of doping
    material, but all blood tests of Rumsas were clean. AFAIK, she's still in jail. Recently, Rumsas
    was caught with tainted blood and is currently suspended. I don't know if he has been stripped of
    his second place.

    The Tour de France has rigorous doping controls in place, but it's the usual race between doping and
    anti-doping that keeps the question open as to how many of the top riders are getting chemical or
    biological help.

    Many top pros live in Spain, and Italy is rumored to have lots of doped-up riders and racers in the
    lower ranks. It's speculated that Spain doesn't do as much doping control over athletes, in or
    outside of active competition, and that's why lots of pros live there.

    OTOH, LANCE was kicking adult triathlete butt when he was a teenager, so it's clear that he has
    tremendous natural gifts.

    Rumsas is the only top cyclist who's been caught in recent years that I recall, though I'm sure
    there have been a couple/few others.

    > I forget the name of the doctor, but a specialist called as witness during the Festina trial
    > testified that it was physically impossible for a human to have climbed the Alpe d'Huez in 2000(?)
    > in the time that Armstrong did, without 'help'. Just worth bearing in mind.

    Dr. Michel Ferrarri, most likely. LANCE suffered a minor media scandal a couple years ago because
    he's liked with Ferrarri. The fact that Ferrarri is still LANCE's real coach/medical adviser
    seems to be somewhat of an open secret. But that doesn't mean he's feeding LANCE anything more
    than medical and performance-enhancing expertise.

    Regarding the equipment issue, last year LANCE was fond of pointing out that he won on stock Trek
    bikes. Apparently that's changed this year. Cannondale provides Saeco their rides. A week or so ago,
    they publicized pictures of their team bikes with small weights glued to them to bring them above
    the lower weight limit. The riders wore "protest" jerseys that read, "Legalize my Cannondale," and
    all got fined for it. Presumably, the sponsor took care of the fines.

    But the road bikes they ride are pretty common. Yes, most pros have custom frames, but they're
    otherwise off-the-shelf. The time trial bikes are the real expensive high-tech ones, but they're
    only used in 3 stages.

    --
    --
    Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall "I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we
    could to protect our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security." --Microsoft VP in
    charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.
     
  13. Bomba

    Bomba Guest

    Bob M wrote:

    >> As I say, I don't know the ins and outs of the statement, but you don't get to be an expert
    >> witness in a trial of that magnitude without some sort of credence.
    >>
    >>
    >
    > You just call yourself an expert (at least in the US). That's all it takes to be an expert in
    > a trial.

    Well, the trial was high profile in France...
     
  14. Bomba

    Bomba Guest

    Craig Brossman wrote:

    > So Mr. Armstrong is not a good model because he (and the rest of the sport) may be using
    > performance enhancement drugs not discovered by the officals of the TdF (or the Giro or any other
    > race most participate in). Is that the claim?

    No, my original claim was that one day there's a possibility that Lance could be caught using drugs.
    At that point, many will have to consider whether he still constitutes a good role model.

    > How about Mr. Ullrich, who has been found to use drugs. Are you sure you are not getting Mr.
    > Ullrich confused with Mr. Armstrong? (BTW, I'm not sure I consider Mr. Ullrich a bad role model, I
    > tend to agree with Mr. Liggett states that Jan just went through "typical" growing pains, or
    > something like that.)

    I'm not getting confused at all - in fact, you're helping me demonstrate my point. Consider that
    along with Ullrich, last year's 3rd place, Rumsas has also been banned, the current polka dot jersey
    holder, Virenque, was banned along with the rest of the Festina team, then there's Pantani, Del Olmo
    and so on. I think everyone's on it, and those that are caught out are merely 'unlucky'. If Lance
    was unlucky one day, do you think he would still be considered as a positive role model?
     
  15. Bomba

    Bomba Guest

    Super Slinky wrote:

    >>I think most want to prevent a repeat of the Festina affair, and if, as I suspect, everyone is in
    >>on it, then spilling the beans on one could bring the whole house of cards crashing down.
    >
    >
    > Maybe, but considering Lance's domination of the Tour, one would think that there would be plenty
    > of people willing to blow the whistle on him if there was any dirty laundry lying around.

    I think that's naive. There are probably less than 10 people that have any positive evidence on any
    one cyclist. In the case of Armstrong, you're looking at his fellow team mates, his manager, doctor
    and, bearing in mind the case of Rumsas, possibly his wife. Now, why would any of those blow the
    whistle? The closest you'd get is a domestique in a minor team making allegations that 'everybody's
    doing it', at which point the entire sport closes ranks and labels the cyclist a liar. He makes a
    bit of cash from selling his story, but his team (including his friends) are indicted and he never
    works in the industry again.

    I think it's one of those things that's probably generally accepted within Tour circles, but never
    referred to.

    >>I think the quality of his bike is totally irrelevant.
    >
    >
    > I think that his one of a kind, wind tunnel tested parts could easily account for the tiny
    > advantage he has over the other riders if they don't have access to similar engineering muscle.

    Bollocks. You think Trek is the only team that has access to a wind tunnel? You think Trek has
    more financial clout than Giant? The differences at that level between equipment is minimal to say
    the least.

    Mind you, they calculated that Lemond's use of an aero helmet in the final stage of the '89 tour, as
    opposed to Fignon's pony tail, caused enough of an aerodynamic difference to decide the winner.

    >>As I say, I don't know the ins and outs of the statement, but you don't get to be an expert
    >>witness in a trial of that magnitude without some sort of credence.
    >
    >
    > But besides being ridiculous at face value, in a scientific sense the statement is unprovable, and
    > therefore only so much hot air. Scientific opinions based on thorough and careful research come
    > and go faster than teenaged fashions. Such a sweeping generality could never even begin to be
    > researched and it means nothing except that one scientist got paid to shoot his mouth off. Who
    > knows, maybe Lance is a genetic freak who has an extra muscle in his ass, or maybe he was bitten
    > by a radioactive spider. Yes, I'm being silly, but the point is that we are all different and any
    > so-called scientist who makes such an asinine statement is not an unbiased source of information.

    I agree to a certain point. World records are broken all the time, but there must be some evidence
    to justify his claim. Anyway, I'm just repeating the story, not trying to scientifically justify it.
    It was accepted as valid evidence in the trial and although it doesn't act as definitive proof of
    drug abuse by Armstrong, it's worth bearing in mind.
     
  16. Bomba

    Bomba Guest

    Raptor wrote:

    > Last year, Raimondas Rumsas came out of nowhere to take second, and suspicious were raised high.
    > His wife was jailed for many months after the Tour because she was caught with a ton of doping
    > material, but all blood tests of Rumsas were clean. AFAIK, she's still in jail. Recently, Rumsas
    > was caught with tainted blood and is currently suspended. I don't know if he has been stripped of
    > his second place.

    No, he won't be stripped of his second place.

    > OTOH, LANCE was kicking adult triathlete butt when he was a teenager, so it's clear that he has
    > tremendous natural gifts.

    I'm not saying you can reach the top just by being drugged up.

    > Rumsas is the only top cyclist who's been caught in recent years that I recall, though I'm sure
    > there have been a couple/few others.

    Pfft... Pantani, Del Olmo, Virenque, Ullrich, Rumsas...
     
  17. Bomba

    Bomba Guest

    bomba wrote:

    >> Rumsas is the only top cyclist who's been caught in recent years that I recall, though I'm sure
    >> there have been a couple/few others.
    >
    >
    > Pfft... Pantani, Del Olmo, Virenque, Ullrich, Rumsas...

    Oh, I forgot Brochard and Zulle.
     
  18. Bomba

    Bomba Guest

    Dave W wrote:

    >>I don't know under which criteria the claim was made, but I'm sure there was sufficient basis for
    >>his opinion.
    >
    >
    > *cough cough BULLSHIT cough*
    >
    >>If a doctor actually said this, then it only reveals his personal
    >>
    >>>bias, and it says a lot more about this doctor than it does about Lance Armstrong.
    >>
    >>As I say, I don't know the ins and outs of the statement, but you don't get to be an expert
    >>witness in a trial of that magnitude without some sort of credence.
    >
    >
    > **cough cough BULLSHIT cough cough**

    Yep, sorry, I can't back it up. I read it in the paper at the time of the trial.
     
  19. Mark Hickey

    Mark Hickey Guest

    bomba <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Craig Brossman wrote:
    >
    >> So Mr. Armstrong is not a good model because he (and the rest of the sport) may be using
    >> performance enhancement drugs not discovered by the officals of the TdF (or the Giro or any other
    >> race most participate in). Is that the claim?
    >
    >No, my original claim was that one day there's a possibility that Lance could be caught using
    >drugs. At that point, many will have to consider whether he still constitutes a good role model.

    Some day you may be caught molesting a child. At that point, many will have to consider whether you
    still constitute a good role model.

    You might ask how I could write something like that with absolutely no proof that you molest
    children. Of couse, I could also ask how you could write what you did even though the intense
    scrutiny Lance has been under (including many, many blood, unine and hair tests) have come up 100%
    negative. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

    I take that back - in one of the tours (2000?) he tested positive for a miniscule trace of some
    banned substance. The French press (and some miscreants on r.b.r.) made much hay about this, even
    though it was clear that the "problem" was that a saddle sore cream he had used contained the
    substance and some vanishingly small amount had gotten into his blood stream.

    Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
     
  20. Super Slinky

    Super Slinky Guest

    Mark Hickey said...

    > Some day you may be caught molesting a child. At that point, many will have to consider whether
    > you still constitute a good role model.
    >
    > You might ask how I could write something like that with absolutely no proof that you molest
    > children. Of couse, I could also ask how you could write what you did even though the intense
    > scrutiny Lance has been under (including many, many blood, unine and hair tests) have come up 100%
    > negative. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
    >
    > I take that back - in one of the tours (2000?) he tested positive for a miniscule trace of some
    > banned substance. The French press (and some miscreants on r.b.r.) made much hay about this, even
    > though it was clear that the "problem" was that a saddle sore cream he had used contained the
    > substance and some vanishingly small amount had gotten into his blood stream.

    But isn't it true that not all performance enhancing drugs are detectable?
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...