Seems odd that Sir Lance could win 7...

Quoted message said:

...in-a-row and be totally clean.Maybe he was really that much better
than anyone else....or maybe not

Are you kidding? Of course he doped the whole time. All of pro cycling is a
doper's paradise and a sham.

Quoted message said:

...in-a-row and be totally clean.Maybe he was really that much better
than anyone else....or maybe not

Why do people keep saying "totally clean" and "never tested positive"
when he has the 1999 EPO finding?

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 18:46:12 GMT, "Manco" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

...in-a-row and be totally clean.Maybe he was really that much better
than anyone else....or maybe not

Are you kidding? Of course he doped the whole time. All of pro cycling is a
doper's paradise and a sham.

He still was that much better than everybody else.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

<[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

...in-a-row and be totally clean.Maybe he was really that much better
than anyone else....or maybe not

Why do people keep saying "totally clean" and "never tested positive"
when he has the 1999 EPO finding?

Correct

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

...in-a-row and be totally clean.Maybe he was really that much better
than anyone else....or maybe not

Why do people keep saying "totally clean" and "never tested positive"
when he has the 1999 EPO finding?

Because it was a [censored] test, with [censored] results.

Ron

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

...in-a-row and be totally clean.Maybe he was really that much better
than anyone else....or maybe not

Why do people keep saying "totally clean" and "never tested positive"
when he has the 1999 EPO finding?

Because it was never "scientifically" proven that's why. All you have
are inferences and those are not enough.

Phil H

"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

...in-a-row and be totally clean.Maybe he was really that much better
than anyone else....or maybe not

Why do people keep saying "totally clean" and "never tested positive"
when he has the 1999 EPO finding?

Because it was never "scientifically" proven that's why.

It was scientifically proven that he had EPO, but as it was not a doping
test, nothing could be done for against Lance.
Inded the l"Equipe said it on the very first day.

However Lance was positive for a 1999 test. It is a fact he can't disawoy
since he gave later a convenient prescription.
Of course his 'selective' brain omit to remember it....

All you have

Quoted message said:

are inferences and those are not enough.

Phil H

I suspect that because Lance is just so down to earth and humble he
might be given the benifit of the doubt.Shoot,he really shys away from
the celebrity status and he would really like to be known as just an
average guy that has not changed in the face of fortune and fame.Down
to earth and humble are the words that come to mind when I think of
Lance.All those mean Europeans are out to get him and by golly when
they start accusing him of cheating they are really in essence going
after the "joe 6-pack" type cyclist that puts in a good 25 mile ride
out towards New Sweden on Sunday morning and Lance feels the need to
stand up and defend us all.

Quoted message said:

He still was that much better than everybody else.

There is no question that he was driven not just by a different body, but
more importantly, a different mentality than the rest of the pack.
Obviously, things would have been quite different had Basso & Vino made it
to the '06 TdF, but when you look at the rest of the field, nobody came even
close to wanting to win as much as Lance.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 18:46:12 GMT, "Manco" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

...in-a-row and be totally clean.Maybe he was really that much better
than anyone else....or maybe not

Are you kidding? Of course he doped the whole time. All of pro cycling is
a
doper's paradise and a sham.

He still was that much better than everybody else.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

----- Original Message -----
From: <Montesquiou>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: Seems odd that Sir Lance could win 7...

Quoted message said:

"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> ...in-a-row and be totally clean.Maybe he was really that much
> better
> than anyone else....or maybe not

Why do people keep saying "totally clean" and "never tested
positive"
when he has the 1999 EPO finding?

Because it was never "scientifically" proven that's why.

It was scientifically proven that he had EPO, but as it was not a
doping test, nothing could be done for against Lance.
Inded the l"Equipe said it on the very first day.

A single test is not a proof. An A and B test meet the repeatibility
criterion for the scientific method as well as improving the statistical
measures of reliability to an acceptable level. The circumstances
surrounding the testing of an old sample opens up plausible alternatives
further reducing the confidence in the test.

Quoted message said:

However Lance was positive for a 1999 test. It is a fact he can't
disavoy since he gave later a convenient prescription.
Of course his 'selective' brain omit to remember it....

And the conclusion to that incident was ........?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All you have
are inferences and those are not enough.

The connection to Floyd is the only reason we are having this
discussion. Compared to Floyd's case, nobody has anything scientifically
substantial on LA.

Phil H

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de
news: [email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He still was that much better than everybody else.

There is no question that he was driven not just by a different body, but
more importantly, a different mentality than the rest of the pack.

There is no question also that the pack had not a 11:1 testosterone level.
May be it explain why they had a different mentaliy.....

Quoted message said:

Obviously, things would have been quite different had Basso & Vino made it
to the '06 TdF, but when you look at the rest of the field, nobody came
even close to wanting to win as much as Lance.

Sorry but unless you have a crystal ball it is difficult to say that this
one, or this one want more to win the TDF.
The fact is that the Landis team was razer weak.
During the Lance time the EPO was undetected. and even the sprinter of the
team could climb like motocyclist.

Quoted message said:

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 18:46:12 GMT, "Manco" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> ...in-a-row and be totally clean.Maybe he was really that much better
> than anyone else....or maybe not

Are you kidding? Of course he doped the whole time. All of pro cycling is
a
doper's paradise and a sham.

He still was that much better than everybody else.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

RonSonic said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

...in-a-row and be totally clean.Maybe he was really that much better
than anyone else....or maybe not

Why do people keep saying "totally clean" and "never tested positive"
when he has the 1999 EPO finding?

Because it was a [censored] test, with [censored] results.

Ron

Your professional opinion?

Don't forget his phsyiology is perfect for the race.

Lance Armstrong's War: One Man's Battle Against Fate, Fame, Love, Death,
Scandal, and a Few Other Rivals on the Road to the Tour de France
(Hardcover)

"The best part of the book was the physiology part regarding Lance, his body
type and the attributes he has that has allowed him to repeatedly win the
Tour. It was this scientific look at the kilowatts he generates per stroke
of the pedal, the fact that his body does not produce lactic acid on the
scale of the normal person, how his lungs are more efficient as well as his
heart, etc., that I personally found to me the most interesting. The author
also deals with the steroid controversy, its authors and how Lance deals
with it and the repeated testing he is subjected too."

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060734973/104-2416107-0423925?v=glance&n=283155

"Paris Hilton" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Don't forget his phsyiology is perfect for the race.

Lance Armstrong's War: One Man's Battle Against Fate, Fame, Love, Death,
Scandal, and a Few Other Rivals on the Road to the Tour de France
(Hardcover)

"The best part of the book was the physiology part regarding Lance, his
body type and the attributes he has that has allowed him to repeatedly win
the Tour. It was this scientific look at the kilowatts he generates per
stroke of the pedal, the fact that his body does not produce lactic acid
on the scale of the normal person, how his lungs are more efficient as
well as his heart, etc., that I personally found to me the most
interesting. The author also deals with the steroid controversy, its
authors and how Lance deals with it and the repeated testing he is
subjected too."

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060734973/104-2416107-0423925?v=glance&n=283155

Something on his positive test in 1999 ?

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 22:47:09 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He still was that much better than everybody else.

There is no question that he was driven not just by a different body, but
more importantly, a different mentality than the rest of the pack.
Obviously, things would have been quite different had Basso & Vino made it
to the '06 TdF, but when you look at the rest of the field, nobody came even
close to wanting to win as much as Lance.

Or Landis, either.

Ron

Quoted message said:

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 18:46:12 GMT, "Manco" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> ...in-a-row and be totally clean.Maybe he was really that much better
> than anyone else....or maybe not

Are you kidding? Of course he doped the whole time. All of pro cycling is
a
doper's paradise and a sham.

He still was that much better than everybody else.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Kyle Legate said:

RonSonic said:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:

>...in-a-row and be totally clean.Maybe he was really that much better
>than anyone else....or maybe not

Why do people keep saying "totally clean" and "never tested positive"
when he has the 1999 EPO finding?

Because it was a [censored] test, with [censored] results.

Ron

Your professional opinion?

With full consideration of the facts.

Ron

RonSonic said:

Kyle Legate said:

RonSonic said:

On 5 Aug 2006 11:57:40 -0700, [email hidden] wrote:

>[email hidden] wrote:
>
>
>>...in-a-row and be totally clean.Maybe he was really that much better
>>than anyone else....or maybe not
>
>Why do people keep saying "totally clean" and "never tested positive"
>when he has the 1999 EPO finding?

Because it was a [censored] test, with [censored] results.

Ron

Your professional opinion?

With full consideration of the facts.

As created on RBR?

What was the make and model of the mass spec used to determine the test
ratio? The isotope ratio? How was it calibrated? As I mentioned in a
previous post the sensitivity of mass specs these days nearly doubles
each year. The precise machine that was used to take the readings and
the instrument settings which were used throughout the run are important
facts which allow us to establish the accuracy, precision and
sensitivity of the test. Do you know for a fact that the machine isn't
up for the job?

You only allow the facts that permit you to maintain your fantasy.

Kyle Legate said:

RonSonic said:

Kyle Legate said:

RonSonic wrote:

>On 5 Aug 2006 11:57:40 -0700, [email hidden] wrote:
>
>
>
>>[email hidden] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>...in-a-row and be totally clean.Maybe he was really that much better
>>>than anyone else....or maybe not
>>
>>Why do people keep saying "totally clean" and "never tested positive"
>>when he has the 1999 EPO finding?
>
>
>Because it was a [censored] test, with [censored] results.
>
>Ron

Your professional opinion?

With full consideration of the facts.

As created on RBR?

What was the make and model of the mass spec used to determine the test
ratio? The isotope ratio? How was it calibrated? As I mentioned in a
previous post the sensitivity of mass specs these days nearly doubles
each year. The precise machine that was used to take the readings and
the instrument settings which were used throughout the run are important
facts which allow us to establish the accuracy, precision and
sensitivity of the test. Do you know for a fact that the machine isn't
up for the job?

You only allow the facts that permit you to maintain your fantasy.

No fantasy. There was not a doping test for EPO performed in 1999. There was a
science fair project from like five years later that allegedly tested 1999 urine
samples. Science fair, research project, whatever. It was not a certified test
procedure and it was supposedly performed only for research purposes because
nobody knows if that test works or not.

Ron

"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

----- Original Message -----
From: <Montesquiou>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: Seems odd that Sir Lance could win 7...

Quoted message said:

"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> [email hidden] wrote:
>> ...in-a-row and be totally clean.Maybe he was really that much better
>> than anyone else....or maybe not
>
> Why do people keep saying "totally clean" and "never tested positive"
> when he has the 1999 EPO finding?
>

Because it was never "scientifically" proven that's why.

It was scientifically proven that he had EPO, but as it was not a doping
test, nothing could be done for against Lance.
Inded the l"Equipe said it on the very first day.

A single test is not a proof. An A and B test meet the repeatibility
criterion for the scientific method as well as improving the statistical
measures of reliability to an acceptable level. The circumstances
surrounding the testing of an old sample opens up plausible alternatives
further reducing the confidence in the test.

Sorry, but it is not what I am talking about.
I said that Lance was POSITIVE for the TDF in 1999 on a test done in 1999.
It was a A sample.If you are not aware about it, use google. You will be
surprised.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However Lance was positive for a 1999 test. It is a fact he can't disavoy
since he gave later a convenient prescription.
Of course his 'selective' brain omit to remember it....

And the conclusion to that incident was ........?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All you have
are inferences and those are not enough.

The connection to Floyd is the only reason we are having this discussion.
Compared to Floyd's case, nobody has anything scientifically substantial
on LA.

Phil H