# So what do you think the likelyhood of LA being admitted to the TDF?



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

Not a whole lot of friendly correspondences have been exchanged. I don't think the organization can afford not to have him in period. With global economics being what they are the TDF and its exposure would do very well to have him race. Lance sells everything and from a financial standpoint that is very very persuasive.

from c-news

Lance Armstrong will meet with the Tour de France organisers before making his decision whether or not to race the 2009 edition, La Gazzetta dello Sport reported Sunday. Johan Bruyneel, the manager of the Armstrong's Astana team told the Italian newspaper that the two have requested a meeting with the Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO), presumably with Tour director, Christian Prudhomme.

When Armstrong announced his return to the sport in September, he made it clear that he would seek an eighth Tour title, but resistance to his appearance at the Tour surfaced not long after. The ASO's new chief Jean-Etienne Amaury evoked a stinging response from Armsrong's camp when he blurted the double-negative insult, "We can't say that he has not embarrassed the Tour de France" while trying to assure that he would continue the Tour's anti-doping efforts.

Prudhomme, who kept the Astana team out of this year's Tour de France despite the presence of the defending champion, Alberto Contador, on the squad, was more diplomatic. He welcomed Armstrong's return, "in principle", but acknowledged that "Armstrong's victories have been tarnished by [doping] suspicions since 1999."

Armstrong also faced criticism from the French anti-doping chief Pierre Bordry, who challenged the American to allow his agency to re-test all of his old Tour urine samples – Armstrong refused.

The seven-time champion put his participation in the 2009 Tour de France in doubt when he announced in October that he would race the Giro d'Italia in May. Few racers are able to contest both Grand Tours, which are a little more than one month apart, but Armstrong could use the Italian tour as preparation for the July Grand Tour.

After the 2009 Tour route was announced, Armstrong said the course was "innovative and interesting", but was still uncommitted on whether he would race.

Bruyneel said Armstrong's final decision would be made after the meeting with the ASO.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

It's been a rough relationship, for the most part. France could honestly care less about Lance, it's a love/hate relationship with him, and most French hate him.

I wouldn't doubt that the french believe having him in the tour is a slap in the face...regardless of money.


----------



## teoteoteo (Sep 8, 2002)

Having spent time in France during 6 of his 7 tours I would say they don't hate Lance as much as the press likes to make out. I can't tell you how much people not affiliated with the ASO would roll out the red carpet for everything surrounding Lance. I was exposed to it a bit more as few years there I was writing for his website. I see as much hatred at times on this site as I did in France. Just like here,, it's not the ones that like him that speak the loudest or get noticed, it's the people that despise him. The ones that would rather make a road sign saying how much they hate him instead of making a sign for someone they like. 

The ASO meeting will likely end up with some amends. After all the Giro director flew to Austin to woo Lance. He knows that having Lance will bring the top level of competition to his event and the eyes of the world. At the end of the day I can't help but to think that whatever bad taste the ASO has from Lance they will have a worse scenario to envision by not inviting him. They know the numbers with Lance in terms of $$, and they know how the numbers changed without him. What they don't know is what will the numbers be with him back but not at their event.


----------



## normalnorm (Jan 16, 2006)

teoteoteo said:


> The ones that would rather make a road sign saying how much they hate him instead of making a sign for someone they like.


Well said....

I think LA will do the tour. But, he will be dogged daily by the press. If anyone can handled the pressure it would be LA. The more i read about the TDF directors and there approach, the more I would like LA to succeed. If, he did or didnt dope doesnt matter. This is the 2009 tour. It starts now.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

That was well said, teo, and I agree with what you say.

I sort of got that feeling from people who live or have lived in france. But you could be absolutely right, that it's just the ones passionately outspoken that make it seem that way.

Sort of like doping. If you feel that you need to dope to get to the top, then you probably believe everyone in the peloton dopes. But, if you can get to that level without doping (make people do), you probably aren't thinking that everyone at the tour dopes.

Just depends who you talk to. Usually too easy to generalize from there.


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 10, 2008)

CARBON110 said:


> Armstrong also faced criticism from the French anti-doping chief Pierre Bordry, who challenged the American to allow his agency to re-test all of his old Tour urine samples – Armstrong refused.


That's like refusing a breathalyzer test when the cops pull you over for swerving at 2:30am.

//off to doping in 3...2..1...


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Andrea138 said:


> That's like refusing a breathalyzer test when the cops pull you over for swerving at 2:30am.
> 
> //off to doping in 3...2..1...


Probably more like refusing to let urine samples that your enemys have had access to and held for 7 or 8 years be used to determine your fate. 

I don't know why Lance would feel that way---what with their integrity in the UN Oil for Food program.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

I hope he races both to win

There are plenty of reasons not to allow further testing and only one good reason to give them permission. 

Andrea I think you would be hard pressed to come up with a more inappropriate or inaccurate simile lol

People that implicate LA as some type of criminal are going to need to accept that he will be part of modern cycling now and for some time as well as half of the top10 since we have so many busted dopers returning. Heras, Vino, and the rest - they all get a pass? I love the idealism too lol and compassion not to mention hypocrisy of Americans who tolerate baseball and football but expect something entirely different form cycling. 

The guy has done more good than any celebrity I can think of but he is crucified to the point it is questionable if he can return to race the best race in the world because of what others did and he beating them makes him suspect despite the lack of certifiable evidence. I hope when they make a movie about all this they include the details and irony. 

Why so unforgiving of LA? Just rubs some of you runny snots the wrong way or what? Where does the disbelief and incredulous anger stem from? I don't get it, it isn't like he is playing short stop making 48 million a year for losing or something lol He is promoting cancer awareness and raising money for research, wtf is confusing? 

Where is the nefarious deviant egregious offenses? He didn't get caught with cocaine, or crash his car into a bike shop, or sell out his drug pusher, or leave his wife in France for months, or a number of other things other riders have done - he doesn't have kids out of wedlock, he dates some of the most beautiful girls, what does he have to do to be regarded as at the very least good for American cycling? 

He has one public small trivial spat with Simeoni and people want to hang him. He beat cancer for [email protected] sake! He couldn't be more American - he embodies hope HOPE! 

get over yourselves on the dope until someone who knows a helluva a lot more than YOU has something tangible. If LA did dope, it isn't the crime of the century - Tyler Hamilton is back too - are there going to be endless petty remarks about him as well? Do you know how much work that guy did for MS? Or the defamation and depth of remorse he must have endured during his suspension and after? What about Landis? 

Astana has the strongest team in the world, they should dominate every race they enter to win - sit back, relax, enjoy the ride, indulge in some commentary and keep the dialogue focused on 2009 - we have heard ALL of it before and no one has an appetite for some louts axe grinding about old news and exaggerations or speculations from watching television and reading internet websites 

it will be interesting to see who gets to race each race for support riders - I suppose it will be whoever is riding well at the time - can't wait for Cai


----------



## KMan (Feb 3, 2004)

Andrea138 said:


> That's like refusing a breathalyzer test when the cops pull you over for swerving at 2:30am.
> 
> //off to doping in 3...2..1...


uhh, that is nothing like it...not even close  :cryin: 

Michael


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Hmmm..... was not aware that France was an "enemy" ....

Maybe I misunderstand the word "enemy" though -- how, then, is France the "enemy" of Lance?

Oh, and btw, the plural of enemy is enemies, not enemys.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

philippec said:


> Hmmm..... was not aware that France was an "enemy" ....
> 
> Maybe I misunderstand the word "enemy" though -- how, then, is France the "enemy" of Lance?
> 
> Oh, and btw, the plural of enemy is enemies, not enemy.


Phillippec -

I think France is just magnifico! and funny post


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> Probably more like refusing to let urine samples that your enemys have had access to and held for 7 or 8 years be used to determine your fate.
> 
> I don't know why Lance would feel that way---what with their integrity in the UN Oil for Food program.



So Pierre Bordry was in charge of France's involvement in the U.N.'s "Oil for Food" program as well? I probably do not want to hear how you are going to make sense of that total non-sequitor chestnut you lobbed in response to Andrea138's post...


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

Just stepping away from Lance for a second, your thoughts on him are very clear, and so are mine.
On a generic level, would you say that you're not particulary bothered about who dopes? Is it that you just want an exciting sport?


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> Probably more like refusing to let urine samples that your enemys have had access to and held for 7 or 8 years be used to determine your fate.


Could you specify who exactly the 'enemys' are? The lab?


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Wow,
I wonder how deep your head has to be implanted in a dark place to not know that Lance does not see the French cycling authorities as Allies?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> Wow,
> I wonder how deep your head has to be implanted in a dark place to not know that Lance does not see the French cycling authorities as Allies?


Do you have any evidence of this grand French conspiracy beyond an Armstrong interview? Just because Lance has tried to paint the French as the bad guys does not mean there is any validity to his ruse.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

Digger,

I understand and agree with people's feelings on doping and cheating. It sucks. Do I think he did? Very possible or even probable but there is a wealth of information we do not possess or have access to nor do most of us know what it really is like in a pro European field or what happens behind closed doors, and if so maybe US Postal/Discovery and the like were different. I'm all for the benefit of the doubt and don't consider myself affable or naive. 

That is perspective in my opinion instead of having my emotions run my thinking. Look at the big picture and what you actually know. David Walsh and his clout hardly seem credible and look more like bottom feeders who see a way of making money - besides human beings are very unreliable and finding truth from people is a difficult enough task when money isn't involved. Most of the time you have to take someone at their word. 

Personal accountability is important and we have all put ourselves in the middle of precarious circumstances. However, not all of us spend time helping others or raise money or are charitable at all. So weighing LA's potential doping infractions to his work during his private time and his story is pretty weak 

What we have here is speculation pure and simple. What I do know is that people serve their time in suspension and should be allowed to come back to the sport - everyone errors and I can't imagine the pressure of pro performance on a consistent basis. 

I also do know the work LA does in the world of Cancer and how he has raised millions on top of millions for an outstanding cause on top of raising awareness for American cycling and giving inspiration to a group of people who have to endure the hardship of an unforgiving disease. That means to me, that if he did Dope ( and most likely we won't ever know ) I can easily look past it. If he did

So weigh your own infractions and less than favorable actions, words, behavior you have exhibited and tell me that you don't understand the temptation of doping OR just own up to the fact that your ( not you particularly ) lack of empathy or sympathy and compassion merely makes you either a hypocrite or an arrogant ass. I have had more than my fair share of self-righteousness, unfounded accusatory moments and would like to evolve into a more reflective person who takes events and information in stride because so many times what I've been told or read has been both true and false. I don't want people making wild generalizations about me and I am doing my best not to make them about others. 

I truly do understand the want to have a clean sport and frustration, I don't understand the unwillingness to accept the past and move on to today

hope that makes some sense and I'm not just a diatribe all over again


----------



## plcguest (Jun 16, 2002)

ok, if Lance says so, it must be true. Thank you, I am now going to go join the rest of my nefarious scheming countrymen and plan for the downfall of our arch enemy....

back to your regular programming folks!


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

CARBON110 said:


> David Walsh and his clout hardly seem credible and look more like bottom feeders who see a way of making money.


Walsh not credible? Hardly. The only person spinning that BS is Lance. David Walsh is chief sports writer with The Sunday Times. He is a four-time Irish Sportswriter of the Year and a three-time U.K. Sportswriter of the Year. To pretend that he is not proficient in his field only hurts your position.



CARBON110 said:


> What we have here is speculation pure and simple.


6 positive tests for EPO are fact, not speculation. The only speculation comes in the form of those using the French Conspiracy theories to explain away the positives. 




CARBON110 said:


> That means to me, that if he did Dope ( and most likely we won't ever know ) I can easily look past it. If he did


This is a Cycling forum, not a cancer forum. His impact on the world of the disease is huge. I have bought his book for too many friends who have been hit by the big C. This does not give him a pass to dope, lie, and cheat. 



CARBON110 said:


> I don't understand the unwillingness to accept the past and move on to today


George Santayana said,
"Those who ignore the past are condemned to repeat it." 

Pretending that the last 15 years did not happen does nothing to help the sport. The fact is the huge improvement we have seen in recent years has come from outspoken fans and media.....not from ignoring the issue. The ADA's have learned by studying the methods of the past and developing tests and methods to detect them.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

OK we're having a little trouble with comprehension again. 

I'll try one more time. 

If Lance believes French cycling officials are less than honorable and not his allies, it wouldn't make sense for him to allow these folks to test his old samples. It's really not that complicated if you just put your mind to it.

This issue only involves Lances perception of these officials and his decision. 

Because many Americans have come to distrust French officials at all levels for various reasons, he enjoys some support for his stand on the issue.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> OK we're having a little trouble with comprehension again.
> 
> I'll try one more time.
> 
> ...


OK we're having a little trouble with comprehension again. 

I'll try one more time. 

Do you have any evidence of this grand French conspiracy? You would think there would be lots of evidence to support Lance's "Perception"......invention is a better word.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> Walsh not credible? Hardly. The only person spinning that BS is Lance. David Walsh is chief sports writer with The Sunday Times. He is a four-time Irish Sportswriter of the Year and a three-time U.K. Sportswriter of the Year. To pretend that he is not proficient in his field only hurts your position.
> 
> 
> 6 positive tests for EPO are fact, not speculation. The only speculation comes in the form of those using the French Conspiracy theories to explain away the positives.
> ...


No one is ignoring the issue. If there are 6 positive samples where is the ban? The last 15 years have amounted to some great change and stunning revelations about the top riders and some others. Some confessed on their own others were caught. Certainly media and fans made their protests known but money is what really changed the sport. 

Sponsors could not continue to support a sport that doesn't take action on doping. Doping is always a concern and a practice in sports, everyone knows that. It won't stop, new avenues and drugs will be found. Condemning Lance without evidence that can be accepted by the governing bodies of professional cycling is equally as bad as the allegations that he cheated. What happens if he wins this year or next with his samples having been tested again and again, when will it be satisfactory to you? 

Walsh lol Sports writer of the year, every car dealer or real estate agency I've ever been to has an award on the wall saying something like that lol please. You know what is more convincing, the number of tests or rather the fact Lance Armstrong had been tested more than any other rider in the world. That doesn't get any credit? 

You know a lot of riders have doped and a great deal have returned. Why so unforgiving now to a guy who has never been banned or suspended? The outrage sounds more emotional than sensible. Do I need to name the popular venerable riders of the last 10 years who have been busted and returned with open arms to a willing public. Americans seem to have a bigger axe to grind than the French in my view


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

CARBON110 said:


> Walsh lol Sports writer of the year, every car dealer or real estate agency I've ever been to has an award on the wall saying something like that lol please.


You need to do better then that. As much as you dismiss him without knowing anything about his work the fact is those awards do mean something.This is not a car dealership, this is The London Sunday Times. It is the most read Sunday paper in the UK, Walsh is the head sports writer. 



CARBON110 said:


> You know what is more convincing, the number of tests or rather the fact Lance Armstrong had been tested more than any other rider in the world. That doesn't get any credit?


You further degrade your position by repeating the myth that Lance is the most tested athlete...please provide a link as this is not even close to correct




CARBON110 said:


> The outrage sounds more emotional than sensible


The denial sounds more emotional then sensible



CARBON110 said:


> . Do I need to name the popular venerable riders of the last 10 years who have been busted and returned with open arms to a willing public.


Please, give us a list.


----------



## WeakMite (Feb 20, 2005)

ASO knows LA coming back to run the '09 TdF will mean millions... they're a business. The decision has already been made, it's just a PR dance from here.
;-)


----------



## teoteoteo (Sep 8, 2002)

WeakMite said:


> ASO knows LA coming back to run the '09 TdF will mean millions... they're a business. The decision has already been made, it's just a PR dance from here.
> ;-)



Agreed.


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> OK we're having a little trouble with comprehension again.
> 
> I'll try one more time.
> 
> ...


Thanks for not explaining the connection between Pierre Bordry and the French involvement in the U.N.'s "Oil for Food" program unless you believe your comment above does the job? Can you please elaborate upon the "distrust [of] French (that should be small case "french" as it is an adjective) officials at all levels for various reasons". Who are these officials and what exactly have they done? Some examples that support such a broad statement would be appreciated. What is behind this anti-French hysteria that seems to linger since W. got all those "Freedom Fries" lunkheads all riled when France refused to let our planes fly through their airspace to bomb Iraq?


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> OK we're having a little trouble with comprehension again.
> 
> I'll try one more time.
> 
> Do you have any evidence of this grand French conspiracy? You would think there would be lots of evidence to support Lance's "Perception"......invention is a better word.



Let me see---I need evidence of a "grand French conspiracy" to prove that Lance has said that he doesn't trust French cycling officials? What grand conspiracy does this require? If he doesn't trust them why would he allow them to test old samples?

I realize that the logic here is real complicated but if you boys try real hard, I think even you'll get it.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> You need to do better then that. As much as you dismiss him without knowing anything about his work the fact is those awards do mean something.This is not a car dealership, this is The London Sunday Times. It is the most read Sunday paper in the UK, Walsh is the head sports writer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't need to do better than anything, the guy is still racing and has a good chance of winning. If anything the critics need to show some sensible argument that in today's world, if doping is so frowned upon and Lance has given tangible evidence of cheating then why is he allowed to race? I don't have to prove anything, because he is still riding. Your outrage should be aimed at the governing bodies of professional cycling if what you think is true. Get real. Walsh is still not irrevelant as far as I'm concerned because his book amounted to nothing other than cash in his pocket. More speculation and no conviction.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> Let me see---I need evidence of a "grand French conspiracy" to prove that Lance has said that he doesn't trust French cycling officials? What grand conspiracy does this require? If he doesn't trust them why would he allow them to test old samples?
> 
> I realize that the logic here is real complicated but if you boys try real hard, I think even you'll get it.


I realize this is complicated for you, so I will try to make it simple. 

It is clear that Lance has says he scared of the French attacking him on the road. I ask if you have any evidence that these attacks actually might occur, beyond Lance's words?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

CARBON110 said:


> I don't need to do better than anything, the guy is still racing and has a good chance of winning. If anything the critics need to show some sensible argument that in today's world, if doping is so frowned upon and Lance has given tangible evidence of cheating then why is he allowed to race? I don't have to prove anything, because he is still riding. Your outrage should be aimed at the governing bodies of professional cycling if what you think is true. Get real. Walsh is still not irrevelant as far as I'm concerned because his book amounted to nothing other than cash in his pocket. More speculation and no conviction.


It appears that the Lance groupies have realized that "Never tested positive" doesn't mean anything and the new mantra is "Never Sanctioned".

It is clear the UCI sucks....but their using their ineptness as an excuse show the weakness of your postion


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

*Adjectives describing national origin*



serbski said:


> Can you please elaborate upon the "distrust [of] French (that should be small case "french" as it is an adjective) officials at all levels for various reasons".


In English, adjectives describing national origin should be capitalized, although many other languages have a different norm.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> I realize this is complicated for you, so I will try to make it simple.
> 
> It is clear that Lance has says he scared of the French attacking him on the road. I ask if you have any evidence that these attacks actually might occur, beyond Lance's words?


Is there some remote connection between "Lance has says he scared of the French attacking him on the road" (whatever that convolution of the English language means) and his not trusting French cycling officials?


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> Is there some remote connection between "Lance has says he scared of the French attacking him on the road" (whatever that convolution of the English language means) and his not trusting French cycling officials?


So Lance, and only Lance, talks of him not trusting 'French cycling officials', with NO supporting evidence to substantiate this apparent bias against him, and we're all meant to say, 'yeah the French are out to get him', and not question in any way what Lance says.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

serbski said:


> Thanks for not explaining the connection between Pierre Bordry and the French involvement in the U.N.'s "Oil for Food" program unless you believe your comment above does the job? Can you please elaborate upon the "distrust [of] French (that should be small case "french" as it is an adjective) officials at all levels for various reasons". Who are these officials and what exactly have they done? Some examples that support such a broad statement would be appreciated. What is behind this anti-French hysteria that seems to linger since W. got all those "Freedom Fries" lunkheads all riled when France refused to let our planes fly through their airspace to bomb Iraq?


Mate,
First off, Americans are not a philosophical monolith on any subject including their view of French folkways. This thread was already moved once to "the dope forum" and would likely need to be moved to the political forum to properly answer your question.

Generally, the Oil for Food Pragram was implemented by the UN during the Clinton administration to bring Sadam to his financial knees. Instead it was sabotaged by the governments of three countries, allowing Sadam to become one of the worlds wealthiest men (his net worth reportedly went from approx. 2.5 billion to 21 billion in just a few years under the program). Many feel this increase in wealth allowed Sadam to continue to ignore his obligation to account for the WMD's he had used against the Kurds in previous times, in part, leading us into war. 

The three governments who sabotaged the program were France, Russia, and China. Few Americans expect integrity from the Russian or Chinese governments, however, most expect more from France. If you go to Wikipedia under "Oil for Food" you'll get a comprehensive overview of the scandal as understood by those Americans who actually wanted to know--maybe 30%. You'll need to take some time to go through it. 

Second, many of the group who so strongly disliked Chirac may have a different view of Sarkozy and the French people who elected him. I suspect that his election may have brought an end to whatever boycott of French goods existed.

This may be about as far from the topic as any thread has ever ventured--but you asked!


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> Mate,
> First off, Americans are not a philosophical monolith on any subject including their view of French folkways. This thread was already moved once to "the dope forum" and would likely need to be moved to the political forum to properly answer your question.
> 
> Generally, the Oil for Food Pragram was implemented by the UN during the Clinton administration to bring Sadam to his financial knees. Instead it was sabotaged by the governments of three countries, allowing Sadam to become one of the worlds wealthiest men (his net worth reportedly went from approx. 2.5 billion to 21 billion in just a few years under the program). Many feel this increase in wealth allowed Sadam to continue to ignore his obligation to account for the WMD's he had used against the Kurds in previous times, in part, leading us into war.
> ...


Well if you're worried about it being moved to the political section of the forum, maybe you shouldn't have first mentioned the Oil for Food programme in the doping section of a cycling forum. Also, you've mentioned '9/11 Conpsiracy theorists' and 'Bob Woodward wannabes' to describe people who question or cast doubt on Lance.
Do you believe the people involved in the 'Oil for Food' programme have been heavily involved in the anti-doping movement?! Because that would be rather impressive...


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> Mate,
> First off, Americans are not a philosophical monolith on any subject including their view of French folkways. This thread was already moved once to "the dope forum" and would likely need to be moved to the political forum to properly answer your question.
> 
> Generally, the Oil for Food Pragram was implemented by the UN during the Clinton administration to bring Sadam to his financial knees. Instead it was sabotaged by the governments of three countries, allowing Sadam to become one of the worlds wealthiest men (his net worth reportedly went from approx. 2.5 billion to 21 billion in just a few years under the program). Many feel this increase in wealth allowed Sadam to continue to ignore his obligation to account for the WMD's he had used against the Kurds in previous times, in part, leading us into war.
> ...


There have been some pretty impressive conspiracy theories floated by the cult, but yours takes the prize....although I am disappointed you did not find a way to include space aliens.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Digger28 said:


> So Lance, and only Lance, talks of him not trusting 'French cycling officials', with NO supporting evidence to substantiate this apparent bias against him, and we're all meant to say, 'yeah the French are out to get him', and not question in any way what Lance says.


By golly, I think you've got it! While it's pretty hard to argue about what Lance believes (and the evidence on which he bases this belief), it is not hard to argue that he should not unnecessarily subject his fate to those he doesn't trust.

Wow, I feel much better now. You guys do have at least some deductive reasoning skills!


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> By golly, I think you've got it! While it's pretty hard to argue about what Lance believes (and the evidence on which he bases this belief), it is not hard to argue that he should not unnecessarily subject his fate to those he doesn't trust.
> 
> Wow, I feel much better now. You guys do have at least some deductive reasoning skills!


Well you obviously seem to give serious credence to what Lance believes...and you wouldn't argue with a word that comes out of his mouth, however rediculous it is...this being a good example...


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> There have been some pretty impressive conspiracy theories floated by the cult, but yours takes the prize....although I am disappointed you did not find a way to include space aliens.


You got me there mate--I have no way of proving or disproving Wikipedia's involvement in a cult that conspires to bring down French officials. Do you have other evidence of this conspiracy?


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

Digger28 said:


> Well you obviously seem to give serious credence to what Lance believes...and you wouldn't argue with a word that comes out of his mouth, however rediculous it is...this being a good example...


You guys are on completely different pages definition wise! Swift is simply saying that Lance (and only Lance, in his mind) distrusts the French authorities. There doesn't need to be evidence for whether they are actually out to get him for him to distrust them. The argument is not what we can obviously see is true, but what Lance perceives to be true.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

chase196126 said:


> You guys are on completely different pages definition wise! Swift is simply saying that Lance (and only Lance, in his mind) distrusts the French authorities. There doesn't need to be evidence for whether they are actually out to get him for him to distrust them. The argument is not what we can obviously see is true, but what Lance perceives to be true.


I completely understand that Lance has invented the "I am scared" ruse, what I am asking is there any evidence that his fears have any validity? Where is this grand French conspiracy to knock Lance off his bike?


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

chase196126 said:


> You guys are on completely different pages definition wise! Swift is simply saying that Lance (and only Lance, in his mind) distrusts the French authorities. There doesn't need to be evidence for whether they are actually out to get him for him to distrust them. The argument is not what we can obviously see is true, but what Lance perceives to be true.


I take your point on this one. But Lance fans seem to actually believe this 'conspiracy by the French to be true. And SwiftSolo has shown in the past to be one of these people. Even as late as yesterday he was making comparisons between the 'French Authorities' and the Oil for Food Program!!


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> Mate,
> First off, Americans are not a philosophical monolith on any subject including their view of French folkways. This thread was already moved once to "the dope forum" and would likely need to be moved to the political forum to properly answer your question.
> 
> Generally, the Oil for Food Pragram was implemented by the UN during the Clinton administration to bring Sadam to his financial knees. Instead it was sabotaged by the governments of three countries, allowing Sadam to become one of the worlds wealthiest men (his net worth reportedly went from approx. 2.5 billion to 21 billion in just a few years under the program). Many feel this increase in wealth allowed Sadam to continue to ignore his obligation to account for the WMD's he had used against the Kurds in previous times, in part, leading us into war.
> ...


Is it not fair to say that it is you who brought this topic *off topic* by somehow lumping Pierre Bordry, "all French officials" and the U.N.'s Oil for Food program together to support Armstrong's refusal to have samples retroactively tested? Thank you for the comprehensive explanation regarding the French involvement in the U.N.'s "Oil for Food" program. However (yet again) you have made no case for discussing Pierre Bordry/French anti-doping efforts in the same breath as the Oil for Food program. I don't believe that you are mining some conspiracy theory, rather I think that if you can find an example of French officialdom behaving poorly you then feel you have carte blanche to apply this poor behavior to any and all French officialdom or office (i.e. Bordry's anti-doping folks).


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> You got me there mate--I have no way of proving or disproving Wikipedia's involvement in a cult that conspires to bring down French officials. Do you have other evidence of this conspiracy?


This is an even more rediculous statement than usual from you. Which is very impressive even by your own high standards.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

WeakMite said:


> ASO knows LA coming back to run the '09 TdF will mean millions... they're a business. The decision has already been made, it's just a PR dance from here.
> ;-)


WeakMite - I absolutely love your avatar =)


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Digger28 said:


> I take your point on this one. But Lance fans seem to actually believe this 'conspiracy by the French to be true. And SwiftSolo has shown in the past to be one of these people. Even as late as yesterday he was making comparisons between the 'French Authorities' and the Oil for Food Program!!


You have a vivid imagination mate. Perhaps you can take us to any post where I suggested there was a French conspiracy to get Lance.

If you look carefully, all of these posts have been about the reason for doubt created by mishandling of the process. I pointed to information that came out of the Landis trial and provided links for you to follow (to no avail). In fact, I've said repeatedly that I have no opinion one way or the other about Lance's guilt or innocence.

I have, however, expressed a strong opinion about losers who perpetually attempt to bring down winners. I've pointed out that this is a disease that keeps those infected from ever becoming winners. You have made it clear that this message will never reach you. That is your choice.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> You have a vivid imagination mate. Perhaps you can take us to any post where I suggested there was a French conspiracy to get Lance.
> 
> If you look carefully, all of these posts have been about the reason for doubt created by mishandling of the process. I pointed to information that came out of the Landis trial and provided links for you to follow (to no avail). In fact, I've said repeatedly that I have no opinion one way or the other about Lance's guilt or innocence.
> 
> I have, however, expressed a strong opinion about losers who perpetually attempt to bring down winners. I've pointed out that this is a disease that keeps those infected from ever becoming winners. You have made it clear that this message will never reach you. That is your choice.


Okay, well you think the newspaper L'Equipe is tabloid thrash (your words) and is determined to bring him down. Then you make comparisons to the 'Oil for Food' programme involving the 'French Authorities'...and you say I've the vivid imagination!!!
You repeatedly make claims involving journalists, saying they're 'Bob Woodward wannabes' and 'losers', yet you've not read their work. You also talk about the half truths in these books. No examples are EVER given.
You repeatedly failed to provide evidence to support your claims of 'poor handling and inept security'. 
Stop making claims that you can't substantiate SwiftSolo. Stop criticising these journalists, when you don;t even have the decency to provide their names or example of their 'lies and half truths'.
You haven't a notion....


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Digger28 said:


> Okay, well you think the newspaper L'Equipe is tabloid thrash (your words) and is determined to bring him down. Then you make comparisons to the 'Oil for Food' programme involving the 'French Authorities'...and you say I've the vivid imagination!!!
> You repeatedly make claims involving journalists, saying they're 'Bob Woodward wannabes' and 'losers', yet you've not read their work. You also talk about the half truths in these books. No examples are EVER given.
> You repeatedly failed to provide evidence to support your claims of 'poor handling and inept security'.
> Stop making claims that you can't substantiate SwiftSolo. Stop criticising these journalists, when you don;t even have the decency to provide their names or example of their 'lies and half truths'.
> You haven't a notion....


Somehow I missed the part of your post that refers to the "French conspiracy" post that I allegedy made?

Mate, I hope you're writing this drivel during recess. I don't want to find out that I played a role in keeping you from moving up to junior high at the end of the school year. Unless I can get a note from your teacher, I think it best that I not engage you any further. It's been fun.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> Somehow I missed the part of your post that refers to the "French conspiracy" post that I allegedy made?
> 
> 
> Mate, I hope you're writing this drivel during recess. I don't want to find out that I played a role in keeping you from moving up to junior high at the end of the school year. Unless I can get a note from your teacher, I think it best that I not engage you any further. It's been fun.


Finally you seem to be accepting that you are unable to provide the examples asked for in the previous post!
Are you denying knowledge of what you've previously said about L'Equipe being tabloid thrash (inventing those positive EPO samples to sell copies), mishandling, inept security, Bob Woodward wannabes, wankers, losers, people who write half truths for money, comparisons to Salem witch burnings, and comparisons to 9/11 Conspiracy theorists! The posts are there for all to see. As I said, you're the one who made the comparisons between the French cycling authorities and the 'Oil for Food' programme, as if the exact same people were involved!! But going back to the French, you call them Lance's 'enemies' in an earlier post! So going by the references you've continuously made (see above), I don't think one has to search too hard to find evidence of you believing in a French conspiracy of some level against Lance. Lance himself has spoken of anti-American bias. He says that the French are jealous because of a lack of French winners. And the Lance fans just swallow it all up. Just like Floyd's fans swallowed the nonsense about the lab.
Your lack of knowledge of the sport is funny, your ignorance in general is baffling, and your reasoning 'ability' is disconcerting to say the least. Were you interested in cycling pre 1999? Or will you be still interested when the novelty has ended? I doubt it. Your credibility on this forum seems to be rock bottom anyway, although that was very evident from the first 'conversations' with you.


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:



> Somehow I missed the part of your post that refers to the "French conspiracy" post that I allegedy made?
> 
> Mate, I hope you're writing this drivel during recess. I don't want to find out that I played a role in keeping you from moving up to junior high at the end of the school year. Unless I can get a note from your teacher, I think it best that I not engage you any further. It's been fun.



Well, I concede. The above argument has totally convinced me of the connection between Pierre Bordry's anti-doping offices and the French conduct in the U.N.'s Oil for Food program. I am man enough to admit the folly of my position upon viewing SwiftSolo's irrefutable justifications and the hard facts that he has presented in the above post. I apologize for wasting everyone's time...


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

serbski said:


> Is it not fair to say that it is you who brought this topic *off topic* by somehow lumping Pierre Bordry, "all French officials" and the U.N.'s Oil for Food program together to support Armstrong's refusal to have samples retroactively tested? Thank you for the comprehensive explanation regarding the French involvement in the U.N.'s "Oil for Food" program. However (yet again) you have made no case for discussing Pierre Bordry/French anti-doping efforts in the same breath as the Oil for Food program. I don't believe that you are mining some conspiracy theory, rather I think that if you can find an example of French officialdom behaving poorly you then feel you have carte blanche to apply this poor behavior to any and all French officialdom or office (i.e. Bordry's anti-doping folks).


Is this comprehension problem an epidemic? 

To help you understand, the oil for food program was alluded to in an effort to demonstrate an example of why French Authorities and officials are not always viewed seriously by Americans--Lance included. There are many other examples that demonstrate perceived differences in principles between the two cultures. The differences may be real or they may be a figment of some Americans' imagination. To pretend that the perception doesn't exist is to have your head in a dark place. French jokes are a staple of American humor.
It is for this reason that Lance enjoys much American support in his derogatory view of French cycling authorities.

I fully expect you to go off on some tangent claiming that I'm suggesting that the French are somehow inferior. It is what you and your like minded freinds do in your effort to tear down those who defend the "innocent till proven guilty" axiom.

Contrary to your comprehension of my previous posts, I recall no instance of any claim by me that Pierre Bordry had any involvement in the oil for food program.


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> Is this comprehension problem an epidemic?
> 
> To help you understand, the oil for food program was alluded to in an effort to demonstrate an example of why French Authorities and officials are not always viewed seriously by Americans--Lance included. There are many other examples that demonstrate perceived differences in principles between the two cultures. The differences may be real or they may be a figment of some Americans' imagination. To pretend that the perception doesn't exist is to have your head in a dark place. French jokes are a staple of American humor.
> It is for this reason that Lance enjoys much American support in his derogatory view of French cycling authorities.
> ...


How on earth has this topic now morphed into some comment upon me and my "like minded friends" who "tear down those who defend the "innocent till (sic) proven guitly" axiom? I simply commented that using the Oil for Food program as an example of French misbehavior does not have any correlation to Pierre Bordry's anti-doping office and their conduct regarding the handling of Armstrong's old samples. You have actually struck upon a very valid point in that Armstrong absolutely makes use of American views of French cycling authorities and it works to his advantage in a big way. Is there any particular reason that you feel compelled to break into your harangue/attack regarding "comprehension" of your posts rather than simply responding to posters' direct questions? I was not (at the outset at least!) being sarcastic when I was asking you how you could apply Pierre Bordry's offices to those of the French authorities involved in the Oil for Food program. I was only stating that it seems a vague analogy rather than a direct example that supports your criticism of French cycling authorities. If you had supplied examples of misconduct of *these* folks then maybe we could avoid a few posts. However, you insist upon getting rather personal and nasty with various posters. Is it not possible to debate things in this forum without resorting to insinuations that those who do not agree with you lack the intelligence to "comprehend" your posts? Honestly, your rebuttals are so wide ranging and all-inclusive that they rarely (and I am being generous here) stay on topic or answer direct questions. I am sure that this will be met with some slight but to constantly question the comprehension and intelligence of other posters does not obscure your avoidance of answering direct questions (and this has been pointed out in other posts). Additionally, I am sure I will be accused (again) of being a "loser" who wishes to "bring down winners". Ugh, I am shocked that I have likely wasted so many words debating all of this with you. Fire away, but I am taking a time out here...


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

serbski said:


> How on earth has this topic now morphed into some comment upon me and my "like minded friends" who "tear down those who defend the "innocent till (sic) proven guitly" axiom? I simply commented that using the Oil for Food program as an example of French misbehavior does not have any correlation to Pierre Bordry's anti-doping office and their conduct regarding the handling of Armstrong's old samples. You have actually struck upon a very valid point in that Armstrong absolutely makes use of American views of French cycling authorities and it works to his advantage in a big way. Is there any particular reason that you feel compelled to break into your harangue/attack regarding "comprehension" of your posts rather than simply responding to posters' direct questions? I was not (at the outset at least!) being sarcastic when I was asking you how you could apply Pierre Bordry's offices to those of the French authorities involved in the Oil for Food program. I was only stating that it seems a vague analogy rather than a direct example that supports your criticism of French cycling authorities. If you had supplied examples of misconduct of *these* folks then maybe we could avoid a few posts. However, you insist upon getting rather personal and nasty with various posters. Is it not possible to debate things in this forum without resorting to insinuations that those who do not agree with you lack the intelligence to "comprehend" your posts? Honestly, your rebuttals are so wide ranging and all-inclusive that they rarely (and I am being generous here) stay on topic or answer direct questions. I am sure that this will be met with some slight but to constantly question the comprehension and intelligence of other posters does not obscure your avoidance of answering direct questions (and this has been pointed out in other posts). Additionally, I am sure I will be accused (again) of being a "loser" who wishes to "bring down winners". Ugh, I am shocked that I have likely wasted so many words debating all of this with you. Fire away, but I am taking a time out here...


Serbski,
I'm pleased that you have taken up the role of police of off colored insiuations. A simple review of your previous posts demonstrates your high level of integrity in this role. The quote below from a one of your previous posts is just one of many examples of your high standards when dealing with those with whom you disagree.

"Sevencycle, how did you manage to get the bars seemingly higher than the saddle on that 12lb Scott of yours? Honestly, by the size of the headtube that is a small(est?) frame. That must make you a bit of a diminutive fellow."

I am inspired by the fact that you can determine the validity of ones' point by the size and weight of his bike.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> Serbski,
> I'm pleased that you have taken up the role of police of off colored insiuations. A simple review of your previous posts demonstrates your high level of integrity in this role. The quote below from a one of your previous posts is just one of many examples of your high standards when dealing with those with whom you disagree.
> 
> "Sevencycle, how did you manage to get the bars seemingly higher than the saddle on that 12lb Scott of yours? Honestly, by the size of the headtube that is a small(est?) frame. That must make you a bit of a diminutive fellow."
> ...


The same Sevencycle who said that Lemond 'tarnished his Hero status by being a shitty father and a drunk and making his family pay for his deflated ego'.
I think Serbski was very restrained, in light of the person he was addressing.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> Walsh not credible? Hardly. The only person spinning that BS is Lance. David Walsh is chief sports writer with The Sunday Times. He is a four-time Irish Sportswriter of the Year and a three-time U.K. Sportswriter of the Year. To pretend that he is not proficient in his field only hurts your position.


Having read many, many British sport pages I can tell you that they are equivalent to US magazine. They are tabloids, at best. Even the good ones like the Times.



bigpinkt said:


> 6 positive tests for EPO are fact, not speculation. The only speculation comes in the form of those using the French Conspiracy theories to explain away the positives.


How'd the B sample come out on those tests?
Right, that's what I thought.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> You further degrade your position by repeating the myth that Lance is the most tested athlete...please provide a link as this is not even close to correct


He actually said that he was the most tested rider.
Please provide a link to prove that he was not the most tested rider. Or that he was not the most tested athlete for that matter. I'm pretty sure that he wasn't, but lets see you prove it hotshot.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> He actually said that he was the most tested rider.
> Please provide a link to prove that he was not the most tested rider. Or that he was not the most tested athlete for that matter. I'm pretty sure that he wasn't, but lets see you prove it hotshot.


Because Lance says it this is true? So you are willing to believe everything he says, but I have to prove he is lying? 

It is pretty easy, just go here
http://www.usantidoping.org/what/stats/history.aspx
Plug in your heroes name and you get this

Cycling - 2001
Lance Armstrong - 2 
Cycling - 2002
Lance Armstrong - 1 
Cycling - 2003
Lance Armstrong - 1 
Cycling - 2004
Lance Armstrong - 5 
Cycling - 2005
Lance Armstrong - 3 

Now put in Marion Jones. 
Track & Field - 2000
Marion Jones - 2 
Track & Field - 2001
Marion Jones - 2 
Track & Field - 2002
Marion Jones - 4 
Track & Field - 2003
Marion Jones - 3 
Track & Field - 2004
Marion Jones - 6 
Track & Field - 2005
Marion Jones - 2 
Track & Field - 2006
Marion Jones - 5

Marion beats him....notice how the number of OCC jumped when WADA came in charge. He used to ***** about getting OCC all the time but he only would receive 1-2 a year.

You can also go to the UCI and see this his test from in competition.(podiums, jersey wearer, stage winner)

* 1999 : 15 contrôles urinaires conventionnels (1 positif à la triamcinolone acétonide - corticoïdes, 14 négatifs)
* 2000 : 12 contrôles urinaires conventionnels (tous négatifs)
* 2001 : 10 contrôles urinaires conventionnels, dont 5 avec détection de l'EPO (tous négatifs)
* 2002 : 9 contrôles urinaires conventionnels incluant la recherche d'HES, dont 8 avec détection de l'EPO (tous négatifs)
* 2003 : 9 contrôles urinaires conventionnels incluant la recherche d'HES, dont 6 avec détection de l'EPO (tous négatifs)
* 2004 : 8 contrôles urinaires conventionnels incluant la recherche d'HES, dont 7 avec détection de l'EPO (tous négatifs). 1 contrôle sanguin de détection des hémoglobines de synthèse (négatif)

Check out the 1999 results....so much for "Never Tested Positive" Even the UCi counts that as a positive.

Eric Zabel, Mario Chipollini....all were tested more becuase they raced, and won, more then one race a year. Check out Mario's Palmeres. He is tested after each of these wins, before each GT, and each day in the jersey. 
* World Road Cycling Championships (2002)
* Flag of Italy Italian National Road Race Championship (1996)

* Giro d'Italia: Career: 42 stage wins (Giro record); 3-time points classification winner (maglia ciclamino)
o 1989: 1 stage win
o 1990: 2 stage wins
o 1991: 3 stage wins
o 1992: 4 stage wins; Maglia ciclamino winner
o 1995: 2 stage wins; 1 day in maglia rosa
o 1996: 4 stage wins
o 1997: 5 stage wins; Maglia ciclamino winner
o 1998: 4 stage wins
o 1999: 4 stage wins
o 2000: 1 stage win
o 2001: 4 stage wins; Azzurri d'Italia classification winner
o 2002: 6 stage wins; Maglia ciclamino winner; Azzurri d'Italia classification winner
o 2003: 2 stage wins

* Tour de France: Career: 12 stage wins; 6 days in maillot jaune; 2 days in maillot vert
o 1993: 1 stage win; 2 days in maillot jaune;
o 1995: 2 stage wins
o 1996: 1 stage win
o 1997: 2 stage wins; 4 days in maillot jaune; 1 day in maillot vert
o 1998: 2 stage wins
o 1999: 4 stage wins
* Vuelta a España: Career: 3 stage wins
o 2002: 3 stage wins
* Milan-Sanremo (1.HC): (2002; 2nd 1994, 2001)
* Gent-Wevelgem (1.HC): (1992, 1993, 2002; 2nd 1991)
* Paris-Nice (2.HC): Career: 7 stage wins
* 1992: 3 stage wins
* 1993: 2 stage wins
* 1994: 2 stage wins
* Tirreno-Adriatico (2.HC): Career: 4 stage wins
o 1999: 1 stage win
o 2002: 1 stage win
o 2003: 2 stage wins
* Tour de Romandie (2.HC): Career: 12 stage wins and 1 points classification
o 1995: 2 stage wins
o 1996: 3 stage wins
o 1997: 3 stage wins
o 1999: 1 stage win
o 2000: 2 stage wins; Points classification winner
o 2001: 1 stage win
* Volta a Catalunya (2.HC): Career: 11 stage wins
o 1995: 3 stage wins
o 1996: 2 stage wins
o 1998: 4 stage wins
o 1999: 2 stage wins

Other one-day and stage races

* E3 Prijs Vlaanderen (1.HC): (1993)
* Grote Scheldeprijs (1.1): (1991, 1993)
* Memorial Rik Van Steenbergen (1.1): (1993)
* Three Days of De Panne (2.2): (1992, 1 stage win)
* Four Days of Dunkirk (2.2): (1992, 3 stage wins and Sprint classification)
* Vuelta a Aragon (2.3): Career: 6 stage wins and 1 points classification
o 1996: 2 stage wins; Points classification winner
o 1997: 2 stage wins
o 2001: 2 stage wins
* Vuelta Valenciana (2.3): Career: 6 stage wins
o 1995: 2 stage wins
o 1996: 2 stage wins
o 1997: 1 stage win
o 2000: 1 stage win
* Tour Méditerranéen (2.3): Career: 14 stage wins
o 1993: 2 stage wins
o 1994: 2 stage wins
o 1995: 3 stage wins
o 1996: 1 stage win
o 1997: 2 stage wins
o 1998: 1 stage win
o 2000: 1 stage win
o 2002: 1 stage win
o 2004: 1 stage win
* Giro di Puglia (2.3): (1992, 2 stage wins; 1991, 1 stage win)
* Trofeo Luis Puig: (1995, 1999)
* GP de l'Escaut-Schoten: (1991)
* Giro della Provincia di Siracusa: (2001)
* Regio Tour: (1987)
* Gran Premio della Costa Etruschi: (1998, 2000)
* Tour de Georgia (2.1): (2004, 1 stage win)
* Tour of Qatar (2.1): (2005, 1 stage win)
* Settimana Siciliana (2.3): (1994, 1 stage win)

* Giro della Provincia di Lucca (1.1): (2005)
* Cala Millor - Cala Rajada (1.4): (1999)
* Manacor - Manacor (1.4): (1999)
* Monte Carlo - Alassio (1.4): (1995)


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

mtbbmet said:


> Having read many, many British sport pages I can tell you that they are equivalent to US magazine. They are tabloids, at best. Even the good ones like the Times.


Just to clarify, are you inferring that the Sunday Times is also a tabloid?


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Digger28 said:


> Just to clarify, are you inferring that the Sunday Times is also a tabloid?


No, it's one of the very few British publications that are in any way reputable. But the sport section is still a tabloid. It's what sells there, and it's what the masses want.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> Having read many, many British sport pages I can tell you that they are equivalent to US magazine. They are tabloids, at best. Even the good ones like the Times.
> .


it appears your definition of a tabloid is a newspaper that disagrees with your world view. Is Le Equipe a tabloid?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> How'd the B sample come out on those tests?
> Right, that's what I thought.


How did EPO get in his samples? Oh right, French conspiracy. ut:


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

mtbbmet said:


> No, it's one of the very few British publications that are in any way reputable. But the sport section is still a tabloid. It's what sells there, and it's what the masses want.


 

That is a fairly impressive statement! I buy the Sunday Times hardcopy every Sunday, and have done for a decade, and I can safely say that's the first time I've heard this being levelled at it. It defies ALL logic. It's actually laughable. You see, I think you made that statement from an American base, safe in the knowledge that most other Americans would not have read this paper. For example, Lance has called L'Equipe and Le Monde tabloid thrash. Let there be no ambiguity here, neither L'Equipe, Le Monde or the Sunday Times are even remotely tabloid in tone. They are extremely high brow - especially the times and Le Monde. To call the Times' sport section a tabloid is absolute bullsh** and lies. 
Little example for you....Paul Kimmage left the employment of an Irish broadsheet in 2002because it ran a headline, based on Paul's interview (with a soccer player), which was deeply misleading to the interview. He left on a point of principal and sought employment in a newspaper which shows more honesty in it's dealings. He began working in the Times that Autumn.
You have ZERO basis for your claim....Even the page sizes of the sport section are exactly the same!!


----------



## Aquamarinos (Mar 27, 2008)

How do you know there was EPO in his samples?

EPO stays in a fresh urine sample usually 1-2 moths, no study has been taken (that I know of) how long it stays or even reacts in a frozen sample, so tested 6 years after it was collected, no one can say that there indeed was EPO in his samples and back it up with proper data.
If the test had any merit, surely Lance would have been convicted by now
just my 2 cents..


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Aquamarinos said:


> How do you know there was EPO in his samples?
> 
> EPO stays in a fresh urine sample usually 1-2 moths, no study has been taken (that I know of) how long it stays or even reacts in a frozen sample, so tested 6 years after it was collected, no one can say that there indeed was EPO in his samples and back it up with proper data.
> If the test had any merit, surely Lance would have been convicted by now
> just my 2 cents..


They know that there is EPO in the samples because the samples tested positive for EPO. Lance has confirmed that they are his samples and they tested positive for EPO, however he asked that you believe that it was all a part of a French conspiracy as there was "No EPO in the samples when I gave them" :crazy: 

They also know that EPO remains stable for years in urine, in fact that was the reason for the testing. For two years they tested the samples from the 98 and 99 Tours and found that EPO largely remains stable in frozen samples. There was no evidence that EPO could magically appear in frozen samples.....although Lance has asked that we believe in miracles.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> They know that there is EPO in the samples because the samples tested positive for EPO. Lance has confirmed that they are his samples and they tested positive for EPO, however he asked that you believe that it was all a part of a French conspiracy as there was "No EPO in the samples when I gave them" :crazy:
> 
> They also know that EPO remains stable for years in urine, in fact that was the reason for the testing. For two years they tested the samples from the 98 and 99 Tours and found that EPO largely remains stable in frozen samples. There was no evidence that EPO could magically appear in frozen samples.....although Lance has asked that we believe in miracles.


I'd just like to add to the above paragrpagh from BigPinkt, before the Lance fans say that if EPO was in the urine, then it must've been tampered with. So, this is pre-emptive.
By the way, a quote from Lance: "I can only believe that they either are not mine or have been manipulated".
The samples were anonymous, and only identified through 6 digit numbers. At no point did anyone in the lab have access to the numbers. The journalist had to go through the UCI to match the names and figures.
Then on the Larry King show, Lance says that it is more likely that the samples were spiked than the doping forms forged. Because the rider gets a carbon copy after each test.
Maybe someone in the lab really wanted to go after Lance and decided that there was a good chance of tampering Lance's sample, considering the fact that the yellow jersey is automatically tested after each stage. 
With the other tests that took place on the days of each of the six tests, the chances of spiking the samples successfully were: 1 in 480.

The dates of the positive tests for EPO:
First two on July 3rd and 4th at the time he won the Prologue.
The next two were the mountain stages in the Alps, July 13th and 14th
Final two came on July 16 and 18, as the race enters the Pyrenees.
At key moments in the race, he had recently doped up.

The tests were not in question. Lance escaped because the tests were done for research purposes, not under the official jurisdiction of the UCI. The scientists choose the years 1998 and 1999 to use the test, because it was widely believed that EPO use was wholesale. They were correct. 
70 samples collected. 52 were deemed fit to be tested. 12 positives.
Lance was obviously not the only rider amongst these 12.
One of the more amusing excuses I've seen put forth by some Lance fans, is that, 'of course there was EPO in the samples, he was taking it for his post-cancer treatment'. Splendid.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

I still haven't heard anything that shows that the authorities governing the race have deemed Lance to have cheated. If they haven't declared him a cheater, who am I, a fan from outside the system, to do so?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> I still haven't heard anything that shows that the authorities governing the race have deemed Lance to have cheated. If they haven't declared him a cheater, who am I, a fan from outside the system, to do so?


The same governing body that Armstrong donate $500,000 to? The same one that gave him advanced notice of OCC tests? The same UCI that had two governing board members come out publicly to say that they had serious reservations about these same huge conflicts of interests? 

It would be naive to think that all governing bodies, especially one as messed up as the UCI, catch all the cheaters. Even Ulrich is still sanction free.

Since you are a fan of the authorities governing the sport then you may want to ask what the head of WADA thinks of Lance's EPO positives. He said "now an onus on Lance Armstrong and the others to explain how it is EPO got into their systems" Lance never did. The head of the ASO, who runs the Tour de France said that they had been lied to and that this was proof that Lance doped.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

You guys, the *whole french lab retest of the samples is silly and untrue.*

-Lance would face zero sactioning consequences if they were positive.

Lance could have had them re-tested anywhere by any WADA accredited lab, Read this:



"The analysis could be completed within a short time after agreement," said AFLD's statement which suggested testing "at the Châtenay-Malabry lab in the presence of an expert appointed by the athlete or at another laboratory accredited by WADA but using the same method of isoelectric focusing, which has been internationally validated by the AMA to detect the presence of EPO recombinant in the urine."


CyclingNews article


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> It would be naive to think that all governing bodies, especially one as messed up as the UCI, catch all the cheaters.


This was not my point. I simply think that until the governing bodies are willing to declare a rider a cheat, then there is no point in me doing so. Maybe it's the USA rubbing off on me, the principle that one is innocent until he's been charged and convicted. But whatever it is, the riders people are speculating about on this forum are still legal riders and I will watch and cheer for them unless they are officially sanctioned.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> This was not my point. I simply think that until the governing bodies are willing to declare a rider a cheat, then there is no point in me doing so. Maybe it's the USA rubbing off on me, the principle that one is innocent until he's been charged and convicted. But whatever it is, the riders people are speculating about on this forum are still legal riders and I will watch and cheer for them unless they are officially sanctioned.


Would it concern you if a rider gave a $500,000 "Donation" to the UCI? Do you think they would remain impartial? Two of the UCI's board members did not.

There is a reason that the UCI lost it's mandate to test to WADA, because they were clearly unable to remain impartial and did more to ignore and cover up the issue instead of addressing it.

Things have changed. Many of the actions that were given a pass in the past like raising Hct from 41 to 48.5, Dumping Actovign, back dated TUE's, avoiding sanction from retroactive testing, etc. are no longer possible. What is clearly considered cheating now riders got away with for years......because they got away with it, does that mean they are not cheaters?


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

pacificaslim said:


> This was not my point. I simply think that until the governing bodies are willing to declare a rider a cheat, then there is no point in me doing so. Maybe it's the USA rubbing off on me, the principle that one is innocent until he's been charged and convicted. But whatever it is, the riders people are speculating about on this forum are still legal riders and I will watch and cheer for them unless they are officially sanctioned.


Hein Verbruggen, then President of the UCI, to Dick Pound:
"Wll listen, if people don't mind the Tour de France at 25km/h, the riders don't have to prepare - but if they want it at42km/h, then I'm sorry, the riders cannot do it without preparation."
So you're going to wait for the UCI?

A comment from Bruyneel, which I came across again recently. He made it in 1999.
"For me, the situation is very simple. Cycling is a sport in a very bad light, and the reason we got there is the fact that, three years ago, the riders accepted too easily the fact that the authorities could install blood controls." So, Lance's DS, complains when the tests improve...This makes no sense if his riders were clean..


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> What is clearly considered cheating now riders got away with for years......because they got away with it, does that mean they are not cheaters?


Well, if "got away with it," means didn't fail any tests, then how can you so easily declare them cheaters? There was one rule structure for everyone. More successful riders were even tested more often. They were not shown to be violating those rules. The rest is unimportant. We just move on.

The onus is on the authorities to prove their case against a particular cyclist. Until they do so, the public should not go around believing so-and-so did this or that based on a lot of he-said-she-said "evidence".


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

pacificaslim said:


> Well, if "got away with it," means didn't fail any tests, then how can you so easily declare them cheaters? There was one rule structure for everyone. More successful riders were even tested more often. They were not shown to be violating those rules. The rest is unimportant. We just move on.
> 
> The onus is on the authorities to prove their case against a particular cyclist. Until they do so, the public should not go around believing so-and-so did this or that based on a lot of he-said-she-said "evidence".


Do you know about Operation Puerto and the Festina affair? The two most high profile cases in terms of busting doping rings, came about as the result of Police action, not failed tests.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

You guys,

All the circumstantial evidence out there is overwhelming. Thats why Lance has to pull out of ALL his legal suits and settle out of court, all the sworn testimony would blow the whole sport wide open.

USA Cycling recently got sued by 4 junior riders from the 1990 17-18 national junior squad. They had some major health problems following their time with "the team."

USA Cycling and Chris Carmichael both chose to settle out of court.

Unless you catch a guy red handed, you cant actually sanction them; OBVIOUSLY. A guy could ride a 40k TT in 35 minutes, but sh**; if he tests negative he tested negative...

Court Pamplet Link


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

F1nut said:


> if he tests negative he tested negative...


That works for me.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

pacificaslim said:


> That works for me.


LOL...So you conveniently ignored the rest of that particular post!!

One thing which needs to be added here though is that one big problem facing the cycling authorities, is that the burden of proof is higher in doping, than in a normal court of law.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> That works for me.


It must be nice to believe in miracles.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> It must be nice to believe in miracles.



Go hard or go home!!! 

I think a confession wouldn't even suffice in some people's eyes. They'd say that the French faked his voice.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

All I'm saying is that nothing short of an official sanction from the authorities is going to bother me. It's not my job to figure out who is cheating or not.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

About 80% of the "Pro-Tour" is doped. 

-Blood refills, Corticoids, Anabolic steroids, O2 transports, PFC's

These make a 30-40% increase in power output at your FTP (60 minute sustainable power output.)

The "Bio Passport" System is pretty much a way for them to dope with Vanity.

As "testing improved" from 1999-2005, Lance's fully-jacked power FTP power output improved from 495 watts-520 watts. 

Any smart doctor simply maintains the rider's blood and hormone levels at a jacked level all the time. So all the "constant", "natural" levels that are recorded are jacked.

There is Beta EPO, and DYNEPO(human exact epo) that are both undetectable so a rider can simply jack loading doses in training with absolutely no worries of a positive test.

-Get a sponsorship exemption and dont worry about the 1% chance of a bust.

Alien Basso, Lance Pharmstrong, Alberto Contadoper will jack like hell to bring their undoped VO2 maxes of 75ml-up to like 105 ml and their FTP's from 375 up to like 500. You will watch them TTT at 35 mph and ITT at 31 mph just like the last 18 years or so of competition has been since the advent of anti-anemia assistance.


Its like speeding down the highway in the middle of Montana,

-dont worry just floor it.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

Sounds very entertaining. Can't wait to see it!


----------



## moonstation2000 (Sep 5, 2008)

How is the entertainment wrapped up in what speeds they can achieve? When watching on tv it's hard to tell if they are going 25mph or 29mph...

The entertainment to me is watching the drama unfold over 3 weeks.

Maybe if speed is what people need they should just make the entire race downhill!


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

There's always Downhill Mountain Biking... Not clean though. They have Amp, Coke, Mountain Dew, and banned skinsuits.


----------

