I haven't defended her. Accusations from such as you amount to nothing. If I saw her as suspicious I would have said so.
I said she is only on the radar of those with half a brain - the opposite of what you think I said. So we aren't in agreement, but you have just thereby identified yourself.
Just scrolling up to the top of this very page, it looks like you did say the opposite: "She isn't on the doping radar of anyone with half a brain."
Apparently you are the spokesman for all those with half a brain. Are you their leader, or just a follower?
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So what. He wasn't busted through tests, you liar. He was informed on by Landis, who was actually caught. Being the lying hypocrite you are you take exactly the opposite view with Lagat, and deny he was a doper, when he also tested positive.
The bigger picture is that most dopers aren't caught through testing.
Armstrong did test positive for corticosteroids cream in 1999 but that reveal had nothing to do with Landis reporting to USADA years later. He wasn't even around in 1999. No, the UCI accepted Armstrongs post dated prescription as a TUE exemption for use for "saddle sores". The 1999 EPO "positives" that were revealed in 2003-4 also had nothing to do with Landis revealing but were alluded to by Tyler Hamilton in his book and more importantly revealed in the book "LA Confidential" which was published in France but not in the US (Lance sued the publisher and it wasn't allowed to be published here)
...The story on that is that all of the 1999 TdF test samples were saved and retested four years later by sources unrelated to the UCI or WADA but by university researchers using the recently approved EPO tests . None of the athletes names were directly revealed or known, just athlete assigned code numbers which were to remain confidential. The tests revealed what most believe to be the "cleanest" TdF in decades since most all riders that year were too scared to dope following the previous years' "Festina Affair" TdF where numerous teams, riders, coaches, managers and doctors were busted with suitcases full of every pharmaceutical and PED known to man right in the middle of the Tour. However, the 1999 samples tested four years later did reveal that several riders were using EPO. These few riders were only identified to the testers by the number code assigned to each rider. These results were published in France but no rider was identified by name. Under the constant hounding and pressure regarding doping allegations, an investigative journalist boldly asked Lance if he'd allow his number code to be revealed...and a very confident, cocky and self assured Armstrong called his bluff and said "of course"!
The number code for LA revealed that it was he who tested positive for nine positives out of some-teen total positives in the 1999 TdF! The others were assumed to be Hamilton and perhaps one or two others. Of course none of this carried any weight in regards to WADA or UCI sanctioning as the process wasn't legitimate as far as rules go...nor did either want to bring down LA at the time. But a book came out about it, the rumors grew, LA became even stronger in his own defense but it did mark the beginning of what played out a decade later.
Hamilton's book (moto-man running around France to get Armstrong and Hamilton their "edgar") revealed all but it was Landis cooperation with USADA later (2011?) that really brought him down. The only real way this was possible though is that LA came out of retirement which effectively re-set the prior expired statue of limitations for USADA investigations. If Lance stayed retired, then none of what came later would've ever happened.
Another LA doping positive scandal was also swept under the rug during the 2001 Tour of Switzerland where he supposedly tested positive for the recently developed and deployed EPO test. The UCI and WADA met with LA and agreed not to reveal...and Armstrong reportedly "bribed" WADA and UCI officials by giving money ironically for some high price drug testing equipment!
....Lance Armstrong and the stories of his career, life, personality, foibles, cancer, survival, women, money, athletic prowess, domination, abilities, douchebagery, and attempts at redemption offer fascinating tales of the human condition, warts and all.
...and yes, Bernard Lagat should not get a pass either.
Sorry my boy Bernard Lagat is definitely clean just as Hicham El Kingdom Triple Love Guerrouj you feelin me??????????? Just watch the sparkle or twinkle in Bernard's eyes every time you mention the name Hicham El Kingdom Triple Love Guerrouj to his face, it's just so so so bewitching you feelin me????????????????????? That sort of magical connection screams of utmost honesty, sincerity, authenticity and picture-perfect integrity you feelin me???????????????
It speaks of a man IN FREEDOM, IN SPIRITUAL, MORAL, EMOTIONAL UTMOST JOY OF FREEDOM from all guilt in all conscience you feelin me???????????? That's why I give the best takes on this forum because I have a flair for the subjective on top of already being good at the objective!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bernard is clean period!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lance??????????????? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Good riddance to bad rubbish, from day 1 when I saw the man spoke in media interviews and carried himself in with interviewers and other investigative journalists I was throwing up all over my pants with a sick feeling in my intestines already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is a something evil and very malevolent about his biosplasmic vibe the same way I detect it in Fred Kerley too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And true to form, Fred Kerley had nearly killed his wife!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So you see folks, I'm NEVER EVER EVER WRONG ABOUT THE SUBJECTIVE REALM, my comments may be deleted but they CAN BE DELETED ALSO BECAUSE I'M RIGHT RATHER THAN WRONG ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Woe to the ones who delete comments that carry intangible and tangible substance and benefit!!!!!!
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Seriously MR PD King, according to the conventional news media, Lance Armstrong indeed never had a positive test precisely because the conventional news media was never allowed to leak it so the myth DOES STAND PARTIALLY IN SPACE AND TIME you feelin me???????????
Can you see how fair and unbiased I am now?????????????????
You could apply the same token to the COVID vaccines and say 'none of the deaths were caused by the COVID vaccines' because the conventional news media was never allowed to leak it and hence the myth DOES STAND PARTIALLY IN SPACE AND TIME AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's how you conduct reason and persuasion alright!!!!!!
Fact: His four corticosteroids positive tests were reported in the conventional news media during the 1999 Tour. The myth failed your test of space and time back in 1999, yet here you are now, only deluding yourself.
Where is the news printed article, please carry it here Mr PD King!!!!!!!!! I have equal number of conventional news reports of weight that also carry that Lance had never failed a doping test!!!!!!
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."
I guess in La La land, "She isn't on the doping radar of anyone with half a brain." and "she is only on the radar of those with half a brain - the opposite of what you think I said." are tautological.
I actually don't "suspect her of doping" (who?). But clearly my limited intelligence is struggling to see how "she is" and "she isn't" "effectively say the same thing" to those with only half a brain -- at least according to you, the self-designated spokesman.
Maybe it's because one half of the brain says "she is", while the other half says "she isn't"?
Is English not your first language? You said that she is not on the radar of those who have half of a brain. That would be the absolute dumbest members of the population. That insinuates that the smartest members of the population should suspect her. It also seems that those with a half of a brain also suspect people like Valby which leaves the smartest people knowing she is clean. Your girl will get busted someday. Those with full brains know this.
Fact: His four corticosteroids positive tests were reported in the conventional news media during the 1999 Tour. The myth failed your test of space and time back in 1999, yet here you are now, only deluding yourself.
Where is the news printed article, please carry it here Mr PD King!!!!!!!!! I have equal number of conventional news reports of weight that also carry that Lance had never failed a doping test!!!!!!
Your conventional news reports will fail both your own test of space and time and my test of basis on objective facts.
Here is one article from Le Monde, published 21 July 1999:
Alors que le peloton devait courir, mardi 20 juillet, la première des deux étapes pyrénéennes, Saint-Gaudens - Piau-Engaly (173 km), pimentée de six cols et agrémentée d'une arrivée en altitude, le 86e Tour de France allait d...
Note, in UCI's CIRC Independent Commission Report, the UCI confessed that the UCI failed to apply its own rules, and should have opened disciplinary proceedings.
Just scrolling up to the top of this very page, it looks like you did say the opposite: "She isn't on the doping radar of anyone with half a brain."
Apparently you are the spokesman for all those with half a brain. Are you their leader, or just a follower?
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.
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."
The more you say the more you condemn those whom you seek to excuse.
But you stated those with half a brain know that Tuohy didn't dope. Now you acccuse me of being one of those people. That would mean you are somebody who knows that she doped. We always suspected that you were somebody close to her. But I am surprised to hear you publicly accusing her.
By the way, Josh is clean. Those with half of a brain know this.
Do you have enough intelligence to reconcile your own statements?
Since you said both statements, can you explain how she is, and she isn't, on the doping radar of anyone with half a brain, and how these statements are not opposites of each other, but effectively the same?
Do you have enough intelligence to reconcile your own statements?
Since you said both statements, can you explain how she is, and she isn't, on the doping radar of anyone with half a brain, and how these statements are not opposites of each other, but effectively the same?
They don't need reconciling. They mean the same thing. This is obviously beyond someone with only half a brain. You should go back to your doping denial mantras. It's all you have.
This post was edited 20 seconds after it was posted.
Do you have enough intelligence to reconcile your own statements?
Since you said both statements, can you explain how she is, and she isn't, on the doping radar of anyone with half a brain, and how these statements are not opposites of each other, but effectively the same?
They don't need reconciling. They mean the same thing. This is obviously beyond someone with only half a brain. You should go back to your doping denial mantras. It's all you have.
Do you have enough intelligence to reconcile your own statements?
Since you said both statements, can you explain how she is, and she isn't, on the doping radar of anyone with half a brain, and how these statements are not opposites of each other, but effectively the same?
They don't need reconciling. They mean the same thing. This is obviously beyond someone with only half a brain. You should go back to your doping denial mantras. It's all you have.
I guess you need to be a lawyer to argue that the meaning of "is" is "is not". Were you consulting for Clinton?
Let's try to clear this up another way. Can you clarify once and for all then what your stance is regarding the radar of those who have half a brain? Is she on the doping radar of those with half a brain, like you said? Or is she not on the doping radar of those with half a brain, like you said?
