AFLD v Armstrong

dennisn

iainf72 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

I don't follow those things as closely as yourself. I have given my doctor money for services rendered and consider him a "friend" of my, although we don't see each other socially much. Read what you will into why he gave him 10%. If that's true? Like I say I don't follow it that close.

I think in this case, your President perhaps says it best

http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/03 ... mas-p.html

Around 4 minutes

I see your point but I was talking about people having friends. I know a little about the subject. As far as Lances and Dr. F's finances, well, I'll leave that up to whomever wants to track it all down. Be my guest. Sounds like a bit of a snoozer though. Maybe some night when I can't sleep I'll read up on the subject.

Dennis Noward

iainf72

dennisn wrote:

I see your point but I was talking about people having friends. I know a little about the subject. As far as Lances and Dr. F's finances, well, I'll leave that up to whomever wants to track it all down. Be my guest. Sounds like a bit of a snoozer though. Maybe some night when I can't sleep I'll read up on the subject.

I've often wondered when you do sleep. It must be the middle of the night sometimes when you're posting.

The info you need is in the excellent David Walsh book, From Lance to Landis

http://www.amazon.com/Lance-Landis-Insi ... 383&sr=8-1

You could probably pick it up at your local Borders too.

dennisn

iainf72 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

I see your point but I was talking about people having friends. I know a little about the subject. As far as Lances and Dr. F's finances, well, I'll leave that up to whomever wants to track it all down. Be my guest. Sounds like a bit of a snoozer though. Maybe some night when I can't sleep I'll read up on the subject.

I've often wondered when you do sleep. It must be the middle of the night sometimes when you're posting.

The info you need is in the excellent David Walsh book, From Lance to Landis

http://www.amazon.com/Lance-Landis-Insi ... 383&sr=8-1

You could probably pick it up at your local Borders too.

I could barely get through Lances first book. Not my kind of reading material. Stuff like
Atlas Shrugged, Lonesome Dove, 100 Years of Solitude, Crime and Punishment, Midnights Children(Rushdie). Things like that. Not really interested in bio's of people.

Dennis Noward

cadenza

Same here dennis. Like you, I too have a real life. Much prefer riding my bike and reading literary works that I find enjoyable, rather than spend an unhealthy chunk of my time studiously researching sites/blogs/reports/media/court papers etc etc etc in the hope of finding that one teensy weensy piece of "evidence" against a successful, rich, popular sportsman who wouldn't give a rats p*ss even if they found it. Some folks, in their contrary way, are more obsessed with him than the "fan boys" they berate so often.

Well...I find it amusing anyway.

pottssteve

Just watched LA's video on the news page of Bikeradar.

"He (the Lone Tester) asked me for my "ear"". "I thought this was odd until I realised it was hair"...

Comic genius.

The French are playing mind games and LA's taking the p*ss as much as they are! They'll insist he rides it on a mountain bike next, and still no Frenchman will win it...

(Mind you, if they did take his ear his Oakleys would fall off....)

iainf72

The comeback has been important to me for two main reasons,” Armstrong said. “Obviously I have a passion for cycling, still, but more importantly I have a passion for the global fight against cancer. It started in Australia, it went to California, it went to Mexico, I’m taking it to Italy, and certainly we wanted to tell that story in France. But if we can’t do that, we can’t do that, and that’s really their call. It’s their event, their country and their rules, so we have to play by those.”

But not so important to take "the message" to the homeland of your sponsors, who after all have the highest rate of cancer in central Asia. Levi, Alberto and Johan have managed to put in an appearance.

Oh, and the irony of "and their rules so we have to play by those" - The problem is you didn't play by the rules.

Curious how anyone can look at his pattern of behaviour since his return and feel comfortable with it.

Meh.

blazing_saddles

I think the French know a thing or two about cancer care, if looking at their remission rates, comapred to ours.

BTW: The Vid: Is there any signidicance in the fcat that Armstrong is constantly looking down and to the left? Isn't this a well known "tell" for something?

markwalker

On cycling news this morning

Pat McQuaid, president of the International Cycling Union (UCI), weighed in on the conduct of the Agence Française de Lutte contre le Dopage (AFLD), the French anti-doping agency, regarding its March 17 out-of-competition doping test of Lance Armstrong where, the AFLD claims, he disobeyed procedures.

"The French authorities decided to make up a report on the testing procedure, forward it to the UCI, knowing the UCI has no jurisdiction on the case, and at the same time that report has leaked to the press," said McQuaid as reported by BikeRadar on Friday.

"I would have to question why that is the case.

"Normal proceedings between institutions such as national anti-doping agencies, the international federation and the World anti-doping agency (WADA) are normally done in a professional and confidential way until a decision or sanction has been taken," he continued. "In this case it was leaked to the press and I do find that disturbing."

Lance Armstrong reiterated in a video on Friday what he stated in a previously released statement, that the tester had an opportunity in the paperwork to state if there were any irregularities in the testing procedure and the tester indicated "no".

Armstrong said on video, "I suspect this will escalate, and we'll see even more antics out of the AFLD in the near future. There's a very high likelihood that they will prohibit me from riding the Tour (de France)."

So everyone after three

Its not fair boooo hoooo the french are out to get me. See see even fat pat says so and hes in charge you know.

MESSAGE FOR LANCE They are out to get you cause youre a cheating scuzbucket.

Tally ho best regards
Mark

aurelio_-_banned

Simon E wrote:

McQuaid sounded pathetic.

iPlayer link. The piece is at 2 hrs 27mins (sorry don't know how to link it so it jumps there, though I've seen it done before). Once again the cycling itself goes unreported while doping and/or Lance fills the stage

The blatant anti-French agenda in all this is clear to see, even the BBC man makes a snide comment about what 'the French' would think of another 'win' by Armstrong.

I am sure that all this French-baiting so cleverly engineered by Armstrong will go down well with his 'true believers,' strengthening their faith and even helping to strengthen 'the brand'. After all, Armstrong has often played on anti-French xenophobia in the USA, making such hatred almost a central part of his 'brand', and his fans clearly lap it all up. As that article on him from the Texas Monthly put it: 'Lance is on top of the world; what could possibly motivate him anymore? Well, there's rubbing the Gallic nose into the pavement again, always a trusty pleasure.

Of course, such anti-French xenophobia doesn't just go down well in the US. Look at some of the comments over on 'veloriders'.

http://www.veloriders.co.uk/phpBB2/view ... 8&start=20

Also, to be fair Armstrong is not alone in exploiting anti-French xenophobia in order to make their 'brand' more attractive to their core followers/ the companies who exploit their image. Just look at that pathetic advert Chris Hoy did. :roll:

Beatmaker

Blazing Saddles wrote:

I think the French know a thing or two about cancer care, if looking at their remission rates, comapred to ours.

BTW: The Vid: Is there any signidicance in the fcat that Armstrong is constantly looking down and to the left? Isn't this a well known "tell" for something?

Wrong. Its commonly acknowledged that you look to the left whilst expressing logic and to the right whilst expressing emotion. If there were anything in Armstrong's glances to the left it would actually indicate he is thinking in terms of fact not creativity. Besides, even if it were the other way around do you not think the Armstrong "PR machine" would have ensured no such "tells" as you put it were published over the internet to an international audience.

aurelio_-_banned

markwalker wrote:

On cycling news this morning

"The French authorities decided to make up a report on the testing procedure, forward it to the UCI, knowing the UCI has no jurisdiction on the case, and at the same time that report has leaked to the press," said McQuaid as reported by BikeRadar on Friday.

"I would have to question why that is the case. "

Perhaps because, if true, 'the French Authorities' have the balls to stand up to the arrogant sod and don't want to let him get away, once again, with completely dominating the discussion via his usual media and internet based propaganda offensive?

In any case didn't the details about what happened when the tester turned up come not from 'the French Authorities' but from an individual who said that they did not want to be named because they had no official authority to speak about the issue?

aurelio_-_banned

Beatmaker wrote:

Its commonly acknowledged that you look to the left whilst expressing logic and to the right whilst expressing emotion. I

Ha! What cod-psychology book did you get that little jem from? A failure to make 'eye contact' on the other hand might well be significant...

iainf72

aurelio wrote:

Ha! What cod-psychology book did you get that little jem from? A failure to make 'eye contact' on the other hand might well be significant...

Failure to make eye contact would be pure cod-psychology. If you want to see if someone is lying you need to look for things they don't usually do. Looking someone in the eyes is a fairly unnatural thing to do - You'd generally look around people's eyes etc.

aurelio_-_banned

iainf72 wrote:

The comeback has been important to me for two main reasons,” Armstrong said. “Obviously I have a passion for cycling, still, but more importantly I have a passion for the global fight against cancer. It started in Australia, it went to California, it went to Mexico, I’m taking it to Italy, and certainly we wanted to tell that story in France. But if we can’t do that, we can’t do that, and that’s really their call.

I am still confused as to what Armstrong's 'fight against cancer' amounts to. Telling people who have cancer to look on the positive side and to see having cancer as being a literally 'golden' opportunity to 'broaden and deepen' their 'brand', perhaps, as Armstrong's own manager put it.

How much of his clearly extensive 'twitter time' does Armstrong devote to discussing cancer, it's treatment and so on?

aurelio_-_banned

iainf72 wrote:

Looking someone in the eyes is a fairly unnatural thing to do - You'd generally look around people's eyes etc.

Certainly, maintaining extended eye contact with someone would be 'unnatural', but so is failing to make any sort of contact at all!

Beatmaker

aurelio wrote:

Beatmaker wrote:

Its commonly acknowledged that you look to the left whilst expressing logic and to the right whilst expressing emotion. I

Ha! What cod-psychology book did you get that little jem from? A failure to make 'eye contact' on the other hand might well be significant...

If you actually read my post properly you would have spotted the term "commonly acknoweldged". I was merely pointing out looking to the left is not an indication someone is telling a lie. I will bow down to your apparent superior knowedge on all matters pyschological as I don't profess to be an expert. :roll:

blazing_saddles

Just google it, for Gawd's sake.
Here:
How this information is used to detect lies:
Example: Let's say your child ask's you for a cookie, and you ask them "well, what did your mother say?" As they reply "Mom said... yes." they look to the left. This would indicate a made up answer as their eyes are showing a "constructed image or sound. Looking to the right would indicated a "remembered" voice or image, and thus would be telling the truth.


But does it really matter so much that everyone goes off on a tangent.

aurelio_-_banned

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Just google it, for Gawd's sake.
Here:
How this information is used to detect lies:
Example: Let's say your child ask's you for a cookie, and you ask them "well, what did your mother say?" As they reply "Mom said... yes." they look to the left. This would indicate a made up answer as their eyes are showing a "constructed image or sound. Looking to the right would indicated a "remembered" voice or image, and thus would be telling the truth.

Sorry, but speaking as someone with a first class degree in Psychology, and having specialised in cognitive neuroscience, I would be looking for some rather better sources of information than that!

teagar

It seems to me that which ever side you see is (more) correct you have to believe in some conspiracy. Either Armstrong and those associated with him have been complicit in Armstrong's doping, or else, some people are apparantly conspiring against Armstrong to make him appear to have doped.


Seems a bit odd to me. I always was (am) of the opinion that if it's a "conspiracy" it's usually a load of b*llocks.

Not sure how that fits in with this particular dilema, however.

iainf72

This is quite nicely observed

http://twitter.com/lionelbirnie/status/1496480558

LangerDan

iainf72 wrote:

This is quite nicely observed

http://twitter.com/lionelbirnie/status/1496480558

It's a pity its not an original viewpoint - it was observed on CFA almost a month ago:

Anonymous said...
I was also surprised by Contador's ITT performance. That he beat Wiggins et al. in such a short and flat TT is irritating indeed, but so far we have no direct evidence.

Also noteworthy is that Lance is ridding the Tour of Ireland in 2009. Guess who is part of the organising team: Darach McQuaid, brother of Pat McQuaid. That links the financial interests of the McQuaid family directly to Lance.

It is all just a big circus guys and these mafia-like structures are disgusting. We CFAs should stick with and support local races, true amateur sport is the way to go.

March 15, 2009 6:09 AM



Do bear in mind though that Irish cycling is a very small circle and the McQuaid dynasty (from Pats father Jim downwards) has been an integral part of this for decades. It would be unusual to have an event of that level without a McQuaid involved somewhere - Darrach McQuaid ran the ToI last year as well .

iainf72

LangerDan wrote:

Do bear in mind though that Irish cycling is a very small circle and the McQuaid dynasty (from Pats father Jim downwards) has been an integral part of this for decades. It would be unusual to have an event of that level without a McQuaid involved somewhere - Darrach McQuaid ran the ToI last year as well .

Is that a polite way of saying you're all inbred?

Speaking of CFA, have you seen his observation about Lance's magic moving Hematocrit? Note to Lance, if you going to post made up numbers, try and use the same ones, eh?

afx237vi

Can we please get an online petition going to get CFA updating his/her blog again? I hate Twitter :twisted:

iainf72

afx237vi wrote:

Can we please get an online petition going to get CFA updating his/her blog again? I hate Twitter :twisted:

It's McQuaids fault. He promised us passport results and then didn't deliver, so now we have to put up with Twitter.

I always figured a 133t guy like you would love Twitter.

afx237vi

I used to be l33t, but then they changed what l33t was. Now, what I'm with isn't l33t, and what's l33t seems weird and scary to me.

Kléber

teagar wrote:

It seems to me that which ever side you see is (more) correct you have to believe in some conspiracy.

I don't see much of a conspiracy. For sure, he could have been panicking when the tester was there but maybe the tester got things wrong. We'll know more in due course.

What I find disappointing is the babyish rants via video and Twitter. There's no conspiracy about it, this amounts to an aggressive attack on the French anti-doping authorities by Armstrong. He's escalated what could have been portrayed as an administrative bungle into a nationalistic feud. The AFLD are, amongst others, guardians of our sport. For a top rider to seek a fight with the anti-doping controllers is regrettable.

Monty Dog

I'm with Kleber - one rider and his cronies in the UCI are turning this sport into a laughing stock through their cynical manipulation of the truth..

grandad3

Theyr'e plotting against me, sob sob.

skavanagh.bikeradar

At the start of the comeback many on here, me included, thought we'd be in for months of irritating Lance PR about his magic bib shorts, his special climbing tyres, the weight of his rice dishes etc etc....but in fact it's been worse than that. Much worse. I really wish he'd go away and take Fat Pat the Stupid Twit with him. Enough already.

teagar

Kléber wrote:

teagar wrote:

It seems to me that which ever side you see is (more) correct you have to believe in some conspiracy.

I don't see much of a conspiracy. For sure, he could have been panicking when the tester was there but maybe the tester got things wrong. We'll know more in due course.

i meant more generally. Clearly any doping programme in a sport is a form of conspiracy, especially if there is help from a Dr. (Ferrari..).

Similarly, Armstrong palms off accusations of doping in '99 on arguments revolving around "people are conspiring to drag my name through the mud and claim I dope", and such like.

His constant chimes that there is a plot in France to make him out to have been doping smacks of a conspiracy theory.

Inevitably, so do claims of an organised doping programme in which Armstrong et co understood would not be detectable by any anti-doping tests.