Actually he has designated himself the spokesman for those with half a brain. It would seem that this is a group of half-thinkers that he either leads, or follows.
Good point! Lance Armstrong never has a positive test and was never a doper. QED!
Myth: Lance Armstrong never has a positive test
Fact: Lance Armstrong tested positive for corticosteroids four times in July 1999. In 2004, Lance Armstrong tested positive six times for EPO after retesting of 1999 samples.
ThoSe tEstS doN't pRovE hE DOpEd!! ThEy pREsuMeD InTenT !!!!¡¡
ThEy WeRe foR cReaM foR saDLesOreS and THe reTro TeSts WeRe unDEr FalSe PREtenSe and SuPposeD to ChecK for RoIds, nOt EPO
Fact: Lance Armstrong tested positive for corticosteroids four times in July 1999. In 2004, Lance Armstrong tested positive six times for EPO after retesting of 1999 samples.
ThoSe tEstS doN't pRovE hE DOpEd!! ThEy pREsuMeD InTenT !!!!¡¡
ThEy WeRe foR cReaM foR saDLesOreS and THe reTro TeSts WeRe unDEr FalSe PREtenSe and SuPposeD to ChecK for RoIds, nOt EPO
Freekin Nutter
Funny.
Note that the applicable rules in 1999 were the UCI "ADR", predating WADA. In those UCI rules, "Intent" was not a factor that had to be proven or disproven, and there was no presumption of intent leading to a longer ban, if not rebutted. The cortico-steroids were permitted for topical use for saddlesores, but in that case they should have been listed on the doping control forms before the stages took place. At the very least, the UCI should have launched disciplinary procedures against Lance, regardless of the backdated prescription, according to the UCI's CIRC Commission Report. In any case, Lance confessed that he used cortico-steroids for performance enhancement, and not therapeutic use for saddlesores, resolving any question and confirming the CIRC findings.
The "retro tests" were part of legitimate EPO research, and not "Roids". Any "false pretense" was the investigative subterfuge employed to be able to match the sample numbers to Lance. But Armstrong had dared the reporters to come up with proof of his doping, and L'Equipe took up the challenge.
Assuming for the sake of making progress you have identified the morons you pretend to speak for, what do you say they believe? Is she on their doping radar? Or is she not on their doping radar? Is she both? Is she neither?
This was a thread on Hoey improvement that has denigrated to this? Come on now...good for him, he was clearly talented 1:47.x in HS, got a real training program and is really good right now..do I wonder about massive improvement after nothing for 3 plus years..yeah. I guess. Guys calling each other morons? Back and forth? Hoey is good right now, I don't know how, but he is..good for him. I prefer to think, he went to Flagstaff, did the real work and now he is a viable threat, in more than one event. 3:33.x Indoors is good moving up. He gets tested I am sure like everyone else.
This was a thread on Hoey improvement that has denigrated to this? Come on now...good for him, he was clearly talented 1:47.x in HS, got a real training program and is really good right now..do I wonder about massive improvement after nothing for 3 plus years..yeah. I guess. Guys calling each other morons? Back and forth? Hoey is good right now, I don't know how, but he is..good for him. I prefer to think, he went to Flagstaff, did the real work and now he is a viable threat, in more than one event. 3:33.x Indoors is good moving up. He gets tested I am sure like everyone else.
I have banned Armstronglivs for a few days.
I came on to see if this thread had outlives its shelf life. We are totally fine with our community discussing an athlete's improvement.
However, the last page was more than a few posts by Armstronglivs insulting other posters and essentially calling them morons. That is not the point of forums and insults of other posters can lead to timeouts. Please be civil as people insulting Armstronglivs will be banned as well.
This was a thread on Hoey improvement that has denigrated to this? Come on now...good for him, he was clearly talented 1:47.x in HS, got a real training program and is really good right now..do I wonder about massive improvement after nothing for 3 plus years..yeah. I guess. Guys calling each other morons? Back and forth? Hoey is good right now, I don't know how, but he is..good for him. I prefer to think, he went to Flagstaff, did the real work and now he is a viable threat, in more than one event. 3:33.x Indoors is good moving up. He gets tested I am sure like everyone else.
I have banned Armstronglivs for a few days.
I came on to see if this thread had outlives its shelf life. We are totally fine with our community discussing an athlete's improvement.
However, the last page was more than a few posts by Armstronglivs insulting other posters and essentially calling them morons. That is not the point of forums and insults of other posters can lead to timeouts. Please be civil as people insulting Armstronglivs will be banned as well.
wejo, good for you and watch for the retaliations lol. It's on more than one thread. I have discussed Hoey improvement with many, the general consensus would be, this guy was gifted , the only rub, was why did it take this long. he is very good now and has run 1:43.x 2:14 for 1000 3:52 and 3:33.x , he is now a factor .
WOW, very sharp remarks here Mr PD King but you are right now talking to a master of reasoning and persuading or space-time in short!!!!!!!!! I like to think my darling Armstrong was rather saying you had half a brain ain't it???????? You are at least just as fast to denying doping which is immoral to Armstrong inquiring (not accusing) doping which is DEFINITELY LESS LESS LESS LESS IMMORAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You've got it backwards. I did the "moral thing" and confirmed Armstrong doped, and positive tests in 1999 also confirmed he doped in 1999, as was reported at the time.
Hi I’m Khamis’ sister, 1 moral admission of doping against 100 doping denials doesn’t really count as ‘moral’. It still counts as immoral due to overwhelming majority you feeling me sweetheart?
I came on to see if this thread had outlives its shelf life. We are totally fine with our community discussing an athlete's improvement.
However, the last page was more than a few posts by Armstronglivs insulting other posters and essentially calling them morons. That is not the point of forums and insults of other posters can lead to timeouts. Please be civil as people insulting Armstronglivs will be banned as well.
wejo, good for you and watch for the retaliations lol. It's on more than one thread. I have discussed Hoey improvement with many, the general consensus would be, this guy was gifted , the only rub, was why did it take this long. he is very good now and has run 1:43.x 2:14 for 1000 3:52 and 3:33.x , he is now a factor .
I think the consensus is 50/50. It’s not such an outright exemplar of doping as Hoey may have had been mitochondrially suppressed by RF factors. He also did carry significant talent in high school. There is only some hope that he is doping because of that 5 year gap.
This was a thread on Hoey improvement that has denigrated to this? Come on now...good for him, he was clearly talented 1:47.x in HS, got a real training program and is really good right now..do I wonder about massive improvement after nothing for 3 plus years..yeah. I guess. Guys calling each other morons? Back and forth? Hoey is good right now, I don't know how, but he is..good for him. I prefer to think, he went to Flagstaff, did the real work and now he is a viable threat, in more than one event. 3:33.x Indoors is good moving up. He gets tested I am sure like everyone else.
I have banned Armstronglivs for a few days.
I came on to see if this thread had outlives its shelf life. We are totally fine with our community discussing an athlete's improvement.
However, the last page was more than a few posts by Armstronglivs insulting other posters and essentially calling them morons. That is not the point of forums and insults of other posters can lead to timeouts. Please be civil as people insulting Armstronglivs will be banned as well.
I have seen way worse comments than morons being enjoyed thoroughly by all the people on the message board and people being thrilled by it as well.
That isn't the topic but your usual cherry picking. The issue that was being referred to was that there are known dopers, such as Armstrong, who don't fail tests which means dopers can escape being caught. That general point is correct. The available statistics of positives and estimated prevalence from athlete surveys show that. Armstrong may have failed a test (or tests) but it didn't result in him being busted. The tests couldn't therefore be regarded as definitive. As you have regularly pointed out, while Lagat also failed a test (for EPO and no mere medicine) if the positive test isn't confirmed they have committed no violation. You don't apply the same argument to Armstrong.
You didn't answer the question.
I didn't pick that cherry. "lefkj;lewkj" did. Armstrong is known to have failed many tests. He is not an example of a known doper "who (doesn't) fail tests". No one was talking about busts. "lefkj;lewkj" spoke only of positive tests.
It makes no sense to compare Lagat and Armstrong, because the facts are completely different. Since my views are based on the facts, on a case by case basis, my conclusions will be different when the facts are different. Unlike Lagat, Armstrong was not cleared because of a B-sample test failing to confirm the A-sample result.
Despite your claim of a positive test, it's not clear that Lagat ever failed a test for EPO. In Lagat's case, not only did the B-sample fail to confirm the A-sample result, but re-examination and reconsideration of the A-sample result determined that the A-sample wasn't quite a positive match either. There was obvious enzymatic activity altering the EPO. This was one of several errors reported right here in detail at "letsrun" way back in 2003:
"Looking very carefully at the A-sample result, especially the enlarged picture with the comparison between rhEpo and the weak A-sample bands, we realized that the A-sample bands of Mr. Lagat were not exactly in the same positions as the rhEpo reference bands but were slightly displaced, some millimeters higher to the more basic side. We agreed that a mass comparison of two bands in the control and the sample with identical or almost identical IEPs (pI) should show exactly the same mass."
These lab issues in Lagat's case don't apply to Armstrong's many failed EPO positives either, as the labs had learned the lesson by 2004. Dr. Ashenden confirmed this in a 2009 "nyvelocity" interview with Andy Shen, when discussing Armstrong's EPO positives (6 positives, and 2 more clearly positive to the expert eye, but below the threshold):
"And you want to make sure that you, for example, weren’t looking at urine that has been contaminated with bacteria, or isn’t what we call unstable urine, where sometimes the bands shift not because of EPO use, but because of some other factors. So all of these checks and cross checks were put in place with these samples, so the data is valid."
So you are an American living in France? Do I look like I can read French? Further to that there must be a reason why multiple publications years after 1999 comprehensively believed that Lance Armstrong never failed a doping test. Could it be there is a huge confusion row over the article of ‘intent’? And this was not then clarified in law back then which resulted in multiple reports stating he had never failed a doping test.