Sagarin wrote:
[Excuses not worth reading, let alone typing]
Sagarin wrote:
[Excuses not worth reading, let alone typing]
[quote]BOHICA wrote:
[Didn't have a good enough retort. Will employ more diversionary tactics to excuse my ignorance]
There was nothing worth retorting to, clown.
The only evidence is that Landis is a liar and a cheater. Why should we believe him?
mmmm wrote:
The only evidence is that Landis is a liar and a cheater. Why should we believe him?
The Feds seem to believe him.
Excellent post, kudzurunner.
mmmm wrote:
The only evidence is that Landis is a liar and a cheater. Why should we believe him?
I can guarantee you that the Feds believe him and everyone in cycling believe him. Armstrong is no different than Marion Jones, he denies and threatens to destroy anyone who come forward with information.
Do you think that Armstrong would ever submit to voluntary interviews with the FBI or take a lie-detector test? Landis isn't afraid. Armstrong is.
Are you serious? wrote:
When did you all become cycling experts?
I became a cycling expert in May of 2004.
yoo wrote:
a convicted drug cheat who profusedly denied cheating, even after he was caught
As opposed to all of those convicted drug cheats who immediately admitted doping as soon as the tests were in.
By your (badly failed) logic, the testimony of every single person who has ever been caught using PED's and failed to admit it right away can be dismissed as fiction.
Stop contributing to this and other threads and walk away, hanging your head in well-deserved shame as you do so. Chances are you are a global flop in each and every area of your life.
B33R G0GGLES wrote:
You are stupid fan boy.
You know what the chances are of a clean, ~40 year old guy, with one nut, doing well in the TDF? Zero.
YOU'RE STUPID TOO. one testicle is enough.
You defend Armstrong based on things that have been invalidated as facts on this very thread: his weight loss and the ignorant assumption that every other rider is as high of a responder to doping as he is. Your opinions have a flimsy basis, at best. Who else but an idiot fanboy would pointlessly cling to this line of BS after it has repeatedly been revealed as nonsense? Get a clue.
Sagarin wrote:
BOHICA wrote:Funny that someone who can't parse out the oh-so-narrow difference between "write" and "right" (and typed "depepending") is calling anyone else a "moron." You posted the quote to support your contention, you didn't make it difficult at all to see between those lines. Say what you will, you've cultivated the appearance of playing both sides of the fence, at the very least. You probably aren't bright enough to help that, so I guess you can be excused and dismissed.
So sorry many of us type fast and don't feel the need to edit. So sorry I thought we were mature ladies and gentlemen on here, and I didn't, myself, feel the need to point out your misspelling of the word barnacle (quite unlike yourself), which really reinforces the point about your moronic nature in hindsight. So sorry that I didn't merely cull the part of the quote that was relevant to answer another's question, because I didn't foresee that some adolescent would merely borrow and contort the last sentence, which, truthfully, I hadn't even read, to lure another moron into misconstruing the "spirit" of my argument without checking. So sorry it was only in hindsight that you had to go back and read through the thread to see that, at the very least, I'm not an Armstrong "nut-barnacle." And what kind of a moron uses such a term anyway?
Lastly, my assertion all along was that Armstrong doped, but it's a moot point, because they were all doped. If they were all clean, Armstrong still wins, especially with the same engine in a lighter body. Of course it's merely my opinion as I've firmly stated. At the very least, read through the debate in full next time before you make a sophomoric, what you think is a clever remark. You're the one who got busted here and then tried to put forth a one-off sideshow to distract from your own lack of initial credibility, not to mention, hypocritically, pull out the old grammar diversion in an attempt to enhance said lack of credibility. At least make sure you can measure up to your own standards first.
First of all, the weight thing has not been thoroughly invalidated, though I was working off an assumption, one that had been visited many times over the years by many an analyst. As I said, we would need to get the actual pre-TDF weigh-ins from 1993 all the way through 2009. Does anyone have access to that info?
Secondly, I already stated it AS MY OPINION, that Armstrong would've crushed everyone clean, all else being equal. There's no way of validating or invalidating it, because it's an OPINION. I never said otherwise.
Lastly and for the last time, I'm not defending Armstrong. I think he is a doper. I think you're clueless if you think otherwise. I suppose I should put emphasis on the word think, lest it be too opaque for you.
BOHICA wrote:
There was nothing worth retorting to, clown.
Don't you mean nut-barnacle? That was so much more becoming of a person as sophisticated as yourself, one who attacks in a vitriolic and unsolicited manner, having not fully vetted the thread and taking another poster's contortion at its word.
Go back and read my very first post on this thread, which you failed to do from the beginning. The egg is on your face guy, not mine, even as you won't concede on the point.
or maybe even wrote:
troll alert. 3/10
There is not one person on the planet with an IQ over 70 that believes that Lance is clean. Not one.
As I said before, clearly you were wrong about this. But despite the positive EPO test, the former aides and personal masseuses testifying against Lance that they disposed of syringes and cleaned up needle marks on his skin, former teammates (Andreau) with nary a vendetta conceding that Lance himself told his doctors he used PEDs and other former teammates who are on a personal crusade to "clean up the sport (Vaughters)," the postponing of an unannounced test so Lance could take a shower and check credentials, the successful attribution of a positive corticosteroid test to saddle cream, the associations with a nefarious doctor linked to the use of drugs in cycling, and a litany of other circumstantial evidence, not to mention all of the riders in the peloton behind him who got busted for drugs, at least Lance didn't employ the vanishing twin theory. That one takes the cake.
sagarin drinks his own pee.
You defend him as being superior regardless of doping, which just isn't knowable and thus must be an assumption based on emotion. The weight thing is not valid, either.
Sagarin wrote:
First of all, the weight thing has not been thoroughly invalidated, though I was working off an assumption, one that had been visited many times over the years by many an analyst. As I said, we would need to get the actual pre-TDF weigh-ins from 1993 all the way through 2009. Does anyone have access to that info?
Secondly, I already stated it AS MY OPINION, that Armstrong would've crushed everyone clean, all else being equal. There's no way of validating or invalidating it, because it's an OPINION. I never said otherwise.
Lastly and for the last time, I'm not defending Armstrong. I think he is a doper. I think you're clueless if you think otherwise. I suppose I should put emphasis on the word think, lest it be too opaque for you.
Amaroli? Like the yogis? That's okay!
We all agree that cycling is, and has been, a dirty sport for years. A clean cyclist can NEVER routinely beat a sport full of drug cheats. They make too much of a difference. We WANT to believe Lance is clean, but there is no way.
Landis claims that he was clean until he proved himself enough in classics, esp. on a mtn. training session with Lance...he was then selected for the 2002 TDF squad, and was THEN given testosterone/had blood withdrawn.
Who knows how accurate Landis is, or to what extent this "prove yourself first" phenomenon exists. But if there is an ounce of truth to his claims, it supports the notion that even if dirty as hell, the peleton had to prove that they are the best in the world to get to the point where they could be on major PEDs (e.g. EPO, blood doping, etc.)
I'm not excusing PEDs, I'm just saying I don't think the integrity of the results are substantially compromised. In other words, if everyone is clean, Lance, AC, Ullrich, Vino, Landis, etc. are still top 10 GC riders, and wouldn't lose to Joe Blow from Jelly Belly.
I suspect Landis technically wasn't using steroids when he got caught (he'd have to be an idiot to use during the Tour), but used contaminated blood. His huge stage comeback, where he made up an enormous amount of time, probably came after injecting stored blood. He had been taking testosterone at the time when he took out the blood, and it showed up after he put it back in.
This is probably what Lance and everyone else were doing, except they were smart enough to take blood from when they were clean.