UCI vs AFLD round 3 *ding ding*

2»

Comments

  • SpaceJunk
    SpaceJunk Posts: 1,157
    BikingBernie wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    Stuff the journalists -why dont we let the well known doping sage BikingBernie to pick who is guilty or not base on his criteria after all he with no evidence he says Lance blood doped at this years Tour.
    I wouldn't say that there was 'no' evidence. And hasn't Armstrong now removed his blood data from his website?

    http://tinyurl.com/yfcbn6w

    http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/ ... suspicious

    lancearmstrongblood2009.png

    So the above chart provides evidence that LA doped? Cool, can't wait until the UCI/WADA/AFLD et al. act on this evidence and ban the doping cheat!
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    iainf72 wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    Even if "it" looks great / perfect someone will come along claiming it's too perfect to be true. Just doesn't make sense to me. Then again neither do a great many things. To be honest I've been a skeptic all my life.

    What you do is get a respected anti-doping expert to provide some analysis with the numbers.

    If you were a skeptic, you'd not just accept what Lance says so blinding Dennis.

    You misunderstand me. Don't think I ever said "I believe everything Lance says". Correct me if I'm wrong. :wink::wink:
    I'm skeptical of just about everything, YOU, ME, THEM , IT.
    In any case it strikes me as odd that people would attempt a, so called, "preemptive strike" and try a prove they are innocent before even being called up on charges. Sort of sounds like they are saying "Well. I'm not guilty NOW........" "No, I didn't kill my wife, YET ..."
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    SpaceJunk wrote:
    So the above chart provides evidence that LA doped? Cool, can't wait until the UCI/WADA/AFLD et al. act on this evidence and ban the doping cheat!
    Evidence? Yes. Ths sort of conclusive proof that would lead to sanctions even when attacked by Armstrong's army of lawyers? Probably not. Just like the UCI's 'Passport' scheme in fact...
  • SpaceJunk
    SpaceJunk Posts: 1,157
    BikingBernie wrote:
    SpaceJunk wrote:
    So the above chart provides evidence that LA doped? Cool, can't wait until the UCI/WADA/AFLD et al. act on this evidence and ban the doping cheat!
    Evidence? Yes. Ths sort of conclusive proof that would lead to sanctions even when attacked by Armstrong's army of lawyers? Probably not. Just like the UCI's 'Passport' scheme in fact...

    Thanks BB for clearing that up for me and helping me understand LA dopes.

    Next case.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    BikingBernie wrote:
    Perhaps he did it because he said he was going to when he announced his comeback. Much like he announced that he was going to allow Don Catlin to test him...

    Well, someone of this parish did ask Mr Armstrong about this well before it got canned (as expected) and he got all uppity.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,549
    Uppity? It was more of a flounce wasn't it? :wink:
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    He turned his back on Pete Cossins in a Mighty Boosh style.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    BikingBernie wrote:
    SpaceJunk wrote:
    So the above chart provides evidence that LA doped? Cool, can't wait until the UCI/WADA/AFLD et al. act on this evidence and ban the doping cheat!
    Evidence? Yes. Ths sort of conclusive proof that would lead to sanctions even when attacked by Armstrong's army of lawyers? Probably not. Just like the UCI's 'Passport' scheme in fact...

    So really no evidence as such then thanks for clearing that up for me Bernie ..
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !

Categories