lances evil plan??

Hey guys, check out this month's issue of bicycling, it has a very interesting article on doping, methods, etc.

House will hate it, but it also has what appears to be a list very similar to Flyer's reports of deaths, names of people caught, etc. as well as when...

Neat read.

Mansmind said:

Hey guys, check out this month's issue of bicycling, it has a very interesting article on doping, methods, etc.

House will hate it, but it also has what appears to be a list very similar to Flyer's reports of deaths, names of people caught, etc. as well as when...

Neat read.

Why would I hate it? Are they going to start publishing the same article in every issue? Are they going to leave out certain facts they don't like? Are they going to lie? Are they going to avoid answering questions? Apparently you don't actually read what I write, if so you would know that I am as against doping as I am against condemning every rider without proof.

House said:

Why would I hate it? Are they going to start publishing the same article in every issue? Are they going to leave out certain facts they don't like? Are they going to lie? Are they going to avoid answering questions? Apparently you don't actually read what I write, if so you would know that I am as against doping as I am against condemning every rider without proof.

House, don't read too much into it. I was merely referencing the "conflict" between you and Flyer. Nor did I post this in any kind of defense to Flyer, or as a stone thrown at you. For what it's worth, I've repeatedly asked Flyer that whether his accusations are true or not, what is he trying to accomplish by his posts? I've received no answer to that question.

On the other hand, I don't doubt that a lot of what he says is true....where there is that much smoke, there's almost always a fire.

To answer your question more directly, yes I have read your posts. I never inferred that your were FOR doping.

All in all, perhaps just a mis-aimed attempt at subtle humor on my part, but even so.... no reason to get bent out of shape about it.

John

Mansmind said:

House, don't read too much into it. I was merely referencing the "conflict" between you and Flyer. Nor did I post this in any kind of defense to Flyer, or as a stone thrown at you. For what it's worth, I've repeatedly asked Flyer that whether his accusations are true or not, what is he trying to accomplish by his posts? I've received no answer to that question.

On the other hand, I don't doubt that a lot of what he says is true....where there is that much smoke, there's almost always a fire.

To answer your question more directly, yes I have read your posts. I never inferred that your were FOR doping.

All in all, perhaps just a mis-aimed attempt at subtle humor on my part, but even so.... no reason to get bent out of shape about it.

John

No problem at all, I just know that Flyer has his little band of minions who come jumping in, so I was trying to see if you were one of them. I needed another good laugh!😄 The last article bicycling did on doping was quite good, I hope this issue comes out before the wife and I drive to Chicago this weekend. Is it the June issue?

House said:

No problem at all, I just know that Flyer has his little band of minions who come jumping in, so I was trying to see if you were one of them. I needed another good laugh!😄 The last article bicycling did on doping was quite good, I hope this issue comes out before the wife and I drive to Chicago this weekend. Is it the June issue?

Good, glad we got that cleared up. Yes, it's the June issue. It not only talks about the history of doping, but also the future of doping. Nanotechnology, synthetic muscle fibers built into cycling clothing, exosketens, etc. Some of it is relatively far out there, but interesting to think about.

I hadn't really read that much about doping until I started seeing all the banter back and forth in here. Of course I'd heard all about the Lance suspicions, but other than that nothing. As far as I'm concerned, someone is innocent till proven guilty. I can't see calling a guy guilty just because people think he's too smart to get caught...that's a far reach.

On the other hand, now that I know so much of it goes on, I don't feel so bad about not being able to average 30 mph like those guys do sometimes. 😄

Have a safe trip... take a ride down Cicero Avenue for me.. I miss that road..NOT.

John

you know, Lance's performance is not that unbelievale.

My point was that no TDF Champion has ever been disqualified from the show. (TUE, the item not on the UCI list, or Yes we carried Actovegin---but none of our 9 USPO riders used it)

Yeah, I carry Heroin & Morphine in my kit---just in case house is in town.

House go boom!

limerickman said:

Err, wrong again.
Delgado in 1988 was found to have doped.

tcklyde said:

Tom Simpson dropped dead on Ventoux and now people mourn him like a fallen hero. But the guy was doped to the gills when it happened. Why do we mourn those who cheat? To me, the excuse that everyone does it is just lame.

I agree that we need to making doping criminal. And I agree that we need to attack it at the political level (and unfortunately pharma pays off too many politicians).

But I also think we need to attack it at the fan level. We, as fans, need to be mad at our heros who dope. And riders who are clean need to be mad at riders who dope.

Here's a thought experiment. Say you're a clean pro. Say you lose the World TT to another rider who later turns out to have been a doper. Wouldn't you be furious? I think the terrible lack of outrage from other pros when when one of their own turns out to be a cheat is big proof that doping culture is still big in the pro ranks. If I was Ekimov, I'd be on every television station and newspaper that would listen to me demanding that Tyler Hamilton turn over his gold metal. Same with Julich, who should have gotten the Silver. But do any pros say anything? No. If they had nothing to hide, why wouldn't they demand what should be theirs?

You make some good points here. I agree that the "excuse" that "everyone does it" is lame. It's no excuse at all. I'm afraid that's the way it is though. We as fans should be angry with our "heros" who dope (although personally I'm not a big fan of hero worship). But who does that leave us with? I'm not saying it's right. Only that it is what it is.

Sadly I think the very reason you don't see the "clean riders" expressing anger with and calling out the "dirty riders" is because there are no "clean" riders in the pro ranks.

In fact if you want to beleive Filippo Simeoni we saw just that (the clean rider calling out the dirty ones) when he won a stage of the Vuelta Espana and walked across the finish line with his bike raised above his head, proclaiming himself the only clean rider in the race. Look where it got him!

The 'myth of clean riders' is laughable--except for what the legendary W.C. Field once remarked:

'You can fool some of the the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can never fool all of the the people all of the time'

Yesterday proved yet again---that even an athlete away from the game for 20 years---and without direct financial ties to the professional league cannot be fully candid with disclosure under oath while on TV.
The TV coverage and commercial power trumps the sworn oath. Whether your name is Schilling, Conseco of Courson, the whole truth must remain non-public.

Take Steve Courson, Giant lineman and alumni of the infamous Super Bowl Chamion Pittsburg Steelers.
He admitted to widespread use in his NFL days and lots of personal abuse too---which he believes caused his own heart attack---but he repeatedly refused to estimate today's steroid use in the NFL.

It is actually quite easy---just turn off the microphone and camera---the answer is 100% of both the Pros and 100% of Division 1 Collegiate.

His teammate and Hall of Fame quarterback told me so in San Diego in 2003.

No hope w/o the dope.

Everyone does it---but because of the denial, secrecy, financial advantages some enjoy, not all use drugs in the same way, doses, or methodology.

No ethics, just pure chaos. The hero worship just foggies up the lense.

The fact that no so-called 'clean riders' protest is defeaning. It rocks the House!

meehs said:

You make some good points here. I agree that the "excuse" that "everyone does it" is lame. It's no excuse at all. I'm afraid that's the way it is though. We as fans should be angry that our "heros" who dope (although personally I'm not a big fan of hero worship). But who does that leave us with? I'm not saying it's right. Only that it is what it is.

Sadly I think the very reason you don't see the "clean riders" expressing anger with and calling out the "dirty riders" is because there are no "clean" riders in the pro ranks.

In fact if you want to beleive Filippo Simeoni we saw just that (the clean rider calling out the dirty ones) when he won a stage of the Vuelta Espana and walked across the finish line with his bike raised above his head, proclaiming himself the only clean rider in the race. Look where it got him!

After this post I can now prove that Flyer is either a total liar or has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. Feel free to PM me and i will let you know this proof.

meehs said:

In fact if you want to beleive Filippo Simeoni we saw just that (the clean rider calling out the dirty ones) when he won a stage of the Vuelta Espana and walked across the finish line with his bike raised above his head, proclaiming himself the only clean rider in the race. Look where it got him!

If Filippo can win a stage as the only clean rider, why can't Lance , Jan , and others win being clean ????? Just a question ....

wolfix said:

If Filippo can win a stage as the only clean rider, why can't Lance , Jan , and others win being clean ????? Just a question ....

That's a good question.

I think the answer is that, yes on a good day where everyhting goes his way a clean rider can maybe win a stage. But I don't think a clean rider can win a big stage race or even a big single day race wherein the top contenders are giving it their all. Maybe a clean rider can win a stage on a day where the peleton decides to take it easy (and I commend Simeoni for winning the stage, especially if he was indeed the "only clean rider"😉 but the TdF? I don't know!

But what the top pros are after, are wins. And preferably big wins. If they fear all of their competitors are using PED's to gain an edge (which it seems they are), they feel that they have to as well. It's as simple as that.

I'm not saying that a clean rider can't win. I'd like to think they could. But it was Simeoni himslef that said he was the only clean rider. Again this is if you want to believe him.

Isn't it funny how it is always the rider who has been busted who claims to be the "only clean rider"

[quote="Flyer"]The 'myth of clean riders' is laughable--except for what the legendary W.C. Field once remarked:

'You can fool some of the the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can never fool all of the the people all of the time'

I am sure you were refering to WC quoting Abe Lincoln.
Of course PT Barnum did originate the quote. "There's a sucker born every minute".

meehs said:

That's a good question.

I think the answer is that, yes on a good day where everyhting goes his way a clean rider can maybe win a stage. But I don't think a clean rider can win a big stage race or even a big single day race wherein the top contenders are giving it their all. Maybe a clean rider can win a stage on a day where the peleton decides to take it easy (and I commend Simeoni for winning the stage, especially if he was indeed the "only clean rider"😉 but the TdF? I don't know!

But what the top pros are after, are wins. And preferably big wins. If they fear all of their competitors are using PED's to gain an edge (which it seems they are), they feel that they have to as well. It's as simple as that.

I'm not saying that a clean rider can't win. I'd like to think they could. But it was Simeoni himslef that said he was the only clean rider. Again this is if you want to believe him.

The lastest USOC revelations should be interesting - as both velonews and cyclingnews are prominently covering this, and the story clearly mentions athletes in all disciplines, I imagine there are a few cyclists in that list.

Let me guess, House, you were a collegiate football player and you didn't dope?

My good pal, Martin Earley, always maintained that he was beaten by dopers
at Los Angeles in 1984 Olympics.
Alexi Grewal - what a great career he went on to have (not) !
Chris Carmichael was behind that US Olympic cycling team too.

limerickman said:

My good pal, Martin Earley, always maintained that he was beaten by dopers
at Los Angeles in 1984 Olympics.
Alexi Grewal - what a great career he went on to have (not) !
Chris Carmichael was behind that US Olympic cycling team too.

yes, Chris Carmichael has been a regular fixture of the US Olympic cycling teams since 96...

micron said:

The lastest USOC revelations should be interesting - as both velonews and cyclingnews are prominently covering this, and the story clearly mentions athletes in all disciplines, I imagine there are a few cyclists in that list.

Let me guess, House, you were a collegiate football player and you didn't dope?

No, I wasn't, but do have proof of what I said earlier.

Lance's evil plan developed partially by sheer luck, by aggressive and clinical public denials and with absolute commitment by Corporate advertisingers who tripped over themselves to get a piece of the Lance Cancer Recovery Sales theme.

I do not believe Lance planned his fate---it is in fact a miracle that all the stars lined up for him, when they do not for many others---which include three of his former teammates. (Strock,ill, Kaiter, ill & Zanoli-deceased)

Evilness and dishonesty have grown into the Lance Armstrong strory/legend. So too, harassment, bullying, paranoia, and meanspirited behavior.

From hiring a biographer (Sally Jenkins) who already had a poor reputation for lacking objectivity when she wrote a book on a certain Georgia female college coach to exploiting the Cancer Community by weilding them as an EXEMPTION from scrutiny re: doping with Michele Ferrari.

No disclosure, just secrecy.

The Cancer community got a dream, a miracle story of survival, but little else.

No specifics as to what dope Lance used in 1996, 1997, 1998 to the present. Whatever it was it worked, why not disclose it?

If he did not dope--why market Bristol Meyers Squibs drugs---if he has no personal experience with them?

Do as I say, not as I do?

Still, Lance has dodged many mine-fields on his journey to rehabilitate the Tour de France from its disgraced 1998 Doped Tour and sad faced winner, now deceased, Marco Pantani.

Le Tour has been a loyal partner to Lance, chiefly as commercial necessity.

The Tour de France is dirty, but the organizers want to collect the advetising and city licensing fees.

You will never see Tom Brady or Barry Bonds go drug positive because it is commercial suicide. Those busesseses operate with clinical denial and cover stories.

In summary, Lance's evil story is no different than any other high-paid athlete---except for the Cancer Recovery element, and that is the distinction and therein the root cause of this unique fraud!

The fraud being the portrayal of winning a Tour de France w/o the use/abuse of illegal drugs despite a cancer recovery and many of these products with the direction from a corrupt Italian doctor.

That's dishonest!

A) What was this book Jenkins wrote about a "certain Georgia female college coach?"

B) Your comments about Bristol Myers Squib prove your ignorance on the topic you try to sound like an expert on. Everyone, but you apparently, knows they made the Chemo meds he was on.