# Blaming Former Teams...Am I Missing Something?



## Racer C (Jul 18, 2002)

The past 2 days, I've heard so much talk about how Beltran used to ride with Lance and Postal/Discovery and their "doping record", how that team is basically all indicted because of this and other subsequent dope positives, despite the fact that most weren't even on the team when they were caught, i.e. Floyd positive with Phonak, Tyler positive with Phonak, Basso positive with CSC, Heras positive with Liberty Seguros, etc. I mean, it's not like Postal/Discovery was the only other team Beltran rode for. How come people haven't been bringing up the "Mapei Scorecard", or the "Banesto Scorecard"? Is there really that much LA resentment out there? I'm not defending LA at all here, but sheesh.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Racer C said:


> The past 2 days, I've heard so much talk about how Beltran used to ride with Lance and Postal/Discovery and their "doping record", how that team is basically all indicted because of this and other subsequent dope positives, despite the fact that most weren't even on the team when they were caught, i.e. Floyd positive with Phonak, Tyler positive with Phonak, Basso positive with CSC, Heras positive with Liberty Seguros, etc. I mean, it's not like Postal/Discovery was the only other team Beltran rode for. How come people haven't been bringing up the "Mapei Scorecard", or the "Banesto Scorecard"? Is there really that much LA resentment out there? I'm not defending LA at all here, but sheesh.


Mapai is brought up all the time, just not in the American media. Phonak and Astana set some pretty impressive performances for Positives in a year

If this was the first former Disco/postal rider who doped then I would say you have a point. Since Beltran is the 10th it is a valid point of discussion.


----------



## Racer C (Jul 18, 2002)

But why blame Postal/Discovery for his doping? Who's to say he didn't start doping at Mapei or Banesto, or Coast? I just don't understand the singular indictment of the one former team.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Racer C said:


> But why blame Postal/Discovery for his doping? Who's to say he didn't start doping at Mapei or Banesto, or Coast? I just don't understand the singular indictment of the one former team.


I am not blaming Postal/Disco. At the time Beltran came into the sport it was common for teams to have organized doping programs so any of his teams could have started him down the road. The interest is mostly because he is yet another in a growing list of ex Postal/Disco riders who dope. If the list was 1 or 2 riders then I am sure most would not draw the conclusion, but because it it 10 then it begin to raise questions.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Because there's only one person who had the following to say after winning his last TDF.
<blockquote><em>
But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. But this is one hell of a race. This is a great sporting event and you should stand around and believe it. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it.</em>
Lance™ 7-24-05
</blockquote>


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

believe in these athletes...standing next to Jan and Basso?....Don't look behind the curtain


----------



## Racer C (Jul 18, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> If the list was 1 or 2 riders then I am sure most would not draw the conclusion, but because it it 10 then it begin to raise questions.


But there are easily just as many associated with Mapei and Banesto like: Jose Luis Jimenez, Jose Maria Jimenez, Francisco Mancebo, Aitor Osa, Unai Osa, Jose Ivan Gutierrez, Eladio Jimenez, Dariusz Baranowski, Alex Zulle, Santiago Blanco, Javier Pascquale, Ruben Plaza, Johan Museeuw, David Latasa, Stefano Harzelli, Patrick Sinkewitz, Oskar Camenzind, Frank Vandenbroucke, Gianni Bugno, Michele Bartoli, etc. The point remains, how is Beltran's doping is more an indictment of Postal/Disco than Banesto and Mapei? I'm all for calling out Liquigas, it still seems weird to me to point out only one team he formerly rode for and no others.


----------



## Racer C (Jul 18, 2002)

blackhat said:


> Because there's only one person who had the following to say after winning his last TDF.
> <blockquote><em>
> But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. But this is one hell of a race. This is a great sporting event and you should stand around and believe it. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it.</em>
> Lance™ 7-24-05
> </blockquote>



You're right, when he gave that speech, Lance totally should have known that Beltran would test positive at the Tour, 3 years in the future.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

Parsimony. Simplest explanation is that they all learned to dope at Postal. Requires only one place for the doping among all those people to be learned. If they all learned doping at different places, more 'steps' are involved, so it's a less parsimonious explanation.

Course, there probably were lots of doping 'nodes.'



Racer C said:


> The past 2 days, I've heard so much talk about how Beltran used to ride with Lance and Postal/Discovery and their "doping record", how that team is basically all indicted because of this and other subsequent dope positives, despite the fact that most weren't even on the team when they were caught, i.e. Floyd positive with Phonak, Tyler positive with Phonak, Basso positive with CSC, Heras positive with Liberty Seguros, etc. I mean, it's not like Postal/Discovery was the only other team Beltran rode for. How come people haven't been bringing up the "Mapei Scorecard", or the "Banesto Scorecard"? Is there really that much LA resentment out there? I'm not defending LA at all here, but sheesh.


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

Racer C said:


> But there are easily just as many associated with Mapei and Banesto like: Jose Luis Jimenez, Jose Maria Jimenez, Francisco Mancebo, Aitor Osa, Unai Osa, Jose Ivan Gutierrez, Eladio Jimenez, Dariusz Baranowski, Alex Zulle, Santiago Blanco, Javier Pascquale, Ruben Plaza, Johan Museeuw, David Latasa, Stefano Harzelli, Patrick Sinkewitz, Oskar Camenzind, Frank Vandenbroucke, Gianni Bugno, Michele Bartoli, etc. The point remains, how is Beltran's doping is more an indictment of Postal/Disco than Banesto and Mapei? I'm all for calling out Liquigas, it still seems weird to me to point out only one team he formerly rode for and no others.


I think that people are (finally) calling for Postal/Discovery to be viewed like every other pro team in that they were as eye-deep in the shenanigans as everybody else. Also, doesn't Tailwind Sports' hiring of Basso in spite of all the Puerto evidence give some sense of their attitude on the issue of doping? I would certainly imagine that the veterans from Kelme, Mapei et al who were brought on board at USPS were no strangers to "medical preparation".


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

By combining the two teams the list is large....but I do not recall any team being quite so sanctimonious of the cleanliness of its riders. To have a team that so often touted itself as clean have so many ex riders dope raises many questions.


----------



## Racer C (Jul 18, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> By combining the two teams the list is large....but I do not recall any team being quite so sanctimonious of the cleanliness of its riders. To have a team that so often touted itself as clean have so many ex riders dope raises many questions.


Let me think about this for a second. I'd say the most sanctimonious teams today, regarding the cleanliness of their riders are Garmin/Chipotle and Columbia. So, if 5 years from now, Kim Kirchen, Konstantin Svitsov, Dave Zabriskie or Thomas Lovkvist get caught doping while all riding for different teams, then it completely calls into question anything anyone has done while a member of Garmin/Chipotle or Columbia? I think it's totally fair to call into question the individual rider, but the whole team? I mean it's not like the former Postal/Disco riders who have been caught were all on the team at the same time. I'd say you have a better argument if that were the case.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> By combining the two teams the list is large....but I do not recall any team being quite so sanctimonious of the cleanliness of its riders. To have a team that so often touted itself as clean have so many ex riders dope raises many questions.


- Yes or No question : Did any 1 rider ever test positive and receive a suspension from the UCI while riding for Postal/Disco?


----------



## Racer C (Jul 18, 2002)

DMFT said:


> - Yes or No question : Did any 1 rider ever test positive and receive a suspension from the UCI while riding for Postal/Disco?


Actually, yes, 1 rider. In 2002, Gianpaolo Mondini was fired after less than 2 months with Postal when it was discovered that he had been found with doping products with his previous team the year before at the Giro.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Racer C said:


> Actually, yes, 1 rider. In 2002, Gianpaolo Mondini was fired after less than 2 months with Postal when it was discovered that he had been found with doping products with his previous team the year before at the Giro.



- That would be a "no" then..... Previous team, year before.

Not sayin' they were squeaky-clean. Just not hatin' like most others.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Racer C said:


> Let me think about this for a second. I'd say the most sanctimonious teams today, regarding the cleanliness of their riders are Garmin/Chipotle and Columbia. So, if 5 years from now, Kim Kirchen, Konstantin Svitsov, Dave Zabriskie or Thomas Lovkvist get caught doping while all riding for different teams, then it completely calls into question anything anyone has done while a member of Garmin/Chipotle or Columbia? I think it's totally fair to call into question the individual rider, but the whole team? I mean it's not like the former Postal/Disco riders who have been caught were all on the team at the same time. I'd say you have a better argument if that were the case.


You raise a good question. If in the next 3-4 years you had 10 ex-Garmin guys test positive there would be the same level, if not more, of talk. If Garmin had 10 ex riders who were dopers I would be one of the first to call them a fraud. 

But that is only a "what if" with Postal/Disco we are dealing with actual events.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

bigpinkt said:


> You raise a good question. If in the next 3-4 years you had 10 ex-Garmin guys test positive there would be the same level, if not more, of talk. If Garmin had 10 ex riders who were dopers I would be one of the first to call them a fraud.
> 
> But that is only a "what if" with Postal/Disco we are dealing with actual events.


and if some empty bags of actovegin and syringes were found to have been discarded by Garmin staff, as was the case with postal in 2000 and if Garmin employed the services of Ferrari or Cecchini and Mr. "extract of cortisone" Carmichael, and had former staffers lining up to tell their versions of the dopeshow in addition to the positives, then sure you could be comparatively suspicious of Garmin. Obviously, that's not currently the case.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*exactly*



DMFT said:


> - That would be a "no" then..... Previous team, year before.
> 
> Not sayin' they were squeaky-clean. Just not hatin' like most others.


they sacked him instantly when they found out about his doping with another team

Racer C you are spot on

this is nothing more than sour grapes / anti Lance-ism

why no CSC bashing? Tyler was popped riding for them andwe know their DS was stripped of hisTdF title for doping,and Basso....

just imagine if this was a court of law and people were
trying to blame an organization for their former employees actions while working for another firm, sometimes 2 firms post leaving

even funnier is how they try to blame Postal/Disco for Ivan's doping BEFORE he rode for them


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*Racer C*

what you clearly are missing is an emotional involvement that overrides your ability to think critically


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

atpjunkie said:


> what you clearly are missing is an emotional involvement that overrides your ability to think critically



you're correct, but not for the reason you seem to think.


----------



## Two_Wheel_Tango (Jul 13, 2008)

blackhat said:


> and if some empty bags of actovegin and syringes were found to have been discarded by Garmin staff, as was the case with postal in 2000 and if Garmin employed the services of Ferrari or Cecchini and Mr. "extract of cortisone" Carmichael, and had former staffers lining up to tell their versions of the dopeshow in addition to the positives, then sure you could be comparatively suspicious of Garmin. Obviously, that's not currently the case.


The point of the post was not "did Postal dope" but rather "is there a connection between Beltran's doping and postal". Given that Beltran joined the team in 2003, and the example you cite is from 2000. What's the conneciton there to Beltran?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

atpjunkie said:


> they sacked him instantly when they found out about his doping with another team
> 
> Racer C you are spot on
> 
> ...


I agree with you, however I am not trying to blame USPS/Disco for Beltran. I am only pointing out how odd it is that a team that's public face was anti doping somehow succeeding in hiring a large number of dopers. I am certain that these rides only turned to dopeing when they found out they could not succeed without Johann's expect guidance.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Two_Wheel_Tango said:


> The point of the post was not "did Postal dope" but rather "is there a connection between Beltran's doping and postal". Given that Beltran joined the team in 2003, and the example you cite is from 2000. What's the conneciton there to Beltran?


what happened with the calves blood has nothing to do with trikki other than to illustrate the environment that surrounded him at postal. I noted it here specifically because OP was asking what it would take to cast future doubt on the slipstream squad. I think if there were some future +'s from former riders in addition to finds like the actovegin that would be a red flag.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Two_Wheel_Tango said:


> The point of the post was not "did Postal dope" but rather "is there a connection between Beltran's doping and postal". Given that Beltran joined the team in 2003, and the example you cite is from 2000. What's the conneciton there to Beltran?


Ohhhh, nothing at all......

Is this what is meant by compartmentalization? 

Postal, Discovery, Royale with Cheese, Quarterpounder, hey, that's nominalism too.

There are some common threads there or no?

Jeez, I wonder how much of that $hit, Beltran was taking in the LA, Postal, Discovery, halcyon days.

He never tested positive, and I'm amazed that LA who also never tested positive, could outclimb a pure climber, and clean to boot.....

I love you Lance......


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> To have a team that so often touted itself as clean have so many ex riders dope raises many questions.


Not really. When domestiques leave one team to become a team leader for some other team, and later get nailed (e.g., Hamilton, Heras, Landis, etc.), I fail to see how that is an indictment of their former team. It isn't too hard to imagine that even a strong team rider stepping up to be a team leader, along with the accompanying big salary, would succumb to the pressure for results and hit the sauce. How is that the fault of the previous team?


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*I look to other sports*



bigpinkt said:


> I agree with you, however I am not trying to blame USPS/Disco for Beltran. I am only pointing out how odd it is that a team that's public face was anti doping somehow succeeding in hiring a large number of dopers. I am certain that these rides only turned to dopeing when they found out they could not succeed without Johann's expect guidance.


Journeyman ballplayer does a cycle or 2 of dope, has banner season, gets to sign a big $$ deal (think Giambi) that sets them forlife

so you have super Doms under shadow of great team leader, strike out on their own when other teams offer them big $$ Honch positions
With pressure of leadership and an employer who wants a return on investment
there is alot of pressure to perform

your assertation is wrong, USPS /Postal hired guys who would later turn out to be dopers under someone else's guidance

\Liquigas hires dopers

IMHO if LA doped he wouldn't have shared that info with anyone other than who needed to know. He is an extremely shrewd, calculating human. He would keep his liabilities to an absolute minimum.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Racer C said:


> But why blame Postal/Discovery for his doping? Who's to say he didn't start doping at Mapei or Banesto, or Coast? I just don't understand the singular indictment of the one former team.


That was a strawman argument brought up on another thread about blaming the teams.

The fact is that the most prominent cyclist in the world still is Lance Armstrong and he's not only vehemently protested his innocence, he's gone on a slash and burn campaign to ruin anyone who wants to peel the cover off what's completely obvious to anyone who has their eyes open.

The guy has made tens of millions of dollars and is a worldwide icon. Now he's defending that status by any means necessary. That's going to attract some attention to say the least....


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*it's like 6 degrees*



lookrider said:


> Ohhhh, nothing at all......
> 
> Is this what is meant by compartmentalization?
> 
> ...


of Kevin Bacon

if you start a theory with a predetermined answer, all your research will lead back to your desired answer

if it doesn't, or if there are far more plausible explanations, one will ignore that

this is like 'creationist science'


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

atpjunkie said:


> of Kevin Bacon
> 
> if you start a theory with a predetermined answer, all your research will lead back to your desired answer
> 
> ...


or perhaps self reinforcing delusion and denial.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Racer C said:


> You're right, when he gave that speech, Lance totally should have known that Beltran would test positive at the Tour, 3 years in the future.


It's fine you have this belief in LA. But it's as clear as day to anyone who is even remotely paying attention, that LA had been doping for his 7 victories so it's laughable that he would make that statement on the podium.

You're relying as an argument that says if LA did not test positive he's not guilty. *We all know by now, that's an incorrect inference.*

What the LA supporters are getting called on, are their attempts to discredit those who aren't disregarding the mountain of evidence that points to LA's guilt.

You know, if one utilizes the arguments of three year olds with their hands caught in the cookie jar, that will be pointed out.....


----------



## Two_Wheel_Tango (Jul 13, 2008)

blackhat said:


> or perhaps self reinforcing delusion and denial.


I think evidence is awesome. The 6 EPO positives from 1999, that's evidence. The actovegin syringes and empty bags, that's evidence. Andreu's admission to doping during the 1999 Tour, that's evidence. But Beltran testing positive years down the road?, that's circumstantial at best. The evidence showed that Lance obviously doped. The circumstantial stuff just seems silly to me. Also, somebody said something sarchastic like "I'm sure all the ex-posties who got caught for doping started after they left Postal." Well, thinking about that in terms of evidence and circumstance...Tyler got much better after he left Postal, then he gets caught. Floyd got a lot better once he left postal...then he got caught. Logically, that would seem to me to be evidence that they started doping after, or at least ramped it up quite a bit.


----------



## Racer C (Jul 18, 2002)

lookrider said:


> It's fine you have this belief in LA. But it's as clear as day to anyone who is even remotely paying attention, that LA had been doping for his 7 victories so it's laughable that he would make that statement on the podium.
> 
> You're relying as an argument that says if LA did not test positive he's not guilty. *We all know by now, that's an incorrect inference.*
> 
> ...


Dude, please. Take a look at my posts, I never said I thought Lance was innocent. I'm pretty certain Lance doped. Like Tango said, the 99 EPO positives, the syringes in 2000, etc. shows Lance doped. But Beltran's positive just showed that Beltran doped and it's a totally weak implication of Lance. There is MUCH better, realistic evidence out there.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Racer C said:


> How come people haven't been bringing up the "Mapei Scorecard", or the "Banesto Scorecard"? Is there really that much LA resentment out there? I'm not defending LA at all here, but sheesh.


Because this is America and Armstrong is huge, Indurain is not. Armstrong has a high profile and Indurain has laid low...

LA resentment? Telling the truth is resentment? This is where the problem is.

Do I resent a 5'10", 300lb muscle bound freak body builder. Of course not. But don't tell me that it's natural. It's an insult to my intelligence. Then you're making tens of millions of dollars, becoming an icon inspiring hope in gravely ill people. Then someone points out the obvious, that you're taking drugs to achieve your status, and the truth teller is attacked and destroyed.

The people pointing out the obvious are not "haters" or "Lance bashers," or "resentful."

The people who believe LA are at best uninformed, and if they know the facts their logical reasoning is faulty, or maybe they are delusional.....


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Racer C said:


> Dude, please. Take a look at my posts, I never said I thought Lance was innocent. I'm pretty certain Lance doped. Like Tango said, the 99 EPO positives, the syringes in 2000, etc. shows Lance doped. But Beltran's positive just showed that Beltran doped and it's a totally weak implication of Lance. There is MUCH better, realistic evidence out there.


Evidence is evidence. Some is more incriminating than other evidence. It's one more strand in a very thick rope. This whole argument saying Beltran's positive doesn't mean anything is meaningless. Does the Beltran positive mean as much as an LA admission, obviously not. But *all* of the evidence taken in its entirety is *very* convincing.
You're right, I haven't really read a lot of what you've written re LA's guilt and you go on to say you think LA doped. 

If that's the case, what's the point of disputing this Beltran stuff.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

atpjunkie said:


> of Kevin Bacon
> 
> if you start a theory with a predetermined answer, all your research will lead back to your desired answer
> 
> ...


Initially my predetermined answer was that LA was clean. Then his plausible answers were proven to be lies. 

His weight loss, yeah ok.... His very ordinary for a pro cyclist's natural ability....

One of the most comical was his interview with Walsh where he denied knowledge of the Ferrari investigation and his best friend, Kevin Livingston's involvement.

I mean this $hit is just laughable....

The answer is Lance is *Guilty as hell.*

*Give us one plausable explanation that says otherwise.*

What you do is separate all the evidence and then try to come up some plausable explanation for each piece. There's 150 pieces of evidence, and a ridiculous explanation for each....


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*please see all my other postings*



lookrider said:


> Initially my predetermined answer was that LA was clean. Then his plausible answers were proven to be lies.
> 
> His weight loss, yeah ok.... His very ordinary for a pro cyclist's natural ability....
> 
> ...



never once have I defended Lance, Disco or USPS

all I have done is shown the guilt by extremely tenuous association is NOT an effective, nor convincing manner to sway opinion. Especially since there are half a dozen other associations with far more likely causal relationships AND even those would not stand muster in any form of critical debate.

so I am not in denialnore deluded. LA raced in the 90s
I said EVERYONE doped in the 90s, that should have clarified my position

I assume most doped in the late 90's early 00s
do I think LA dominated because of dope?
No, I think, and am on record as saying, between GC Honches on major teams the 'playing field' has always been, and always will be basically level.

so if you want to prove LA doped, pick another battle. This one does NOTHING but make your case look like a bunch of bitter tinfoilers. It doesn't forward your cause in the least bit but makes you all appear irrational


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

atp, I've always found it amazing how much inductive reasoning trumps deductive reasoning in these matters, but that's hardly surprising because it's a very emotional thing for some people. When you absolutely, positively feel you know the conclusion, you can supply any number of random arguments and events to support it.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*'zactly mohair*



mohair_chair said:


> atp, I've always found it amazing how much inductive reasoning trumps deductive reasoning in these matters, but that's hardly surprising because it's a very emotional thing for some people. When you absolutely, positively feel you know the conclusion, you can supply any number of random arguments and events to support it.


I mean I most likely could prove that each one of us grew up with somebody who turned out gay

we most likely have worked with somebody who was gay

somebody we wentto school with or worked with came out of the closet after we knew them

I therefore have proven we're all teh ghey

NTTAWWT


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*No, you're doing it right now*



atpjunkie said:


> never once have I defended Lance, Disco or USPS
> 
> all I have done is shown the guilt by extremely tenuous association is NOT an effective, nor convincing manner to sway opinion.


Actually I think the mass of evidence you're dismissing is effective and convincing. David Walsh wrote 2 books about the evidence. As for swaying opinion, I believe if most people read the Walsh book their opinion would be swayed. 




atpjunkie said:


> Especially since there are half a dozen other associations with far more likely causal relationships .


I'm not sure what you're referring to, but give some examples of the evidence which could be explained away with other more likely causal relationships. 




atpjunkie said:


> AND even those would not stand muster in any form of critical debate..


Most logical people look at evidence in the aggregate, not a yea, nay on each point. 



atpjunkie said:


> so I am not in denialnore deluded. LA raced in the 90s
> I said EVERYONE doped in the 90s, that should have clarified my position..


Then you go on to dismiss the evidence against him, so I really don't know what your point is. You seem offended that people do know the evidence against him, present it to support their opinion that the irresistable conclusion is that LA doped, and not just a little, I might add.




atpjunkie said:


> I assume most doped in the late 90's early 00s
> do I think LA dominated because of dope?
> No, I think, and am on record as saying, between GC Honches on major teams the 'playing field' has always been, and always will be basically level...


Well, first of all, I don't agree with you. Second, if in your opinion the playing field is level, do you believe doping is ok?



atpjunkie said:


> so if you want to prove LA doped, pick another battle. This one does NOTHING but make your case look like a bunch of bitter tinfoilers. It doesn't forward your cause in the least bit but makes you all appear irrational


You're completely wrong. 

It's already been proven conclusively that LA doped through at least 75% of his pro career.

This one, I'm assuming you mean Beltran, proves nothing, in and of itself. Taken with all the rest of the evidence, this very small piece is a small strand in a a very thick rope.

Bitter tinfoilers? See, that's where you're defending LA. Why are you even bothering to argue here if you think LA doped? Someone correctly pointing out that the Beltran positive doesn't look good for LA is only stating the obvious. It certainly doesn't detract at all from the idea that LA doped. If it's only the type of thing that someone could say, "another one of LA's boys is dirty," imo it tips the scale more in the direction of LA's guilt if only by one grain of sand...

You're the one who appears irrational. You believe LA is guilty, but are arguing against the *evidence* that proves it. What kind of sense does that make? 

Are you determining LA's guilt with a crystal ball?


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

atpjunkie said:


> Journeyman ballplayer does a cycle or 2 of dope, has banner season, gets to sign a big $$ deal (think Giambi) that sets them forlife
> 
> so you have super Doms under shadow of great team leader, strike out on their own when other teams offer them big $$ Honch positions
> With pressure of leadership and an employer who wants a return on investment
> ...


Interesting that the "super doms" had the ability to ride their leader up climbs and simply crush the likes of Ulrich, Basso, Vino et al and their own "super doms" yet they are somehow unable to hang with former boss once they've left the team. Oh, and they tend to be found positive once they've become team leaders... Honestly, find me a single former competitor of LA's who has not tested positve (well, Sastre but former Kelme, hmmmm) and factor in the domestiques. How can you fathom that the Postal clean program somehow put the Telekom/T-Mobile CORPORATE DOPING PROGRAM on the ropes? Yeah, good ol' American stick-to-it-tiveness. Grow up... I would not give a rat's arse but LA's "righteous indignation" just sickens me. His rivals have been thrown upon the scrap heap, humiliated and left without careers yet he prospers and casts judgement. Lance should feel very uncomfortable in his current position and keep a low profile. Oh, wait, that's exactly what he's been doing.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

mohair_chair said:


> atp, I've always found it amazing how much inductive reasoning trumps deductive reasoning in these matters, but that's hardly surprising because it's a very emotional thing for some people. When you absolutely, positively feel you know the conclusion, you can supply any number of random arguments and events to support it.


I am always surprised by how much evidence people will dismiss or rationalize to maintain their near religious beliefs. If Lanny Davis ever retires, I know where a replacement could be found.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Racer C said:


> Basso positive with CSC,


Basso never tested positive. He admitted to preparing to blood dope.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

lookrider said:


> Do I resent a 5'10", 300lb muscle bound freak body builder. Of course not. But don't tell me that it's natural. It's an insult to my intelligence. Then


Then maybe your not too bright? I know a few guys that are very close to that that description and yes, are drug free and have never used steriods. Are they 2% BF? No, but lean enouhg to have some abs showing. Now yes, these are genetic freaks are far and few between. But there are a few guys out there like that. So no possibility of LA being a freak?

Is he he clean? No idea and NO ONE her4e actually knows the truth. But IMO, those years of cancer recovery and the drugs he took possibly made him the rider he saw win 7 TDF. Just MO and that's all.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

lookrider said:


> It's fine you have this belief in LA. But it's as clear as day to anyone who is even remotely paying attention, that LA had been doping for his 7 victories so it's laughable that he would make that statement on the podium.


And this a fact for you? I understand the bashers and supporters, but statemnetslike this asre unfounded. Only Lance and a few others REALLY know. Those _"even remotely paying attention" _are only guessing/hoping.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

DIRT BOY said:


> So no possibility of LA being a freak?


Nope. Otherwise the freakishness would have shown up early in his career instead of after he started working with cycling's best dope doctor.



DIRT BOY said:


> Is he he clean? No idea and NO ONE her4e actually knows the truth. But IMO, those years of cancer recovery and the drugs he took possibly made him the rider he saw win 7 TDF. Just MO and that's all.


Uh-huh. We all know that chemo drugs cause long lasting aerobic performance enhancement. You are grasping at straws.



DIRT BOY said:


> Those "even remotely paying attention" are only guessing/hoping.


Drawing a conclusion from the mountain of evidence that indicates that Armstrong and everyone else he competed against doped is not guessing. It used to be called common sense, something that is sadly lacking amongst homers like yourself.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

I love that. Walsh had so much evidence, he wrote TWO books!


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> Nope. Otherwise the freakishness would have shown up early in his career instead of after he started working with cycling's best dope doctor.


Really? Winning Tri at 16 against atheletes much older and experienced is not a sign?




> Uh-huh. We all know that chemo drugs cause long lasting aerobic performance enhancement. You are grasping at straws.


I am talking about the amounts of steriods and of possibily experimental drugs that made him stronger and leaner post cancer. Did he not gain a few pounds of muscle, but was lighter overall? Wouyld this not help? 




> Drawing a conclusion from the mountain of evidence that indicates that Armstrong and everyone else he competed against doped is not guessing. It used to be called common sense, something that is sadly lacking amongst homers like yourself.


Not and homer and maybe the haters should use there brains every once in a while. Just because everyone around is doping, it does NOT mean you were.

is he clean? Maybe, maybe not. I wonder is what experimental drugs that myabe others had ZERO idea about were used. he built a VERY close relationship with Squib during his cancer recovery. Maybe something like "the Clear" that Balco and all the other athletes were using was only used with Lance.

Those MOUNTAINS of eveidence are all speculation. Nothing is concrete. What 6 yrs old EPO testings? How accurate are these?

Again, we will NEVER know until some one actully blows the whistle that REALLY knows.

But more and more I supsect that he possibly did. Just heveryone here on RBR has the inside info right?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> I am always surprised by how much evidence people will dismiss or rationalize to maintain their near religious beliefs.


I agree. You said it better than I could.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> Drawing a conclusion from the mountain of evidence that indicates that Armstrong and everyone else he competed against doped is not guessing. It used to be called common sense, something that is sadly lacking amongst homers like yourself.


Ok, say he doped. So did everyone else and he kicked their butts on to 7 TDF wins.

So better dope? Or better athlete, determination, training, team and DS?


----------



## TheDon (Feb 3, 2006)

I think we're over looking the big picture here. It's not that people on discovery were doping, but doping was so widespread before and during the Lance era that it was impossible to have a team that didn't have any dopers or connections to dopers. It's worse than just systematic doping in Postal, but almost every team doping. I do still think that some teams and riders benefited from better programs and responded better to drug treatments than others.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

TheDon said:


> I do still think that some teams and riders benefited from better programs and responded better to drug treatments than others.


Well Vaughters experience going from Postal to C.A. clearly indicates it was not an entirely even playing field. Some riders/teams were clearly ahead of the curve after Festina but I think most teams/riders went on with business as usual, at least up until the introduction of the EPO test in 2000 (or 2001?). At that point your probably had to get at least some sophistication if you wanted to keep playing the old way, full-stop.


----------



## TheDon (Feb 3, 2006)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Well Vaughters experience going from Postal to C.A. clearly indicates it was not an entirely even playing field. Some riders/teams were clearly ahead of the curve after Festina but I think most teams/riders went on with business as usual, at least up until the introduction of the EPO test in 2000 (or 2001?). At that point your probably had to get at least some sophistication if you wanted to keep playing the old way, full-stop.


Clearly. Just because everyone was doping does not mean everyone was on a level playing field with doping. Some teams had better method and more money that allowed cyclists to buy better drugs.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

DIRT BOY said:


> What 6 yrs old EPO testings? How accurate are these?


It turned out to be pretty accurate in Beltran's case.  The testing found he was using EPO in 1999. Apparently he continued to use it until he was caught this year. So much for the retrotesting being a french conspiracy.



DIRT BOY said:


> Again, we will NEVER know until some one actully blows the whistle that REALLY knows.


This has become the latest defense of the homer. "We'll never know." No, you don't want to know. People have blown the whistle. More than enough evidence has emerged. People like you just don't want to draw the obvious conclusion. There is nothing that could come out that would change your opinion, but you don't have the intellectual honesty to say so. Instead you lie to us and perhaps yourself by feigning objectivity, rejecting any bit of evidence while refusing to state your actual belief that Armstrong did not dope because stating such an opinion would be ridiculous in light of the doping that was done by everyone else that was competing.

Face reality: All the riders who raced beyond the early 90s and won anything of consequence on a consistent basis were doping. All of them. They had to be. The performance gains for EPO were too great not to use it. Nearly all who raced before the early 90s were also doping. Cycling is a sordid, dirty sport. It has been from the very beginning.



DIRT BOY said:


> I am talking about the amounts of steriods and of possibily experimental drugs that made him stronger and leaner post cancer. Did he not gain a few pounds of muscle, but was lighter overall? Wouyld this not help?


What steroids and what experimental drugs? I had all the same junk that Armstrong did pumped into my body. Guess what? No performance gain. I did not gain a hundred watts of sustainable power. The 14% loss in body weight, starting from 8% body fat, that I experienced during chemo was not permanent. You gain the fat and muscle back as soon as you can begin to eat normally again.

Armstrong's weight loss was a lie used to deceive people about his outrageous increase in performance. The SCA case showed that. Read the transcripts. He was clearly promoting the myth of his weight loss, and he knew it. He raced the Tour at the same weight (within one or two kilos) post-cancer as he did pre-cancer. His last Tour was raced at 75 kilos, if I remember right.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

TheDon said:


> Clearly. Just because everyone was doping does not mean everyone was on a level playing field with doping. Some teams had better method and more money that allowed cyclists to buy better drugs.


Reports are that Ullrich was paying Fuentes 70.000 euros for his doping support and advice., and that Armstrong was paying several times that to Dr Ferrari. In addition Armstrong had an exclusivity contract with Ferrari that prevented him from preparing any of his Tour rivals. Clearly Armstrong thought he was getting something from Ferrari that was worth the extra money and that he did not want his rivals to get the same prepartion. Armstrong's own behavior indicates that it was not a level playing field.


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

DIRT BOY said:


> Ok, say he doped. So did everyone else and he kicked their butts on to 7 TDF wins.
> 
> So better dope? Or better athlete, determination, training, team and DS?



Likely a clever combo of all of the above. Never underestimate the value of the good Doc Michele! I'm curious why so many of his competitors doped on the cheap and went to the *same* low-rent Dr. Fuentes? Guys with the money and means such as Ullrich and Basso baffle me as to why they didn't seek out a private trainer/doctor on par with Ferrari rather than cast their lots with loads of other lesser team leaders and domestiques. Oh man, watching the prime time TdF on Versus and just cracking up as they show LA smashing Jan and Pantani on Hautacam (I think). Poor ol Marco was up around 60% hematocrit during his heyday. Do what you will with that info...


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> It turned out to be pretty accurate in Beltran's case.  The testing found he was using EPO in 1999. Apparently he continued to use it until he was caught this year. So much for the retrotesting being a french conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok, 

Again, you don't know, they rats they have spoke do not know either.

IMO, I am personally about 60/40 he did dope Enough brains for you? 
I guess we all are not as smart and gited as you. I guess anyone who possibly thinks someone is clean is just a dumbass and a fanboy  :mad2:

Whatever...I guess you know.

Also I DOUBT you were given the same drugs as he got. Again it's just MO and theory that we took more experimanetal drugs than we know about.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

*Dude,*



Under ACrookedSky said:


> It turned out to be pretty accurate in Beltran's case.  The testing found he was using EPO in 1999. Apparently he continued to use it until he was caught this year. So much for the retrotesting being a french conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



- Here's an idea, why don't you & lookrider PRESS CHARGES with allllllllllllll the books, evidence, and proof you have.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*quickly*



lookrider said:


> Actually I think the mass of evidence you're dismissing is effective and convincing. David Walsh wrote 2 books about the evidence. As for swaying opinion, I believe if most people read the Walsh book their opinion would be swayed.


what mass of evidence, that ex associates while on other teams got busted?



lookrider said:


> I'm not sure what you're referring to, but give some examples of the evidence which could be explained away with other more likely causal relationships.


Hamilton, busted while riding for CSC,Basso busted whileridingfor CSC

Landis busted while ridingfor Phonak, Phonak had multiple other dope related issues

Heras, busted while riding for Liberty, under guidance of Saiz, check the# ofriders busted on his various teams. Hell he was partof the Puerto Bust exchanging $

Beltran, busted riding for Liquigas, not the cleanest team history and 3 years gone




lookrider said:


> Most logical people look at evidence in the aggregate, not a yea, nay on each point.


there is no aggregate here, there is nothing more than really loose assciations.Show this 'aggregate' to a trial lawyer ask him how solid this very circustantial case is




lookrider said:


> Then you go on to dismiss the evidence against him, so I really don't know what your point is. You seem offended that people do know the evidence against him, present it to support their opinion that the irresistable conclusion is that LA doped, and not just a little, I might add.


what evidence, his ex-team mates or the book? use the book all you want, his ex teammate line is worthless



lookrider said:


> Well, first of all, I don't agree with you. Second, if in your opinion the playing field is level, do you believe doping is ok?


really, let's see LAs main competitors
Pantani -doped
Ullrich - doped
Basso - doped
Beloki - doped
Vino - doped

do I think it is right? no. but a doped rider racing against a doped rider where H Crit levels cannot exceed 50% is level



lookrider said:


> You're completely wrong.
> 
> It's already been proven conclusively that LA doped through at least 75% of his pro career.


really? (not that I disagree) but conclusive evidence would be enough to strip him. Ain't happened yet, and you know those '99 tests were tossed by an independent court don't you? so your usage of completely is as accurate as your use of conclusive


lookrider said:


> This one, I'm assuming you mean Beltran, proves nothing, in and of itself. Taken with all the rest of the evidence, this very small piece is a small strand in a a very thick rope.
> 
> Bitter tinfoilers? See, that's where you're defending LA. Why are you even bothering to argue here if you think LA doped? Someone correctly pointing out that the Beltran positive doesn't look good for LA is only stating the obvious. It certainly doesn't detract at all from the idea that LA doped. If it's only the type of thing that someone could say, "another one of LA's boys is dirty," imo it tips the scale more in the direction of LA's guilt if only by one grain of sand...
> 
> ...


no, I'm not determining his guilt. All I'm saying is this line of attack (his ex team mates)
proves NOTHING because it ignores the far more plausible reasons Istated above.

if it is your ambition to sway opinion, use a point of debate that doesn't make you look like you are grasping , desperately for even the most tenuous piece of evidence.
this 6 degrees of LA has always and will always undermine your side of the debate.
If you tried such tactics in a court of law you would be laughed out.

bash him all you want, he's retired for how many years and you are still not over it
that doesn't ring of bitterness to you?

oh andf Beltran's positive doesn't look good for
Beltran
then maybe Liquigas


----------



## Guest (Jul 15, 2008)

DMFT said:


> - That would be a "no" then..... Previous team, year before.
> 
> Not sayin' they were squeaky-clean. Just not hatin' like most others.


No, that would be a "Yes" based on the way you worded your 'yes/no' question. Next time just state your opinion.

Postal/Disco were up to their necks in doping, as were many other teams and/or riders during that time frame.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*the tone of this post*



serbski said:


> Interesting that the "super doms" had the ability to ride their leader up climbs and simply crush the likes of Ulrich, Basso, Vino et al and their own "super doms" yet they are somehow unable to hang with former boss once they've left the team. Oh, and they tend to be found positive once they've become team leaders... Honestly, find me a single former competitor of LA's who has not tested positve (well, Sastre but former Kelme, hmmmm) and factor in the domestiques. How can you fathom that the Postal clean program somehow put the Telekom/T-Mobile CORPORATE DOPING PROGRAM on the ropes? Yeah, good ol' American stick-to-it-tiveness. Grow up... I would not give a rat's arse but LA's "righteous indignation" just sickens me. His rivals have been thrown upon the scrap heap, humiliated and left without careers yet he prospers and casts judgement. Lance should feel very uncomfortable in his current position and keep a low profile. Oh, wait, that's exactly what he's been doing.


shows exactlythe emotional attachment to this topic of which I speak.

so you are implying thatPostal/Disco had some super secretdoping technology NO ONE had
and it was so secret the riders didn't know what they were given which is why they were unable to take this information to their NEW team (even though they have personal trainers and doctors) and thus used more conventional methods which explains why they got caught


yes that is it Postal had BETTER drugs

read that and tell me it isn't laughable


I never said Postal was clean, in fact I've said the playing field was even (dirty vs dirty)

as for Lance, again he is of no consequence to me. I've said he was shrewd, him being where he is today while others went down the toilet is testimony to his cunning.
Look at Operation Puerto, Lance would have NEVER used a doctorthat was so indiscreet or had so many clients/liabilities, so Jan and Basso were straight up dumb. Do I care what he says? nope

so again,be my guest proving him dirty if it is so important to you,I've moved on, and anyhow I care more for the classics than Le Tour and Lance was rarely a factor.
So dig up some dirt if you've nothing better to do with your time, but if the best 'dirt' you dig ishis former and future teammates busts than you'vebeenreally wasting your time


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

The Postal and Disco teams were packed with "super doms." That's part of why those teams were so successful in the TDF. Take any one of those guys, put him on another team that isn't packed with "super doms," and what are the chances he can go head to head with Lance?

Plus, another factor not mentioned is that Lance traditionally doubled the prize money from his personal stash, so there were HUGE financial rewards for winning the tour. In 2005, Disco won 545,640 Euros in prize money (400,000 for winning the overall). Lance throws in another 400K, making 945,640. Take out 15% off the top for the team staff, 141,846. That leaves 803,794 Euros. Now, I don't know how the team split was done, but just for simplicity, let's split it eight ways. So each member of the team walks away with 100K Euros when Lance won the Tour. That's a big paycheck that inspires great dedication and sacrifice, and no other team had a bonus program that came anywhere near those numbers. I remember reading that the Phonak guys were upset when Landis was busted, because they only got a 1K bonus instead of 30K for winning. Who would you rather ride for?


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

atpjunkie said:


> shows exactlythe emotional attachment to this topic of which I speak.
> 
> so you are implying thatPostal/Disco had some super secretdoping technology NO ONE had
> and it was so secret the riders didn't know what they were given which is why they were unable to take this information to their NEW team (even though they have personal trainers and doctors) and thus used more conventional methods which explains why they got caught
> ...


So please clarify: do you believe that LA, and by extension USPS, ran a clean team? Are you stating that they were clean because there were "no positives" or are you simply stating, as is quite true, that there were no positives?


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

atpjunkie said:


> what mass of evidence, that ex associates while on other teams got busted?
> 
> 
> Hamilton, busted while riding for CSC,Basso busted whileridingfor CSC
> ...


Don't confuse them with the facts.


----------



## breakaway (Jun 15, 2008)

Racer C said:


> The past 2 days, I've heard so much talk about how Beltran used to ride with Lance and Postal/Discovery and their "doping record", how that team is basically all indicted because of this and other subsequent dope positives, despite the fact that most weren't even on the team when they were caught, i.e. Floyd positive with Phonak, Tyler positive with Phonak, Basso positive with CSC, Heras positive with Liberty Seguros, etc. I mean, it's not like Postal/Discovery was the only other team Beltran rode for. How come people haven't been bringing up the "Mapei Scorecard", or the "Banesto Scorecard"? Is there really that much LA resentment out there? I'm not defending LA at all here, but sheesh.


Your last sentence hits the nail right on the head. No need to read all the diatribe from the LA haters because this forum is filled with them. Its not your fault that they have their own personal issues to not accept the fact that Lance did with 7 tours, never was suspended, and never got a Mailiot jaune recalled.
Everything here is just hearsay and diatribe gossip that has no merit whatsoever. Let the haters keep on digging up wannabe made up factoids and spew them out like they are some type of authoritive figure in the doping process but in truth they just have insecurities within themselves.
Haters always hate winners. Maybe because they are just failures themselves.
But the most important thing is what LA is doing now. Nothing can that that away and no previous sports figure even comes close


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

atpjunkie said:


> you know those '99 tests were tossed by an independent court don't you?


No, they were not. There was no court and the report was nowhere close to independent. The only reason it was not pursed further is that WADA was not around in 99 so only the UCI can pursue it. Do you really think the UCI would pursue a rider who gave them a $500,000 payoff....err donation?

Emile Vrijman was chosen by the UCI because he was anything but independent. His actions in the Katrin Krabbe/Gert Breuer caused him to become a outcast in the anti doping world, his "report" on Armstrong only solidified this position. In addition to defending dopers in his legal practice he provided Krabbe and Breuaer with inside information that allowed them to escape a doping sanction. The both eventually tested positive and their coach was sanctioned as well for systemic doping of Athletes.

The report only states that the proper process was not followed, it in no way explains how EPO got into the samples.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> The report only states that the proper process was not followed, it in no way explains how EPO got into the samples.


If the proper process was not followed, nobody needs to explain how EPO got into the samples, if it was ever there in the first place. You can choose any one of a dozen plausible explanations. 

If the proper process <u>was</u> followed, this would have been an open and shut case. That's the real shame, isn't it? Why isn't anyone upset about THAT? The best chance at hard proof, and they blow it.


----------



## breakaway (Jun 15, 2008)

DMFT said:


> - Here's an idea, why don't you & lookrider PRESS CHARGES with allllllllllllll the books, evidence, and proof you have.


lmaoooo... no way that will happen. They're just armchair keystrokers that only have opinions on posting forums. Theres other here just the same. With accusations of payoffs and buy outs and bribes... its all bull until they actually show proof of such. But wait, they will produce a hearsay of a hearsay of a blog quote of a speculation of a hearsay. 
These guys spend too much time on the internet up'ing their post counts and believing too much they read. Get out and ride more!


----------



## Guest (Jul 15, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> No, they were not. There was no court and the report was nowhere close to independent. The only reason it was not pursed further is that WADA was not around in 99 so only the UCI can pursue it. Do you really think the UCI would pursue a rider who gave them a $500,000 payoff....err donation?


Wasn't that just a brilliant move by Armstrong! At least we know he didn't win 7 tours by dumb luck.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> If the proper process was not followed, nobody needs to explain how EPO got into the samples, if it was ever there in the first place. You can choose any one of a dozen plausible explanations.
> 
> If the proper process <u>was</u> followed, this would have been an open and shut case. That's the real shame, isn't it? Why isn't anyone upset about THAT? The best chance at hard proof, and they blow it.


Nobody needs to explain how EPO got into the samples? It does not interest you in slightest? If your only interest is keeping the dying myth alive then nobody needs to know.

There are not a dozen "Plausible" explanations, there is one. Lance Doped. You can hide behind the other implausible explanations, Alien frogmen, French conspiracy, but the only plausible explanation is that Lance doped.

I would love to hear the other eleven plausible explanations, please share them with us.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

breakaway said:


> lmaoooo... no way that will happen. They're just armchair keystrokers that only have opinions on posting forums. Theres other here just the same. With accusations of payoffs and buy outs and bribes... its all bull until they actually show proof of such. But wait, they will produce a hearsay of a hearsay of a blog quote of a speculation of a hearsay.
> These guys spend too much time on the internet up'ing their post counts and believing too much they read. Get out and ride more!


The former president of the German Cycling Federation, Current member of the UCI management committee, Sylvia Schenk, said that there was a payment of $500,000. Lance admitted there was one, but said it was a "donation" to fight doping. Absurd. The UCI is rotten and it appears it will die before anyone attempts to fix it.

If your only goal is to protect the myth then calling it hearsay is easy, explaining it is not.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

I hide behind nothing. I'm here to show how things really appear in the glaring light of day, not how you would like them to be. I don't skip over inconveniences such as lab shortcuts and test "summaries" while keeping the actual results secret. I don't push under the covers information and details that call into question my beliefs. I don't blindly accept authority, especially when it is clear that the authority didn't bother to follow the rules. That stuff clearly doesn't bother you, which tells us everything we need to know about you. You only ever hear the answer you want to hear. I feel sorry for you, clinging desperately to a flawed belief system that you neither question nor criticize. And your only defense is to make fun of me. Nice.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> I hide behind nothing. I'm here to show how things really appear in the glaring light of day, not how you would like them to be. I don't skip over inconveniences such as lab shortcuts and test "summaries" while keeping the actual results secret. I don't push under the covers information and details that call into question my beliefs. I don't blindly accept authority, especially when it is clear that the authority didn't bother to follow the rules. That stuff clearly doesn't bother you, which tells us everything we need to know about you. You only ever hear the answer you want to hear. I feel sorry for you, clinging desperately to a flawed belief system that you neither question nor criticize. And your only defense is to make fun of me. Nice.


?

So I guess you are saying that those 11 other plausible explanations do not exist? I was looking forward to hearing them.


----------



## breakaway (Jun 15, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> The former president of the German Cycling Federation, Current member of the UCI management committee, Sylvia Schenk, said that there was a payment of $500,000. Lance admitted there was one, but said it was a "donation" to fight doping. Absurd. The UCI is rotten and it appears it will die before anyone attempts to fix it.
> 
> If your only goal is to protect the myth then calling it hearsay is easy, explaining it is not.



he said she said... LOL
Its all hearsay or should i say "readsay" on your part and all those who are constantly consumed with trying to prove on posting forums such as this that something exists when it doesnt.
Until you and all else show documentation (not from some lame reoprting news site or french daily/periodical) youre all just talking out your ass

And i aint protecting any myth. I just aint no fool like you who reads crap written by someone else who got it from somewhere else who got it from disneyworld.

You all are making Lance the Britney of the cycling world. You all make me laugh.
Proof up or shut up is what say!


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

breakaway said:


> he said she said... LOL
> Its all hearsay or should i say "readsay" on your part and all those who are constantly consumed with trying to prove on posting forums such as this that something exists when it doesnt.
> Until you and all else show documentation (not from some lame reoprting news site or french daily/periodical) youre all just talking out your ass
> 
> ...


I am not talking out my ass, the payment was made. Lance admitted it. When a member of the UCI management committee questions the propriety of the payment this is much more then someone "Ass talking"....but it appears that no matter what is said or written you will continue to believe the myth.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> So I guess you are saying that those 11 other plausible explanations do not exist? I was looking forward to hearing them.


No, you were looking forward to ridiculing them, despite their obvious plausibility, and despite the fact that you wouldn't have the knowledge or the impartiality to question them. So let's pretend I detailed them, and you can now respond with your usual stupid "alien frogmen, conspiracy, whatever crap." There, feel better? I do feel sorry for you. I really do. I think you mean well, but your position is too entrenched to apply any critical thinking. If you can read the Vrijman and question NOTHING about how the tests were done and the validity of the results, then clearly it is you who is the fool here. Anyone who read that report with an open mind would at least have a few alarm bells sound. I mean, it's one thing to read it and still believe in your heart that the results are valid, but to read it and deny every word? (And let's not forget suggesting a conspiracy about the author, payments from Lance, and the UCI) That's complete and absolute denial. Give me a break.


----------



## breakaway (Jun 15, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> I am not talking out my ass, the payment was made. Lance admitted it. When a member of the UCI management committee questions the propriety of the payment this is much more then someone "Ass talking"....but it appears that no matter what is said or written you will continue to believe the myth.



blah blah blah... the only myth here is your preaching some half million dollars was paid out without showing any proof of such. As far as im concerned youre just making it up which you probably are. Hey, you could be the Linda Tripp of the Clinton administration and really bring Lance down. Wow... and that UCi girl can be the Monica whatshername?
You go boy you go!

Oh and lastly, if you havent noticed..... the race is over. Tune into Versus network. Theres a new race going on right now.

Or better yet, turn your tv off and stop surfing the net for diatribe and go out an ride.

Its 7pm, in 1 hr Vs is showing the repeat of yesterdays stage of tore-my-legs-off (Tourmelet) and you should watch it. A whole pile of new names that dont rhyme with Lance you should get to know


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

mohair_chair said:


> The Postal and Disco teams were packed with "super doms." That's part of why those teams were so successful in the TDF. Take any one of those guys, put him on another team that isn't packed with "super doms," and what are the chances he can go head to head with Lance?
> 
> Plus, another factor not mentioned is that Lance traditionally doubled the prize money from his personal stash, so there were HUGE financial rewards for winning the tour. In 2005, Disco won 545,640 Euros in prize money (400,000 for winning the overall). Lance throws in another 400K, making 945,640. Take out 15% off the top for the team staff, 141,846. That leaves 803,794 Euros. Now, I don't know how the team split was done, but just for simplicity, let's split it eight ways. So each member of the team walks away with 100K Euros when Lance won the Tour. That's a big paycheck that inspires great dedication and sacrifice, and no other team had a bonus program that came anywhere near those numbers. I remember reading that the Phonak guys were upset when Landis was busted, because they only got a 1K bonus instead of 30K for winning. Who would you rather ride for?


I am not trying to argue for argument's sake but one must admit that the potential for a 100K TdF win bonus might certainly get a rider to consider all sorts of "dedication and sacrifice". Read Andreu's accounts of the desperation felt among USPS riders as they fought for TdF selection. Andreu used EPO in his build up for the '99 TdF. BTW, Andreu, Vasseur and Savoldelli all claim to have never received their respective TdF bonuses (so much for dedication and sacrifice). And now for something completely different: I'm not sure if I've asked this before but, with all of the Puerto evidence that was available, why would Bruyneel and Tailwind (Armstrong and Co) hire Basso? Does that attitude toward doping create any questions in your mind?


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

breakaway said:


> Your last sentence hits the nail right on the head. No need to read all the diatribe from the LA haters because this forum is filled with them. Its not your fault that they have their own personal issues to not accept the fact that Lance did with 7 tours, never was suspended, and never got a Mailiot jaune recalled.
> Everything here is just hearsay and diatribe gossip that has no merit whatsoever. Let the haters keep on digging up wannabe made up factoids and spew them out like they are some type of authoritive figure in the doping process but in truth they just have insecurities within themselves.
> Haters always hate winners. Maybe because they are just failures themselves.
> But the most important thing is what LA is doing now. Nothing can that that away and no previous sports figure even comes close


I love your posts! The abysmal grammar and spelling to underscore your ranting. You are the Andy Kaufman of RBR. There is no way you are legitimate. You are sublime in your confrontational humor! Keep it up!


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

The Vrijman report was nothing but a preview of the Landis defense: Try to find any niggling protocol exception while never dealing with the larger issue of whether or not the athlete doped. It was commissioned by an organization that took hundreds of thousands of dollars under the table from the athlete in question. It was written by a defense lawyer for dopers. And it never even attempted to delve into the other side of the story.

Vrijman was on a mission to find what the UCI wanted found. He assembled the facts that fit his storyline and ignored anything that did not. His so called investigation did not even get primary info from LNDD or WADA. In fact he made no attempt to get primary info from WADA whatsoever. After it was clear that Vrijman was not going to request anything from WADA, WADA sent him a pile of its own documents in the blind hope that Vrijman would use them to shed light on WADA's side of the problem. That blind hope proved futile as there is not evidence that Vrijman even used the WADA info. He did no followup that would show that he did, and the final report contradicts information that WADA gave him.

Heck, Landis' defense sounds pretty good--right up to the point that you read the decisions and realize that it was all smoke and mirrors. At least Landis' lawyers were honest enough to say they were trying to get Landis off. Vrijman lied about his intent from the very beginning.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

breakaway said:


> blah blah blah... the only myth here is your preaching some half million dollars was paid out without showing any proof of such. As far as im concerned youre just making it up which you probably are.


Find a clue. You can read the SCA transcripts where Armstrong himself, in a deposition given under oath, admits to giving money to the UCI. He p-ussyfoots [Stupid forum filter] around the issue and claims that he cannot recall how much he gave.


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2008)

Well, it's old new, but Armstrong did donate a substantial amount of money to the UCI to improve drug testing:

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=3088

Whether it's a 'bribe' or not isn't likely to be something that can be proven, but it's the smart sort of thing that businesses often do to "clean up" their image. Nothing necessarily illegal - but if you have a brain you can connect the dots.


----------



## breakaway (Jun 15, 2008)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> Find a clue. You can read the SCA transcripts where Armstrong himself, in a deposition given under oath, admits to giving money to the UCI. He p-ussyfoots [Stupid forum filter] around the issue and claims that he cannot recall how much he gave.



I dont need to find a clue, i have something thats better... its call a life
Maybe you should go get one instead of worrying about something YOU CANT control.
But then again maybe this is your life. I like seeing dudes like you get all worked up hating something that has no bearing on real life issues. 
Go on, get all pent up and keep on hating. Post more propaganda to spread the word dude. Go on other forums and be the cycling Moses.Go on dude go on.
And I have no need to look up transcripts but it looks like you do. Go get a life dude. Go ride your bike. You need a check up from the neck up and figure how to correct all the wrong thats in your own life than try to stain someone elses.

and like i posted to bigpinkt... the race is over... get over it...and stop being such a girl


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*wasn't it a dutch lab (or Belgian)*



mohair_chair said:


> I hide behind nothing. I'm here to show how things really appear in the glaring light of day, not how you would like them to be. I don't skip over inconveniences such as lab shortcuts and test "summaries" while keeping the actual results secret. I don't push under the covers information and details that call into question my beliefs. I don't blindly accept authority, especially when it is clear that the authority didn't bother to follow the rules. That stuff clearly doesn't bother you, which tells us everything we need to know about you. You only ever hear the answer you want to hear. I feel sorry for you, clinging desperately to a flawed belief system that you neither question nor criticize. And your only defense is to make fun of me. Nice.


that examined the 99 retest lab protocols and call the labs work so shoddy they proved NOTHING?

here
"Dutch investigators cleared Lance Armstrong of doping in the 1999 Tour de France on Wednesday, and blamed anti-doping authorities for misconduct in dealing with the American cyclist.

A 132-page report recommended convening a tribunal to discuss possible legal and ethical violations by the World Anti-Doping Agency and to consider "appropriate sanctions to remedy the violations."

The French sports daily L'Equipe reported in August that six of Armstrong's urine samples from 1999, when he won the first of his record seven-straight Tour titles, came back positive for the endurance-boosting hormone EPO when they were retested in 2004.

Armstrong has repeatedly denied using banned substances.

The International Cycling Union appointed Dutch lawyer Emile Vrijman last October to investigate the handling of urine tests from the 1999 Tour by the French national anti-doping laboratory, known by its French acronym LNDD.

Vrijman said Wednesday his report "exonerates Lance Armstrong completely with respect to alleged use of doping in the 1999 Tour de France."

I think it would be a good idea to convene a special panel on this as soon as possible. Whoever planned and executed this smear should be banned from sports. This is an object lesson to people who decide all press reports are always accurate, by the way. They are not, and sometimes they are actually smear jobs."

132 pages.....of TOSSING

so yes they were


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

breakaway said:


> I dont need to find a clue, i have something thats better... its call a life
> Maybe you should go get one instead of worrying about something YOU CANT control.
> But then again maybe this is your life. I like seeing dudes like you get all worked up hating something that has no bearing on real life issues.
> Go on, get all pent up and keep on hating. Post more propaganda to spread the word dude. Go on other forums and be the cycling Moses.Go on dude go on.
> ...



Dude! I must again tell you that you are a freaking GENIUS!!! Keep up the good work. Nearly 75 posts in less than one month since you've joined RBR and you still are able to coach people over the internet and get them out riding their bikes! Andy Kaufman lives!!! The rapid fire prose and almost total lack of any punctuation is very Kerouac/beat poet. The "check up from the neck up" is awesome! You are letting those folks have it *bigtime*! I'm your number one fan!
Cheers!


----------



## breakaway (Jun 15, 2008)

serbski said:


> Dude! I must again tell you that you are a freaking GENIUS!!! Keep up the good work. Nearly 75 posts in less than one month since you've joined RBR and you still are able to coach people over the internet and get them out riding their bikes! Andy Kaufman lives!!! The rapid fire prose and almost total lack of any punctuation is very Kerouac/beat poet. The "check up from the neck up" is awesome! You are letting those folks have it *bigtime*! I'm your number one fan!
> Cheers!


who the hell is counting posts? You wanna be a post count wh0re then go to the Lounge where im practically never at.
And wtf you talking about getting who and what 'out of riding their bikes'??? Are you that daft you dont know how to read?
You seem to have this obsession with Andy Kaufman did he leave you for someone else or something?
You too need to go get a life instead of being an online stalker. 
And who cares about punctuation on a bloody posting forum? Punctuation 'owns' you dude. Ill even make some sbelling ewwors so you can go ahead and cowwect me so you can feel like a bigger person and tell all your real life friends that youre a somebody on a one dimensional medium.
As far as being a fan is concerned the truth to your underlying statements is that "you're" really Andy Kaufmans number one fan. You must make dupe references to him all the time. Ahhh love must be grand eh! Good luck to you both

Dont forget to make more comparisons to Kaufman on your next post. It''l upset me if you dont


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

DIRT BOY said:


> Only Lance and a few others REALLY know. Those _"even remotely paying attention" _are only guessing/hoping.


Here is my problem with LA and Floyd. Okay, lets entertain the idea that they were clean. (I know Floyd's dead in the water but just go with me...) 

Would they know of the doping going on in teh peleton? Would they know of the organized doping efforts of many other teams (maybe not directly, but know of substantial rumors)? They have too. They would have to know of the rampant doping- it's their industry, their business, the politics of your office and the rumor mills don't stop in pro sports. They train for hours beside each other with nothing else to talk about. These guys at the least knew of some of the Sh!t going down all around them. 

If they are clean (which I don't believe) Why aren't they ever honest about it? They lied all the time when they were racing and said that they are unaware of any doping efforts going on. You don't have to name names, but if they had been honest it would have gone a long way in making them look clean IMO.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

atpjunkie said:


> Vrijman said Wednesday his report "exonerates Lance Armstrong completely with respect to alleged use of doping in the 1999 Tour de France."


Vrijman never looked into the issue of whether Armstrong doped. He took the doping defense lawyer approach. If protocol was not followed, which includes testing the A sample, then there can be no doping positive. From the very beginning there was no chance Vrijman would have found Armstrong guilty. His investigation was a fraud, and his report is worth nothing.

Funny how Beltran was also found to have used EPO by the retrotesting. Vrijman would have "exonerated" him also.

Also funny how the "experimental" EPO test used is the same one that is currently used.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

breakaway said:


> I dont need to find a clue, i have something thats better... its call a life
> Maybe you should go get one instead of worrying about something YOU CANT control.
> But then again maybe this is your life. I like seeing dudes like you get all worked up hating something that has no bearing on real life issues.
> Go on, get all pent up and keep on hating. Post more propaganda to spread the word dude. Go on other forums and be the cycling Moses.Go on dude go on.
> ...


LOL. You get called for essentially calling a poster a liar then get your panties in a bunch when the facts emerge. Maybe if you took some time to do a very small amount of research, you would not get into this position. 

I love how you celebrate your own cluelessness by saying you are too busy living life to spend any time learning anything. We have a real smart one here.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> I did not gain a hundred watts of sustainable power. The 14% loss in body weight, starting from 8% body fat, that I experienced during chemo was not permanent. You gain the fat and muscle back as soon as you can begin to eat normally again.


did you have a world class coach and a full time nutritionist supplied to you to help build you body to be a GC racer? I have read his argument where the point wasn't that he lost weight after recovering, but that he reshaped his body to have more weight where it counts- in the legs, and less in the shoulders, lats, and arms. 

You don't have to be a doctor to see that is true- in his sprinter days he had huge shoulders and arms compared to the GC days.


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

breakaway said:


> who the hell is counting posts? You wanna be a post count wh0re then go to the Lounge where im practically never at.
> And wtf you talking about getting who and what 'out of riding their bikes'??? Are you that daft you dont know how to read?
> You seem to have this obsession with Andy Kaufman did he leave you for someone else or something?
> You too need to go get a life instead of being an online stalker.
> ...


Dude, you are truly an icon! How do you manage to stay in character at *all times*?! There is no way that your whole "persona" is not some clever scheme to rile any and all posters with some common sense and a bit of smarts. Keep it up sweetie!


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> If protocol was not followed, which includes testing the A sample, then there can be no doping positive. From the very beginning there was no chance Vrijman would have found Armstrong guilty.


This was self-evident well before Vrijman got involved. There was never any chance that the research experiment would result in positives for anyone. That is still the case today, despite people calling them positives. All Vrijman did is expose what a sham the experiments were, and how the results cannot be trusted.


----------



## giovanni sartori (Feb 5, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> This was self-evident well before Vrijman got involved. There was never any chance that the research experiment would result in positives for anyone. That is still the case today, despite people calling them positives. All Vrijman did is expose what a sham the experiments were, and how the results cannot be trusted.


You know, I think I might save this thread and point people to it when I try to explain why I no longer support the death penalty.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> The Vrijman report was nothing but a preview of the Landis defense: Try to find any niggling protocol exception while never dealing with the larger issue of whether or not the athlete doped. It was commissioned by an organization that took hundreds of thousands of dollars under the table from the athlete in question. It was written by a defense lawyer for dopers. And it never even attempted to delve into the other side of the story.
> 
> Vrijman was on a mission to find what the UCI wanted found. He assembled the facts that fit his storyline and ignored anything that did not. His so called investigation did not even get primary info from LNDD or WADA. In fact he made no attempt to get primary info from WADA whatsoever. After it was clear that Vrijman was not going to request anything from WADA, WADA sent him a pile of its own documents in the blind hope that Vrijman would use them to shed light on WADA's side of the problem. That blind hope proved futile as there is not evidence that Vrijman even used the WADA info. He did no followup that would show that he did, and the final report contradicts information that WADA gave him.
> 
> Heck, Landis' defense sounds pretty good--right up to the point that you read the decisions and realize that it was all smoke and mirrors. At least Landis' lawyers were honest enough to say they were trying to get Landis off. Vrijman lied about his intent from the very beginning.


Exactly, IOC president Jacques Rogge gave his opinion in response to the Vrijman report when he said he would welcome "an independent investigation" into the allegations contained in the L'Equippe story.

Draw your own conclusions. Btw, LA's threatened lawsuit never materialized either...


----------



## breakaway (Jun 15, 2008)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> LOL. You get called for essentially calling a poster a liar then get your panties in a bunch when the facts emerge. Maybe if you took some time to do a very small amount of research, you would not get into this position.
> 
> I love how you celebrate your own cluelessness by saying you are too busy living life to spend any time learning anything. We have a real smart one here.



yes the liar here is YOU. How many times do i gotta tell you to show proof to all the BS that you claim yet you contiinue to dodge the obvious. And that obvious is that youre just full of ****.
Hey where are those transcripts you so know so much about??? 
With everything you have i wonder why you dont have a book out. Too bad it would most likely be placed beside the DrSeuss books.
And thats hilarious that you even can dictate learning anything to anyone at all. Who wants to learn anything based on your barometer? I dont think you even know what the concept of learning is. Every 2nd post of yours includes the work clueless so maybe its time you get to know what a dictionary is. Oh wait, theres no Lance tainting rumours in there so i dont think it would interest you.
Keep skating the issues by not providing proof to your statements. Without it youre just another hate mongered and a waste of posting space. I feel sorry for you.

lastly, just show us the facts. Put up or shut up. Thats all the people want here. 
or do what you do best....skate


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

breakaway said:


> yes the liar here is YOU. How many times do i gotta tell you to show proof to all the BS that you claim yet you contiinue to dodge the obvious. And that obvious is that youre just full of ****.
> Hey where are those transcripts you so know so much about???
> With everything you have i wonder why you dont have a book out. Too bad it would most likely be placed beside the DrSeuss books.
> And thats hilarious that you even can dictate learning anything to anyone at all. Who wants to learn anything based on your barometer? I dont think you even know what the concept of learning is. Every 2nd post of yours includes the work clueless so maybe its time you get to know what a dictionary is. Oh wait, theres no Lance tainting rumours in there so i dont think it would interest you.
> ...


Yeah! Keep it up! (you might not want to throw around that "get to know what a dictionary is" comment seeing as you write at a level that makes Horton Hears a Hoo seem like Crime and Punishment). Otherwise, I love your work! Xo xo


----------



## breakaway (Jun 15, 2008)

serbski said:


> Yeah! Keep it up! (you might not want to throw around that "get to know what a dictionary is" comment seeing as you write at a level that makes Horton Hears a Hoo seem like Crime and Punishment). Otherwise, I love your work! Xo xo



oh gawd :17: you still going on being a grammer wh0re on posting forums? Whats it like being owned by it. Your posts r so boring as all you do is keep repeating the same ol garbage. Its getting old old man. And wheres the Kaufman reference?
Shame on u for not using it again and again. Kaufman would be so proud of you if you did


** I left out some punctuation and used some net slang abbreviations just so you have another purpose to post corrective observations and more meaningless jargon.
Otherwise you would not have anyother purpose. Now be a slave and the grammer puppet that you are and post the obvious mistakes.
Go on post it now... post it now i said... 
owned :yesnod:

You know youre really a sad excuse for existance when all you got is being a grammar and/or spell checker on public posting forums.
It must really suck to be you


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

breakaway said:


> oh gawd :17: you still going on being a grammer wh0re on posting forums? Whats it like being owned by it. Your posts r so boring as all you do is keep repeating the same ol garbage. Its getting old old man. And wheres the Kaufman reference?
> Shame on u for not using it again and again. Kaufman would be so proud of you if you did
> 
> 
> ...


Oh my god! I am your slave! Ya know, I think I like it. xoxo


----------



## breakaway (Jun 15, 2008)

serbski said:


> Oh my god! I am your slave! Ya know, I think I like it. xoxo



Just as i thought, You have nothing left to say. Thats because youre weak. Try google, thats your next new friend. Come back in a few hrs, im sure you will gain some new verbage you never knew you had. Now im totally convinced it must suck to be you


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

I must be having a positive influence upon you! This is the first time I have seen you use an apostrophe! (you're). Our baby's all grown up! My job is done. I will now only post "on topic". 
Cheers


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> This was self-evident well before Vrijman got involved. There was never any chance that the research experiment would result in positives for anyone. That is still the case today, despite people calling them positives. All Vrijman did is expose what a sham the experiments were, and how the results cannot be trusted.


LA's samples tested positive for EPO, there is no other way to say it. The only sham is the rush to cover it up by the UCI. 

Any chance we may be able to see that list of plausible reasons for EPO in Lances samples? So far there is only one plausible reason. Lance, like most other tour contenders at the time, used EPO.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*if they did*



bigpinkt said:


> LA's samples tested positive for EPO, there is no other way to say it. The only sham is the rush to cover it up by the UCI.
> 
> Any chance we may be able to see that list of plausible reasons for EPO in Lances samples? So far there is only one plausible reason. Lance, like most other tour contenders at the time, used EPO.



Lance would have had his tours taken from him
The tests were invalid they PROVED nothing, so the other way to say it is,the tests proved the bad procedures of the lab (and not the first time)

yes, the UCI is now part of the Lance conspiracy

wait while I get more tin foil


----------



## breakaway (Jun 15, 2008)

serbski said:


> I must be having a positive influence upon you! This is the first time I have seen you use an apostrophe! (you're). Our baby's all grown up! My job is done. I will now only post "on topic".
> Cheers


unfortunately for you you have no idea of what on-topic means. Its still gotta be a new concept for you. Youre too busy being the forums designated grammer/spell checker biatch to know any better. And if your job is so-called done as in your words then real life must really suck for you. I use to think youre just a lonesome loser with nothing better to do but now i just really feel sorry for you. You really need to go to the lounge now and continue your good work (lmaoooo)
owned!


----------

