Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped

Snakbar

dennisn wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

deejay wrote:

Fact is there is No Blue in an ENGLAND Flag. Quite simple really, I am an "Anglo-Saxon Englishman"
While on this other topic of yours, I have an opinion that I think should be a Fact.
The Union Flag is wrong and I see the Joke going on in Ulster at the moment.
The Union Flag should be (and since 1922) the same as that Union Flag being flown between 1606 to 1801 (still flown at Fort York) but with an exception that a Welsh Dragon be in the middle.
I have had this opinion for more than 40 years and if you happen to see an England Flag in your pre 1996 cycling video's it will be me and I was scoffed at, back then.
This answer then to your question of what purpose. Well you did ask. what a nice chap I am. :roll:

Is Northern Ireland no longer to be part of the Union?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

Wow. Just when I was beginning to think that I was the King of going off topic.

This flag waving seems really serious?

It can be serious Den. Next we'll have someone mention that the blue is the wrong colour blue.

deejay

TailWindHome wrote:

Is Northern Ireland no longer to be part of the Union?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

NO
You name the components of your flags to get the answer.
I've given you the dates when your flags merged, so work it out but I'm not putting it in black and white except to say that one component was missing for 2 hundred years and I think it should un-merge
You do know what the Northern Ireland flag looks like.

The Ulster Banner – Flag of the former Government of Northern Ireland between 1953 and 1972 and still used to represent Northern Ireland in some sporting events in which Northern Ireland competes. The flag is particularly associated with the Protestant community in Northern Ireland

I really am only interested in the ENGLAND Flag and the City of London Flag.

k-dog

Yeah but that's only because (unlike the US) there are no standard colours for the flag.

The Scottish background should be more like the one individually posted - but a bill to standardise the colour was rejected a few years ago in the Scottish parliament.

I'll get my coat.

rob churchill

There is a possible link between anabolic steroid use and testicular cancer, not well researched and probably not a strong link.

Greg Strock had a parvovirus variant. Normally pretty harmless, but with his immune system suppressed by corticosteroids it was able to do a lot of damage. Strock didn't realise what had happened to him until he retired from racing and went to med school.

Corticosteroids are linked to various cancers, for example oesophageal cancer, squamous cell carcinoma and non-Hodgkins lymphoma.

Armstrong used both anabolic steroids and corticosteroids, but as the vast majority of men getting testicular cancer won't have used PEDs I see little reason to suppose that LA's cancer was caused by his drug use.


(P.S. check out the background of my avatar.)

tailwindhome

deejay wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Is Northern Ireland no longer to be part of the Union?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

NO
You name the components of your flags to get the answer.
I've given you the dates when your flags merged, so work it out but I'm not putting it in black and white except to say that one component was missing for 2 hundred years and I think it should un-merge
You do know what the Northern Ireland flag looks like.

The Ulster Banner – Flag of the former Government of Northern Ireland between 1953 and 1972 and still used to represent Northern Ireland in some sporting events in which Northern Ireland competes. The flag is particularly associated with the Protestant community in Northern Ireland

I really am only interested in the ENGLAND Flag and the City of London Flag.

I think you're going to have to. I have no idea what is it you're trying to say.

deejay

dennisn wrote:

Wow. Just when I was beginning to think that I was the King of going off topic.

This flag waving seems really serious?

Very serious that the Internet Geeks of the US o A who think that the Un-united Kingdom (UK) is a Country,
When in Fact it is Four (4) Countries (ie 4 Nations) which are governed by one government of her Majesty Realm.

deejay

TailWindHome wrote:

I have no idea what is it you're trying to say.

That's it in a nutshell !
That while this was off topic by someone else, I ventured an opinion.
If it goes over your head then don't worry about it because there are millions of others that miss the point.

Now this post should be about (and I quote Dave_1) a Scumbag from Texas and him being at the start of the 1996 season the World number 1 on "Points" he says.

How ridiculous can you get. ??

tailwindhome

deejay wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

I have no idea what is it you're trying to say.

That's it in a nutshell !

What's it?

deejay wrote:

I ventured an opinion.

You did. But I've no idea what is really was.

You think the Union Flag should go back to 1606 - i.e. remove the Cross of St Patrick. With the addition of a dragon to represent Wales.

Why? Is the 4th constituent country of the Union not worthy of representation on the flag?

deejay wrote:

If it goes over your head then don't worry about it because there are millions of others that miss the point.

Make the point clearer then.

tailwindhome

dennisn wrote:

Wow. Just when I was beginning to think that I was the King of going off topic.

This flag waving seems really serious?

Wha?

This is the first interesting post in 167 pages

EightOhEight

CRIKEY!

deejay

TailWindHome wrote:

Why? Is the 4th constituent country of the Union not worthy of representation on the flag?
Make the point clearer then.

What you want me to explain something religious.
I cannot regarding Northern Ireland because I don't know or care about their religion but I take it from your question that St Patrick is so important to the Ulster people.
In my limited knowledge I thought that 85% in Ulster were Protestants who had nothing to do with the Church of Ireland.
Why the 4th constituent country and not "A constituent country"
All I know is the dumb b*stards put a bomb in Victoria Station to blow up at 7am when thousands of ordinary working class people were struggling to get to work.
These USA Funded Terrorists, attack ordinary people who still don't know why their livelihoods are disrupted by gutless morons.

To 8.o.8, carry on if your so hard up to need an eighty year old to make you happy

deejay

deejay wrote:

Now this post should be about (and I quote Dave_1) a Scumbag from Texas and him being at the start of the 1996 season the World number 1 on "Points" he says.

How ridiculous can you get. ??

I keep trying to get this thread back on "Topic"

dennisn

deejay wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Wow. Just when I was beginning to think that I was the King of going off topic.

This flag waving seems really serious?

Very serious that the Internet Geeks of the US o A who think that the Un-united Kingdom (UK) is a Country,
When in Fact it is Four (4) Countries (ie 4 Nations) which are governed by one government of her Majesty Realm.

What internet geek of the USA said that? :?
I do thank you for that explanation as I have always sort of wondered what the story was. We hear all the names but I doubt many here know how it all ties together, including me.

Now of course I'm thinking that this being the Internet, can I believe you? Hmmmmm

tailwindhome

deejay wrote:

What you want me to explain something religious.
I cannot regarding Northern Ireland because I don't know or care about their religion but I take it from your question that St Patrick is so important to the Ulster people.

I didn't ask you anything about religion.

deejay wrote:

In my limited knowledge I thought that 85% in Ulster were Protestants who had nothing to do with the Church of Ireland.

Your knowledge is appallingly limited. So limited that you don't even know that the Church of Ireland IS a protestant church.

deejay wrote:

Why the 4th constituent country and not "A constituent country"

I used the phrase '4th constituent' as you have accounted for 3 on your union flag design and by definition the other is the 4th.

deejay wrote:

All I know is the dumb b*stards put a bomb in Victoria Station to blow up at 7am when thousands of ordinary working class people were struggling to get to work.
These USA Funded Terrorists, attack ordinary people who still don't know why their livelihoods are disrupted by gutless morons.

Oh. I think I get it, you are very very confused about Irish/British politics.

deejay wrote:

The Union Flag is wrong and I see the Joke going on in Ulster at the moment.

What do you think is going on in Ulster at the moment?

inkyfingers

rob churchill wrote:

There is a possible link between anabolic steroid use and testicular cancer, not well researched and probably not a strong link.

Greg Strock had a parvovirus variant. Normally pretty harmless, but with his immune system suppressed by corticosteroids it was able to do a lot of damage. Strock didn't realise what had happened to him until he retired from racing and went to med school.

Corticosteroids are linked to various cancers, for example oesophageal cancer, squamous cell carcinoma and non-Hodgkins lymphoma.

Armstrong used both anabolic steroids and corticosteroids, but as the vast majority of men getting testicular cancer won't have used PEDs I see little reason to suppose that LA's cancer was caused by his drug use.


(P.S. check out the background of my avatar.)

It would probably be easier to list substances that haven't been linked to causing cancer.

dennisn

rob churchill wrote:

Armstrong used both anabolic steroids and corticosteroids, but as the vast majority of men getting testicular cancer won't have used PEDs I see little reason to suppose that LA's cancer was caused by his drug use.

I think that you're using evidence that you don't have. Now, I'm not going to argue whether or not he did or did not use this or that drug but I will argue as to whether or not you know. Not saying that you don't have med reports or LA told you he did this or that or drug testing results from accredited labs, but you did say "...used both..." and I didn't notice the words "maybe" or "if" in there anywhere.
Damn I'm picky. And a little bored tonight.

rob churchill

inkyfingers wrote:

rob churchill wrote:

There is a possible link between anabolic steroid use and testicular cancer, not well researched and probably not a strong link.

Greg Strock had a parvovirus variant. Normally pretty harmless, but with his immune system suppressed by corticosteroids it was able to do a lot of damage. Strock didn't realise what had happened to him until he retired from racing and went to med school.

Corticosteroids are linked to various cancers, for example oesophageal cancer, squamous cell carcinoma and non-Hodgkins lymphoma.

Armstrong used both anabolic steroids and corticosteroids, but as the vast majority of men getting testicular cancer won't have used PEDs I see little reason to suppose that LA's cancer was caused by his drug use.


(P.S. check out the background of my avatar.)

It would probably be easier to list substances that haven't been linked to causing cancer.

Well sure, if you want. Check out the Daily Mail - they're on a mission to divide all substances known to man into two categories; those that cause cancer, and those that are miracle cures for cancer.

But the two links I put up were a direct link to an epidemiology journal and an MD reviewed report of an article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, not the Mail. You want to dispute the validity of the research methodology then let's hear what you got. You want to dismiss the research with some vague generalisation about 'most everything gets blamed for cancer'? - you lose the argument.

Nick Fitt

Wow, this thread should be hand sewn onto a tapestry 80' long and hung in the Victoria and Albert Museum, it now transcends everything I have ever read on the internet.

OK, lets catch up, LA got caught taking drugs, he was even doping when all other 'top' US cyclists were doping at 7-11 and the track team, amateur and world champion squad of all ages. This means Lemon-d is the only great US cyclist even if he took iron injections to win, which isnt cheating, his wife said so.The UCI sucks. Ireland should or should not be a part of the Union flag and LA caught cancer by being whalloped in the balls... The Daily Mail beats all scientists by knowing both cause and cure for all cancer. The Union Flag is still pretty contentious but, in general, only the Scots and Irish give a shit, the Welsh are worried that Wales will be institutionalised as a vegetable patch so keep quiet and the English dont care because they are in charge. Or have I mis read between the lines of the posts above?

The Brit journalists were right all along and the French new everything anyway but no-one believed them or frankly could understand them.

The Washington post forgives LA as does most of Capitol Hill because his fraud is nowt compared to what it takes to get into the Senate in the USA.

Have I missed anything?

Have we discussed Wiggo winning the TdF in our little micro forum within a forum?

We all hate Dennis but love him really...

Confused? You will be, watch next weeks SOAP

rob churchill

dennisn wrote:

rob churchill wrote:

Armstrong used both anabolic steroids and corticosteroids, but as the vast majority of men getting testicular cancer won't have used PEDs I see little reason to suppose that LA's cancer was caused by his drug use.

I think that you're using evidence that you don't have. Now, I'm not going to argue whether or not he did or did not use this or that drug but I will argue as to whether or not you know. Not saying that you don't have med reports or LA told you he did this or that or drug testing results from accredited labs, but you did say "...used both..." and I didn't notice the words "maybe" or "if" in there anywhere.
Damn I'm picky. And a little bored tonight.

I refer you to the USADA Reasoned Decision IV.B.1.b Possession and use of cortisone; IV.B.2.h Positive for cortisone; IV.B.2.j. Testosterone use and administration at the Tour de France; and IV.B.3.b. Armstrong’s use of testosterone and avoiding drug testing at race in Spain.

You can take your 'maybe' and your 'if', and stick 'em where the sun don't shine. I have no need of them.

dave_1

deejay wrote:

deejay wrote:

Now this post should be about (and I quote Dave_1) a Scumbag from Texas and him being at the start of the 1996 season the World number 1 on "Points" he says.

How ridiculous can you get. ??

I keep trying to get this thread back on "Topic"

Deejay, I think it is naive to distinguish Jalabert as cleaner than Armstrong..Jalabert calls him a great champion still...speaks volumes. I will retract the Armstrong UCI number 1 if I can't find it soon. As for that can of worms about the national flag...hopefully by October 2014 there will be reason to get the blue removed when Scotland becomes independent.

dennisn

rob churchill wrote:

dennisn wrote:

rob churchill wrote:

Armstrong used both anabolic steroids and corticosteroids, but as the vast majority of men getting testicular cancer won't have used PEDs I see little reason to suppose that LA's cancer was caused by his drug use.

I think that you're using evidence that you don't have. Now, I'm not going to argue whether or not he did or did not use this or that drug but I will argue as to whether or not you know. Not saying that you don't have med reports or LA told you he did this or that or drug testing results from accredited labs, but you did say "...used both..." and I didn't notice the words "maybe" or "if" in there anywhere.
Damn I'm picky. And a little bored tonight.

I refer you to the USADA Reasoned Decision IV.B.1.b Possession and use of cortisone; IV.B.2.h Positive for cortisone; IV.B.2.j. Testosterone use and administration at the Tour de France; and IV.B.3.b. Armstrong’s use of testosterone and avoiding drug testing at race in Spain.

You can take your 'maybe' and your 'if', and stick 'em where the sun don't shine. I have no need of them.

I stand corrected. :oops:

Nick Fitt

Dave_1 wrote:

deejay wrote:

deejay wrote:

Now this post should be about (and I quote Dave_1) a Scumbag from Texas and him being at the start of the 1996 season the World number 1 on "Points" he says.

How ridiculous can you get. ??

I keep trying to get this thread back on "Topic"

Deejay, I think it is naive to distinguish Jalabert as cleaner than Armstrong..Jalabert calls him a great champion still...speaks volumes. I will retract the Armstrong UCI number 1 if I can't find it soon. As for that can of worms about the national flag...hopefully by October 2014 there will be reason to get the blue removed when Scotland becomes independent.

Jalabert was such a let down. As a rider, he road so well, both tactically and obviously commitment too. I was disappointed but not surprised he doped.

I do think his comments about Armstrong, along the lines of "the UCI had no choice, but he was a great champion anyway", demonstrate in a matter of fact way a level of acceptance of doping and that as everyone was doping, it was almost a flat playing field again. This goes a long way to show how far cycling has come in a comparatively short time frame. Lets not forget cyclists have been 'enhanced' in one way or another for 100 years, if we are clean now or even 80% clean, in 13 years or so, that's a huge step forward is it not?

dave_1

Nick Fitt wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

deejay wrote:

deejay wrote:

Now this post should be about (and I quote Dave_1) a Scumbag from Texas and him being at the start of the 1996 season the World number 1 on "Points" he says.

How ridiculous can you get. ??

I keep trying to get this thread back on "Topic"

Deejay, I think it is naive to distinguish Jalabert as cleaner than Armstrong..Jalabert calls him a great champion still...speaks volumes. I will retract the Armstrong UCI number 1 if I can't find it soon. As for that can of worms about the national flag...hopefully by October 2014 there will be reason to get the blue removed when Scotland becomes independent.

Jalabert was such a let down. As a rider, he road so well, both tactically and obviously commitment too. I was disappointed but not surprised he doped.

I do think his comments about Armstrong, along the lines of "the UCI had no choice, but he was a great champion anyway", demonstrate in a matter of fact way a level of acceptance of doping and that as everyone was doping, it was almost a flat playing field again. This goes a long way to show how far cycling has come in a comparatively short time frame. Lets not forget cyclists have been 'enhanced' in one way or another for 100 years, if we are clean now or even 80% clean, in 13 years or so, that's a huge step forward is it not?

I feel revulsion when I read of Hinault being fetted down in Australia next year. The outrage at a doper like Armstrong being there when Hincault refused to do a dope test in an early 80s crit and used Belloque.. for doping. This is double think.Armstrong bad, Hinault good. Kelly guest of Honour, Armstrong a disgrace..

Double think is To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic

blazing_saddles

Dave_1 wrote:

I feel revulsion when I read of Hinault being fetted down in Australia next year. The outrage at a doper like Armstrong being there when Hincault refused to do a dope test in an early 80s crit and used Belloque.. for doping. This is double think.Armstrong bad, Hinault good. Kelly guest of Honour, Armstrong a disgrace..

Double think is To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic

Many of us felt a level of revulsion when Armstrong was pocketing his Aussie millions for turning out at the TDU while riders like Ulltich and Jörg Jaksche were unable to compete, years after being sidelined.

Getting nabbed for doping has always been a lottery. Lance's number came up.
I don't see how one's "revulsion" grows, simply because one rider has swapped sides of the prison fence.

Nick Fitt

Its a thin line, mentally, I have ceased to take seriopusly any of the top GC riders of the last 20 or so years, ditto KOM riders. I dont dispise them, I dont fete them. And to be honest, Im on the fence as to how clean cycling is now. I would like to believe it is comparably totally clean but, I need 'cycling to prove it.

To the point, should Hinault be junked? Probably but where would it stop. I think Australia has enough sporting and cycling heros. Anna Meares is a great example. Wheeling out Hinault is just PR, a bit like in Football, we always bring out the 66 World Cup players whenever we can leading up to the World Cup.

Im whaffling but, I think cycling needs to leave these shady guys in the shade, whoever they are, even Merckx, move on and celebrate only those we know to be clean, then the guys in the grey will get the hint.

ddraver

Dave_1 wrote:

Double think is To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic

Yeah we read it in school too....

dave_1

ddraver wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Double think is To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic

Yeah we read it in school too....

I didn't. Hinault and kelly good , Armstrong bad? Take the double think test.

nathancom

TailWindHome wrote:

deejay wrote:

What you want me to explain something religious.
I cannot regarding Northern Ireland because I don't know or care about their religion but I take it from your question that St Patrick is so important to the Ulster people.

I didn't ask you anything about religion.

deejay wrote:

In my limited knowledge I thought that 85% in Ulster were Protestants who had nothing to do with the Church of Ireland.

Your knowledge is appallingly limited. So limited that you don't even know that the Church of Ireland IS a protestant church.

deejay wrote:

Why the 4th constituent country and not "A constituent country"

I used the phrase '4th constituent' as you have accounted for 3 on your union flag design and by definition the other is the 4th.

deejay wrote:

All I know is the dumb b*stards put a bomb in Victoria Station to blow up at 7am when thousands of ordinary working class people were struggling to get to work.
These USA Funded Terrorists, attack ordinary people who still don't know why their livelihoods are disrupted by gutless morons.

Oh. I think I get it, you are very very confused about Irish/British politics.

deejay wrote:

The Union Flag is wrong and I see the Joke going on in Ulster at the moment.

What do you think is going on in Ulster at the moment?

Loving Deejay's meltdown about a flag here...What's your BNP membership number?

Why all the 'no blue' comments and then the whining about Ulster? Neanderthal

inkyfingers

Dave_1 wrote:

Nick Fitt wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

deejay wrote:

deejay wrote:

Now this post should be about (and I quote Dave_1) a Scumbag from Texas and him being at the start of the 1996 season the World number 1 on "Points" he says.

How ridiculous can you get. ??

I keep trying to get this thread back on "Topic"

Deejay, I think it is naive to distinguish Jalabert as cleaner than Armstrong..Jalabert calls him a great champion still...speaks volumes. I will retract the Armstrong UCI number 1 if I can't find it soon. As for that can of worms about the national flag...hopefully by October 2014 there will be reason to get the blue removed when Scotland becomes independent.

Jalabert was such a let down. As a rider, he road so well, both tactically and obviously commitment too. I was disappointed but not surprised he doped.

I do think his comments about Armstrong, along the lines of "the UCI had no choice, but he was a great champion anyway", demonstrate in a matter of fact way a level of acceptance of doping and that as everyone was doping, it was almost a flat playing field again. This goes a long way to show how far cycling has come in a comparatively short time frame. Lets not forget cyclists have been 'enhanced' in one way or another for 100 years, if we are clean now or even 80% clean, in 13 years or so, that's a huge step forward is it not?

I feel revulsion when I read of Hinault being fetted down in Australia next year. The outrage at a doper like Armstrong being there when Hincault refused to do a dope test in an early 80s crit and used Belloque.. for doping. This is double think.Armstrong bad, Hinault good. Kelly guest of Honour, Armstrong a disgrace..

Double think is To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic

Dave, would you feel the same if Fignon had been invited down under (if he was still alive of course)?

It is not an easy question, where do you draw the line? Personally I try and avoid letting myself get too fussed about what any particular rider did or didn't do, the system is the thing at fault, the riders (even Armstrong) are only guilty of doing what they felt they could get away with.

In fact, the thing that The Secret Race taught me is that Armstrong was just one of many riders that got pushed into doping by the system, what makes me dislike Armstrong is not that he doped or lied, but that he treated so many other people badly while he did it.

nic_77

Dave_1 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Double think is To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic

Yeah we read it in school too....

I didn't. Hinault and kelly good , Armstrong bad? Take the double think test.

...and yet you persistently defend Yates?