Seems odd that Sir Lance could win 7...

[[email protected]]

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

 

[Manco]

[email protected] 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.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] 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?

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

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

>[email protected] 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
****************************

 

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

Correct

 

[RonSonic]

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

>
>[email protected] 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 ******** test, with ******** results.

Ron

 

[Phil Holman]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> [email protected] 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. All you have
are inferences and those are not enough.

Phil H

 

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

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
> are inferences and those are not enough.
>
> Phil H
>

 

[[email protected]]

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.

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> 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 protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 18:46:12 GMT, "Manco" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] 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
> ****************************

 

[Phil Holman]

----- 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...


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

>
> 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 ........?

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

> 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.


> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 18:46:12 GMT, "Manco" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] 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]

RonSonic wrote:
> On 5 Aug 2006 11:57:40 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>[email protected] 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 ******** test, with ******** results.
>
> Ron

Your professional opinion?

 

[Paris Hilton]

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 protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...
> 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 ?

 

[RonSonic]

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

>> 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


>--Mike Jacoubowsky
>Chain Reaction Bicycles
>www.ChainReaction.com
>Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
>"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 18:46:12 GMT, "Manco" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] 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]

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 01:09:34 +0200, Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:

>RonSonic wrote:
>> On 5 Aug 2006 11:57:40 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>[email protected] 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 ******** test, with ******** results.
>>
>> Ron
>
>Your professional opinion?

With full consideration of the facts.

Ron

 

[Kyle Legate]

RonSonic wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 01:09:34 +0200, Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>RonSonic wrote:
>>
>>>On 5 Aug 2006 11:57:40 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>[email protected] 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 ******** test, with ******** 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.

 

[RonSonic]

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 08:58:33 +0200, Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:

>RonSonic wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 01:09:34 +0200, Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>RonSonic wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 5 Aug 2006 11:57:40 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>[email protected] 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 ******** test, with ******** 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 protected]...
>
> ----- 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...
>
>
>>
>> "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> a écrit dans le message de news:
>> [email protected]...
>>>
>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> [email protected] 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.


>>
>> 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 ........?
>
>>> 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
>