# Sports Illustrated compares Roger Clemens to Lance



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

by Selena Roberts....

Unfavorable comparison in editorial on the last page of recent issue of SI.

http://www.fannation.com/blogs/post/155636

Is the facade crumbling? If LA chooses to strike back here it may be the worst mistake he ever makes.....

The problem for him here is that SI has worshipped him in the past and Clemens may be indicted...


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

lookrider said:


> by Selena Roberts....
> 
> Unfavorable comparison in editorial on the last page of recent issue of SI.
> 
> ...


How is it unfavorable? I failed to see that in the story.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

bas said:


> How is it unfavorable? I failed to see that in the story.


Any comparison to Clemens is not a good thing. The article clearly says that Lance is able to use the "Halo" that he has obtained thru his cancer works to deflect the overwhelming evidence of doping.

*Armstrong has cultivated a halo effect. This has deflected the negative fallout from tell-all books, the links to a crooked doctor, the dogged pursuit by antidoping czar Dick Pound and the suit he filed against a company for making BARKSTRONG pet collars, which are sold by animal charities.*

The same style have been unsuccessful for Clemens, Landis, etc, because they have *"no such protective aura"* and *"He can't borrow Lance's halo"*

At least Clemens had the guts/stupidity to testify in front of Congress, something Lance would never do.....and because of his "Halo" would never be asked to do.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*This is unfavorable..*



bas said:


> How is it unfavorable? I failed to see that in the story.


Friends don't let friends drive over a cliff. (These two are not the Thelma and Louise types.) It sure looks as if Lance has loaned the Rocket his dog-eared how-to guide for confronting drug allegations. In recent months Clemens has been in near lockstep with Armstrong's don't-mess-with-Texas methodology: Deny defiantly, sue aggressively.

I've seen others accused of doping take this approach (see Floyd Landis). "Athletes often try to convince themselves and everyone of their goodness," says Steven Ungerleider, a sports psychologist and antidoping expert who graduated from Texas. "They say, ‘I'm a good person, so I wouldn't cheat.' "

especially when combined with this..

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/sports/othersports/26roberts.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

bigpinkt said:


> Any comparison to Clemens is not a good thing. The article clearly says that Lance is able to use the "Halo" that he has obtained thru his cancer works to deflect the overwhelming evidence of doping.
> 
> *Armstrong has cultivated a halo effect. This has deflected the negative fallout from tell-all books, the links to a crooked doctor, the dogged pursuit by antidoping czar Dick Pound and the suit he filed against a company for making BARKSTRONG pet collars, which are sold by animal charities.*
> 
> ...



But Armstrong does have the Halo effect. You can't deny it.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

bas said:


> But Armstrong does have the Halo effect. You can't deny it.


Perhaps you misunderstood, or I did not explain correctly.

Nobody is denying the Halo effect, what they are saying is that it is that well cultivated image that has allowed him to get away with cheating and doping...and lying about it, for years. His followers give him a pass....because of his cancer works many ignore the massive evidence of doping.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Yup*



bigpinkt said:


> Perhaps you misunderstood, or I did not explain correctly.
> 
> Nobody is denying the Halo effect, what they are saying is that it is that well cultivated image that has allowed him to get away with cheating and doping...and lying about it, for years. His followers give him a pass....because of his cancer works many ignore the massive evidence of doping.


This Sports Illustrated thing is a game changer..If he is stupid enough to go after Roberts that will be the last nail in his coffin.

And this will definitely embolden Walsh...

Mark my words.. This thing will be huge...

I saw his last Charlie Rose interview, where Rose was really sucking up to LA and wondering why the allegations wouldn't stop. Well this thing has now broken out of the cycling community with regard to SI. I may write to Martin Dugard who is on Active.com I believe, and ask him how he feels about badmouthing Lemond now... 

People like Rick Reilly who were sucking up may be fawning but they're not stupid. This thing is just too big of a story to ignore and once this thing gains momentum with Clemens and especially Bonds trials coming up it's over. 

Even though Bonds was raised with a silver spoon in his mouth he's coming out with this black militant thing now... How is it going to look if he gets this incredible scrutiny and LA and Clemens get off.

You can't hide the truth forever.......


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

I just shot off a quick email to Martin Dugard....here it is....

Now that it has become clear that Lance Armstrong was doping, are you going to apologize for maligning Greg Lemond in Chasing Lance?

Selena Roberts editorial in Sports Illustrated has finally broken through to the most important sports magazine in the world and I wanted to know if you and other writers such as Rick Reilly believe that it is your duty to conduct an exhaustive investigation of the greatest sports fraud in history..By that I'm talking of the whole drug cheating era which has destroyed people like Shirley Babashoff?

Personally, I think you're obligated....rather than just kissing up as people all across the spectrum including Ted Kopple and Charlie Rose have done...That is if you care about integrity in sports...


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

lookrider said:


> I just shot off a quick email to Martin Dugard....here it is....
> 
> Now that it has become clear that Lance Armstrong was doping, are you going to apologize for maligning Greg Lemond in Chasing Lance?


But it isn't clear than Lance did dope. The amount of circumstantial evidence is staggering but there is no proof that he did it. Maybe he was genetically superior and worked harder than everyone else. That change grows increasingly smaller every month but it's still there.

That said, in my mind he did dope. I hope everyone gets called out on it but we still need absolute proof before you go damaging someone's public reputation.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

lookrider said:


> I just shot off a quick email to Martin Dugard....here it is....
> 
> Now that it has become clear that Lance Armstrong was doping, are you going to apologize for maligning Greg Lemond in Chasing Lance?
> 
> ...


Like Henry, I think Lance doped too..In my mind, he was _too_ dominate but I can't figure out how you can say "it has become clear"....


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Dave Hickey said:


> Like Henry, I think Lance doped too..In my mind, he was _too_ dominate but I can't figure out how you can say "it has become clear"....


6 EPO positives from the 99 tour is clear enough for me. 

I find it funny, or perhaps sad. One Telekom soigneur said he helped Riis dope and what happens? Riis comes out and admits, "says come get my Jerseys" Zabel also admits

The evidence against Lance is overwhelmingly greater, the 99 positives, the confession, Emma, Swart, yet he still denies, denies, denies


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> 6 EPO positives from the 99 tour is clear enough for me.
> 
> I find it funny, or perhaps sad. One Telekom soigneur said he helped Riis dope and what happens? Riis comes out and admits, "says come get my Jerseys" Zabel also admits
> 
> The evidence against Lance is overwhelmingly greater, the 99 positives, the confession, Emma, Swart, yet he still denies, denies, denies


Well, you have to admit the denial thing has worked pretty well for him so far.


----------



## cocoboots (Apr 13, 2006)

Lance will admit doping in a tell all book after his political career. he'll need the extra money for his flings with anorexic 20yr old tarts.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Henry Porter said:


> Well, you have to admit the denial thing has worked pretty well for him so far.


True,

it is rather comical to see Clemens, Tyler, etc. try the same tactic and have it fail due to lack of "Halo"


----------



## danielc (Oct 24, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> 6 EPO positives from the 99 tour is clear enough for me.
> 
> I find it funny, or perhaps sad. One Telekom soigneur said he helped Riis dope and what happens? Riis comes out and admits, "says come get my Jerseys" Zabel also admits
> 
> The evidence against Lance is overwhelmingly greater, the 99 positives, the confession, Emma, Swart, yet he still denies, denies, denies



The sad thing is that we who believe he doped are in the extreme minority. If you ask anyone off the street if Lance doped, they will surely say no. That is why he can get away with denials. He doesn't have to answer to us, he just has to pander to the general US public who believe he is the greatest cyclist to have ever lived (Eddy who?). I mean, how many of you have had to explain why you believe Lance doped at parties, social gatherings, etc? Every time I do it I get a complete look of shock on their faces.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Look at the way the Clemens allegations have unfolded.*



Henry Porter said:


> But it isn't clear than Lance did dope. The amount of circumstantial evidence is staggering but there is no proof that he did it. Maybe he was genetically superior and worked harder than everyone else. That change grows increasingly smaller every month but it's still there.
> 
> That said, in my mind he did dope. I hope everyone gets called out on it but we still need absolute proof before you go damaging someone's public reputation.


Look at the parallels between Roger Clemens and Lance Armstrong

Clemens has never tested positive. There is no *absolute* proof that he doped, nor Bonds, nor Marion Jones. Absolute proof is not the standard here..

Unless Brian Mc Namee, tells the truth, he will be prosecuted. He tells the truth under oath about Andy Pettite and Chuck Knobloch, but lies about Roger Clemens. Why would he do this?

Frankie and Betsey Andreu are subpoened, to tell the truth in the SCA insurance bonus trial. They give sworn depositions that Lance did admit to doping up till '96 to doctors in the hospital room. Lance's Oakley liason Stacey Mc Ilvaine was also present. Frankie makes his living from cycling. Why would Frankie and Betsey Andreu perjure themselves? Because Betsey hates Lance. They have a couple young kids and Frankie is financially slitting his own throat because his wife hates Lance? Think about it, this is the only stuff that Congress has on Roger Clemens right now... 

Brian Mc Namee has a young ill child as does Stacy Mc Ilvaine. Her health insurance is in jeopardy if she opens her mouth.. She's the next one on the list in a serious investigation.

Here's the deal. When you get serious journalists, such as Selena Roberts shining a spotlight on this and casting doubt and Sports Illustrated makes the courageous editoral decision to run it, even after their previous fawning worshipful coverage of LA this signifies a sea change.

Clemens will go on trial because he threw too many people under the bus and his excuses were too ridiculous, including this nanny didn't speak English fluently bs. He was clearly lying and he dug himself a hole.

As for destroying someone's public reputation, Lance Armstrong has no such qualms about doing it and among those people he tried to ruin was Greg Lemond...

Think about this, why did Lance lie about Cofidis not paying him when they did in fact pay 2/3rds of his salary?

Martin Dugard wrote a hagiographic account of LA's victory and also writes on active.com. I'm going to follow up on my email, and inform him that not only am I waiting for a response. The members of roadbikereview.com are waiting as I've posted on these threads. He seems like a decent guy.

Also, I don't know if I have to tell anyone here, but I can be very persistent...

Lest you think I'm being ridiculous, I wrote a critical email to Suzanne Halliburton of the Austin Statesman, when LA's divorce hit the fan and we had a back and forth going for a little while..


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

[email protected] 

[email protected]

This is the email I just sent to Martin Dugard's above email addresses.

Martin, 

By the way, I just wanted to inform you that the Lance Armstrong doping controversy, your book, and the Selena Roberts editorial in Sports Illustrated are topics of conversation on the roadbikereview.com doping forum.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

lookrider said:


> Look at the parallels between Roger Clemens and Lance Armstrong
> 
> Clemens has never tested positive. There is no *absolute* proof that he doped, nor Bonds, nor Marion Jones. Absolute proof is not the standard here..
> 
> ...


Marion Jones admitted to it. McNamee saying he injected Clemens outweighs any testifying against Lance at this time (the only comparison can be to Andy Petitte's testimony, not to McNamee). You need to get Ferrari or Carmicheal or Bruyneel to testify to get the same status. I don't follow the Bonds case but hasn't the Balco guy produced proof? All you've provided is circumstantial evidence and that Lance isn't a good guy, I think that's pretty well established. You didn't even point out that he was dominating guys now proven to have doped. :thumbsup: 

You don't get to decide what the standard is. I don't either. So far, Lance has convinced the general public that positive tests are the standard. It's not right but I think that will change in the near future but I'm no prophet.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Henry Porter said:


> Marion Jones admitted to it. .


Marion Jones admitted to it after she denied it for years. The media scrutiny and her own conscience to a degree made her buckle.



Henry Porter said:


> McNamee saying he injected Clemens outweighs any testifying against Lance at this time (the only comparison can be to Andy Petitte's testimony, not to McNamee). You need to get Ferrari or Carmicheal or Bruyneel to testify to get the same status..


I think you're missing the point a little. As another poster mentioned, most people at cocktail parties think LA is innocent. The same can't be said for Clemens because the details are out there in the mainstream media which isn't the case with Lance..He's been able to keep his silly denials hidden somewhat.. It's not a matter of Ferrari or anyone testifying. It's a matter of a credible journalist such as Mike Wallace asking hard questions in front of 30 million people and presenting a tip of the iceberg of evidence. People, myself include aren't happy about being duped and they won't look at LA the same again..



Henry Porter said:


> I don't follow the Bonds case but hasn't the Balco guy produced proof? ..


Well, somewhat tainted proof, kind of like the 6 epo positives from '99 that can be explained away as a personal vendetta.




Henry Porter said:


> All you've provided is circumstantial evidence and that Lance isn't a good guy, I think that's pretty well established...


It's established among us that he's not a good guy, but not among the general public. Think about all of the people he has destroyed to keep his rep intact.



Henry Porter said:


> You didn't even point out that he was dominating guys now proven to have doped. :thumbsup: ...


Six months to a year ago, I was one of the uninformed masses who thought LA was clean, although the divorce, his characterization of it, and finally the Cofidis thing convinced me he was profoundly dishonest.. I never did buy the thing about just because he was beating doped guys he was doping. I don't think dope will make a silk purse out of a sows ear, but maybe I'm a little naive too.



Henry Porter said:


> You don't get to decide what the standard is. I don't either. So far, Lance has convinced the general public that positive tests are the standard. It's not right but I think that will change in the near future but I'm no prophet.


Look at what's happened to Clemens, I think he is incredibly self involved and arrogant but even he knows his reputation is gone. This whole Clemens thing is going to set the standard in how LA is judged. IF and it's a big IF, journalists do their job, he is done.

LA's best bet is to shut up.. You don't think someone who calls themselves a serious journalist is obligated to report this and ask LA for comment? It's a gigantic story and the best bet for any serious journalist is to add to what is known and get people to speak on the record. And as everyone now knows, this, "I never tested positive," is bs as the Marion Jones case proves....


----------



## funktekk (Jul 29, 2006)

From where I stand I find most educated people think Lance doped, and they don't care. 

It is exactly like the disparity between football and baseball. A football player dopes does is four game suspension and the fans cheer when he runs back on the field for his return.

Baseball is a game of numbers. The stats of baseball are beloved more than the game itself. The fan base and general public gets offended when these number become tainted. If Barry Bonds would not have threatened and then passed Aaron's record there would not have been this stink. Clemens is feeling the wrath because of his stats and importance in the game.


This is also why Lance's doping is a lot bigger deal in France. The history of the tour is cherished there. The Americans I talk to say, "Yeah Lance took drugs, but so do all those other bike racer guys." The Americans don't know and don't care about the history of the tour. However they do have a point about cyclists and drugs. Drugs and cheating have a storied history in bike racing.

I live in a world of moral relativism. Lance doped, so did everyone else. Lance did a lot of fund raising for cancer, and inspired many to face their illness with courage. Therefore Lance is a good guy in my book.


----------



## crumjack (Sep 11, 2005)

The article does make the excellent point that Clemens outstayed his welcome. To most MLB fans, his "Surprise, I'm back!" over the past few years was irritating. Lance was smart enough to get out of dodge before the crap hit the fan.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*I can't argue with anyone's morals*



funktekk said:


> I live in a world of moral relativism. Lance doped, so did everyone else. Lance did a lot of fund raising for cancer, and inspired many to face their illness with courage. Therefore Lance is a good guy in my book.


But I'm sorry, in this world morals are absolute.

He inspired many people to face their illness with courage because they thought he was pure and that through the sheer force of will they could beat it as he apparrently did. If people knew the extent of his dishonesty they would be outraged.

Let me also break some news to you. Not everybody doped, ok.

For someone to say that this is a world of moral relativism, this is the kind of person that I look upon with suspicion at all times. The kind of person that can't be trusted because when the conditions are right, they're going to f&ck me.

For someone to justify his bs by saying he raised a lot of money for cancer, who gives a $hit? everybody has to die from something, if you live to 120 but you're a dishonest piece of $hit who will ruin someone because of your shifting morals, what difference does that make? I'd rather die at 25 than be a corrupt piece of garbage...This is where we are, raising money so we can survive, somewhat like rats or cockroaches......


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

lookrider said:


> For someone to justify his bs by saying he raised a lot of money for cancer, who gives a $hit? everybody has to die from something, ......



As a 14 year cancer survivor, I do


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Dave Hickey said:


> As a 14 year cancer survivor, I do


of course we should all be grateful for his foundation's contributions but the larger point that look made is that it's got to compartmentalized from his doping. you don't get to choose how you make good for your sporting fraud if you're an athlete. you can't hide behind the good you've done with your ill gotten gains, especially when he's taken such a scorched earth policy to keep the illusion alive.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*yes*



blackhat said:


> of course we should all be grateful for his foundation's contributions but the larger point that look made is that it's got to compartmentalized from his doping. you don't get to choose how you make good for your sporting fraud if you're an athlete. you can't hide behind the good you've done with your ill gotten gains, especially when he's taken such a scorched earth policy to keep the illusion alive.


thank you,

Sorry Dave Hickey, sincerely....


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

Dave Hickey said:


> As a 14 year cancer survivor, I do


Dave you are exactly right, he has done great work for the cancer cause. 

But that doesn't change the fact that he has a nasty personal life, surrounded by people who don't trust him, don't want to be around him, and find him to be quite an A-hole. 

I think LA does an excellent job with his professional career. For him, his professional career included his cycling, foundation, and his public persona. However, his true persona and morals is quite different. It is ugly IMO. I think that for some of the posters like lookrider, his personal life is what they despise. Is it right or wrong to judge him for his personal morals? To each his own, I guess.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

Agree but this thread isn't about his personal life. It's about whether he doped or not. 

I said in this thread, and many other times, I think he doped through out his career... I'd be shocked if he didn't dope....... I took exception to the flippant comment about cancer. 

I understand that Lance wouldn't have his foundation without his cycling success but I have no problem supporting the foundation because it's a good cause. I guess I'm able to seperate the two. 

Lance Armstrong has never been a hero of mine but he's done wonders for the cancer community. My admiration stops there....


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Kestreljr said:


> Dave you are exactly right, he has done great work for the cancer cause.
> 
> But that doesn't change the fact that he has a nasty personal life, surrounded by people who don't trust him, don't want to be around him, and find him to be quite an A-hole.
> 
> I think LA does an excellent job with his professional career. For him, his professional career included his cycling, foundation, and his public persona. However, his true persona and morals is quite different. It is ugly IMO. I think that for some of the posters like lookrider, his personal life is what they despise. Is it right or wrong to judge him for his personal morals? To each his own, I guess.


Im not sure that's true. his "inner circle" is tight. aside from the mike anderson spectacle none of his confidants have turned on him, and Im not sure how close anderson actually got. his problems are entirely professional, imo. the people that turn on him are former colleagues.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

blackhat said:


> Im not sure that's true. his "inner circle" is tight. aside from the mike anderson spectacle none of his confidants have turned on him, and Im not sure how close anderson actually got. his problems are entirely professional, imo. the people that turn on him are former colleagues.


I know many of his former teammates and support staff that despise him... FYI, Anderson got very close, they used to call him "Wife #2"


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*It wasn't my intention to offend intentionally,*



Dave Hickey said:


> Agree but this thread isn't about his personal life. It's about whether he doped or not.
> 
> I said in this thread, and many other times, I think he doped through out his career... I'd be shocked if he didn't dope....... I took exception to the flippant comment about cancer.
> 
> ...


and if I offended inadvertantly, I'm sorry about that too.

That being said, my comments were misconstrued into being a "flippant comment about cancer."

The fact is that LA used his sporting fraud to finance his philanthropy, and he's cynically using that philanthropy to shield himself from close scrutiny.

This is what happened on this thread. LA has aligned himself so closely with cancer that any criticism of him means the critic is against those same charitable works(and the people afflicted with cancer) he aligns himself with? This makes no sense at all.

Bill Gates does this nonsense, Frank Lucas, the NYC heroin dealer did this, the robber barrons did this. 

Another poster said that people know and don't care. This could not be further from the truth and is why LA fights so viciously to keep the truth from surfacing. It's also terribly revealing about the cynicism of that poster..


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

You obviously care a whole lot more about this subject than I do...... 

I know in my mind that I think he doped....

I'm not on a crusade to bring him down....There are way too many other important things to worry about

If it were to come out tomorrow that he doped and the LAF folded, I'll move on to another cancer cause.....no biggie...


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*???????*



Dave Hickey said:


> You obviously care a whole lot more about this subject than I do......
> 
> I know in my mind that I think he doped....
> 
> ...


If one doesn't care enough there is criticism, if one cares "too much" the same.

We are all on these forums, chewing the fat so to speak.

Who decides what is important to care about?

If someone chooses to believe that someone else is 'against cancer' in my opinion this is a little bit of an overreaction.

I think being straight up in ones relationships is paramount. You may feel other things are more important to worry about.

For me longevity, without integrity and a basic level of human decency is somewhat pointless. 

To each his own.....


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

have a nice day....good luck to you.....


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*What we place value on. Measured by money, time, belief....*



Kestreljr said:


> Dave you are exactly right, he has done great work for the cancer cause.
> 
> But that doesn't change the fact that he has a nasty personal life, surrounded by people who don't trust him, don't want to be around him, and find him to be quite an A-hole.
> 
> I think LA does an excellent job with his professional career. For him, his professional career included his cycling, foundation, and his public persona. However, his true persona and morals is quite different. It is ugly IMO. I think that for some of the posters like lookrider, his personal life is what they despise. Is it right or wrong to judge him for his personal morals? To each his own, I guess.


What really bothers me is that he has made a fortune promoting this idea that he is the living embodiment of hope.

The guy is Mr Sanctimonious doling out this fraudulent mythology about how to *Livestrong* and the whole time he was getting stuck like a pin cushion to be able to achieve these things.

The mythology consisted of his love for his wife, faith in hard work and believing in yourself, and that he, LA, is the beacon of hope, that gravely ill people can look up to as an example of perserverance.. all subjective religious concepts that he himself doesn't have one iota of belief in, being that he's an atheist...

A snake oil salesman selling a fraudulent dream, that offends me.

Others have said that there are many more important things to worry about.

I'd have to ask, like what*????*


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

lookrider said:


> What really bothers me is that he has made a fortune promoting this idea that he is the living embodiment of hope.
> 
> The guy is Mr Sanctimonious doling out this fraudulent mythology about how to *Livestrong* and the whole time he was getting stuck like a pin cushion to be able to achieve these things.
> 
> ...



How about some woman who finds out she has breast cancer and uses Lance's "story" as motivation and inspiration to help see her daughter walk down the aisle. The mental process is very important in the fight for health and if you think Lance using EPO is more important than that, well, we have completely different morals.

People make money off immoral stuff all the time, spend your time on fighting something that does damage to people.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*How dare I take away someone's belief in Lance.*



Henry Porter said:


> How about some woman who finds out she has breast cancer and uses Lance's "story" as motivation and inspiration to help see her daughter walk down the aisle. The mental process is very important in the fight for health and if you think Lance using EPO is more important than that, well, we have completely different morals..


Wow, the guy is that special that he gets a free pass because someone may have an irrational belief in him. I didn't know that the possibility that someone idolizes people like Lance or Bill Gates, gave the objects of their idolatry carte blanche to go thru life lying through their teeth.

I'm not an idolater myself, and I give people a little more credit to be able to handle the truth than you evidently do...

Lets not investigate allegations against churches, reverends or ministers, because they preach the Gospel and someone's faith might be shaken.

Ironically, when pressed, LA always emphasizes that people "need to know that the person who can help them best is themselves."

That's a quote from Dugard's book..(BTW, I have to get back to that guy)

I guess that is somewhat profound but we don't need a superman on a bike to tell us that.



Henry Porter said:


> spend your time on fighting something that does damage to people.


Is Greg Lemond a people? Andreu? David Walsh? All the misguided people taking $hit so they can be the next LA, Barry Bonds, or Roger Clemens.. How about Shirley Babashoff? you probably don't even know who she is. Did she have damage done to her?



Henry Porter said:


> People make money off immoral stuff all the time.


And......it's ok?

You're right, we have completely different morals.

Hey listen, please don't disturb me for a while. I'm right in the middle of bringing down Lance.

:wink: :wink: :yikes: :yikes:  :sad: :sad: :sad: :shocked: :crazy: :crazy: :nono: :mad5: :10:


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Someone who wasn't hurt by doping..

http://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/lane9/news/13191.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Babashoff


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

blackhat said:


> Im not sure that's true. his "inner circle" is tight. aside from the mike anderson spectacle none of his confidants have turned on him, and Im not sure how close anderson actually got. his problems are entirely professional, imo. the people that turn on him are former colleagues.


I see your point blackhat, I might have overstated my case. But just because people don't rat him out doesn't mean the people close to him are happy to be around him. 

I had some ties to in the past with tailwind (4-5 years ago), and got to see the team and riders operate on a first hand bases. *I am not saying I am any imperial authority, but IMO*... he has some serious personal problems. His family ties, his close friends, his relationships with even people like G.H. are very rocky. There is obviously a huge amount of respect for him- for what he has done on the bike (doped or not) and what he has overcome, but his personal life has been crumbling away from him for a number of years.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

But hasn't he always had the reputation of being a d-ck? Back in this teenage triathlon days he was known as being brash and arrogant..

My involvement with him was limited to about 30 seconds on a charity bike ride so I can't speak from firsthand knowledge of the type of person he is


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

lookrider said:


> Wow, the guy is that special that he gets a free pass because someone may have an irrational belief in him. I didn't know that the possibility that someone idolizes people like Lance or Bill Gates, gave the objects of their idolatry carte blanche to go thru life lying through their teeth.


Very people here give him a free pass. It's pretty clear that he doped but most of us have the world experience to realize that while it is bad there are much worse things in the world. 



lookrider said:


> I'm not an idolater myself, and I give people a little more credit to be able to handle the truth than you evidently do...
> 
> Lets not investigate allegations against churches, reverends or ministers, because they preach the Gospel and someone's faith might be shaken.


No one here has said that it shouldn't be investigated but rather there is no non-circumstantial proof that he did it. 



lookrider said:


> Is Greg Lemond a people? Andreu? David Walsh? All the misguided people taking $hit so they can be the next LA, Barry Bonds, or Roger Clemens.. How about Shirley Babashoff? you probably don't even know who she is. Did she have damage done to her?


You can stop with the condescending comments. Sure, they're people but again, it's all about priorities. You can keep obsessing about some retired guy who used to ride bikes for a living and now spends time raising funds for cancer. I'll work on preparing myself to help people with real-world medical problems.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Kestreljr said:


> I see your point blackhat, I might have overstated my case. But just because people don't rat him out doesn't mean the people close to him are happy to be around him.
> 
> I had some ties to in the past with tailwind (4-5 years ago), and got to see the team and riders operate on a first hand bases. *I am not saying I am any imperial authority, but IMO*... he has some serious personal problems. His family ties, his close friends, his relationships with even people like G.H. are very rocky. There is obviously a huge amount of respect for him- for what he has done on the bike (doped or not) and what he has overcome, but his personal life has been crumbling away from him for a number of years.


yeah, Im probably giving him to much credit for not being a sociopath. the more I think about it, pinks probably right about anderson, and factor the number of relatively close people that have publicly turned on him. outside of his texas crowd of knaggs and that sort, he seems to make enemies rather easily, fwiw.


and Porter....get a grip. we all have jobs and things we do when we're not obsessing about LA's drug use. as I said previously-his current very admirable charitable works have zero to do with his sporting fraud. learn to compartmentalize, my well educated friend.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*You get to set the standard over what's important*

and what everyone's priorities should be?



Henry Porter said:


> we have completely different morals..


Evidently you are the arbiter of morals?



Henry Porter said:


> People make money off immoral stuff all the time,.


So after it exceeds a level you deem excessive I'm free to feel offended and do something about it? Thanks.



Henry Porter said:


> spend your time on fighting something that does damage to people.


You've ascertained the extent of damages in totality done by doping in sports? I'd be interested in your cost/benefit analysis to society. You're in academia now, no? There are people in the academy that focus on these things and spend a tremendous amount of time on them? no? In addition to your medical studies, you also spend a decent amount of time talking about things on this forum of very little import, no? Do these issues not detract from your studies?

Thanks for the advice on time management though...



Henry Porter said:


> You don't get to decide what the standard is. I don't either. So far, Lance has convinced the general public that positive tests are the standard. It's not right but I think that will change in the near future but I'm no prophet.


Anybody can establish the standard if they are convincing enough. Thanks for letting me know my place in the world again though...




Henry Porter said:


> Very people here give him a free pass. It's pretty clear that he doped but most of us have the world experience to realize that while it is bad there are much worse things in the world.


Again, the arbiter of real world experience, what's important and not important, and well....it could be worse, maybe the absolute king of meaningless statements..

Maybe you should be an editor so you can deem what's appropriate for consumption by the masses. Totalitarian regimes have a penchant for deciding what's important or best for other people also...



Henry Porter said:


> No one here has said that it shouldn't be investigated but rather there is no non-circumstantial proof that he did it.


You'd never make it as a lawyer. People are regularly convicted of serious crimes and sent to prison based on completely circumstancial cases against them...




Henry Porter said:


> You can stop with the condescending comments. .


That's a laugh. This forum discusses doping issues. You continually condescend by foisting your moral and ethical code on others and when you run out of argument anything beyond that is a waste of time.



Henry Porter said:


> Sure, they're people but again, it's all about priorities..


There you go again. Thanks for gracing this forum with your over arching wisdom about the prioritization of such matters in polite society.



Henry Porter said:


> You can keep obsessing.


Some kind of vague attack on the state of my mental health? LMAO.



Henry Porter said:


> The mental process is very important in the fight for health and if you think Lance using EPO is more important than that, well, we have completely different morals..


Evidently, with your superior morals, you can attack *my* "mental process" when it's convenient to win an argument. Is that kind of psychological attack appropriate for an aspiring doctor?



Henry Porter said:


> You can keep obsessing about some retired guy who used to ride bikes for a living and now spends time raising funds for cancer. .


BTW, you haven't spent much time on these forums concerned with this non entity who used to ride a bike?



Henry Porter said:


> I'll work on preparing myself to help people with real-world medical problems.


Well, most of us are here for entertainment purposes. I hope I've upheld my end on that front. LMAO

Is play time over dad? You get back to the real world now....

Maybe this can be instructive for you, dealing with a real pain in the a$$ who has an answer for everything.....


----------



## jtompilot (Mar 31, 2002)

Several points I would like to mention....

Was Lance still taking anti-cancer drugs in 99 that could account for the positive results?

I do believe Lance doped, but I dont see how samples from 99 can be considered proof.

Who knows what was done to the samples over the years...

It does seem that the top riders Lance competed against doped. Its not right but its an even playing field.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

jtompilot said:


> Several points I would like to mention....
> 
> Was Lance still taking anti-cancer drugs in 99 that could account for the positive results?
> 
> ...


no he wasn't taking cancer drugs in '99. the test would not have shown his urine to be + for EPO even if he were. for the tampering you're implying is a possibility to have taken place someone with access would have to have known which samples were his (they're anonymous #'d samples) and would have to have a method for adding the markers that indicate EPO use into his samples on dates suspiciously relevant to his tdf performance. 2 highly unlikely, nearly impossible scenarios.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Not to beat a dead horse*

but with my obsessive personality I couldn't help myself...



Henry Porter said:


> Very people here give him a free pass. It's pretty clear that he doped but most of us have the world experience to realize that while it is bad there are much worse things in the world. .


Did this person realize it was bad?



bas said:


> How is it unfavorable? I failed to see that in the story.


Necessitating this



bigpinkt said:


> Perhaps you misunderstood, or I did not explain correctly.
> 
> Nobody is denying the Halo effect, what they are saying is that it is that well cultivated image that has allowed him to get away with cheating and doping...and lying about it, for years. His followers give him a pass....because of his cancer works many ignore the massive evidence of doping.


And I did acknowledge that most of *us* know like here,



lookrider said:


> It's established among us that he's not a good guy, but not among the general public.


but not amongst the general public, as this poster pointed out.



danielc said:


> The sad thing is that we who believe he doped are in the extreme minority. If you ask anyone off the street if Lance doped, they will surely say no. That is why he can get away with denials. He doesn't have to answer to us, he just has to pander to the general US public who believe he is the greatest cyclist to have ever lived (Eddy who?). I mean, how many of you have had to explain why you believe Lance doped at parties, social gatherings, etc? Every time I do it I get a complete look of shock on their faces.


but you persist



Henry Porter said:


> No one here has said that it shouldn't be investigated but rather there is no non-circumstantial proof that he did it. .


Oh no? You mean like this person?



funktekk said:


> From where I stand I find most educated people think Lance doped, and they don't care.
> 
> The Americans I talk to say, "Yeah Lance took drugs, but so do all those other bike racer guys." The Americans don't know and don't care about the history of the tour.
> 
> I live in a world of moral relativism. Lance doped, so did everyone else. Lance did a lot of fund raising for cancer, and inspired many to face their illness with courage. Therefore Lance is a good guy in my book.


or like you?



Henry Porter said:


> How about some woman who finds out she has breast cancer and uses Lance's "story" as motivation and inspiration to help see her daughter walk down the aisle. The mental process is very important in the fight for health and if you think Lance using EPO is more important than that, well, we have completely different morals.
> 
> People make money off immoral stuff all the time, spend your time on fighting something that does damage to people.


So you can't have it both ways here, if the investigation is conducted this woman won't have her inspiration, so the implication by you is that the investigation shouldn't be conducted. Except when you write...



Henry Porter said:


> No one here has said that it shouldn't be investigated but rather there is no non-circumstantial proof that he did it. .


Which is it?

Don't investigations take time also? Weren't you instructing me not to spend the time on this issue because 



Henry Porter said:


> there are much worse things in the world.


but then again...



Henry Porter said:


> No one here has said that it shouldn't be investigated .



Of course, now I understand...Thanks for clarifying things for me.....

It's easy to have superior morals when you argue both sides, isn't it.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

lookrider said:


> It's easy to have superior morals when you argue both sides, isn't it.


No, it's pretty easy when you realize what a trivial thing this is in the world in which we live. I was just trying to illustrate how this issue isn't as simple as you want it to be. But hey, whatever. Keep on that soapbox, I'm sure it really will pay off for you.


----------



## physasst (Oct 1, 2005)

lookrider said:


> Wow, the guy is that special that he gets a free pass because someone may have an irrational belief in him. I didn't know that the possibility that someone idolizes people like Lance or Bill Gates, gave the objects of their idolatry carte blanche to go thru life lying through their teeth.
> 
> I'm not an idolater myself, and I give people a little more credit to be able to handle the truth than you evidently do...
> 
> ...




Well, to be honest, most people don't want, and can't really handle the plain and real truth, ESPECIALLY when it comes to their idols. 

FWIW......when it comes to LA........WHO REALLY GIVES A F*CK?????

I mean really, this is stupidity raised to another level altogether....WHO cares? 

I can count on one hand the amount of times I have even thought of LA in the past year....maybe even less than that. He's yesterday's news, so who the h*ll cares??

This whole thing is quite comical.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*talk about a soapbox*



lookrider said:


> It's easy to have superior morals when you argue both sides, isn't it.





Henry Porter said:


> No, it's pretty easy when you realize what a trivial thing this is in the world in which we live. I was just trying to illustrate how this issue isn't as simple as you want it to be.


So according to you it's an issue of no importance, but complex nonetheless?



Henry Porter said:


> No, it's pretty easy when you realize what a trivial thing this is in the world in which we live.


and I stand back in awe at your wisdom and perspective.



lookrider said:


> I was just trying to illustrate how this issue isn't as simple as you want it to be.


thanks for illuminating the complexities.



lookrider said:


> But hey, whatever. Keep on that soapbox, I'm sure it really will pay off for you.


Will pay off? It already has. I love these ridiculous exchanges with you.....

BTW it didn't seem so trivial to you here



Henry Porter said:


> How about some woman who finds out she has breast cancer and uses Lance's "story" as motivation and inspiration to help see her daughter walk down the aisle. The mental process is very important in the fight for health and if you think Lance using EPO is more important than that, well, we have completely different morals..


Advice from another poaster



blackhat said:


> and Porter....get a grip. we all have jobs and things we do when we're not obsessing about LA's drug use. as I said previously-his current very admirable charitable works have zero to do with his sporting fraud. learn to compartmentalize, my well educated friend.


Again when your arguments are exhausted and I call you on arguing both sides which I exhaustively detailed and I call you on your higher morals, wisdom, and perspective, you strike back about me being on a soapbox. Ok you're right, happy?..LMAO...


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*That's entertainment*



physasst said:


> Well, to be honest, most people don't want, and can't really handle the plain and real truth, ESPECIALLY when it comes to their idols.


I'm all for testing that proposition out. Preferably with a beer in hand.



physasst said:


> FWIW......when it comes to LA........WHO REALLY GIVES A F*CK?????


Wow, I basically caught you contradicting yourself in two sentences. Look at your first quote at the top. Maybe you don't, but a lot of people evidently do care about LA, or as you state 'give a f&ck.' Maybe not on the RBR forums but I'm willing to bet a lot of people do idolize LA as was implicit in your first quote...



physasst said:


> I mean really, this is stupidity raised to another level altogether....WHO cares?


I guess it's safe to say we can put you in the column of not caring....



physasst said:


> I can count on one hand the amount of times I have even thought of LA in the past year....maybe even less than that.


You didn't watch the Tour last year or the reruns of teh Lance Chonicles? Ferrari's hands made an uncredited appearance giving Lance a shot of horse steroids in the a$$.



physasst said:


> He's yesterday's news, so who the h*ll cares?


I'm sorry, you can only vote once in the 'do you care about Lance category.'



physasst said:


> This whole thing is quite comical.


Well, after the rough day you had, a few laughs must have helped a little..

Henry is real persistent and according to him I'm obsessive so stick around for more of me picking apart his arguments...


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2008)

lookrider said:


> What really bothers me is that he has made a fortune promoting this idea that he is the living embodiment of hope.
> 
> The guy is Mr Sanctimonious doling out this fraudulent mythology about how to *Livestrong* and the whole time he was getting stuck like a pin cushion to be able to achieve these things.
> 
> ...


If he did dope it is one of most cynical scams in sports history.

Dope to win 7 TDF's - check
Use charity work to create 'halo' to hide behind - check
Show false hope to people with (or who have had) cancer - check
Create BS training mythology...Carmichael makes tons of $ out of it - check
Lie, lie, and lie again - check

I personally find it hard to believe he was clean; he doped as far as I am concerned.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*I appreciate what you wrote*



the_rydster said:


> If he did dope it is one of most cynical scams in sports history.
> 
> Dope to win 7 TDF's - check
> Use charity work to create 'halo' to hide behind - check
> ...


In my mind this kind of fraud is an insult to the the fundementals of what people strive for their lives to be about..


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

jtompilot said:


> Several points I would like to mention....
> 
> Was Lance still taking anti-cancer drugs in 99 that could account for the positive results?
> 
> ...


From what I've read, once your chemo or other cancer treatments stop, your body takes over. In other words no more treatment necessary. Furthermore, I doubt that LA started his intensive training immediately after his last treatment. 

The samples from 1999 were frozen and then re-tested recently (2006???) as an experiment for new anti-doping tests for synthetic EPO. Those samples were marked only by number. The technicians had no way of knowing to whom they belonged. If I remember reading correctly, 6 of them actually did belong to LA and all 6 turned up positive with this new test. Then a journalist (please excuse me for not providing names, I'm doing this from memory) cross-referenced these numbers with UCI headquarters in Switzerland and matched them to LA. LA actually gave his authorization to this (one of his few mistakes). Not the cross referencing but the opening of the archives, which permitted the former. He was duped by the journalist.

As far as who knows what was done to these samples over the years? I somehow doubt that lab technicians would've spiked the right samples, all 6 of them. Not one of his samples came out negative. And yet there were negative samples from other riders amongst all the 1999 samples. So probability of spiking the right samples is extremely low. LA's PR campaign has been relatively successful this side of the Atlantic at least.

As far as an even playing field is concerned, here are two arguments for and against. One chooses which side he's on.,

1) Even playing field, Jan Ullrich, Roberta Heras, Ivan Basso.....

2) Here are two careers that Lance's shenanigans might've destroyed. Christophe Bassons, Filippo Simeoni.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Wow, I can't belive I'm weighing in on this but here goes.
1st, that article was nothing. LA would not give a rats a$$ about that. It states nothing defamatory that is not already very public knowledge. Why would he/you/I/us care?
2nd, Lookrider..... don't be using Lemoan and FA as examples of people LA has "destroyed". Both of those guys are dopers. FA has even admitted to it. They, like LA, have profitted from a fraudulent career based on lies and cheating. Therefore, they should be cast in the same light, not become victims of Lance's evilness.
3rd, '99 samples cannot be used as evidence that LA doped. The test was experimental and not recognized as being effective, there was no B sample to back up the original test, the samples were 6 years old and could not be relied upon to be usable. Do I think that he doped in '99? Yes. Do I think that those samples could be considered proof? No.
4th, The vast majority of the non-cycling public are quite certain that LA was doped. Thus killing the whole fraud thing. Rarely do I talk to people who are shocked to hear that not only do I think that LA doped, but that 95% of pro cyclists dope. I also think that if you got the UCI to show up at your industrial park crit on Tuesday and test everyone who was racing you would be shocked by the results. People cheat.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> 3rd, '99 samples cannot be used as evidence that LA doped.


They can't be used to sanction him but to most rational observers they are proof that he doped. The WADA/UCIcode has a much higher level of proof then a regular court.



mtbbmet said:


> The test was experimental and not recognized as being effective,


The test was not experimental, it was the same test that is used today to catch dopers



mtbbmet said:


> the samples were 6 years old and could not be relied upon to be usable.


This is not correct, in fact the tests were run on anonymous samples in order to find if EPO remained stable after being frozen for 5 years. Turns out it was as there were multiple positives besides Lance....but he was the only one stupid enough to authorize the UCI to release the confidential numbers that correlate with the tests.

There is ZERO evidence that EPO can magically materialize in frozen samples. This leaves two possibilities

-The French spiked the samples. Very hard to believe, even harder to achieve as the samples were anonymous until almost a year after the tests were run. Impossible to know which samples to spike. The levels of EPO also corresponded with what would be expected from a doping program, very high at the Prologue, gradually tapering down, then another spike after the rest day.

-Lance Doped


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*I disagree*



mtbbmet said:


> Wow, I can't belive I'm weighing in on this but here goes.
> 1st, that article was nothing. LA would not give a rats a$$ about that. It states nothing defamatory that is not already very public knowledge.. Why would he/you/I/us care?.


He would care because contrary to what you're saying, it's not very public knowledge.

I care because I feel duped by a monumental fraud he created, and contrary to what you're saying, I think most of the public thinks he was clean and a hero who could overcome huge odds by dint of his will.




mtbbmet said:


> 2nd, Lookrider..... don't be using Lemoan and FA as examples of people LA has "destroyed". Both of those guys are dopers. FA has even admitted to it.


There is zero evidence Lemond doped. He was 3rd in his first Tour as a 23 year old and came in second the following year because he was held back so Hinault could win. Andreu doped before the '99 Tour to keep his job as a domestique. LA threatening Lemond's business interests and Andreu's career in cycling are LA's vindictive retribution to keep his secret.



mtbbmet said:


> They, like LA, have profitted from a fraudulent career based on lies and cheating. .


Andreu voluntarily admitted doping because he said he wanted to clean up cycling. No one had anything incriminating on him.

Please point out any evidence of Lemond's doping..



mtbbmet said:


> Therefore, they should be cast in the same light, not become victims of Lance's evilness.
> 3rd, '99 samples cannot be used as evidence that LA doped. The test was experimental and not recognized as being effective, there was no B sample to back up the original test, the samples were 6 years old and could not be relied upon to be usable. Do I think that he doped in '99? Yes. Do I think that those samples could be considered proof? No.
> 4th, The vast majority of the non-cycling public are quite certain that LA was doped. Thus killing the whole fraud thing. Rarely do I talk to people who are shocked to hear that not only do I think that LA doped, but that 95% of pro cyclists dope. I also think that if you got the UCI to show up at your industrial park crit on Tuesday and test everyone who was racing you would be shocked by the results. People cheat.


So most of the vast non cycling public that supports his cancer foundation believe he cheated? Major corporations are paying six figures to a doper to give motivational speeches. Listen to how silly that sounds...

So you're saying you're very cynical and I'm very naive? Maybe becuase of my Lemond like genes, (no kidding) I'd never feel the need to cheat in a local race..:lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh btw, nice bike...


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

mtbbmet said:


> don't be using Lemoan and FA as examples of people LA has "destroyed". Both of those guys are dopers. FA has even admitted to it. They, like LA, have profitted from a fraudulent career based on lies and cheating. Therefore, they should be cast in the same light, not become victims of Lance's evilness.



mtbbmet, you're getting p0wned already and nobody likes a pile-on but I'd really like to see you expand on your theory that Lemond doped and "profitted from a fraudulent career based on lies and cheating."


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Here's a comment I posted for Martin Dugard on his blog,

http://community.active.com/blogs/MartinDugard/2008/03/06/wooden#cf

The Tour de France is in 4 months and everything that Greg Lemond has said about doping has basically come to pass. Cycling is a mess. On that note, when will you apologize to Greg? You even wrote on this website a while back that it was time for Greg to go away. He was after all the one who gave you your intro to the TDF. 

When will you ask Lance Armstrong some hard questions, and treat him like Selena Roberts has been treating him, like someone who has a lot to hide.

A good place to start would be to ask why he claimed Cofidis abandoned him when in fact they paid him 2/3rds of his contract, and he never rode for them..

You write how you're a huge Springsteen fan yet you shy away from the truth and neglect your responsibility in setting the record straight with regard to Greg Lemond, Lance Armstrong and doping.

You know "the highway's jammed with broken heroes and all that." One of the things Springsteen is about is the truth. Can you look in the mirror and say the same thing?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*todays message to Martin Dugard*



lookrider said:


> Here's a comment I posted for Martin Dugard on his blog,
> 
> http://community.active.com/blogs/MartinDugard/2008/03/06/wooden#cf
> 
> ...


http://community.active.com/blogs/MartinDugard/2008/03/10/sweet-and-lowdown#cf

Martin,

You wrote that you wanted to cover the Tour honestly. A good place to start would be the doping issues which have been the dominant themes since the early 1990's.
How can you be truthful unless you ask the hard questions and confront the mountain of evidence that indicates that Lance Armstrong doped thoughout his 7 year reign. It appears that Greg Lemond was correct in his assertions about the doping culture and yet you continually disparaged him and I haven't seen a prominent retraction of your depiction of Lemond.

Be honest with yourself and look in the mirror...


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Positive feedback on Martin Dugards blog from*



lookrider said:


> http://community.active.com/blogs/MartinDugard/2008/03/10/sweet-and-lowdown#cf
> 
> Martin,
> 
> ...


another reader.

_Chris has a point Martin.

Time to pony up the truth on Lance.

Dont let him get away with going on Larry King Live and saying you go to the Canarys, sleep high, train low, al in June, and your 'crit goes from 42 to 49.

Perhaps you might like to ask a haematologist to confirm that plausability,

If it was that simple, everyone would raise their crit by 7 gross points would they not?

come on Martin, the question in point here, is not if Armstrong doped, but are you a journalist, and do you have the mettle? Chris has a point Martin.

Time to pony up the truth on Lance.

Dont let him get away with going on Larry King Live and saying you go to the Canarys, sleep high, train low, al in June, and your 'crit goes from 42 to 49.

Perhaps you might like to ask a haematologist to confirm that plausability,

If it was that simple, everyone would raise their crit by 7 gross points would they not?

come on Martin, the question in point here, is not if Armstrong doped, but are you a journalist, and do you have the mettle? Chris has a point Martin.

Time to pony up the truth on Lance.

Dont let him get away with going on Larry King Live and saying you go to the Canarys, sleep high, train low, al in June, and your 'crit goes from 42 to 49.

Perhaps you might like to ask a haematologist to confirm that plausability,

If it was that simple, everyone would raise their crit by 7 gross points would they not?

come on Martin, the question in point here, is not if Armstrong doped, but are you a journalist, and do you have the mettle? _

Here is link

http://community.active.com/blogs/MartinDugard/2008/03/06/wooden#


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

*Lance Armstrong= FAIL*

just sayin'


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Thanks*



bigpinkt said:


> They can't be used to sanction him but to most rational observers they are proof that he doped. The WADA/UCIcode has a much higher level of proof then a regular court.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks,

After reading Walsh, I understand how the journalist convinced Armstrong to release his doping control forms by saying it would clear Armstrong of using TUE's that about 60% of the peloton was using. 

Unbeknownst to Armstrong, the journalist was aware of the 12 positives from the '99 tour, 6 of which were determined to be Armstrong's, after the numbers were matched up. 

BTW, LA didn't use any TUE's.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Recent entry on

http://community.active.com/blogs/MartinDugard/2008/03/10/sweet-and-lowdown#cf

Van Gogh, Dostoevsky, Cezanne, Springsteen. I don't recall them tuning out the world or the truth to make transcendent art.

I'm sorry to spoil it for the LA idolaters, but Greg Lemond is correct in his assertions and Martin Dugard picked the wrong guy. It's unfortunate for Mr. Dugard, but after making a decent amount of money on a best selling book which disparages Greg Lemond, Mr Dugard has an obligation to honestly report the facts and set the record straight.

If you read Chasing Lance, you will note that the whole book comes down to Martin Dugard asking LA a question about why LA inspires hope.

Like Love, Faith, and Hope, that you'd hear in a sermon or that Springsteen sings about in Badlands,,,,,you better get it straight darling.....I wanna go out tonight...I wanna find out what I got......talk about a dream, try and make it real....

Keep it real, not out of a drug vial. 

Sorry to upset your pollyanna world....but the Truth, and I mean the absolute Truth is the most beautiful thing ever imagined and it's something Lance Armstrong doesn't believe in. He believes in drugs and doctors, he's said so himself.

Martin Dugard's key quesion in the book was about Hope, mystery, the Infinite and the Absolute. The question was about poetry and in the case of Lance Armstrong the answer is prosaic...


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> They can't be used to sanction him but to most rational observers they are proof that he doped. The WADA/UCIcode has a much higher level of proof then a regular court.



Uhh no. If Landis and Hamilton were prosecuted in a "regular court" they would have both easily have gotten off. Actually, it likely never would have made it to court. Both are guilty as sin, but would never have been found guilty in court. WADA/UCI don't need to provide evidence of guilt, it is up to the athlete to provide evidence of inocence.




bigpinkt said:


> The test was not experimental, it was the same test that is used today to catch dopers


It is not the same test, it is a beta version of the test.




bigpinkt said:


> This is not correct, in fact the tests were run on anonymous samples in order to find if EPO remained stable after being frozen for 5 years. Turns out it was as there were multiple positives besides Lance....but he was the only one stupid enough to authorize the UCI to release the confidential numbers that correlate with the tests.
> 
> There is ZERO evidence that EPO can magically materialize in frozen samples. This leaves two possibilities
> 
> ...


You are correct. EPO cannot materialize in a frozen sample. I did not say that there is/was no EPO in the sample. I clearly state that I firmly belive there was. But you cannot prosecute a guy based on an experimental test with no B sample to back it up. Also, there have been no studies to show what happens to natual and synthetic EPO in a 5 year old frozen sample.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

blackhat said:


> mtbbmet, you're getting p0wned already and nobody likes a pile-on but I'd really like to see you expand on your theory that Lemond doped and "profitted from a fraudulent career based on lies and cheating."



Let's see. The guy gets shot with a shotgun, takes two years off, comes back to the sport at the begining of the peak of EPO abuse with two pieces of lead embedded in his heart and wins the Tour with the fastest time trial in tour history at the end of the three week race.

That right there is proof enough for me.


----------



## Barry Muzzin (Sep 18, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> wins the Tour with the fastest time trial in tour history at the end of the three week race.


Should read "fastest time trial that was slightly downhill (net elevation loss of 247 feet over 15.5 miles) with moderate to strong tailwind in tour history"...


----------

