AFLD v Armstrong
Comments
-
trolling is the speciality of Nicolo/Paganini...you are here , you are on this thread and you are the locked troll from 2007-08, "pray tell" was your phrase of choice when about to sneer at someone-all you ever did...your name ends the same I see0
-
???? If you are suggesting that I am 'Nicolo/Paganini', I have to say that, once again, you are totally wrong!Dave_1 wrote:trolling is the speciality of Nicolo/Paganini...you are here , you are on this thread and you are the locked troll from 2007-08, "pray tell" was your phrase of choice when about to sneer at someone-all you ever did...your name ends the same I see0 -
aurelio wrote:
???? If you are suggesting that I am 'Nicolo/Paganini', I have to say that, once again, you are totally wrong!Dave_1 wrote:trolling is the speciality of Nicolo/Paganini...you are here , you are on this thread and you are the locked troll from 2007-08, "pray tell" was your phrase of choice when about to sneer at someone-all you ever did...your name ends the same I see
then why do you use the phrase "pray tell" at the start of sentences...I can check back if you insist...you have identical English style and a similar attitude......you've been locked twice on this forum in 07 and 08...you have no right to call anyone a troll...0 -
And I thought that you believed in having concrete evidence before making accusations! If using a single phrase or displaying a 'similar attitude' is evidence of more than two people actually being the same person, then perhaps there are only 3 or 4 posters on this whole forum! Why use the phrase? Perhaps because having read it elsewhere, perhaps in one of 'Paganins' comments (although I can't remember the name), I found it amusing and subconsciously recycled it. Anyhow, let me assure you I am not 'Paganini', nor 'Nicolo', no have I ever been banned from any forum!Dave_1 wrote:
then why do you use the phrase "pray tell" at the start of sentences...I can check back if you insist...you have identical English style and a similar attitude......you've been locked twice on this forum in 07 and 08...you have no right to call anyone a troll...aurelio wrote:???? If you are suggesting that I am 'Nicolo/Paganini', I have to say that, once again, you are totally wrong!0 -
aurelio wrote:
And I thought that you believed in having concrete evidence before making accusations! If using a single phrase or displaying a 'similar attitude' is evidence of more than two people actually being the same person, then perhaps there are only 3 or 4 posters on this whole forum! Why use the phrase? Perhaps because having read it elsewhere, perhaps in one of 'Paganins' comments (although I can't remember the name), I found it amusing and subconsciously recycled it. Anyhow, let me assure you I am not 'Paganini', nor 'Nicolo', no have I ever been banned from any forum!Dave_1 wrote:
then why do you use the phrase "pray tell" at the start of sentences...I can check back if you insist...you have identical English style and a similar attitude......you've been locked twice on this forum in 07 and 08...you have no right to call anyone a troll...aurelio wrote:???? If you are suggesting that I am 'Nicolo/Paganini', I have to say that, once again, you are totally wrong!
Yes, exactly, ...when you are about to post a rhetorical question you prefix it with "pray tell" like the paganini-Nicolo (you stylistically resemble them ). I see you don't deny you start sentences so...but given you've been pulled up on here a number of times-had post removed...you are fairly close to being locked at times as the mods have to keep on top of you. You have had at least 1 previous username locked IMO....you've been found out pag/nicolo0 -
Dave_1 wrote:aurelio wrote:
And I thought that you believed in having concrete evidence before making accusations! If using a single phrase or displaying a 'similar attitude' is evidence of more than two people actually being the same person, then perhaps there are only 3 or 4 posters on this whole forum! Why use the phrase? Perhaps because having read it elsewhere, perhaps in one of 'Paganins' comments (although I can't remember the name), I found it amusing and subconsciously recycled it. Anyhow, let me assure you I am not 'Paganini', nor 'Nicolo', no have I ever been banned from any forum!Dave_1 wrote:
then why do you use the phrase "pray tell" at the start of sentences...I can check back if you insist...you have identical English style and a similar attitude......you've been locked twice on this forum in 07 and 08...you have no right to call anyone a troll...aurelio wrote:???? If you are suggesting that I am 'Nicolo/Paganini', I have to say that, once again, you are totally wrong!
Yes, exactly, ...when you are about to post a rhetorical question you prefix it with "pray tell" like the paganini-Nicolo (you stylistically resemble them ). I see you don't deny you start sentences so...but given you've been pulled up on here a number of times-had post removed...you are fairly close to being locked at times as the mods have to keep on top of you. You have had at least 1 previous username locked IMO....you've been found out pag/nicolo
You seem pretty certain what the mods are up to; are you one or do you just like to keep in close contact with them?0 -
GoLance wrote:iainf72 wrote:GoLance wrote:It's L'Equipe for crying out loud! They hate Lance's guts! And I wouldn't blame him for being fed up with dope control visiting him every 5 frickin' seconds and as a result slamming the door in their face! As he said: 'You can do as many tests as you want, you won't find anything.' :x
What's L'equipe got to do with it?
The AFLD have the right to test athletes in France. Ivan Basso got tested by the Spanish authorities in Tenerife a few days ago. Lance knows the rules and he disobeyed them. That's the reality, you can try and mitigate them any way you like.
Remember, this is a man who claims to be "most tested" which he isn't by a country mile.
L'Equipe published the story, so probably made it sound worse than it actually was in my opinion. But I can't say for sure, I haven't read it. I'm just a little fed up of him being picked on, but I can understand why people pick on him.
I think you might be getting confused with the leaked 1999 samples- which were procured by an investigative french journalist working for l'equipe.
I found this interview on the subject interesting,
http://velocitynation.com/content/inter ... l-ashenden
With regards to his latest problems with the AFLD you really have to wade through Armstrong's PR spin in order to make any sort of objective view on the issue. What happened is well documented- you just need to ask if the situation seems strange, or whether you feel Armstrong was justified in his reactions. Note* Watching Armstrong's pr videos on Livestrong.com and reading his twitter feed are not objective sources of evidence! (just as using l'equipe as your sole source wouldn't be objective)
I personally feel his actions were very odd- I don't think this necessarily adds up to outright evidence of doping or cheating but it is undeniably strange. Why disappear out of sight of the tester for 30 mins? Armstrong has been in this game long enough to know that this could cause a controversy.
I can't understand anybody who would accept the idea that 'the testers' are pests and infringement on the liberties of athletes or whatever. The reality is, the problem of doping is prevalent in the sport, and actions have to be taken to make doping as hard as possible. Is it really that inconvenient to piss in a pot every couple of weeks? Is it unreasonable to ask athletes to submit regular samples for testing? No. All job's have certain responsibilities and this is an unfortunate but unavoidable part of being a professional cycling.
You would think if an athlete had nothing to hide, then he'd be willing, even eager to submit to the tests and keen for all of his rivals to do the same.0 -
Then again, you would also think that a clean rider would support those who break the doping 'omerta', rather than attempting to bully them into silence / out of the sport altogether. After all, given the effectiveness of modern doping, a clean rider would have little chance against a rider on an expertly managed doping program (For example one managed by someone like Ferrari).gregssmirkingrevenge wrote:You would think if an athlete had nothing to hide, then he'd be willing, even eager to submit to the tests and keen for all of his rivals to do the same.
0 -
Some sensible comment on the Armstrong / AFLD issue from cyclingnews.com of all places!
Since the situation was made public, certain elements of the media - plus a large proportion of Armstrong's fans - have said that the incident was blown out of all proportion. The Texan has furthered the notion that this is much ado about nothing, playing on anti-French sentiment which built up in the US before the second Gulf War, and suggesting that this is simply sour grapes on the part of that nation.
http://fry.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... /apr20news
Of course, Dick Pound's own comments are also on the ball:
"I think it is pretty clear. If you are selected for testing, you have to be chaperoned from the time you are notified until the time you provide the sample," he told Cyclingnews in recent days. "Lance, who calls himself the world's most tested athlete, certainly knows that. Yet on some kind of pretext that they didn't recognise the tester - or whatever it was - his manager stays down with him while Lance disappears for half an hour. That is totally contrary to the rules."
"You can catherise [using clean urine - ed.], you can drink tons and tons of water, you can do all sorts of things to spoil or affect the test. So that is exactly why you have this rule," he said.
"There are just too many things that can happen that can affect the integrity of the test. That is why the rule is very clear - you must be chaperoned. And anybody who has been tested before knows that.
"So to still leave the proximity of the tester knowing that point....well, I can see why the AFLD is saying ‘hey, wait a minute, that's either a missed test or a refusal or something.' You can't trust the test [results] in that case."
P.s. I have a feeling that not only is 'Go Lance' trolling, he is actually a sockpuppet of Dave_1 0 -
aurelio wrote:
Going by what they have written, I feel that 'Go Lance' is much too much of a lost cause to be a candidate for 'deprogramming'...Arkibal wrote:
sure aurelio will take care of that....skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:Fanboy or not, can we shortcut all the usual crap and have someone post all the necessary links to reading about this subject so that GoLance can have all the relevant information at his fingertips.
Of course, he (or she) may just be trolling....
Yep I sure am. But I'm happy to read your views on Lance, even if I disagree...
And by the way I am a bloke...'You are not worth the chair you are sitting on with a statement like that...and I'm not sure I'll ever forgive you.'
(Lance Armstrong)0 -
aurelio wrote:
P.s. I have a feeling that not only is 'Go Lance' trolling, he is actually a sockpuppet of Dave_1
I'm not trolling, I'm not a fisherman. And I'd like to find this 'Dave_1', sounds like I'd get on well with him!'You are not worth the chair you are sitting on with a statement like that...and I'm not sure I'll ever forgive you.'
(Lance Armstrong)0 -
GoLance wrote:aurelio wrote:
P.s. I have a feeling that not only is 'Go Lance' trolling, he is actually a sockpuppet of Dave_1
I'm not trolling, I'm not a fisherman. And I'd like to find this 'Dave_1', sounds like I'd get on well with him!
yeah im sure you could spend hours together chewing the fat. Lance sucks and you want some loser.
Very best regards
Uncle Mark0 -
GoLance wrote:aurelio wrote:
Going by what they have written, I feel that 'Go Lance' is much too much of a lost cause to be a candidate for 'deprogramming'...Arkibal wrote:
sure aurelio will take care of that....skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:Fanboy or not, can we shortcut all the usual crap and have someone post all the necessary links to reading about this subject so that GoLance can have all the relevant information at his fingertips.
Of course, he (or she) may just be trolling....
Yep I sure am. But I'm happy to read your views on Lance, even if I disagree...
And by the way I am a bloke...
What did you make of the Michael Ashenden link?0 -
For anyone actually interested, the following has been reported on 'CyclingFans.com' suggesting that LA will get to ride the tour -
http://www.cyclingfans.com/0 -
The France 2 video is worth watching - particularly for the information that, although Armstrong claims all 3 tests were negative, in fact only the blood and urine samples were 'clean'. The results of the hair samples are not yet known.
Interesting to speculate that the two tests that could be skewed 'in the shower' are negative whilst the one that couldn't has an as yet undisclosed outcome.0 -
markwalker wrote:GoLance wrote:aurelio wrote:
P.s. I have a feeling that not only is 'Go Lance' trolling, he is actually a sockpuppet of Dave_1
I'm not trolling, I'm not a fisherman. And I'd like to find this 'Dave_1', sounds like I'd get on well with him!
yeah im sure you could spend hours together chewing the fat. Lance sucks and you want some loser.
Very best regards
Uncle Mark
So winning 7 Tours de France is 'sucking' at pro bike racing is it? You could do better I'm sure...'You are not worth the chair you are sitting on with a statement like that...and I'm not sure I'll ever forgive you.'
(Lance Armstrong)0 -
GoLance wrote:markwalker wrote:GoLance wrote:aurelio wrote:
P.s. I have a feeling that not only is 'Go Lance' trolling, he is actually a sockpuppet of Dave_1
I'm not trolling, I'm not a fisherman. And I'd like to find this 'Dave_1', sounds like I'd get on well with him!
yeah im sure you could spend hours together chewing the fat. Lance sucks and you want some loser.
Very best regards
Uncle Mark
So winning 7 Tours de France is 'sucking' at pro bike racing is it? You could do better I'm sure...
Of course he could. He has all the answers and he knows it. There are a few more of them out there, just like him. Listen carefully to their words of wisdom and be enlightened.
Dennis Noward0 -
Yeah! My Dad is bigger than your Dad. So there. I say so.0
-
skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:Yeah! My Dad is bigger than your Dad. So there. I say so.
Dennis you know that Lance sucks becuase of his drug cheating and bullying and those are well documented facts.
GoLance,just go.0 -
Several people on this forum take the time to post links to infromation, research, press releases and articles, blogs, court papers and so on to inform the debate. It strikes me that it would be in everyone's interest if those that wish to prolong an argument take the time to do the reading and respond to it specifically in their replies rather than indulging in continued slanging or endless debating the man rather than the point. This goes for both sides of the argument.0
-
True, skav, but I can't remember any 'pro-Lance' (if I can generalise) posting links to any sources, material etc.
I guess those on that side of the debate would say its hard to prove a negative and hence their viewpoint is based largely on (1) their reading of the man's 'character' (2) the 'evidence' of no failed dope tests (hence assuming UCI et al are infallible :shock:) and/or (3) that its irrelevant as they were all at it (whilst the other camp would point to an accumulation of circumstantial evidence regarding nefarious actions).
Since (particularly) the 2006 Tour and the 1999 sample results issue there is a heck of a lot more of (3) going on, hence some in the pro-Lance camp maybe wouldn't see the need to sift the evidence?___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
Exactly calvjones, what more can you do than state that there are no positive tests? If someone got hold of every test result for Lance from mid 80's to present and posted a link to each one so every doubter could read them the response would be the same regardless of how many there are:
a) He's one step ahead of the tester's technology.
b) The testers are incompetent anyway.
c) The testers aren't really trying to catch anyone.
Those testers were good enough to catch Hamilton, Landis, Heras, Rico etc etc.
The fact is there are no positive tests and there is no investigation. If there were to be a Riis moment some time in the future so be it, otherwise get over it.O na bawn i fel LA0 -
There are positive tests, both for cortocoids and for EPO. It's just that there was either a UCI cover up, for the cortocoids, or a lack of proper procedure, for the EPO, meaning that no sanctions could be applied. However, the science behind both the cortocoid and the EPO test remains valid.Meds1962 wrote:The fact is there are no positive tests and there is no investigation. If there were to be a Riis moment some time in the future so be it, otherwise get over it.0 -
andyp wrote:
There are positive tests, both for cortocoids and for EPO. It's just that there was either a UCI cover up, for the cortocoids, or a lack of proper procedure, for the EPO, meaning that no sanctions could be applied. However, the science behind both the cortocoid and the EPO test remains valid.Meds1962 wrote:The fact is there are no positive tests and there is no investigation. If there were to be a Riis moment some time in the future so be it, otherwise get over it.
Quite, my point exactly.
I also wouldnt be surprised if Armstrong was being specificaly targeted. Its no conspiracy though, it appears to be practice to target those with abnormal behaviour or results to weed them out.
Lets face it theres more than enough fact and suspicion about lance.0 -
More than enough for what exactly??O na bawn i fel LA0
-
This is a scary article- Not strictly about LA and It's kind of old, but still worth reading.
It's about an ex US cyclist who accused the US olympic committee of giving un-consenting atheles steroid injections- which then went on to cause medical complications in some individuals. Lance was on the team at the time and Chris Carmichael was on the coaching staff.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/04/ ... 4958.shtml
Chris Carmichael was implicated in the allegations but the resulting legal battle was settled out of court- dodgy.
"the committee is asking the judge to keep the records confidential because "public disclosure of these documents would cause annoyance and possible embarrassment for many individual athletes..."0 -
andyp wrote:
There are positive tests, both for cortocoids and for EPO. It's just that there was either a UCI cover up, for the cortocoids, or a lack of proper procedure, for the EPO, meaning that no sanctions could be applied. However, the science behind both the cortocoid and the EPO test remains valid.Meds1962 wrote:The fact is there are no positive tests and there is no investigation. If there were to be a Riis moment some time in the future so be it, otherwise get over it.
No, there were no "positive tests" for EPO. What is true in this case, according to Michael Ashenden and L'Equipe's original story, is that synthetic EPO was present in the samples tested as part of the research project. I think it's an important differentiation to make in this discussion.0 -
The head of the UCI's medical commission recently said there was nothing wrong with the science used as part of the research project. So you can dress it up however you like but the fact remains that six of Armstrong's samples had synthetic EPO in them.leguape wrote:No, there were no "positive tests" for EPO. What is true in this case, according to Michael Ashenden and L'Equipe's original story, is that synthetic EPO was present in the samples tested as part of the research project. I think it's an important differentiation to make in this discussion.0 -
andyp wrote:leguape wrote:
The head of the UCI's medical commission recently said there was nothing wrong with the science used as part of the research project. So you can dress it up however you like but the fact remains that six of Armstrong's samples had synthetic EPO in them.andyp wrote:No, there were no "positive tests" for EPO. What is true in this case, according to Michael Ashenden and L'Equipe's original story, is that synthetic EPO was present in the samples tested as part of the research project. I think it's an important differentiation to make in this discussion.
True - but it isn't correct to say the lack of a "conviction" for EPO in the samples is due to a "lack of proper procedure" which suggests a cover up/incompetence. These were old samples kicking about the lab from a time pre-the EPO test where the A-sample equivalents had long since been used/disposed of. They long since ceased to exist as doping control samples under the proper procedure.0 -
Like umm .... Harry Potter ??... :roll:markwalker wrote:... those are well documented facts.
.
................................................................................................................................................
Sane not CraZy 8)
That's like saying, nobody posts any links proving that the earth is round, not flat .. :?calvjones wrote:True, skav, but I can't remember any 'pro-Lance' (if I can generalise) posting links to any sources, material etc... who said that, internet forum people ?0
