# Tyler Hamilton talks about watching Armstrong dope



## Doctor Falsetti

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20064406-10391709.html?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.14


----------



## SilasCL

Corroborates the story of the covered up positive in 2001 as well.

Curious to see how LA's team tries to handle this one. Try and spin it the same way as they did Floyd? Seems unlikely at this point.


----------



## Bocephus Jones II

Doctor Falsetti said:


> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20064406-10391709.html?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.14


Et tu Tyler?


----------



## godot

Let the mud slinging begin - both on RBR and in the media from the LA camp.

This is gonna be fun.


----------



## R3 Sloth

The truth will eventually find you out ... it doesn't look good for Lance.


----------



## Fredrico

*Saw Couric's interview with Hamilton.*



Bocephus Jones II said:


> Et tu Tyler?


Hamilton paused when asked if he'd seen Lance shoot dope, and finally shrugged and nodded, "We all did." Maybe Tyler was hiding his guilt, but he didn't seem sincere.

Well, sure, he got caught and raked over the coals. But Lance is either more clever at beating the tests, or he's been clean all along, like he insists. Frankly, this stinks like a bunch of losers trying to bring down a winner, and government Inspector Javerts trying to make a name for themselves by busting a star. Why wouldn't the French try to bring down Lance and his team to the level of their pathetic Festina heroes? Can't anyone give credit to a team that works their a$$es off to put their leader on the podium? Can all motivation be dismissed as "doping" by those who actually did cheat, and those who want to believe that everyone did?

Frankly, I hope Lance beats the charges and shows his accusers as the vipers they are.


----------



## Argentius

Bocephus Jones II said:


> Et tu Tyler?


That's what she said! I mean I said. I mean, tugboat.


----------



## SilasCL

godot said:


> Let the mud slinging begin - both on RBR and in the media from the LA camp.
> 
> This is gonna be fun.


Here's Fabiani from the related ESPN article:



> "Tyler Hamilton just duped the CBS Evening News, '60 Minutes' and [reporter] Scott Pelley all in one fell swoop," Armstrong spokesman Mark Fabiani said in a statement. "Hamilton is actively seeking to make money by writing a book, and now he has completely changed the story he has always told before so that he could get himself on '60 Minutes' and increase his chances with publishers. But greed and a hunger for publicity cannot change the facts: Lance Armstrong is the most tested athlete in the history of sports: He has passed nearly 500 tests over twenty years of competition."


----------



## SilasCL

Fredrico said:


> Hamilton paused when asked if he'd seen Lance shoot dope, and finally shrugged and nodded, "We all did."
> 
> Well, sure, he got caught and raked over the coals. But Lance is either more clever at beating the tests, or he's been clean all along, like he insists. Frankly, this stinks like a bunch of losers trying to bring down a winner, and government Inspector Javerts trying to make a name for themselves by busting a star. Why wouldn't the French try to bring down Lance and his team to the level of their pathetic Festina heroes? Can't anyone give credit to a team that works their a$$es off to put their leader on the podium? Can all motivation be dismissed as "doping" by those who actually did cheat, and those who want to believe that everyone did?
> 
> Frankly, I hope Lance beats the charges and shows his accusers as the vipers they are.


He had to be really clever to beat those EPO tests in 1999.


----------



## Bocephus Jones II

SilasCL said:


> He had to be really clever to beat those EPO tests in 1999.


Does anyone here doubt that Armstrong doped at some time in his life--at least once even? I think the debate is more around whether he found some way to continuously dope until he retired.


----------



## SilasCL

Bocephus Jones II said:


> Does anyone here doubt that Armstrong doped at some time in his life--at least once even? I think the debate is more around whether he found some way to continuously dope until he retired.


That seems to be what Fredrico was saying, but who knows. To be a true believer at this point is pretty out there. Might as well believe the Earth is flat.


----------



## cydswipe

I feel it's all or nothing. Either Lance DID dope and beat dopers, or he DIDN'T dope and beat dopers. Either way, he still won. I like hot dogs and I like pro cycling, I don't want to know how either is made.


----------



## Fredrico

*Conspiracy theories nonwithstanding...*



SilasCL said:


> That seems to be what Fredrico was saying, but who knows. To be a true believer at this point is pretty out there. Might as well believe the Earth is flat.


I'm waiting for proof. If Lance doped, he beat the 500 or so tests to catch him. Beyond that, I don't really care to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that he won 7 TDFs by cheating and being supported by a cheating team. Fausto Coppi, Anquetil, Merckx were all caught taking performance enhancing substances, but they were still champions and deserved every victory they achieved.

The real problem now is this undercurrent of paranoia in pro cycling. Anyone who does well is immediately accused of doping. That's neurotic, for lack of a better word. Last year it was Contador. Well, he's in championship form right now in the Giro.

 Gee, sure hope he's not eating any tainted beef! :frown2:


----------



## djg714

House of cards crumbling......about time.


----------



## Axe

Tyler tested positive and admitted doping. Lance did not. That's all you need to know.



Bocephus Jones II said:


> Does anyone here doubt that Armstrong doped at some time in his life--at least once even? I think the debate is more around whether he found some way to continuously dope until he retired.


I am rather sure he "doped". But he never tested positive or get suspended, and he won. Good enough in my books.

Unlike Contador, for example. That one got caught.


----------



## 55x11

Fredrico said:


> I'm waiting for proof. If Lance doped, he beat the 500 or so tests to catch him. Beyond that, I don't really care to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that he won 7 TDFs by cheating and being supported by a cheating team. Fausto Coppi, Anquetil, Merckx were all caught taking performance enhancing substances, but they were still champions and deserved every victory they achieved.
> 
> The real problem now is this undercurrent of paranoia in pro cycling. Anyone who does well is immediately accused of doping. That's neurotic, for lack of a better word. Last year it was Contador. Well, he's in championship form right now in the Giro.
> 
> Gee, sure hope he's not eating any tainted beef! :frown2:


is this a joke? Are you being sarcastic?

In all seriousness, after watching CBS preview clip - someone should tell Tyler to avoid doing a strange eyes-to-the-side movement, licking his lips and other nervous ticks before answering questions - just look straight into the camera and say "yes". Otherwise it looks like he has something to hide.

I always liked Tyler for some reason - cannot say the same thing about Landis. Even after the whole Tugboat/twin thing, I still liked him. He sounds like a good guy to have a beer with or go for a ride. Landis comes off as a bit of a jerk.


----------



## Bocephus Jones II

Lance just posted this to Facebook:

*Lance Armstrong
‎20+ year career. 500 drug controls worldwide, in and out of competition. Never a failed test. I rest my case.*


----------



## SilasCL

55x11 said:


> is this a joke? Are you being sarcastic?
> 
> In all seriousness, after watching CBS preview clip - someone should tell Tyler to avoid doing a strange eyes-to-the-side movement, licking his lips and other nervous ticks before answering questions - just look straight into the camera and say "yes". Otherwise it looks like he has something to hide.
> 
> I always liked Tyler for some reason - cannot say the same thing about Landis. Even after the whole Tugboat/twin thing, I still liked him. He sounds like a good guy to have a beer with or go for a ride. Landis comes off as a bit of a jerk.


Yeah, Tyler looks bad. Then again if he looked smooth, people would be talking about how he was coached and is obviously lying. No way to win that battle.


----------



## lastchild

Fredrico said:


> Hamilton paused when asked if he'd seen Lance shoot dope, and finally shrugged and nodded, "We all did." Maybe Tyler was hiding his guilt, but he didn't seem sincere.
> 
> Well, sure, he got caught and raked over the coals. But Lance is either more clever at beating the tests, or he's been clean all along, like he insists. Frankly, this stinks like a bunch of losers trying to bring down a winner, and government Inspector Javerts trying to make a name for themselves by busting a star. Why wouldn't the French try to bring down Lance and his team to the level of their pathetic Festina heroes? Can't anyone give credit to a team that works their a$$es off to put their leader on the podium? Can all motivation be dismissed as "doping" by those who actually did cheat, and those who want to believe that everyone did?
> 
> Frankly, I hope Lance beats the charges and shows his accusers as the vipers they are.


Post of the year.
You sir, are a level headed sane man...unlike the other vermin that spew their venom on this forum.
Sad little men you all are, sad little men.


----------



## rubbersoul

Poor Lance, defiant to the end


----------



## Axe

rubbersoul said:


> Poor Lance, defiant to the end


Why did not Contador confess that he used tainted blood doping with traces of clenbuterol?

Fortunately for him, Spanish federation protects its own.


----------



## Fredrico

rubbersoul said:


> Poor Lance, defiant to the end


Texas boys don't give up, especially when attacked by small men wanting to make a name for themselves. :frown2:


----------



## Mootsie

lastchild said:


> Post of the year.
> You sir, are a level headed sane man...unlike the other vermin that spew their venom on this forum.
> Sad little men you all are, sad little men.


Another internet tough guy


----------



## Fredrico

*A minor offense.*



Axe said:


> Why did not Contador confess that he used tainted blood doping with traces of clenbuterol?
> 
> Fortunately for him, Spanish federation protects its own.


"Traces?" Could have been beef. Why not? Even if purposeful doping, and I don't think a man who can rely on his talent would have to dope, he's still a champ! :thumbsup:


----------



## g-Bike

Does it really matter? Cycling at that level is the same as a big business, at the top everyone cheats, in any sport or corporation. It's all the same....


----------



## PLAYONIT

Who Cares....... forget the past!!!! The future needs all our attention!!!!


----------



## Mootsie

Gatorback said:


> I really think there are some people who would refuse to believe Armstrong doped if he came out an admitted it himself. They would argue he was forced to confess to get everyone off his back.
> 
> Armstrong is going to go down hard due to his refusal to fess up. If he admitted it, people would understand. But it appears he won't. He is going to deny and deny and deny until he and his spokesmen are the only ones not rolling their eyes at him.
> 
> I have said again and again and again that he should come clean, admit the culture of doping, and take a stand to try to clean up cycling. That is the honorable thing to do. It is the hard thing to do, but the honorable one.
> 
> Kudos to those cyclists who are willing to fess up. It appears you can add Hamilton to that list.


+1,000,000


----------



## Gatorback

I really think there are some people who would refuse to believe Armstrong doped if he came out an admitted it himself. They would argue he was forced to confess to get everyone off his back. 

Armstrong is going to go down hard due to his refusal to fess up. If he admitted it, people would understand. But it appears he won't. He is going to deny and deny and deny until he and his spokesmen are the only ones not rolling their eyes at him.

I have said again and again and again that he should come clean, admit the culture of doping, and take a stand to try to clean up cycling. That is the honorable thing to do. It is the hard thing to do, but the honorable one.

Kudos to those cyclists who are willing to fess up. It appears you can add Hamilton to that list.


----------



## Gatorback

PLAYONIT said:


> Who Cares....... forget the past!!!! The future needs all our attention!!!!


The future needing our attention is the reason to get these cyclists to come forward. You can't fix a problem without first admitting it exists.


----------



## gregario

Gatorback said:


> I really think there are some people who would refuse to believe Armstrong doped if he came out an admitted it himself. They would argue he was forced to confess to get everyone off his back.
> 
> Armstrong is going to go down hard due to his refusal to fess up. If he admitted it, people would understand. But it appears he won't. He is going to deny and deny and deny until he and his spokesmen are the only ones not rolling their eyes at him.
> 
> I have said again and again and again that he should come clean, admit the culture of doping, and take a stand to try to clean up cycling. That is the honorable thing to do. It is the hard thing to do, but the honorable one.
> 
> Kudos to those cyclists who are willing to fess up. It appears you can add Hamilton to that list.


I think that belief in Armstrong borders on religion. To me, anyone who believes he's pure is delusional. I am also sick and tired of hearing he's never failed a test. He did fail a test. And besides, not failing a test has meant nothing when you hear the confessions of guys that have doped for years and were never caught.


----------



## lastchild

Mootsie said:


> Another internet tough guy



another internet retard


----------



## Big-foot

lastchild said:


> another internet retard


You forgot "Nyah nyah nyah."


----------



## Fredrico

*I would agree with you,*



Gatorback said:


> I really think there are some people who would refuse to believe Armstrong doped if he came out an admitted it himself. They would argue he was forced to confess to get everyone off his back.
> 
> Armstrong is going to go down hard due to his refusal to fess up. If he admitted it, people would understand. But it appears he won't. He is going to deny and deny and deny until he and his spokesmen are the only ones not rolling their eyes at him.
> 
> I have said again and again and again that he should come clean, admit the culture of doping, and take a stand to try to clean up cycling. That is the honorable thing to do. It is the hard thing to do, but the honorable one.
> 
> Kudos to those cyclists who are willing to fess up. It appears you can add Hamilton to that list.


If the presumption is correct that, despite 500 drug tests, Lance somehow, consistently over his 7 years of wins, got away with doping. That would be one extraordinary achievement equal to his wins! He has consistently denied it, to this day.

The others, OTOH, seeking to bring down Lance to their level, writing books about their sins, Hamilton and Landis to name the most prominent, were caught doping, proven by repeated medical tests and deliberations in courts of law. What else can they now do to absolve themselves of guilt, other than confess their sins and accuse those greater than them of the same sins?


----------



## lastchild

Big-foot said:


> You forgot "Nyah nyah nyah."



Oooops, you're right!

Nyah Nyah Nyah...


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Fredrico said:


> If the presumption is correct that, despite 500 drug tests, Lance somehow, consistently over his 7 years of wins, got away with doping. That would be one extraordinary achievement equal to his wins! He has consistently denied it, to this day.
> 
> The others, OTOH, seeking to bring down Lance to their level, writing books about their sins, Hamilton and Landis to name the most prominent, were caught doping, proven by repeated medical tests and deliberations in courts of law. What else can they now do to absolve themselves of guilt, other than confess their sins and accuse those greater than them of the same sins?


The 500 tests claim is a lie. It is not even close to being true.


----------



## PLAYONIT

Gatorback said:


> The future needing our attention is the reason to get these cyclists to come forward. You can't fix a problem without first admitting it exists.


While I appreciate what your saying..... IMHO not the people I would want co-leading the charge.. deception is not a stellar quality... I don't think that riders doping in the past was any mystery ... lifetime ban 1st and only offense with a 1 year team suspension ... I know it doesn't make business sense.. But....


----------



## cyclesport45

The TRUTH. Funny thing, that. 

I have a feeling that I'm still waiting for the whole TRUTH. 

It's coming, I think.


----------



## Mootsie

lastchild said:


> Oooops, you're right!
> 
> Nyah Nyah Nyah...


How does Lance's jock smell these days?


----------



## Fredrico

*So how many was it?*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> The 500 tests claim is a lie. It is not even close to being true.


Was Lance still among the most tested pros over his career? He never failed one--officially. There will always be doubters, like everyone who BELIEVES he's won all those races doped up, and will continue to believe it as long as they live. Where's that at? :frown2:


----------



## terzo rene

I always thought Clinton could have avoided impeachment hearings and everything that went with it if he'd just said " Yeah, I f*%^ed her, so what?" But he didn't and now Lance seems hell bent on making the same mistake.

Confirmation from another rider that the UCI fixed LA's positives on occasion really ruins it for me. It's hard to argue they all doped so it was a level playing field when one rider's positive disappears while other riders are flogged in the public square. Pantani's belief he was deliberately singled out in 1999 seems far less like a coke fueled delusion now (though I still like the mafia/gambling angle on that one).


----------



## fontarin

I watched the short clip, and while I think that Lance did dope, Tyler did not look honest at all in that one. He was hesitating and seemed to be only answering questions with reluctance.


----------



## a_avery007

yeah another dope who got caught doping saying this and that, especially since this guy is the believable Chimera...lol

did not Lance just finish chemo and all that other crap around 98-99..hmmmm wonder if you need doc prescribed steriods to get back to normal, if he ever can...


obviously most were on program doping systems but it was a level playing field....

10 year old nothing story that the US does not have the money to investigate....what a total waste....


----------



## Fredrico

terzo rene said:


> I always thought Clinton could have avoided impeachment hearings and everything that went with it if he'd just said " Yeah, I f*%^ed her, so what?" But he didn't and now Lance seems hell bent on making the same mistake.
> 
> Confirmation from another rider that the UCI fixed LA's positives on occasion really ruins it for me. It's hard to argue they all doped so it was a level playing field when one rider's positive disappears while other riders are flogged in the public square. Pantani's belief he was deliberately singled out in 1999 seems far less like a coke fueled delusion now (though I still like the mafia/gambling angle on that one).


I'd think if you get it from another rider, his knowledge would be about as accurate as ours. Was there a whistle blower in the testing agency? Not according to that article by Strickland in Bicycling mag. It was all heresay by rival riders, basically. Where's that at? Lance wasn't very well liked in the peleton, so lots of riders would have just loved to bring him down.


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderators Note*



lastchild said:


> another internet retard


Lets tone it down everyone.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Fredrico said:


> *Was Lance still among the most tested pros over his career? * He never failed one--officially. There will always be doubters, like everyone who BELIEVES he's won all those races doped up, and will continue to believe it as long as they live. Where's that at? :frown2:


No. Sprinters where tested far more. During most of lance's career he was seldom tested OOC, 1-2 times per year. Otherwise it was only during races. 

If you were a rider like Chipo or Zabel you were tested far more. It is a lie. 

He failed many dope tests, he was never sanctioned. There is a difference..... especially when he was paying off the UCI


----------



## kiwisimon

with the Feds investigating him for felony crimes, would LA say anything else? Look for the Feds to subpoena Tyler and build up another brick in the case against LA. A great cyclist and as much as I wished he was clean his whole career I can't believe it with all the reports from friends and team mates.


----------



## Mosovich

*I cheated...*

I cheated my way thru calculus and chemistry and never got caught in high school, does that also mean I'm super smart because I aced those classes? NO! It just means I never got caught....


----------



## DMFT

Fredrico said:


> I'm waiting for proof. If Lance doped, he beat the 500 or so tests to catch him. Beyond that, I don't really care to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that he won 7 TDFs by cheating and being supported by a cheating team. Fausto Coppi, Anquetil, Merckx were all caught taking performance enhancing substances, but they were still champions and deserved every victory they achieved.
> 
> The real problem now is this undercurrent of paranoia in pro cycling. Anyone who does well is immediately accused of doping. That's neurotic, for lack of a better word. Last year it was Contador. Well, he's in championship form right now in the Giro.
> 
> Gee, sure hope he's not eating any tainted beef! :frown2:



- "Best" post in here for a looooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.
Don't try and fight the tin-foil-hat-mafia Fred, there is no win......


----------



## djg714

His team doped.
The other riders doped.
Lance was clean.


----------



## mtrider05

Doctor Falsetti said:


> No. Sprinters where tested far more. During most of lance's career he was seldom tested OOC, 1-2 times per year. Otherwise it was only during races.
> 
> If you were a rider like Chipo or Zabel you were tested far more. It is a lie.
> 
> He failed many dope tests, he was never sanctioned. There is a difference..... especially when he was paying off the UCI


You seem to have amazing insights no one else in the world seems to have access to, care to share or are you going to continue your sourceless banter? Thought so.


----------



## DMFT

fontarin said:


> I watched the short clip, and while I think that Lance did dope, Tyler did not look honest at all in that one. He was hesitating and seemed to be only answering questions with reluctance.


- You mean he looked like Floyd in his interviews? Pausing, looking away from the camera/interviewer and saying "Ummmm" a thousand times before coughing up an "answer" ???

C'mon people. Hater & Fanboy's aside, they "likely" ALL doped at some point and guess what? A LOT still do! Shocker, I know..... It's a blatant cash-grab or attempt by Floyd, Tyler, etc. etc. etc.


----------



## DMFT

gregario said:


> I think that belief in Armstrong borders on religion. To me, anyone who believes he's pure is delusional. I am also sick and tired of hearing he's never failed a test. He did fail a test. And besides, not failing a test has meant nothing when you hear the confessions of guys that have doped for years and were never caught.



- Exactly "how many" guys have came forward that rode, won anything, were tested and never caught have came forward on their own??? I can think of 1 or 2 and they rode before any "real" testing was taking place.......

Names please?


----------



## rubbersoul

lastchild said:


> Post of the year.
> You sir, are a level headed sane man...unlike the other vermin that spew their venom on this forum.
> Sad little men you all are, sad little men.




Oh look, here he is, the guy who says the earth is flat!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

mtrider05 said:


> You seem to have amazing insights no one else in the world seems to have access to, care to share or are you going to continue your sourceless banter? Thought so.


Post, not poster. 

The "Most tested Athlete" is nothing more then more media invention by Lance. It appears there are plenty of suckers willing to believe it. 

It is pretty easy to find the number of OOC tests he has has, 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 


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

You used to be able to go to the UCI and see this his tests 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)

I would post Zabel Palmares but that would make this the longest post ever..... and it still would not change the mind of the believers of the myth.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

DMFT said:


> - Exactly "how many" guys have came forward that rode, won anything, were tested and never caught have came forward on their own??? I can think of 1 or 2 and they rode before any "real" testing was taking place.......
> 
> Names please?


I can name a bunch, like Kimmage and Fignon but you will just say they are old (As if that matters) So how about Frankie Andreu and Jerome Chiotti?


----------



## Fredrico

*Thanks!*



DMFT said:


> - "Best" post in here for a looooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.
> Don't try and fight the tin-foil-hat-mafia Fred, there is no win......


I'm willing to wait for proof. Meanwhile, it's fun to spar with the tin foil hats, when the opportunity arises. :thumbsup:

Right now, I'm just enjoying watching the Giro, Alberto Contador break away up that hill a couple of days ago, and even that conceited guy from Wales predictably win yet another flat stage, after his team keeps him at the front the whole time. Thinking about drugs just ruins it for me. :cryin:


----------



## lastchild

rubbersoul said:


> Oh look, here he is, the guy who says the earth is flat!



brother you really don't get it do you?

it's the other way 'round, son...i DO believe the earth is round and you won't stop trying to convince that it's round.

thing is, i couldn't care less if he doped. of course he doped. i'd be disappointed if he hadn't doped. he'd have to be a dope not to dope, dig?


----------



## Sasquatch

lotsa tin foils here. same reason lots of nokors still dig their prez. LOL


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

hampsten88 said:


> A note to all: The stats Falsetti posted above were dissected and proven to intentionally be posted without a majority of the tests LA underwent be another poster a while back.


Link please


----------



## lastchild

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Link please



http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dumbass


----------



## Fredrico

*Ok. Fine.*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> ...The "Most tested Athlete" is nothing more then more media invention by Lance. It appears there are plenty of suckers willing to believe it. ...
> 
> 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....


So Lance tests positive once in 1999, just after his bout with cancer. This was for a cortisoide. Big deal. He wasn't disqualified. Of course, it's convenient to blame that on his touted financial contribution to the governing body! Yeah, he cynically bought off his positive test. I don't buy it.

As far as Cipollini and Zabel, they were both sprinters and one day racers, interested in winning everything they could. Lance wasn't. He only wanted to win the TDF. As annoying as that is to cycling fans, that was his thing. He did it well and it paid off financially for him. As much as one can be disappointed at his one race ambitions, there's still no reason to blame it on dope. He trained to peak during the TDF. Others didn't. Neither Cipo nor Zabel did much in the TDF. When Lance was on form, they were stale. That's racing, not drugs.

Even if we agree that Cipo and Zabel were tested more and were greater riders than Armstrong, that still doesn't mean Armstrong won the TDF only because he doped.


----------



## pedalruns

I love Greg Lemond!


----------



## ronderman

Fredrico said:


> As far as Cipollini and Zabel, they were both sprinters and one day racers, interested in winning everything they could. Lance wasn't. He only wanted to win the TDF.


Dude, me thinks you might want to take a break - did you see what you just wrote. You make it sound like Lance made the Tour and it was just a little old race with no history or fanfare. :blush2: 

hey, does anyone know where Lance crashed today? It's irrefutable - something comes out in the news and the guy crashes.


----------



## lastchild

i've found a picture of Dr. Falsetti's home office...


----------



## 55x11

SilasCL said:


> Yeah, Tyler looks bad. Then again if he looked smooth, people would be talking about how he was coached and is obviously lying. No way to win that battle.


There is a way to appear sincere without looking coached. Look at politicians and lawyers.


----------



## 55x11

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I can name a bunch, like Kimmage and Fignon but you will just say they are old (As if that matters) So how about Frankie Andreu and Jerome Chiotti?


Didn't Zabel, Aldag and Bolts admit to EPO use without ever testing positive. I think Brian Holm and Bjarne Riis admitted it too. Going back to 90ies and before, you have Moser, Hamburger and Chiapucci. Manzano may be another example?


----------



## 55x11

SilasCL said:


> Corroborates the story of the covered up positive in 2001 as well.
> 
> Curious to see how LA's team tries to handle this one. Try and spin it the same way as they did Floyd? Seems unlikely at this point.


This is a serious blow for Armstrong, I think. He may be dismissed as another doper trying to sell a book and someone with a grudge against Armstrong, a-la Landis. But Hamilton's admission, especially in a 60-minute interview, makes it easier for others (Hincapie, Livingston, Leipheimer, and maybe even Eki, Popovych or Bruneel - probably unlikely?) to come out with a statement confirming Hamilton/Landis story.


----------



## SilasCL

Fredrico said:


> Was Lance still among the most tested pros over his career? He never failed one--officially. There will always be doubters, like everyone who BELIEVES he's won all those races doped up, and will continue to believe it as long as they live. Where's that at? :frown2:


It's a red herring to me. Ullrich, Zabel, Valverde, Basso, Millar, Mancebo, Museeuw, Frigo, Scarponi, Sevilla etc. all got tested plenty. They were all doping, yet none of them returned a positive test. We've heard reports from guys like Kohl who should have been nailed dozens of times, and only got caught once, and reports that certain teams were getting advance notice of out of competition testing.

At this point it's like saying you've never been arrested is proof that you've never committed a crime.


----------



## SicBith

Fredrico said:


> So Lance tests positive once in 1999, just after his bout with cancer. This was for a cortisoide. Big deal. He wasn't disqualified. Of course, it's convenient to blame that on his touted financial contribution to the governing body! Yeah, he cynically bought off his positive test. I don't buy it.
> 
> As far as Cipollini and Zabel, they were both sprinters and one day racers, interested in winning everything they could. Lance wasn't. He only wanted to win the TDF. As annoying as that is to cycling fans, that was his thing. He did it well and it paid off financially for him. As much as one can be disappointed at his one race ambitions, there's still no reason to blame it on dope. He trained to peak during the TDF. Others didn't. Neither Cipo nor Zabel did much in the TDF. When Lance was on form, they were stale. That's racing, not drugs.
> 
> Even if we agree that Cipo and Zabel were tested more and were greater riders than Armstrong, that still doesn't mean Armstrong won the TDF only because he doped.


Hey Doc... I believe the statement was 500 test in 20+ years. Why did you only list 5 of those yrs? I find your info a little suspect, as well as any anti-doping agency publicly listing testing information online.


----------



## SilasCL

hampsten88 said:


> A note to all: The stats Falsetti posted above were dissected and proven to intentionally be posted without a majority of the tests LA underwent be another poster a while back.


I remember we went over this, but couldn't find the thread.

IMO, it's impossible to know how often someone has been tested, unless you're a part of one of the agencies doing the testing. Any publicly available facts or figures that Doctor Falsetti or I can come up with are unlikely to add up to the number that LA claims, but you're right that it's not conclusive evidence that he didn't take that many tests. 

On the other hand, LA and his team make the claim, and as far as I know, have never presented any evidence to back it up. To say that one side is intentionally muddying the waters without mentioning that the other side has never presented any evidence is misleading at best.


----------



## DiegoMontoya

Fredrico said:


> Was Lance still among the most tested pros over his career?


No. He wasn't. This has been discussed over and over. Just because you refuse to open your eyes doesn't mean the truth isn't staring you in the face. 

Moreover, those tests were largely useless. Saying Lance never tested positive is like saying Pluto doesn't exist because I can't see it with my naked eyes.

Armstrong is one of the biggest frauds in the history of sports.


----------



## heathb

Woke up to this today. Tyler thank you for coming forward. 

Only one more witness required..... George Hincappie. 

Though Lance was a superior athlete even at a very young age and he probably had more on the table than most cyclists, no way you can watch the 99 tour and not see dopers in the top 10 pushing up those mountains. 

Come on guys this isn't a clean sport, especially back in the 90's. 

Does anyone know what the relationship is between Armstrong and Tyler now. We all know Tyler was Lances American training buddy in those early postal years and practically every photo of Lance out training in Europe had Tyler by his side, so if there's anyone that knows what Lances jock strap smells like it would be Tyler. 

So is Armstrong still keeping in touch with Tyler these days, or did he try to distance himself from Tyler after the positive doping tests started stacking up?


----------



## Fredrico

a_avery007 said:


> ..did not Lance just finish chemo and all that other crap around 98-99..hmmmm wonder if you need doc prescribed steriods to get back to normal, if he ever can.....


The Outside mag article linked above mentioned that some steroids could be detected in the body a year after ingesting. This could explain Lance's positive in 1999. :idea:


----------



## DiegoMontoya

Fredrico said:


> The Outside mag article linked above mentioned that some steroids could be detected in the body a year after ingesting. This could explain Lance's positive in 1999. :idea:


Only to someone who knows nothing about either steroids or cycling.


----------



## Fredrico

*Keep talking....*



DiegoMontoya said:


> No. He wasn't. This has been discussed over and over. Just because you refuse to open your eyes doesn't mean the truth isn't staring you in the face.
> 
> Moreover, those tests were largely useless. Saying Lance never tested positive is like saying Pluto doesn't exist because I can't see it with my naked eyes.
> 
> Armstrong is one of the biggest frauds in the history of sports.


What appears "obvious" to those hastily connecting the dots, desperate for an explanation of why this guy won the toughest race in the world 7 times straight, and concluding it could only be drugs is, well, uncreative. It cynically denies what motivates all of us, pros on down, to go out time and time again and "train," whether on the local club ride, crit event, or solo ride out into the countryside. I'll give a man the benefit of the doubt, presume his innocence until proven guilty, and explain his championship by other means, the same I would apply to my own: hours of hard work doing what we love, riding a bike. He's written a book about it, fer chris' sake.

But y'all go ahead and tell me what a naive fool I am, if it makes you feel better. We'll see who has the last laugh, after all is said and done, after all the hearings, testimony, accusations. None of it so far has implicated Armstrong beyond a reasonable doubt. So far he's been charged guilty by innuendo, speculation, jealousy, animosity to his character in general. This in a climate that judges the whole lot guilty of doping. Drug and sex scandals do sell newspapers and books to those who love to be shocked at the sins of their stars and heroes.

How did Lance beat the tests? What was he on, EPO? Steroids? What leads you to believe he consistently doped? So far, nobody's come up with anything that would hold up in an objective investigation. The preponderance of evidence supports Armstrong's innocence.


----------



## DiegoMontoya

Fredrico said:


> What appears "obvious" to those hastily connecting the dots, desperate for an explanation of why this guy won the toughest race in the world 7 times straight, and concluding it could only be drugs is, well, uncreative. It cynically denies what motivates all of us, pros on down, to go out time and time again and "train," whether on the local club ride, crit event, or solo ride out into the countryside. I'll give a man the benefit of the doubt, presume his innocence until proven guilty, and explain his championship by other means, the same I would apply to my own: hours of hard work doing what we love, riding a bike. He's written a book about it, fer chris' sake.
> 
> But y'all go ahead and tell me what a naive fool I am, if it makes you feel better. We'll see who has the last laugh, after all is said and done, after all the hearings, testimony, accusations. None of it so far has implicated Armstrong beyond a reasonable doubt. So far he's been charged guilty by innuendo, speculation, jealousy, animosity to his character in general. This in a climate that judges the whole lot guilty of doping. Drug and sex scandals do sell newspapers and books to those who love to be shocked at the sins of their stars and heroes.
> 
> How did Lance beat the tests? What was he on, EPO? Steroids? What leads you to believe he consistently doped? So far, nobody's come up with anything that would hold up in an objective investigation. The preponderance of evidence supports Armstrong's innocence.



Lance failed six tests at the 1999 Tour. He had a backdated TUE for cortisone. He's been accused of doping by two close teammates who have seen him dope. His teams have been filled with dopers. His connections to Ferrari are well-known. 

The only "evidence" that supports Lance is that he hasn't tested positive since 1999. Then again, Jan Ullrich never tested positive. Neither did Basso. Neither did Valverde.

Were they all clean too?

Yeah, Lance is clean because he wrote a book about it...what are you talking about?


----------



## Fredrico

DiegoMontoya said:


> Only to someone who knows nothing about either steroids or cycling.


What are you talking about? Ever done steroids, eh? :shocked:


----------



## DiegoMontoya

Fredrico said:


> What are you talking about? Ever done steroids, eh? :shocked:


No. I've never met Julius Caesar either, but I know about him.


----------



## SilasCL

Fredrico said:


> The Outside mag article linked above mentioned that some steroids could be detected in the body a year after ingesting. This could explain Lance's positive in 1999. :idea:


At some point you're not contributing to the conversation, you're trolling. EPO is not a steroid.


----------



## Fredrico

DiegoMontoya said:


> No. I've never met Julius Caesar either, but I know about him.


Hey, can't argue with that!


----------



## Fredrico

*Fait attention, monsieur!*



SilasCL said:


> At some point you're not contributing to the conversation, you're trolling. EPO is not a steroid.


The drug in question was a steroid, possibly like the ones prescribed to Lance to rehabilitate his body from the damage inflicted by the cancer and chemotherapy!


----------



## SilasCL

Fredrico said:


> The drug in question was a steroid, possibly like the ones prescribed to Lance to rehabilitate his body from the damage inflicted by the cancer and chemotherapy!


Oh, well 30 seconds on wikipedia tell me his treatment ended in 1996. He didn't test positive in the 98 or 99 seasons until the tour, then tested positive for a drug that had been in his system for over 2 years. That's your story?

Like I said, you're trolling. Go back to defending Polanski.


----------



## Fredrico

*Point taken.*



SilasCL said:


> Oh, well 30 seconds on wikipedia tell me his treatment ended in 1996. He didn't test positive in the 98 or 99 seasons until the tour, then tested positive for a drug that had been in his system for over 2 years. That's your story?
> 
> Like I said, you're trolling. Go back to defending Polanski.


I was just speculating without checking the facts, like everybody else in this thread!

Oh, yeah, Roman Polanski! :biggrin5: Sex and drugs! Another miscreant who got away with it. :frown2: Pity.


----------



## PhatTalc

Fredrico said:


> I'm willing to wait for proof. Meanwhile, it's fun to spar with the tin foil hats, when the opportunity arises. :thumbsup:
> 
> Right now, I'm just enjoying watching the Giro, Alberto Contador break away up that hill a couple of days ago, and even that conceited guy from Wales predictably win yet another flat stage, after his team keeps him at the front the whole time. Thinking about drugs just ruins it for me. :cryin:


Mark Cavendish is not from Wales. He is from the Isle of Man.


----------



## Fredrico

*Oops!*



PhatTalc said:


> Mark Cavendish is not from Wales. He is from the Isle of Man.


Sorry! Hope I didn't offend you!


----------



## Sasquatch

DiegoMontoya said:


> Lance failed six tests at the 1999 Tour. He had a backdated TUE for cortisone. He's been accused of doping by two close teammates who have seen him dope. His teams have been filled with dopers. His connections to Ferrari are well-known.
> 
> The only "evidence" that supports Lance is that he hasn't tested positive since 1999. Then again, Jan Ullrich never tested positive. Neither did Basso. Neither did Valverde.
> 
> Were they all clean too?
> 
> Yeah, Lance is clean because he wrote a book about it...what are you talking about?



Diego, don't waste your energy trying to explain something to a D.A.


----------



## Sebastionmerckx

I've always thought Armstrong most likely doped, but Hamilton's interview did nothing to convince me anymore than I already was. Hamilton looked and sounded like someone who was at the very least, not telling the whole truth.I've never really liked Armstrong much but I love what he's done with Livestrong. It's a great cause and no matter what happens with all of this, I really hope that cause doesn't suffer as a result. And also, like so many others have said, if he was doping the whole time, nothing should be taken away from what he accomplished. In my eyes, if he did dope, all he did was put himself on even ground with the vast majority of other riders...If he didn't, it should be all the more amazing what he accomplished..He was one helluva great rider.


----------



## den bakker

Coolhand said:


> Lets tone it down everyone.


Well that seemed to work well. How many personal attacks are ok?


----------



## heathb

Sebastionmerckx said:


> I've always thought Armstrong most likely doped, but Hamilton's interview did nothing to convince me anymore than I already was. *Hamilton looked and sounded like someone who was at the very least, not telling the whole truth.*I've never really liked Armstrong much but I love what he's done with Livestrong. It's a great cause and no matter what happens with all of this, I really hope that cause doesn't suffer as a result. And also, like so many others have said, if he was doping the whole time, nothing should be taken away from what he accomplished. In my eyes, if he did dope, all he did was put himself on even ground with the vast majority of other riders...If he didn't, it should be all the more amazing what he accomplished..He was one helluva great rider.


Hamilton always looks like that even when he's just chatting. Some people may think that he's not telling the truth with his odd mannerisms, but Tyler just acts like that all the time. 

Tyler has a non confrontation type personality. I don't think he'd argue with anyone about anything. For me his interview and confession on "60 minutes" is trustworthy. 

Armstrong's constant references to all the tests coming back negative is all he keeps bringing up. You'll notice that Armstrong has backed off of any more public declarations that he never doped....he just states that he never tested positive. With guys like Tyler knowing better and I'm sure others over the years having shared doping moments with Armstrong, I'm sure Armstrong thinks about this matter 50 times a day wondering who's got the proof that will eventually take him down.


----------



## CabDoctor

Side note:

Wasn't there a quote where Kevin Livingston said he quit cycling because of the drugs? Anyone have that link? I thought I remember reading it a decade ago or so


----------



## DZfan14

Fredrico said:


> Hamilton paused when asked if he'd seen Lance shoot dope, and finally shrugged and nodded, "We all did." Maybe Tyler was hiding his guilt, but he didn't seem sincere.
> 
> Well, sure, he got caught and raked over the coals. But Lance is either more clever at beating the tests, or he's been clean all along, like he insists. Frankly, this stinks like a bunch of losers trying to bring down a winner, and government Inspector Javerts trying to make a name for themselves by busting a star. Why wouldn't the French try to bring down Lance and his team to the level of their pathetic Festina heroes? Can't anyone give credit to a team that works their a$$es off to put their leader on the podium? Can all motivation be dismissed as "doping" by those who actually did cheat, and those who want to believe that everyone did?
> 
> Frankly, I hope Lance beats the charges and shows his accusers as the vipers they are.


This is why Lance will always have a huge body of supporters, distorters and apologists. You look at statements like this and you really have to wonder.

I think Lance did what everyone was doing. Doping themselves to the gills, being really good at covering the tracks. But we are seeing now that you can't cover them all when you have made enemies with people who have nothing left to lose.

What I find sad is that Landis and Hamilton could have come clean and they would be racing today. I liked watching both of those guys race. I can understand why they didn't. Millar was handcuffed and interrogated, maybe if Landis and Hamilton had been arrested like Millar they would have sung. 

Lance crushed alot of people covering up his activities. He has a comeuppance just like Landis and Hamilton did.


----------



## Sebastionmerckx

heathb said:


> Hamilton always looks like that even when he's just chatting. Some people may think that he's not telling the truth with his odd mannerisms, but Tyler just acts like that all the time.
> 
> Tyler has a non confrontation type personality. I don't think he'd argue with anyone about anything. For me his interview and confession on "60 minutes" is trustworthy.
> 
> Armstrong's constant references to all the tests coming back negative is all he keeps bringing up. You'll notice that Armstrong has backed off of any more public declarations that he never doped....he just states that he never tested positive. With guys like Tyler knowing better and I'm sure others over the years having shared doping moments with Armstrong, I'm sure Armstrong thinks about this matter 50 times a day wondering who's got the proof that will eventually take him down.


Interesting thoughts. To tell you the truth, I haven't really seen or heard Hamilton speak more than a few times. With you saying he's like that constantly,even just having a conversation, that would make sense for him to act that way in an interview like that.


----------



## DZfan14

Gatorback said:


> I really think there are some people who would refuse to believe Armstrong doped if he came out an admitted it himself. They would argue he was forced to confess to get everyone off his back.
> 
> Armstrong is going to go down hard due to his refusal to fess up. If he admitted it, people would understand. But it appears he won't. He is going to deny and deny and deny until he and his spokesmen are the only ones not rolling their eyes at him.
> 
> I have said again and again and again that he should come clean, admit the culture of doping, and take a stand to try to clean up cycling. That is the honorable thing to do. It is the hard thing to do, but the honorable one.
> 
> Kudos to those cyclists who are willing to fess up. It appears you can add Hamilton to that list.


+1 and it is really a shame. I don't have venom or hate for the guy. But he made his own bed.

No doubt alot of people in his position would have doped as well, not sure everyone would have made the same enemies however.

I think without Comeback 2.0 none of this would have come to the surface. He must regret that at this point.


----------



## Gatorback

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...-unfair-doping-allegations/?cid=hp:mainpromo4

Now that highly credible press outside the sport of cycling has sunk their teeth into this one, it is game over for Armstrong. There is too much on him. If the media has put together this much info, I wonder how much the feds actually have (with their supboena power and ability to get people to tell the truth or possibly go to jail?)

Armstrong just got dropped by the peloton. 

His window of opportunity to come forward, admit the culture of doping in cycling, and escape as hero anyway is about to slam shut. Soon he is going to be remembered more as a disgraced liar who cheated his way to victory.

And it is a shame because it doesn't have to be that way.


----------



## DZfan14

heathb said:


> Woke up to this today. Tyler thank you for coming forward.
> 
> Only one more witness required..... George Hincappie.
> 
> Though Lance was a superior athlete even at a very young age and he probably had more on the table than most cyclists, no way you can watch the 99 tour and not see dopers in the top 10 pushing up those mountains.
> 
> Come on guys this isn't a clean sport, especially back in the 90's.
> 
> Does anyone know what the relationship is between Armstrong and Tyler now. We all know Tyler was Lances American training buddy in those early postal years and practically every photo of Lance out training in Europe had Tyler by his side, so if there's anyone that knows what Lances jock strap smells like it would be Tyler.
> 
> So is Armstrong still keeping in touch with Tyler these days, or did he try to distance himself from Tyler after the positive doping tests started stacking up?


It wasn't a good relationship afterwards. They weren't on speaking terms, although Tyler continued to rent an apartment from Lance after leaving postal. Some really good insights on the LA/TL relationship in the book "Lance Armstrong's War".

I think LA supported Tyler when he tested positive.


----------



## ZoSoSwiM

Without reading all of your comments I have one thing to say... LOOK AT HAMILTONS EYES! he's looking every direction but forward when he answers. That doesn't lead to much cred..


----------



## jlandry

ZoSoSwiM said:


> Without reading all of your comments I have one thing to say... LOOK AT HAMILTONS EYES! he's looking every direction but forward when he answers. That doesn't lead to much cred..


That's the first thing I thought. If I didn't know who he was, I'd say he's a complete flake.


----------



## InfiniteLoop

Hincappie's lack of defense this time says a lot. He seems caught between two friends.


----------



## den bakker

ZoSoSwiM said:


> Without reading all of your comments I have one thing to say... LOOK AT HAMILTONS EYES! he's looking every direction but forward when he answers. That doesn't lead to much cred..


I just pray to god I will never be at the mercy of an american jury......


----------



## pretender

I'm loving all the FBI profilers on this thread.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Fredrico said:


> This could explain Lance's positive in 1999. :idea:


That's not the explanation they provided. Additionally it was a corticosteroid not anabolic steroid, which IIRC are the ones that can stick around for a long time.

For years pros have been admitting to take corticosteroids (e..g Kenacort) the morning of big races, yet rarely do they test positive for it, which makes me think they have a really short half-life or are easily masked.


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderators Note*



den bakker said:


> Well that seemed to work well. How many personal attacks are ok?


Still none. *This is the last warning- posting vacations are next.* It is fine to dispute the points of another poster, but the personal stuff will be dealt with accordingly. 

I want to keep the thread going, and on point. Please everyone, help me with that. 

Thanks for everyone's understanding.


----------



## orange_julius

Doctor Falsetti said:


> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20064406-10391709.html?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.14


Just in time for the end of the world. What timing. So only those of us who miss rapture will get to watch.


----------



## PDex

InfiniteLoop said:


> Hincappie's lack of defense this time says a lot. He seems caught between two friends.


He's also constrained by whatever his Grand Jury testimony was.


----------



## spade2you

ZoSoSwiM said:


> Without reading all of your comments I have one thing to say... LOOK AT HAMILTONS EYES! he's looking every direction but forward when he answers. That doesn't lead to much cred..


If I were just listening to Hamilton's statements, he doesn't necessarily sound like he is lying, but his eyes really set off many red flags. Truth or not, something isn't 100% with Hamilton.


----------



## DMFT

55x11 said:


> Didn't Zabel, Aldag and Bolts admit to EPO use without ever testing positive. I think Brian Holm and Bjarne Riis admitted it too. Going back to 90ies and before, you have Moser, Hamburger and Chiapucci. Manzano may be another example?


- Respectfully 55x11, I believe the context was more around riders tested in the modern-era of testing. Specifically for EPO.

Sure, there are a TON of guy's who cheated and were not caught, that's a given.

Now, many of those coming out now have book-deals on the table surely and/or are already reporters. 

Motivated much by................


----------



## spade2you

pretender said:


> I'm loving all the FBI profilers on this thread.


I haven't had time to read this whole thread, although I'd think people who may have been around the block once or twice should be at least a little suspicious of Hamilton. 

Having been in a few situations where it was my word vs. theirs and I knew they were lying, I saw some similarities. Granted, I was there and knew they were lying, although in most of those cases, "they" took their word over mine.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

DMFT said:


> - Respectfully 55x11, I believe the context was more around riders tested in the modern-era of testing. Specifically for EPO.


All but Armstrong's comeback years were not in the modern era of testing, which essentially emerged in the wake of Operation Puerto. Most of his career was before there was even an EPO test.


----------



## 95zpro

Pretty interesting interview in my opinion. I wonder if this is a small preview of the grand jury testimony ? Can all of the folks that speak out against Lance have an ax to grind like his PR machine would like you to believe ? I wonder who else might confess to doping ? What is George's testimony to the grand jury ? Can 500 drug tests be wrong ? Can a clean cyclist beat a doped up peloton ?

Tune in tomorrow for "As the Wheel Turns"


----------



## Mootsie

jlandry said:


> That's the first thing I thought. If I didn't know who he was, I'd say he's a complete flake.


I've meet him a couple times. Once was at least 8 years ago and the last time was a couple years back. He's a "nervous Nellie" type person. He always has looked uncomfortable in his own skin. I mean the guy suffers from depression. I wouldn't read too much into his body language because it has always been a little off.


----------



## ph0enix

Fredrico said:


> IFausto Coppi, Anquetil, Merckx were all caught taking performance enhancing substances, but they were still champions and deserved every victory they achieved.


Really? How do you figure? Are you saying that it's ok to dope because all the other riders are doping? ...so then it just becomes a battle of substances. Whoever has a better chemist wins. I don't doubt that those guys are super talented and work their asses off but doping invalidates all of that.


----------



## The Tedinator

My .02 worth re: Hamilton; maybe he is just flat out embarrassed. None of the guys are Tony Soprano types. They are mostly just normal guys with aspirations who got caught up in the game, and are now being devoured by the righteous, non cycling press. I mean, the crawl last night on ESPN had the Hamilton bombshell. Last week, nothing on national media re: Wouter Weylandts. It is the nature of the beast. "Give us Dirty Laundry" I believe is the Don Henley lyric.

I have asked several non cycling folk what they think of the fact that Armstrong doped. There response? "He is a pro athlete....of course he doped". In other words, so what?

The effect among us cycling fans is a different matter. I am sad. Sad for the death of the myth. To me, the facts are Armstrong put butts on bikes in the US. He inspired millions through Livestrong. He brought cycling to the attention of people who in the past only cursed at "those [email protected] cyclists crowding the road". I wonder how much of that will now erode?


----------



## gh1

Fredrico said:


> I'm willing to wait for proof. Meanwhile, it's fun to spar with the tin foil hats, when the opportunity arises. :thumbsup:
> 
> Right now, I'm just enjoying watching the Giro, Alberto Contador break away up that hill a couple of days ago, and even that conceited guy from Wales predictably win yet another flat stage, after his team keeps him at the front the whole time. Thinking about drugs just ruins it for me. :cryin:


If thinking about drugs ruins racing, stay out of this forum. Seriously, you ok? What proof do you need? Hmm, Armstrong admits to taking EPO in the hospital. Positive on EPO tests. Bribes to the UCI. I mean the list can go on for pages but I guess you are right, people from all over the world with nothing to gain are all lying to bring Armstrong down and he is the only one telling the truth. Its really quite amazing.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

gh1 said:


> If thinking about drugs ruins racing, stay out of this forum. Seriously, you ok? What proof do you need? Hmm, Armstrong admits to taking EPO in the hospital. Positive on EPO tests. Bribes to the UCI. I mean the list can go on for pages but I guess you are right, people from all over the world with nothing to gain are all lying to bring Armstrong down and he is the only one telling the truth. Its really quite amazing.


You left out paying a hematologist 6 figures a year and not allowing him to work with his rivals, all apparently for?


----------



## ph0enix

The Tedinator said:


> To me, the facts are Armstrong put butts on bikes in the US. He inspired millions through Livestrong. He brought cycling to the attention of people who in the past only cursed at "those [email protected] cyclists crowding the road". I wonder how much of that will now erode?


The cause never justifies the means. Anyone who dopes is a cheater and that's that. Hopefully cycling (and all other sports) will eventually get cleaned up and the number of U.S. butts on bikes will continue to grow.


----------



## heathb

Mootsie said:


> I've meet him a couple times. Once was at least 8 years ago and the last time was a couple years back. He's a "nervous Nellie" type person. He always has looked uncomfortable in his own skin. I mean the guy suffers from depression. I wouldn't read too much into his body language because it has always been a little off.


And I use to follow his races quite a bit and even when he conducted an interview after winning he couldn't look the reporter in the eye when answering. He tends to repeat himself a lot. He goes at his own pace and his eyes are always looking off. 

Another thing is he's not subject to outward expression at all. 

I think it was this trait that made him an excellent training partner for Armstrong because Tyler probably didn't mind that Armstrong was such an arrogant prick. 

Aside from that he was one of my favorite cyclist only because he was a pain machine. And his 2003 season was epic even if he was doping.


----------



## MaddSkillz

I don't understand how people can trust someone that lied and cheated on those closest to him at certain points in his life. I think how he treats what we all think should come first in life (family) is monumental in how he treats the rest. It seems he thinks he's the only one that matters to him.

On top of that, the things he continues to say only inspire more suspicion to those that question. I mean, to say you've never failed a test when you know there are those out there that also did not fail tests yet admit to doping diminishes what you're saying. Do you all honestly believe he doesn't know that there are those out there that have also passed tests yet doped? Then why say you've never failed a test? It's meaningless, unless your audience is ignorant of the facts of doping in cycling - which I believe most of his audience is.

I just don't understand how people can trust this guy. I guess we're to believe he can have a seriously flawed moral compass when it comes to family but is spotless when it comes to his career in cycling.

Yeah, okay.


----------



## heathb

ph0enix said:


> The cause never justifies the means. Anyone who dopes is a cheater and that's that. Hopefully cycling (and all other sports) will eventually get cleaned up and the number of U.S. butts on bikes will continue to grow.



$10/gallon gas will put more butts on bikes than Armstrong ever did. 

The good thing about Armstrong being out of the game now is it's been a few years since anyone has yelled at me out their car window "Go Lance"!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

MaddSkillz said:


> I don't understand how people can trust someone that lied and cheated on those closest to him at certain points in his life..


I assume you are referring to Armstrong. I agree.


----------



## MaddSkillz

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I assume you are referring to Armstrong. I agree.


Yes, Armstrong.


----------



## den bakker

The Tedinator said:


> My .02 worth re: Hamilton; maybe he is just flat out embarrassed. None of the guys are Tony Soprano types. They are mostly just normal guys with aspirations who got caught up in the game, and are now being devoured by the righteous, non cycling press. I mean, the crawl last night on ESPN had the Hamilton bombshell. Last week, nothing on national media re: Wouter Weylandts. It is the nature of the beast. "Give us Dirty Laundry" I believe is the Don Henley lyric.
> 
> I have asked several non cycling folk what they think of the fact that Armstrong doped. There response? "He is a pro athlete....of course he doped". In other words, so what?
> 
> The effect among us cycling fans is a different matter. I am sad. Sad for the death of the myth. To me, the facts are Armstrong put butts on bikes in the US. He inspired millions through Livestrong. He brought cycling to the attention of people who in the past only cursed at "those [email protected] cyclists crowding the road". I wonder how much of that will now erode?


Just curious, how much good do I have to do in order to compensate for taking your money?


----------



## spade2you

Mootsie said:


> I've meet him a couple times. Once was at least 8 years ago and the last time was a couple years back. He's a "nervous Nellie" type person. He always has looked uncomfortable in his own skin. I mean the guy suffers from depression. I wouldn't read too much into his body language because it has always been a little off.


I think it's technically bi-polar disorder. No doubt Armstrong's defense knows this and will try to grill him in a way that make credibility fall apart on the stand.


----------



## heathb

Living a lie is a huge amount of stress. The person or people you have relationships may not know anything about what's going on in your life. I'd imagine it can stress your personal relationships big time when you're hoping you've got all your tracks covered. Keep in mind his family and kids are enjoying those millions and millions he made off of cycling and doping, if people come knocking on the door asking for their money back he might be sleeping on the couch in a run down apartment like Landis.

If I was Lance I'd be stashing my cash for a quick get away.


----------



## spade2you

heathb said:


> Living a lie is a huge amount of stress.


Depends on a person's conscience or lack thereof. I've known people who would crack 5 minutes after an insignificant white lie and those who could have done something horrible without an ounce of guilt. :idea:


----------



## thighmaster

He gets to keep his Jerseys and victories for sure. By the "Bicycling" chart he beat the other dopers doped so it's all equal.


----------



## lastchild

den bakker said:


> Well that seemed to work well. How many personal attacks are ok?



apparently it depends on who you are.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

spade2you said:


> Depends on a person's conscience or lack thereof. I've known people who would crack 5 minutes after an insignificant white lie and those who could have done something horrible without an ounce of guilt. :idea:


True, sociopaths never have trouble sleeping


----------



## den bakker

lastchild said:


> apparently it depends on who you are.


I suppose you consider yourself a victim here.


----------



## heathb

Doctor Falsetti said:


> True, sociopaths never have trouble sleeping



It's really how much they have to lose. Forget what the public thinks about him. If you've got a certain lifestyle expectation and you know that it's at risk if you should be outed as a sham then you have to live with that fear that someone might uncover your secret. 

If he lost everything, lets say his entire family was killed in a plane accident then I think he might come clean with the public. However the kids come first in Lances life and he'll do whatever it takes to provide for them, what we think doesn't mean anything to him as long as those kids see him as gold. 

And Lance cares about money. He comes from humble beginnings raised by a single mom. He knows what it's like to be poor, he ain't going back to that without a serious fight.


----------



## Len J

A few commments:

1.) I would love to have been a fly on the wall during the grand Jury testimony....not just of Tyler, but of all the others testifying.

2.) 500 tests over 20 years less the 3 years he was battling cancer is about 29 tests a year (500/17). The 3 to 5 years where the detail was above should have been the years where he was most tested as they were at the height of his wins (no?) and It doesn't appear he was tested 29 times/year. so when did all these additional tests?


3.) It has always seemd up until recently that the dopers were ahead of both the testing and the banned substance list. So If I'm using something new that is both not on the list and for which there is no test, I wouldn't test positive now would I?

4.) Looking thru history, it appears that the only people that got caught were either because they were stupid, or their doctor got caught. Someone fastidious who understands both the testing and the chemistry s, it appears, had a pretty easy time beating the tests. Consequently, testing positive doesn't seem to be worth a whole lot.

It will be interesting how much testifying under oath changes peoples stories.

Len


----------



## heathb

Len J said:


> A few commments:
> 4.) Looking thru history, it appears that the *only people that got caught were either because they were stupid, or their doctor got caught.* Someone fastidious who understands both the testing and the chemistry s, it appears, had a pretty easy time beating the tests. Consequently, testing positive doesn't seem to be worth a whole lot.
> 
> It will be interesting how much testifying under oath changes peoples stories.
> 
> Len


From a history point of view during Lances years of competition most athletes were outed by busting the doctor, team captain, coach or some unsavory guy that supplied the drugs. You had to trace the drugs back to the athletes or team. Testing positive back then didn't happen all that often unless someone showed up to race with a hematocrit of a horse. 

These days the testing is better and it would be harder to get away with the high doses they used to get away with, especially back in the 90's and early 2000's. I mean it was rare for a guy not to get busted at the TDF in the 90's with an entire trunk full of vials of PEDs. 

Then there were the blood transfusions. Showing up to the grand tours with what appears to be a huge cooler used to be the norm during Lances era, but now they actually take a peak in them to see if they're full of Gatorade as opposed to units of blood. 

Lance grew up around doping, it was a part of his history. To my knowledge he never complained about a rider doping. He never felt cheated when a rider beat him that tested positive.


----------



## gregario

DiegoMontoya said:


> Lance failed six tests at the 1999 Tour. He had a backdated TUE for cortisone. He's been accused of doping by two close teammates who have seen him dope. His teams have been filled with dopers. His connections to Ferrari are well-known.
> 
> The only "evidence" that supports Lance is that he hasn't tested positive since 1999. Then again, Jan Ullrich never tested positive. Neither did Basso. Neither did Valverde.
> 
> Were they all clean too?
> 
> Yeah, Lance is clean because he wrote a book about it...what are you talking about?


Like I said, believing Armstrong borders on religion. And you can't convince someone that what they believe is fantasy when they are fervent.


----------



## kiwisimon

spade2you said:


> I haven't had time to read this whole thread, although I'd think people who may have been around the block once or twice should be at least a little suspicious of Hamilton.
> 
> Having been in a few situations where it was my word vs. theirs and I knew they were lying, I saw some similarities. Granted, I was there and knew they were lying, although in most of those cases, "they" took their word over mine.


Yeah good point, except looking straight at a camera isn't something non media people instinctively do. Eyes not looking at a camera is probably a natural reaction.


----------



## bdx1366

I remember the flack that Roche got in the press and on this forum when he called out Hamilton years ago in the Tour 
when he won a stage after breaking his collar bone.

I guess he was not wrong after all.

Armstrong's day will come


----------



## rubbersoul

lastchild said:


> brother you really don't get it do you?
> 
> it's the other way 'round, son...i DO believe the earth is round and you won't stop trying to convince that it's round.
> 
> thing is, i couldn't care less if he doped. of course he doped. i'd be disappointed if he hadn't doped. he'd have to be a dope not to dope, dig?



Do bowlers dope, or consider themselves dope?


----------



## rubbersoul

DZfan14 said:


> +1 and it is really a shame. I don't have venom or hate for the guy. But he made his own bed.
> 
> No doubt alot of people in his position would have doped as well, not sure everyone would have made the same enemies however.
> 
> I think without Comeback 2.0 none of this would have come to the surface. He must regret that at this point.



I wonder whether comeback 2.0 was hampered by better doping tests?


----------



## spade2you

kiwisimon said:


> Yeah good point, except looking straight at a camera isn't something non media people instinctively do. Eyes not looking at a camera is probably a natural reaction.


That may be, but his mannerisms created some doubt with my perception. I'm not saying my perception is worth a hill of beans. 

Floyd was more convincing, but his cred has been shot to poop ever since he admitted he was lying for all those years.

It's probably all true, but I'm surprised the teams weren't smarter about doing all of these things in private. Given the $ and management, I would have thought they'd do a lot of this stuff in private to maintain a certain level of deniability.


----------



## pretender

rubbersoul said:


> Do bowlers dope, or consider themselves dope?


I bet a bunch use beta blockers, but I have no idea if they are against the rules.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

spade2you said:


> It's probably all true, but I'm surprised the teams weren't smarter about doing all of these things in private. Given the $ and management, I would have thought they'd do a lot of this stuff in private to maintain a certain level of deniability.


Well I think it speaks to the fact that for most of the period we're talking about here doping was an "open" secret in the sport. Amongst the riders it was understood that everyone, or nearly everyone did it, and in fact most of them did it within the the context of the team or amongst friends.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

pretender said:


> I bet a bunch use beta blockers, but I have no idea if they are against the rules.


Naw that's just for the ubiquitous heart conditions amongst the bowler types


----------



## heathb

Dwayne Barry said:


> Well I think it speaks to the fact that for most of the period we're talking about here doping was an "open" secret in the sport. Amongst the riders it was understood that everyone, or nearly everyone did it, and in fact most of them did it within the the context of the team or amongst friends.


Those guys from that era operated like the old school mafia. In some ways I respect that there were so few snitches back then. Even today cyclist don't rat each other out.


----------



## SilasCL

hampsten88 said:


> Unfortunately I couldn't find it either. After seeing Falsetti demand a link it makes me wonder if he got it deleted...considered some of the things I have seen him get away with around here.
> 
> I seem to recall that the main issue in that discussion was the fact that Armstrong's tests in races as a jersey wearer and randoms were not included and the others used as people who were tested more did include those numbers as well as years outside of the time frame being discussed.
> 
> I do admit that his claim is tough to prove and is probably wrong, but not as bad as Falsetti makes it out to be.


Here's the thread in question:
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=218753

Funny, I don't remember you participating in it, just a guy named Perico who has since received a perma-ban. Funny that...


----------



## SilasCL

hampsten88 said:


> Thanks, I must have been looking in the wrong place.
> 
> BTW, I never said I was participating, just that I remembered reading it. I guess you try to defend the spin and omissions by attacking anyone not agreeing?


You run with that :thumbsup:


----------



## sappie66

Yeah, there are many fervent devout believers in the almighty Lance.

IMO, one of the most telling things has been Armstrong's position regarding those who have doped, and those within the sport who have advocated clean sport. Not only did Armstrong observe the _omerta_, he was its most active and aggressive enforcer. He was instrumental in shutting down Christophe Bassons and rallying the peloton against him. He chased down Simeoni himself when Simeoni was in a position to testify against Lance's good friend Dr. Evil Ferrari. He defended those who were caught, saying that they all deserved second chances (ie Basso, maybe because he wanted to hire him on Discovery? etc.). He also gave words of encouragement and support to both Landis and Hamilton after they were first accused of doping.

Shouldn't Mr. "I have never failed a drug test" have been vocal about ridding the sport of dopers? He was in the best possible position to do so, given his stature and influence in the sport. He could have made himself an example of what a clean honest athlete could achieve, but no. Why didn't he?

The reason why he did not do so was obvious. It still is.

There continues to be indication that doping is still rampant, despite all the popular rhethoric. Look at the reactions to Valverde's suspension -- how his teammates and others think its unfair. Look at Andy Schleck's reaction to the possibility that he might be crowned Tour winner if Contador is disgraced -- he says "I don't want to win it this way -- in my mind, Alberto will always be the winner." If Contador took Andy's win away from him by cheating, Andy should be f'ing furious! He should say, "if Alberto cheated, that Tour is mine and I will never, ever forgive him for taking it away from me."

The only guy that has the right attitude has been Bradley Wiggins. He was bluntly dismissive of the doper who caused his then-team Cofidis to be ejected from the Tour. He said, "off you trot, Franco", when Pellizotti got caught for bio-passport troubles. The only thing about Wiggo is that he scored a 5 in the bio-passport suspicion list -- oh well!


----------



## sappie66

hampsten88 said:


> I agree with most of what you say though I do think that the reaction by Andy is more about wanting to win the Tour on the road, not in the courts a la Periero in 2006.
> 
> One thing I don't get is how Armstrong is this horrible person yet known dopers such as Merckx are put on a pedestal and are allowed excuses from the fans.


Hey Hampsten -- I like your handle btw - I believe Andy Hampsten was clean -- he rode during a time when steroids and cortizone were the most effective drugs. Same environment that Lemond was in.

I think Armstrong is horrible because he was, media-wise, much more far-reaching than Merckx was -- only because of the times in which they reigned -- I am not suggesting at all that Merckx was the lesser rider -- I believe the opposite.

As well, Armstrong has shown his true colours (disrespect, arrogance, contempt, intimidation) time and time again, to all who have the audacity to oppose him. It is difficult to like an arrogant pr*ck.

Also, Armstrong is current -- Merckx is a past champion -- I am afraid that Armstrong will also be remembered as a great champion and all his misdeeds will be forgotten.

I hope Hincapie comes clean too. After all, Armstrong did chase him down to keep him out of yellow!


----------



## sappie66

Big Georgie has come clean!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And GH doesn't have the baggage that Tyler and Floyd have.

Hmmm..... what do the fanboys have to say about that?


----------



## Fogdweller

Fredrico said:


> I'm waiting for proof. If Lance doped, he beat the 500 or so tests to catch him.


The Landis argument is that the UCI was controlling the testing regime and that many of the tests by USPostal were probably positive but never saw the light of day or the media. Flash forward to the Novinsky investigation. He's not directly trying to prove that Armstrong doped, he's trying to prove that you and I may have bank rolled it with our taxes. In part, he wants to prove that there was organized doping in the team and a plan in place to cover up dirty tests if the plan ever skirted too close to or crossed the line.

There was such a huge outcry from the cycling community for Lance to release his earlier B samples and remove all doubt about his career. He had a week to prepare for the press conference where he broke the news that he wouldn't open his B samples to modern testing, that there was nothing they would reveal, that he had been clean the whole time and that his comeback wasn't about racing, it was about bringing attention to the fight against cancer. Having lost a sister to it, I almost threw up at his land grab of the moral high ground. He'd race for the team for a $1 salary to prove his point but gladly pocket the undisclosed appearance fees for the races he did do. He runs two LiveStrong organizations, a .org version and a .com version. If you donate to the org, it's granted to cancer research and other causes. If you donate to the .com, your donation goes into his pocket and the lines of which organization sponsors which event is not always clear to participants and donors.

Anyway, now those long frozen samples have been turned over to the investigation so you may, in the end, get that proof you've been waiting for. I've never needed it.


----------



## sappie66

hampsten88 said:


> Personally I don't think any top riders (or pro athletes in any sports) have ever been clean. PED's have always been used. (But that's an entirely different issue I have with the "cycling is so dirty claims")
> 
> Personally I think Armstrong has done nothing that hasn't been done by most other champions, it's just more visible due to our modern times. Imagine if Merckx was riding for every win and never giving out a morsel for a teammate or opponent in this day and age. How about Hinault?!?!?! Talk about an uber-villain! I think if Armstrong is painted as a fraud and horrible (to use two words used around here) then so should Merckx, Fignon, Anquetil, Coppi, etc.
> 
> BTW, Armstrong didn't chase down Hincapie, Vaughters had his Garmin boys do it.


I generally agree with you, but I guess the grabbing of the moral high ground that Fogdweller referred to adds to the villainy as well. On a personal note, early last year my wife had a bi-lateral mastectomy due to breast cancer. I am all for anyone who supports the fight against cancer, and I count myself as in that category, but it seems a little too self-aggrandizing somehow when LA does it. Anyway.....

I thought Armstrong was involved in chasing Hincapie because, before the end of the race when the DZ and the Garmin boys turned it on, didn't the Astana squad keep the time gap uncomfortably close? I recall Georgy not having very nice words about his ol' buddy at the end of the stage.


----------



## DMFT

SilasCL said:


> Oh, well 30 seconds on wikipedia tell me his treatment ended in 1996. He didn't test positive in the 98 or 99 seasons until the tour, then tested positive for a drug that had been in his system for over 2 years. That's your story?
> 
> Like I said, you're trolling. Go back to defending Polanski.


- Speaking of "trolls". YOU sir are trolling with the "claim" of a 99 "positive".

If in "fact" it was a positive he would have been banned. NOBODY can use a "test" used for research into weather the "test" actually works. 'Specially because there is NO B-Sample to confirm. Been over this a million times with you & others. 

Troll on tin-foiler.

- Any of ya give a thought that the "Dr." is Ashenden defending vigorously his reasearch/test for EPO???

- Anyone ever think that maybe his test is NOT perfect???

Like Fred, I'll give the benefit of the doubt until ACTUAL PROOF is provided beyond a reasonable doubt. Real proof, not a buncha has-beens who HAVE tested postive and been banned that have "tell-all" book deals on the table for $$$$$....


----------



## DMFT

Dwayne Barry said:


> All but Armstrong's comeback years were not in the modern era of testing, which essentially emerged in the wake of Operation Puerto. Most of his career was before there was even an EPO test.


- Beg-pardon??? 

EPO teating began in the early 2000's no???


----------



## SilasCL

DMFT said:


> - Speaking of "trolls". YOU sir are trolling with the "claim" of a 99 "positive".
> 
> If in "fact" it was a positive he would have been banned. NOBODY can use a "test" used for research into weather the "test" actually works. 'Specially because there is NO B-Sample to confirm. Been over this a million times with you & others.
> 
> Troll on tin-foiler.
> 
> - Any of ya give a thought that the "Dr." is Ashenden defending vigorously his reasearch/test for EPO???
> 
> - Anyone ever think that maybe his test is NOT perfect???
> 
> Like Fred, I'll give the benefit of the doubt until ACTUAL PROOF is provided beyond a reasonable doubt. Real proof, not a buncha has-beens who HAVE tested postive and been banned that have "tell-all" book deals on the table for $$$$$....


It was unclear, but I was talking about the cortisone positive that LA got a TUE for.


----------



## sappie66

DMFT said:


> - Beg-pardon???
> 
> EPO teating began in the early 2000's no???


I don't believe there was an EPO test until they started development on it in 2004. That was when they happened to test Armstrong's preserved 1999 samples in the development stage of the test. Before the EPO test, all they did was test for haematocrit levels.



SilasCL said:


> It was unclear, but I was talking about the cortisone positive that LA got a TUE for.


To be clearer, the TUE was back-dated to cover it all up. Armstrong never had a TUE before.


----------



## DMFT

heathb said:


> And I use to follow his races quite a bit and even when he conducted an interview after winning he couldn't look the reporter in the eye when answering. He tends to repeat himself a lot. He goes at his own pace and his eyes are always looking off.
> 
> Another thing is he's not subject to outward expression at all.
> 
> I think it was this trait that made him an excellent training partner for Armstrong because Tyler probably didn't mind that Armstrong was such an arrogant prick.
> 
> Aside from that he was one of my favorite cyclist only because he was a pain machine. And his 2003 season was epic even if he was doping.



- Wow, what an even-keeled viewpoint on fair assesment of individuals you DON'T even know.....

"Armstrong was such an arrogant pr*ck" and 
"And his (Tyler's) 2003 season was epic even if he was doping."

Maybe TH was awkward all those years because he was cheating. Ever give that a thought???


----------



## SilasCL

sappie66 said:


> I don't believe there was an EPO test until they started development on it in 2004. That was when they happened to test Armstrong's preserved 1999 samples in the development stage of the test. Before the EPO test, all they did was test for haematocrit levels.
> 
> 
> 
> To be clearer, the TUE was back-dated to cover it all up. Armstrong never had a TUE before.


EPO test came out around the Sydney olympics, and hit cycling in 2001.


----------



## DMFT

SilasCL said:


> It was unclear, but I was talking about the cortisone positive that LA got a TUE for.


Were TUE's not legit/the norm back in the day? Suspicious or not there is only 1 correct answer Silas.

Side note: I'm not defending LA like the TFM (tin-foil-mafia) like to think........I'm defending the process of prosecution, not the court of public opinion which is just that - public opinion. - Mine included....


----------



## DMFT

sappie66 said:


> I don't believe there was an EPO test until they started development on it in 2004. That was when they happened to test Armstrong's preserved 1999 samples in the development stage of the test. Before the EPO test, all they did was test for haematocrit levels.
> 
> 
> 
> To be clearer, the TUE was back-dated to cover it all up. Armstrong never had a TUE before.


- Thanks for the refresher sappie66. 04' to me is STILL early 2000's. Surely Ashenden et al were testing/developing prior to uncovering the "positives" that they had not B-sample to show proof that their research was perfectly correct.

Sounds like a solid test to me.....NO B sample to confirm the A sample. Shady chain-of-custody and a lab that has been shown to test samples AFTER LA's 99' sample repeatedly until they get the reading they want - positive.

Yeah, believable testing all the way..........


----------



## NuxVomica

heathb said:


> Living a lie is a huge amount of stress. The person or people you have relationships may not know anything about what's going on in your life. I'd imagine it can stress your personal relationships big time when you're hoping you've got all your tracks covered. Keep in mind his family and kids are enjoying those millions and millions he made off of cycling and doping, if people come knocking on the door asking for their money back he might be sleeping on the couch in a run down apartment like Landis.
> 
> If I was Lance I'd be stashing my cash for a quick get away.


Which is why he has Donald Monasse and a Swiss bank account.


----------



## NuxVomica

heathb said:


> From a history point of view during Lances years of competition most athletes were outed by busting the doctor, team captain, coach or some unsavory guy that supplied the drugs. You had to trace the drugs back to the athletes or team. Testing positive back then didn't happen all that often unless someone showed up to race with a hematocrit of a horse.
> 
> These days the testing is better and it would be harder to get away with the high doses they used to get away with, especially back in the 90's and early 2000's. I mean it was rare for a guy not to get busted at the TDF in the 90's with an entire trunk full of vials of PEDs.
> 
> Then there were the blood transfusions. Showing up to the grand tours with what appears to be a huge cooler used to be the norm during Lances era, but now they actually take a peak in them to see if they're full of Gatorade as opposed to units of blood.
> 
> Lance grew up around doping, it was a part of his history. To my knowledge he never complained about a rider doping. He never felt cheated when a rider beat him that tested positive.


No, but he certainly knew the risks, which is why he buddied with Hein and bought the Sysmex machine. He was a fervent, yet reticent crusader for clean cycling,


----------



## Dwayne Barry

DMFT said:


> - Beg-pardon???
> 
> EPO teating began in the early 2000's no???


EPO testing started in 2001.

Effective anti-doping controls only started after Armstrong retired the first time. First Gripper came in at the UCI and instituted OOC testing designed to catch dopers (i.e. frequent and at appropriate times) rather than just to provide the appearance of doing something.

Second one could still blood dope (at this point it appears beyond doubt that Armstrong & company were doing this, probably to get around the risk of using EPO in competition or maybe it was simply more effective than EPO alone?) with immunity until the Biopassport.

The only time Armstrong was subjected to any sort of rigorous testing environment was after his comeback. This is why his tested x number of times and never positive is meaningless. Just as it would be for most of his rivals who never tested positive during that time either and we also know were doping.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

DMFT said:


> Shady chain-of-custody and a lab that has been shown to test samples AFTER LA's 99' sample repeatedly until they get the reading they want - positive.
> 
> Yeah, believable testing all the way..........


Let's not rewrite history. The lab had no way of knowing the identity of the samples. They only test samples with identification numbers. The UCI had the code to link riders to the samples.

The research was done & over and even reported in the press. It was only later that a reporter tricked Armstrong into giving him access to his UCI medical files which contained his sample numbers and was able to connect the samples to Armstrong via the previously published but anonymous results.


----------



## DMFT

Dwayne Barry said:


> EPO testing started in 2001.
> 
> Effective anti-doping controls only started after Armstrong retired the first time. First Gripper came in at the UCI and instituted OOC testing designed to catch dopers (i.e. frequent and at appropriate times) rather than just to provide the appearance of doing something.
> 
> Second one could still blood dope (at this point it appears beyond doubt that Armstrong & company were doing this, probably to get around the risk of using EPO in competition or maybe it was simply more effective than EPO alone?) with immunity until the Biopassport.
> 
> The only time Armstrong was subjected to any sort of rigorous testing environment was after his comeback. This is why his tested x number of times and never positive is meaningless. Just as it would be for most of his rivals who never tested positive during that time either and we also know were doping.


- You make a lot of assumtions there DB, honestly, I concur with some of what you write here ie. blood doping vs. EPO.

But, you know what happens when you "assume" things. 
They have a way of making an "ass out of you n' me" as the old saying goes.

Regardless, I'll still wait for the judge, jury & executioner..... 

In the mean time, this does make for good "news", television and watercooler talk to take ones mind off of all the worlds real problems. 

Thanks for keeping your points civil. :thumbsup:


----------



## DMFT

Dwayne Barry said:


> Let's not rewrite history. The lab had no way of knowing the identity of the samples. They only test samples with identification numbers. The UCI had the code to link riders to the samples.
> 
> The research was done & over and even reported in the press. It was only later that a reporter tricked Armstrong into giving him access to his UCI medical files which contained his sample numbers and was able to connect the samples to Armstrong via the previously published but anonymous results.


- "Why not" DB? What's good for the goose is not good for the gander???

ALL of the doubters continue to use it as their main talking point over, and over, and over. 

What about the FACT that these "results" are from a test to "test the test". Yet they never compared them to B samples for ANY kind of confirmation that the "findings" were correct.

THAT is some solid "science" right there.....


----------



## Dwayne Barry

DMFT said:


> What about the FACT that these "results" are from a test to "test the test". Yet they never compared them to B samples for ANY kind of confirmation that the "findings" were correct.
> 
> THAT is some solid "science" right there.....


If you fail a drug test at a place of employment in the U.S. do you get a B sample testing?

For one they found far less evidence of EPO use in '99 vs. '98 which either argues the peloton was scared off because of Festina the year before or there were a lot of false negatives.

I suppose it could be that no one was using EPO in '99 but that doesn't seem very likely so I suspect that the positives were true and not false. It still begs the question of how these just happen to hit on Armstrong's samples and not other riders. We know most of the other ones who were positive were indeed doping (Zulle, Hamberger, Beltran, Virenque).


----------



## Dwayne Barry

DMFT said:


> - You make a lot of assumtions there DB, UOTE]
> 
> Such as? We know from police actions or admissions for other reasons riders were doping and not testing positive, and we know when riders started testing positive pretty regularly in OOC tests.


----------



## electricfactory

terzo rene said:


> I always thought Clinton could have avoided impeachment hearings and everything that went with it if he'd just said " Yeah, I f*%^ed her, so what?" But he didn't and now Lance seems hell bent on making the same mistake.
> .


Don't want to derail the OP's discussion and I take your point regarding Clinton but I have to disagree. 
The fact is Ken Starr and the rest were determined to bring Clinton down no matter what.* No matter what.*
Nothing Clinton could have said or done would have detered those scumbags once they smelled chum in the water.
I don't know much about LA but I wonder if he has the same kind of dogged, blind haters ?

We now return you to our regularly scheduled broadcast.


----------



## DMFT

Dwayne Barry said:


> If you fail a drug test at a place of employment in the U.S. do you get a B sample testing?
> 
> For one they found far less evidence of EPO use in '99 vs. '98 which either argues the peloton was scared off because of Festina the year before or there were a lot of false negatives.
> 
> I suppose it could be that no one was using EPO in '99 but that doesn't seem very likely so I suspect that the positives were true and not false. It still begs the question of how these just happen to hit on Armstrong's samples and not other riders. We know most of the other ones who were positive were indeed doping (Zulle, Hamberger, Beltran, Virenque).


Rationalize this: You state "maybe people were scared off due to Festina" yet the EPO craze (if you will) went on through the 90's, 2000's and even NOW. All this while you state 
"effective testing" "really got serious" in the late 2000's.

Hmmm....


----------



## Dwayne Barry

DMFT said:


> Rationalize this: You state "maybe people were scared off due to Festina" yet the EPO craze (if you will) went on through the 90's, 2000's and even NOW. All this while you state
> "effective testing" "really got serious" in the late 2000's.
> 
> Hmmm....


Going to have to try harder brother 

The scaring off was a temporary reaction to the police interventions of '98. This is not a new argument and is supported by the fact that all 4 riders controlled in the prologue were positive. The thought being they had "topped off" before entering France.

You can search out interviews with Gripper if you really wish to understand how the testing changed with her appointment within the UCI, not to mention the gradual increased testing pressures put into place by many national federations at various times roughly covering that same period.


----------



## DMFT

DB, Gripper joined late 07' and left in 10. What did she really do?
- I do believe that she likely said screw the place (UCI) because it's totally jacked-up but that is my thoughts.

Still doesn't explain the continued use prior to and post Gripper. They did afterall have the HC limit to sanction riders by which in MY belief is more sound than the EPO test.

It's also my belief that the UCI in many cases and in all liklihood did little with what they had in sanctioning riders. But that's another discussion....

TTFN friend.


----------



## rydbyk

IMO IMO IMO..

From an athletic/cyclist standpoint, LA is a stud.

He doped...perhaps for all 7 TdF wins..

All top contenders doped also...perhaps even some of the guys hanging on at back of peleton.

He still won. 7 times. Versus other dopers.

If he ADMITS to doping, there will still be doubters in this forum.

Most top professional cyclists probably chuckle when they think that the general public ACTUALLY believes that they can race and perform the way they do in the big races WITHOUT taking banned substances. They probably view the general public is misinformed individuals who may want to read up on the sport before jumping in head first and becoming die hard fans..

There should be TWO debates so this does not get clouded any more. One debate about his "personality" and the other about his "doping". Two. Separate. Issues. No, he did not "force" other grown men to dope either.


----------



## pretender

rydbyk said:


> He still won. 7 times. Versus other dopers.


The question is not whether he doped. Anyone with half a brain and an ounce of skepticism has known for years that he did.

The real question is just how deep and dirty he and others went in the process.


----------



## rydbyk

pretender said:


> The question is not whether he doped. Anyone with half a brain and an ounce of skepticism has known for years that he did.
> 
> The real question is just how deep and dirty he and others went in the process.


I agree, but I don't think everyone here is on the same page...in fact, I don't think we are all in the same book..

I am assuming that the more successful you are, the more "deep and dirty" you will have to become as you are placed under the "microscope". It's that "ditch" that just gets deeper and deeper and deeper...


----------



## sappie66

DMFT said:


> Were TUE's not legit/the norm back in the day? Suspicious or not there is only 1 correct answer Silas.
> 
> Side note: I'm not defending LA like the TFM (tin-foil-mafia) like to think........I'm defending the process of prosecution, not the court of public opinion which is just that - public opinion. - Mine included....


The existence of a TUE does not make the need for it, in any given case, legitimate. Many riders had TUEs for various reasons, all they need is a doctor saying that he has a condition requiring medication that happens to contain something on the banned substances list. It is, however, interesting that a greater percentage of riders requiring asthma medication is far greater than that of the general population .

If TUE's were the "norm" as you say, that would indeed be telling. 

Armstrong suddenly had a TUE for corticoids after he tested positive in 1999. Emma O'Reilly says that the Postal staff decided to obtain and backdate a doctor's prescription for saddle-sore cream, and therefore obtained a TUE when there wasn't one before.

So your "only 1 correct answer" depends on who you talk to.

And no, you are not defending the process of prosecution, you are committed to ignoring the vast and numerous indications that Armstrong has been a doper, and his team systematically doped its riders. The court of public opinion is something that will always be with us and that we will always participate in. You are participating in it as well, in case you haven't noticed. We know what your opinion is.



DMFT said:


> - Thanks for the refresher sappie66. 04' to me is STILL early 2000's. Surely Ashenden et al were testing/developing prior to uncovering the "positives" that they had not B-sample to show proof that their research was perfectly correct.
> 
> Sounds like a solid test to me.....NO B sample to confirm the A sample. Shady chain-of-custody and a lab that has been shown to test samples AFTER LA's 99' sample repeatedly until they get the reading they want - positive.
> 
> Yeah, believable testing all the way..........


No problem, any time.

Who said there was "shady chain of custody"? Was it that Emile Vrijman? Who said they tested LA's 1999 samples repeatedly? They obtained a positive before they knew they belonged to Armstrong. It was only leaked later that they belonged to Armstrong.



DMFT said:


> They did afterall have the HC limit to sanction riders by which in MY belief is more sound than the EPO test.


The arbitrary haematocrit limit of 50% was effective only to legalize doping up to that limit. It was perfectly okay for riders to juice themselves up to 49% (and stay at 49% over the course of a 3-week grand tour). If 50% or over, they were given a break from riding until their limits came down, for "health reasons." It was this kind of ineptitude that characterized the UCI under Hein Verbruggen, and seems to be continued by McQuaid. This was not sound policy at all.



rydbyk said:


> He still won. 7 times. Versus other dopers.
> 
> There should be TWO debates so this does not get clouded any more. One debate about his "personality" and the other about his "doping". Two. Separate. Issues. No, he did not "force" other grown men to dope either.


Yes, he was the best of the dopers.

Yes, he was very much a part of the movement that "forced" other grown men to dope. Lesser riders had no choice but to dope in order just to stay with the pack. They either doped or quit the sport that they loved and committed their lives to. Lance Armstrong was part of the problem, not the solution. A very very big part of the problem. I know I am repeating myself, but Lance Armstrong not only observed the _omerta_, he was the most aggressive enforcer of it. He was never interested in being part of the solution. He was in a position to be an highly influential advocate for clean sport, but he did not. Being the "most tested rider" and "never having tested positive", he should have had nothing to fear. Ha ha.


----------



## DMFT

sappie66 said:


> The existence of a TUE does not make the need for it, in any given case, legitimate. Many riders had TUEs for various reasons, all they need is a doctor saying that he has a condition requiring medication that happens to contain something on the banned substances list. It is, however, interesting that a greater percentage of riders requiring asthma medication is far greater than that of the general population .
> 
> If TUE's were the "norm" as you say, that would indeed be telling.
> 
> Armstrong suddenly had a TUE for corticoids after he tested positive in 1999. Emma O'Reilly says that the Postal staff decided to obtain and backdate a doctor's prescription for saddle-sore cream, and therefore obtained a TUE when there wasn't one before.
> 
> So your "only 1 correct answer" depends on who you talk to.
> 
> And no, you are not defending the process of prosecution, you are committed to ignoring the vast and numerous indications that Armstrong has been a doper, and his team systematically doped its riders. The court of public opinion is something that will always be with us and that we will always participate in. You are participating in it as well, in case you haven't noticed. We know what your opinion is.
> 
> - Really? Glad you know what I think...
> 
> No problem, any time.
> 
> Who said there was "shady chain of custody"? Was it that Emile Vrijman? Who said they tested LA's 1999 samples repeatedly? They obtained a positive before they knew they belonged to Armstrong. It was only leaked later that they belonged to Armstrong.
> 
> - I never said they knew they belonged to Armstrong or any other rider.
> 
> The arbitrary haematocrit limit of 50% was effective only to legalize doping up to that limit. It was perfectly okay for riders to juice themselves up to 49% (and stay at 49% over the course of a 3-week grand tour). If 50% or over, they were given a break from riding until their limits came down, for "health reasons." It was this kind of ineptitude that characterized the UCI under Hein Verbruggen, and seems to be continued by McQuaid. This was not sound policy at all.
> 
> - Solution that the UCI should have taken: Lower the 50% mark to a more normal-human level.
> 
> Yes, he was the best of the dopers.
> 
> Yes, he was very much a part of the movement that "forced" other grown men to dope. Lesser riders had no choice but to dope in order just to stay with the pack. They either doped or quit the sport that they loved and committed their lives to. Lance Armstrong was part of the problem, not the solution. A very very big part of the problem. I know I am repeating myself, but Lance Armstrong not only observed the _omerta_, he was the most aggressive enforcer of it. He was never interested in being part of the solution. He was in a position to be an highly influential advocate for clean sport, but he did not. Being the "most tested rider" and "never having tested positive", he should have had nothing to fear. Ha ha.
> 
> - Debateable. But that's what a forum is for...


----------



## rubbersoul

kiwisimon said:


> Yeah good point, except looking straight at a camera isn't something non media people instinctively do. Eyes not looking at a camera is probably a natural reaction.


Goint point, and the flip side is also true. Just because someone can stare directly into the camera lens while lying doesn't imply honesty, rather perhaps a sociopath


----------



## sappie66

DMFT said:


> sappie66 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The existence of a TUE does not make the need for it, in any given case, legitimate. Many riders had TUEs for various reasons, all they need is a doctor saying that he has a condition requiring medication that happens to contain something on the banned substances list. It is, however, interesting that a greater percentage of riders requiring asthma medication is far greater than that of the general population .
> 
> If TUE's were the "norm" as you say, that would indeed be telling.
> 
> Armstrong suddenly had a TUE for corticoids after he tested positive in 1999. Emma O'Reilly says that the Postal staff decided to obtain and backdate a doctor's prescription for saddle-sore cream, and therefore obtained a TUE when there wasn't one before.
> 
> So your "only 1 correct answer" depends on who you talk to.
> 
> And no, you are not defending the process of prosecution, you are committed to ignoring the vast and numerous indications that Armstrong has been a doper, and his team systematically doped its riders. The court of public opinion is something that will always be with us and that we will always participate in. You are participating in it as well, in case you haven't noticed. We know what your opinion is.
> 
> - Really? Glad you know what I think...
> 
> *---- Your opinion is clearly evident. Everyone else knows what you think too.*
> 
> No problem, any time.
> 
> Who said there was "shady chain of custody"? Was it that Emile Vrijman? Who said they tested LA's 1999 samples repeatedly? They obtained a positive before they knew they belonged to Armstrong. It was only leaked later that they belonged to Armstrong.
> 
> - I never said they knew they belonged to Armstrong or any other rider.
> 
> *--- No, you said they tested LA's samples repeatedly until they got the result that they wanted. You were suggesting it was a witchhunt, which it was not.*
> 
> The arbitrary haematocrit limit of 50% was effective only to legalize doping up to that limit. It was perfectly okay for riders to juice themselves up to 49% (and stay at 49% over the course of a 3-week grand tour). If 50% or over, they were given a break from riding until their limits came down, for "health reasons." It was this kind of ineptitude that characterized the UCI under Hein Verbruggen, and seems to be continued by McQuaid. This was not sound policy at all.
> 
> - Solution that the UCI should have taken: Lower the 50% mark to a more normal-human level.
> 
> *--- No, that would not be a solution. If they lowered it to 45%, they would all dope to 44%.*
> 
> Yes, he was the best of the dopers.
> 
> Yes, he was very much a part of the movement that "forced" other grown men to dope. Lesser riders had no choice but to dope in order just to stay with the pack. They either doped or quit the sport that they loved and committed their lives to. Lance Armstrong was part of the problem, not the solution. A very very big part of the problem. I know I am repeating myself, but Lance Armstrong not only observed the _omerta_, he was the most aggressive enforcer of it. He was never interested in being part of the solution. He was in a position to be an highly influential advocate for clean sport, but he did not. Being the "most tested rider" and "never having tested positive", he should have had nothing to fear. Ha ha.
> 
> - Debateable. But that's what a forum is for...
> 
> 
> 
> The comments in bold, in the quote, are mine.
> 
> Thank you, yes it is debateable, but you have chosen not to address this point. My point is that he could have spoken out for clean sport and supported those riders who did so, or he could have at least stayed out of their way by not saying anything, but instead, HE SHUT THEM DOWN!
> 
> DMFT, please address this point.
Click to expand...


----------



## by666

*who cares*

lance was doping and everyone else was too. there are a lot of other things Feds should be spending their money on other than investigating a retired cyclist in a sport that 95% of americans dont know anything about or care about. How about an investigation into wall street bankers that would be a great place to spend some money.


----------



## terzo rene

Just saw that Bruyneel left the Giro last night. NAS "missed it by that much" to quote Maxwell Smart. Must have needed to rush home to check his DVR got all of 60 Minutes.


----------



## Tight Nipples

SilasCL said:


> Here's the thread in question:
> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=218753
> 
> Funny, I don't remember you participating in it, just a guy named Perico who has since received a perma-ban. Funny that...


And where or where has H88 been lately? Hmmm, had so much to say....:idea:


----------



## Tight Nipples

SilasCL said:


> Here's the thread in question:
> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=218753
> 
> Funny, I don't remember you participating in it, just a guy named Perico who has since received a perma-ban. Funny that...


And where or where has H88 been lately? Hmmm, had so much to say....:idea: It seemed like he was going to be an interesting "new" addition around here. And then...


----------

