NY Times - Cyclists are said to back claims Armstrong doped

dennisn

jpb08 wrote:

Good point John, but the "legend" that is LA is based around surviving and beating cancer, and using training, willpower and determination alone in the face of adversity to win 7 tours....Cleanly.....The problem I have is the massive lie that "could" have been told by LA....

So, you're all upset with someone, who you don't know, because he might have told a lie? I thought I was bad in constantly wondering why people seem so obcessed with him, but hearing from you about your problem with something that you don't have a clue about is sort of eye opening. At least to me.

No_Ta_Doctor

johnfinch wrote:

Coming back to this cancer charity - does anyone have any proof that the LAF actually tried to mislead people? I've only ever seen one advert by them, which was by people supported by Livestrong, and that one made no reference to research.

I don't think we should be saying whether or not it is a worthy charity - only the people who are unlucky enough to need its services can answer that one.

I think I may have started this bit of the discussion, inadvertently.

The original point I was trying to make is that there is competition between charities for resources - money, publicity etc. The argument that we should leave him alone or we'd damage his charity, and thereby damage the "fight against caner" doesn't work, because there will always be others fighting against cancer, and they might even be better off if Livestrong were to disappear. It was never a comment on the quality of Livestrong as a charity, but that's where the discussion went.

finchy

Yes, jpb08, I don't buy into the superhuman willpower legend either, but then I wouldn't expect anything different from a GT rider in those days. To be someone like Ullrich or Pantani, he probably had to dope as well.

If Lance Armstrong confessed to doping his life would be made hell by the media, so I don't see what choice he has but to continue the lies (assuming that he did dope).

If he was doping last year on the other hand, then that is sheer, kamikaze idiocy.

josame

[quote="dennisn
Hey Dennis just wait one wee moment there.... thanks

We do have a nice bit of evidence from Mr Landis and a few other pure 'cold light of day' eye witnesses to LA doping - not to mention the Anderson article which in paraphrase indicates 'he doped in 99'

I thank you.[/quote]

Don't tell me that you have all this evidence. First thing is - you don't have anything. If you did you would be telling us all about being interviewed by "the feds". Have they gotten in touch with you yet? Not yet you say? Hard to believe, seeing as you have all this evidence. Next time simply say that you THINK he's guilty, not that you know. It's not up to you to decide.[/quote]

Hey Dennis what's ya saying ...'One Ball Gives You Wings'

jpb08

Dennis....There are "lies" and there are LIES....Are you seriously telling me you cant see the difference between someone winning the worlds, 7 TDF's, writing 2 books, setting up a charity "foundation", and making a hell of a lot of money, all based upon this LiveStrong myth, to someone telling a small, everyday, white lie???....

ratsbeyfus

Cadel has a view on all this:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/6469/Evans-advises-people-to-be-patient-in-relation-to-Armstrong-investigation.aspx

“I think if anyone is investigated and then cleared, well then they're more innocent than anyone who's not investigated aren't they?” he asked rhetorically.

Exactly! So LA should be pleased with all this, as it may cement his reputation as the greatest and cleanest Tour rider ever! After all, the only thing LA was ever on 'was his bike'! Don't forget this is the guy who so generously donated his money to the UCI so that they could buy some more equipment to catch the dope cheats he had to share podiums with for all those years.

In fact, instead of complaining about it being a waste of US tax dollars LA should be paying the FEDs to investigate him, so that he can clear his name once and for all and get on with his charity work. Hey, perhaps he could even research the link between taking PEDs and the onset of cancer?

Dennisn, I give in - your incredible grasp of logic, has converted me - I wanna share the object of your man crush! Let the LA into your life you nay-sayers! Shame on you all!

Amen.

dennisn

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Cadel has a view on all this:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/6469/Evans-advises-people-to-be-patient-in-relation-to-Armstrong-investigation.aspx

“I think if anyone is investigated and then cleared, well then they're more innocent than anyone who's not investigated aren't they?” he asked rhetorically.

Dennisn, I give in - your incredible grasp of logic, has converted me - I wanna share the object of your man crush! Let the LA into your life you nay-sayers! Shame on you all!

Amen.

Am I not being clear enough for people to understand why I do this? Have I not told you the reasons many times?
OK, once again then.
I am fascinated by groupies, hangers on, hero worshippers, star struck people who can't seem to get enough of their heros, stars, and celeb's. You know, OC people.
My mind just wants to know why people become this way.
As for being an LA fanboy. No, ya got it wrong again. People chime in on this forum all the time claiming to know this or that about whomever. Lots of times it's very critical with accusations of guilt and wrong doing. For me, I think that people who spout off about all they know, or claim to know, are simply delusional and since they seem to have no problem maligning whomever they please, I don't feel bad at all about telling them what I think of them. Tit for tat. That's fair, isn't it?

whiteboytrash

dennisn wrote:

josame wrote:

dennisn wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

dennisn wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

WisePranker wrote:

jerry3571 wrote:

Absolute Poetry!

-Jerry

.

I BELIEVE BUT DON"T REALLY KNOW FOR SURE there is a mountain of evidence against him. There, fixed that for you.

What shocks me in all of this is that people don’t trust their own eyes. Evidence they ask? Evidence is there in front of you. Watch the 1999 Tour and the stage to Seiestre. Do you really think that was possible what Armstrong did? At the time it beggared belief after everything we saw in 1998 that a person coming from nowhere could ride up a mountain so fast that he had to break going around the corners! Rewatch the 2003 Tour up d’Huez. The footage looks like its going at twice the speed. I think all of us know regardless of what our opinion on Armstrong is that he doped along with his team. You don’t need evidence of dope tests or secret files released from Floyd. I think we all know in our heart of hearts that ProCycling from 1999-2006 was a doped up affair. To think Armstrong was the only rider including members of his team that didn’t dope during that period is really cheating yourself. Be honest.

Once again, if you have all this evidence then bring it to the proper authorities. You're opinions are not the judge, jury, and executioner in this case. Nothing will happen to LA, or any other rider, because YOU think it should. You're nothing in this whole affair. You don't have any, and I mean any, evidence of anything that would convict anyone of anything. If you do please share it with us. Were you on that famous bus ride? Do you know all these things because you rode with the team for years? NO. The only thing you know is what you've read on the internet and from the sounds of it you will believe just about anything, as long as it's anti LA. Sounds like you've got a problem. Jealousy, envy?
Lance makes you feel like a loser? Well, you did ask for honesty.

Hey Dennis just wait one wee moment there.... thanks

We do have a nice bit of evidence from Mr Landis and a few other pure 'cold light of day' eye witnesses to LA doping - not to mention the Anderson article which in paraphrase indicates 'he doped in 99'

I thank you.

Don't tell me that you have all this evidence. First thing is - you don't have anything. If you did you would be telling us all about being interviewed by "the feds". Have they gotten in touch with you yet? Not yet you say? Hard to believe, seeing as you have all this evidence. Next time simply say that you THINK he's guilty, not that you know. It's not up to you to decide.

You're absolutely right. We have no idea what the Federal investigation entails. We have no idea the extent of the investigation or the evidence that may or may not have been collected. 

The investigation could uncover that Lance never doped. The infamous bus ride was just that. A broken down bus. The stories of blood transfusions were made up. Amidst several former USPS riders testing positive and other former USPS riders admissions of drug use Lance stayed clean. 

During a period of wide speed drug use in cycling with several positives and drug raids on doctors with 100's of names of cyclists in their files Lance was able rise above this and not use. In fact it was down to high cadence and weight loss that he and his team were able to beat others on programs of EPO and blood transfusions. 

You still not able to tell us what you think? I'd still like to know what your personal viewpoint is. He rode clean yes? A man so meticulous about his own preparation and that of his team that he had no idea that his own teammates were using? A man so competitive wouldn't be annoyed that his competitors might using to gain an advantage? 

Despite all this you think he might be clean. I know your not going to tell me what you think because deep down you know. I know you you'll keep telling me I wasn't on that bus. But I didn't need to be. The mere fact that you believe and state the bus story exists tells me you know. I know because I watched the races. It wasn't real. Sorry. That's me being honest. You try the same.

ratsbeyfus

dennisn wrote:

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Cadel has a view on all this:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/6469/Evans-advises-people-to-be-patient-in-relation-to-Armstrong-investigation.aspx

“I think if anyone is investigated and then cleared, well then they're more innocent than anyone who's not investigated aren't they?” he asked rhetorically.

Dennisn, I give in - your incredible grasp of logic, has converted me - I wanna share the object of your man crush! Let the LA into your life you nay-sayers! Shame on you all!

Amen.

Am I not being clear enough for people to understand why I do this? Have I not told you the reasons many times?
OK, once again then.
I am fascinated by groupies, hangers on, hero worshippers, star struck people who can't seem to get enough of their heros, stars, and celeb's. You know, OC people.
My mind just wants to know why people become this way.
As for being an LA fanboy. No, ya got it wrong again. People chime in on this forum all the time claiming to know this or that about whomever. Lots of times it's very critical with accusations of guilt and wrong doing. For me, I think that people who spout off about all they know, or claim to know, are simply delusional and since they seem to have no problem maligning whomever they please, I don't feel bad at all about telling them what I think of them. Tit for tat. That's fair, isn't it?

I'm with you all the way Dennisn... with your brains and my looks we can take this forum down and convert the unbelievers! I mean, all these people on a cycling forum showing an interest in bringing down LA coz he 'may have' doped. It's just sickening I tell ya! They're all just jealous because they didn't get to win the tour 7 times! I too, have no real interest in cycling whatsoever... I too am just an independent observer of all this and fascinated by the obsessed. I think its time me and you Dennisn really blew this whole 'LA is dope head' obsession out of the water. Whaddya say Bud?

No_Ta_Doctor

Why does this tune keep sringing to mind?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6OoOhKM_yc

ratsbeyfus

Ignore him Dennisn... don't click on the blue writing in the disbelievers' posts.

dennisn

whiteboytrash wrote:

dennisn wrote:

josame wrote:

dennisn wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

dennisn wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

WisePranker wrote:

jerry3571 wrote:

Absolute Poetry!

-Jerry

.

I BELIEVE BUT DON"T REALLY KNOW FOR SURE there is a mountain of evidence against him. There, fixed that for you.

What shocks me in all of this is that people don’t trust their own eyes. Evidence they ask? Evidence is there in front of you. Watch the 1999 Tour and the stage to Seiestre. Do you really think that was possible what Armstrong did? At the time it beggared belief after everything we saw in 1998 that a person coming from nowhere could ride up a mountain so fast that he had to break going around the corners! Rewatch the 2003 Tour up d’Huez. The footage looks like its going at twice the speed. I think all of us know regardless of what our opinion on Armstrong is that he doped along with his team. You don’t need evidence of dope tests or secret files released from Floyd. I think we all know in our heart of hearts that ProCycling from 1999-2006 was a doped up affair. To think Armstrong was the only rider including members of his team that didn’t dope during that period is really cheating yourself. Be honest.

Once again, if you have all this evidence then bring it to the proper authorities. You're opinions are not the judge, jury, and executioner in this case. Nothing will happen to LA, or any other rider, because YOU think it should. You're nothing in this whole affair. You don't have any, and I mean any, evidence of anything that would convict anyone of anything. If you do please share it with us. Were you on that famous bus ride? Do you know all these things because you rode with the team for years? NO. The only thing you know is what you've read on the internet and from the sounds of it you will believe just about anything, as long as it's anti LA. Sounds like you've got a problem. Jealousy, envy?
Lance makes you feel like a loser? Well, you did ask for honesty.

Hey Dennis just wait one wee moment there.... thanks

We do have a nice bit of evidence from Mr Landis and a few other pure 'cold light of day' eye witnesses to LA doping - not to mention the Anderson article which in paraphrase indicates 'he doped in 99'

I thank you.

Don't tell me that you have all this evidence. First thing is - you don't have anything. If you did you would be telling us all about being interviewed by "the feds". Have they gotten in touch with you yet? Not yet you say? Hard to believe, seeing as you have all this evidence. Next time simply say that you THINK he's guilty, not that you know. It's not up to you to decide.

You're absolutely right. We have no idea what the Federal investigation entails. We have no idea the extent of the investigation or the evidence that may or may not have been collected. 

The investigation could uncover that Lance never doped. The infamous bus ride was just that. A broken down bus. The stories of blood transfusions were made up. Amidst several former USPS riders testing positive and other former USPS riders admissions of drug use Lance stayed clean. 

During a period of wide speed drug use in cycling with several positives and drug raids on doctors with 100's of names of cyclists in their files Lance was able rise above this and not use. In fact it was down to high cadence and weight loss that he and his team were able to beat others on programs of EPO and blood transfusions. 

You still not able to tell us what you think? I'd still like to know what your personal viewpoint is. He rode clean yes? A man so meticulous about his own preparation and that of his team that he had no idea that his own teammates were using? A man so competitive wouldn't be annoyed that his competitors might using to gain an advantage? 

Despite all this you think he might be clean. I know your not going to tell me what you think because deep down you know. I know you you'll keep telling me I wasn't on that bus. But I didn't need to be. The mere fact that you believe and state the bus story exists tells me you know. I know because I watched the races. It wasn't real. Sorry. That's me being honest. You try the same.

Deep down, honest, I don't really care. Did or didn't - don't care.
I'm beginning to think that some of you give drugs way too much credit. Sort of like the people who believe that a carbon seatpost or ceramic bearings are the key to everything.
They believe that with drugs, or the carbon seatpost, you'll be a winner and that anyone who is exceptional must be cheating. He beat everone else - therefore he cheated. Isn't that what you're saying? Or are you saying you have a problem with him because he beat everyone and that's too much for you to handle - therefore he cheated? I vote for the latter. I'm thinking that most "anti" people on this forum can't handle someone that good. That's me being honest.

Monty Dog

C'mon Dennis is just a delusional rambler - having offered to take a bet on this forum, losing and invited to donate the proceedings to a children's charity he has failed to cough-up. It's pretty rich him coming on here defending the honour of others when he doesn't stick to his word.

dennisn

Monty Dog wrote:

C'mon Dennis is just a delusional rambler - having offered to take a bet on this forum, losing and invited to donate the proceedings to a children's charity he has failed to cough-up. It's pretty rich him coming on here defending the honour of others when he doesn't stick to his word.

Wow, you're right MD. So sorry. That slipped my mind completely. My fault.
Will correct it. :oops: :oops:

ratsbeyfus

dennisn wrote:

Monty Dog wrote:

C'mon Dennis is just a delusional rambler - having offered to take a bet on this forum, losing and invited to donate the proceedings to a children's charity he has failed to cough-up. It's pretty rich him coming on here defending the honour of others when he doesn't stick to his word.

Wow, you're right MD. So sorry. That slipped my mind completely. My fault.
Will correct it. :oops: :oops:

Don't let the naysayers get you down... remember Homer at times like these:

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.

Wheelspinner

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Don't let the naysayers get you down... remember Homer at times like these:

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.

Or the Politician's Corollary:

Honesty is the best policy. Use it only when convenient.

lucybears

Moray Gub wrote:

lucybears wrote:

[

All he's saying, Scooter, is if people think they're donating to RESEARCH they're wrong. So if someone throws 100 bucks at a charity thinking it goes towards finding a cure, they'd be wrong and if that's what they wanted perhaps their dollar bills would be better used by another charity.

Many people know exactly what the LAF does and still choose to donate to the charity is that still acceptable to you in this weird charity heirachy you got going ?

of course, if people know exactly what the LAF does and still choose to donate to the charity that is not only acceptable, but welcomed by me. But go out tomorrow and ask people what they think the LAF does, most will say that they fund cancer research. The LAF are, understandably, quite happy with that ....


regarding the the previous posts in this thread touching on the possibily of LA d*ping, as far as I'm corncerned, it's
Not proven
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven
yet...

RichN95.

lucybears wrote:

But go out tomorrow and ask people what they think the LAF does, most will say that they fund cancer research. http:/The LAF are, understandably, quite happy with that ....
.

That's because most people are, by and large, stupid. They jump to conclusions and don't actually take the time consider any facts or do research. They work on gut reaction.

I mean you may well give money to Children in Need, Comic Relief or the British Legion on poppy day because you feel it's the right thing to do. But do you have any real knowledge of what they actually do?

lucybears

RichN95 wrote:

[That's because most people are, by and large, stupid. They jump to conclusions and don't actually take the time consider any facts or do research. They work on gut reaction

maybe, but I'm sure you don't include any of our posters in this thread in that definition

RichN95.

lucybears wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

[That's because most people are, by and large, stupid. They jump to conclusions and don't actually take the time consider any facts or do research. They work on gut reaction

maybe, but I'm sure you don't include any of our posters in this thread in that definition

I certainly do. Including myself at times.

calvjones

RichN95 wrote:

lucybears wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

[That's because most people are, by and large, stupid. They jump to conclusions and don't actually take the time consider any facts or do research. They work on gut reaction

maybe, but I'm sure you don't include any of our posters in this thread in that definition

I certainly do. Including myself at times.

I disagree. Most people are not stupid. Rather, bone idle and anaethsetized to real life by decades of advertising and popular 'culture'

Discuss (TM Iain) :evil:

iainf72

A really good article on the politics of the Armstrong investigation

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/ ... TE=DEFAULT

ratsbeyfus

iainf72 wrote:

A really good article on the politics of the Armstrong investigation

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/ ... TE=DEFAULT

Wahhhh! My 24 hour man crush is over! Thanks for posting this Iain. Sniffle.

micron

Dennisn, seems perhaps it's the riders themselves who give the drugs 'too much credit' http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/italian ... estigation

"He (Roberti) revealed that numerous professional cyclists he has questioned claimed that athletes who don’t dope have an output of 40 per cent below those who do."

blazing_saddles

Landis appeared in interviews on both German and French tv, today.
Dishes the dirt on Postal and torpedoes Bertie's claims at the same time:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/landis- ... in-peloton

dennisn

micron wrote:

Dennisn, seems perhaps it's the riders themselves who give the drugs 'too much credit' http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/italian ... estigation

"He (Roberti) revealed that numerous professional cyclists he has questioned claimed that athletes who don’t dope have an output of 40 per cent below those who do."

While I'm not disputing 40%, I sort of wonder how that figure was arrived at. This Roberti fellow would most likely go for a high figure simply to make doping look worse. It serves his purpose and pumps up his job. I guess I'm just not sure where and when this doping testing was done and how 40% came into being. Police don't exaggerate???? Just asking. :? :? :?

calvjones

dennisn wrote:

micron wrote:

Dennisn, seems perhaps it's the riders themselves who give the drugs 'too much credit' http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/italian ... estigation

"He (Roberti) revealed that numerous professional cyclists he has questioned claimed that athletes who don’t dope have an output of 40 per cent below those who do."

While I'm not disputing 40%, I sort of wonder how that figure was arrived at. This Roberti fellow would most likely go for a high figure simply to make doping look worse. It serves his purpose and pumps up his job. I guess I'm just not sure where and when this doping testing was done and how 40% came into being. Police don't exaggerate???? Just asking. :? :? :?

I think micron was pointing out that riders themselves believe its 40% gain (well, if non-dopers go down by 40% that's actually a 66% gain from doping!) which is a huge over-estimate compared to scientific trials.

dennisn

calvjones wrote:

dennisn wrote:

micron wrote:

Dennisn, seems perhaps it's the riders themselves who give the drugs 'too much credit' http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/italian ... estigation

"He (Roberti) revealed that numerous professional cyclists he has questioned claimed that athletes who don’t dope have an output of 40 per cent below those who do."

While I'm not disputing 40%, I sort of wonder how that figure was arrived at. This Roberti fellow would most likely go for a high figure simply to make doping look worse. It serves his purpose and pumps up his job. I guess I'm just not sure where and when this doping testing was done and how 40% came into being. Police don't exaggerate???? Just asking. :? :? :?

I think micron was pointing out that riders themselves believe its 40% gain (well, if non-dopers go down by 40% that's actually a 66% gain from doping!) which is a huge over-estimate compared to scientific trials.

I see what you're saying and it sure begs the question- does Roberti know what he's talking about? Some riders say 40% and he simply takes their word for it? And this guy is in law enforcement? To my mind it doesn't make him look very professional or even believable at all. Spouting off to the press with nothing more than hearsay and wanting everyone to believe he's on top of all this?

blazing_saddles

On German tv tonight.
Get the gist, even with the German overdub.
Landis: "Every rider on Postal doped when Armstrong won."
http://www.sportschau.de/sp/layout/jsp/ ... #mbContent

Of course, he could just have started to tell lies, 'round about the time he got caught for...........er........doping.

itisaboutthebike

It's gonna end in tears m'dears.........................

In any case one the feds get him Pat Mctwat will drop Pharmstrong like a lead weight..............