Professional Cycling For the Fans - I thought Novitsky was going to have something on LA by June ?

I haven't seen ANYTHING on the Armstrong doping investigation, and google fails to reveal anything recent. Did I miss something? I am a LA homer, don't want to see it or believe it, but wondering if anything has come out. Landis continues to degrade his credibility. Thx.

Must not be real racing season. 23 views and no comments even from the Lance haters.

Personally, I'd rather talk "anything", but doping.

i was going to bump the 'feds & the end of oneball' thread but it's gone... or maybe it went to trollheim? i was hoping to get a few more giggles out of the lance haters.

i was going to bump the 'feds & the end of oneball' thread but it's gone... or maybe it went to trollheim? i was hoping to get a few more giggles out of the lance haters.

Whats so "funny" about a guy(who along w/others), helped bring down a sport,( we all love), a few notches? No disrespect, but, I dont "get" that. Do I "hate" Lance? No, do I think he doped?Sure do. He's seemingly(not alone, others as well), made it, so that now ALL riders are under the microscope. Now, how do we know who's clean& who isnt? A huge cloud of controversy, now hovers over the sport, thanks to the actions of others.

So, go ahead, and "giggle" all you want.(shakes head)

Whats so "funny" about a guy(who along w/others), helped bring down a sport,( we all love), a few notches? No disrespect, but, I dont "get" that. Do I "hate" Lance? No, do I think he doped?Sure do. He's seemingly(not alone, others as well), made it, so that now ALL riders are under the microscope. Now, how do we know who's clean& who isnt? A huge cloud of controversy, now hovers over the sport, thanks to the actions of others.

So, go ahead, and "giggle" all you want.(shakes head)

hmmm. I don't think the previous poster was saying anything was 'funny' about Lance, but about the Lance haters. You say you don't hate, and I will take you at your word, but you are definitely not a Lance fan and he (the previous poster) may, just maybe, have been talking about those with a similar view to your own.

It seems to me that Lance has elevated the sport, not brought it down a few notches. This will remain true until there is some proof of his alleged indiscretions. Those that have been proven to dope are the guilty, to whatever degree the sport has been brought down. However, it seems like things are improving, with better racing, more tours, more fans, and more cyclists.

So, while I admire your devotion to Mr. LeMond, who certainly did great things, I must respectfully disagree with your leaps of logic regarding Mr. Armstrong.

hmmm. I don't think the previous poster was saying anything was 'funny' about Lance, but about the Lance haters. You say you don't hate, and I will take you at your word, but you are definitely not a Lance fan and he (the previous poster) may, just maybe, have been talking about those with a similar view to your own.

It seems to me that Lance has elevated the sport, not brought it down a few notches. This will remain true until there is some proof of his alleged indiscretions. Those that have been proven to dope are the guilty, to whatever degree the sport has been brought down. However, it seems like things are improving, with better racing, more tours, more fans, and more cyclists.

So, while I admire your devotion to Mr. LeMond, who certainly did great things, I must respectfully disagree with your leaps of logic regarding Mr. Armstrong.

What do my screen name & "Mr Lemond" have to do with the op? Nothing. Many here have given info, that Lance had pretty much admitted to doping, so, how hes "elevated the sport"? Is beyond me. He cheated, he should be punished accordingly, like others who have cheated have been. Mr Armstrong, has also contributed to bringing the sport down a notch. He, along w/others, made doping acceptable, until recently. I get you're an LA fan, but please, take the blinders off & admit, he(LA) was no angel & played a huge role in the doping scandal, that has rockec the sport. Imo, I doubt that admission is in your vocabulary.

PS, its not "my logic", its FACT, your man Mr. Armstrong, has been embroiled in a lenghty battle, with just about EVERYONE, over allegations of his involvement in the doping scandal.

You mustve been living under a rock, the last 5-6 years?

What do my screen name & "Mr Lemond" have to do with the op? Nothing. Many here have given info, that Lance had pretty much admitted to doping, so, how hes "elevated the sport"? Is beyond me. He cheated, he should be punished accordingly, like others who have cheated have been. Mr Armstrong, has also contributed to bringing the sport down a notch. He, along w/others, made doping acceptable, until recently. I get you're an LA fan, but please, take the blinders off & admit, he(LA) was no angel & played a huge role in the doping scandal, that has rockec the sport. Imo, I doubt that admission is in your vocabulary.

PS, its not "my logic", its FACT, your man Mr. Armstrong, has been embroiled in a lenghty battle, with just about EVERYONE, over allegations of his involvement in the doping scandal.

You mustve been living under a rock, the last 5-6 years?

See, I knew I missed something here. I guess I missed the news of his conviction and positive proof of doping...

How did we know who was clean before Lance? If you want clean cycling the microscope was needed long before LA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling

Lance was just really good at winning the TdF during the doping era. You should really thank him as cycling may be headed to a cleaner future due to all the attention that he has brought to the matter. With out the current increase in testing guys may have flown under the radar for years.

I'm not saying he did, or he didn't, that's for the prosecutors to decide
but I've got to go back to what Maitre Jacques said (and i paraphrase)
"What do they think we do ride around on Perrier water?"

The longer this goes on the less impact it's going to have on
the general public atmo. I don't think the general public is going
to care all that much 4 or 6 months down the road when the
indictments come rolling in.
it may shake up standings and have changes in who won past
tours but current procyling? I don't think so.

How did we know who was clean before Lance? If you want clean cycling the microscope was needed long before LA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling

Lance was just really good at winning the TdF during the doping era. You should really thank him as cycling may be headed to a cleaner future due to all the attention that he has brought to the matter. With out the current increase in testing guys may have flown under the radar for years.

That was my point in earlier threads, how do we know who was/wasnt clean?

You dont have yo be proven guilty to be guilty. Perfect example is Roger Clemens. Suspicions are there & have been for awhile.

That was my point in earlier threads, how do we know who was/wasnt clean?

You dont have yo be proven guilty to be guilty. Perfect example is Roger Clemens. Suspicions are there & have been for awhile.

If your talking about the past, we won't ever know with absolute certainty. That's why a witch hunt will become pointless. Is it fair to only be able to punish those who happen to have an old random blood sample still intact in a lab and let the majority of riders who don't go free? I don't think so.

Going forward maybe the 'biological passport' deal will help keep a better record. But if there is money to be made by cheating people will try it and some will get away with.

As for condemning people off of suspicions.....seriously?

If your talking about the past, we won't ever know with absolute certainty. That's why a witch hunt will become pointless. Is it fair to only be able to punish those who happen to have an old random blood sample still intact in a lab and let the majority of riders who don't go free? I don't think so.


So, we shouldnt hold 7 time TDF winners to the same standards(and punishments) as others receive? got it. You cant bend the rules, because YOU like someone, and not for others. He should be punished, if it's found out that he did dope(and it's a pretty good conclusion he did). Who you are, should have no bearing on whether or not you skate through w/o any type of punishment handed down.


Going forward maybe the 'biological passport' deal will help keep a better record. But if there is money to be made by cheating people will try it and some will get away with.


Probably right.





As for condemning people off of suspicions.....seriously?


Pretty sure it's more than just "suspicions" we're talking about here? Could be wrong, but, again, read my response above. We should hold EVERYONE accountable, not just who YOU think shouldnt be, and others should be. Landis/Contador/Ullrich have all been banned, and their tour wins rescinded, shouldnt we hold LA to the same standards as well?

My guess would be no, considering your explanations, and favortism for LA.

So, we shouldnt hold 7 time TDF winners to the same standards(and punishments) as others receive? got it. You cant bend the rules, because YOU like someone, and not for others. He should be punished, if it's found out that he did dope(and it's a pretty good conclusion he did). Who you are, should have no bearing on whether or not you skate through w/o any type of punishment handed down.



Probably right.



Pretty sure it's more than just "suspicions" we're talking about here? Could be wrong, but, again, read my response above. We should hold EVERYONE accountable, not just who YOU think shouldnt be, and others should be. Landis/Contador/Ullrich have all been banned, and their tour wins rescinded, shouldnt we hold LA to the same standards as well?

My guess would be no, considering your explanations, and favortism for LA.

I've already told you I'm not a Lance fan and that I think he doped. But at the time he passed the same scrutiny that the rest of the riders did. I'm sure a few guys were clean, but most of the real competition was not, and you will never catch them now. It has nothing to do with who he is.

Ullrich and Contador have not had their wins rescinded. Look it up. In fact, if you throw Lance out, it would make Ullrich a 4 time winner, 1 more than Lemond. If you found a way to chuck Basso from 2005 then Ullrich would be tied for the record at 5. Does that make sense to you?

And if it would take more than suspicions and allegations for you to throw somebody out then what exactly would your standard be?

I've already told you I'm not a Lance fan and that I think he doped. But at the time he passed the same scrutiny that the rest of the riders did. I'm sure a few guys were clean, but most of the real competition was not, and you will never catch them now. It has nothing to do with who he is.

Ullrich and Contador have not had their wins rescinded. Look it up. In fact, if you throw Lance out, it would make Ullrich a 4 time winner, 1 more than Lemond. If you found a way to chuck Basso from 2005 then Ullrich would be tied for the record at 5. Does that make sense to you?

And if it would take more than suspicions and allegations for you to throw somebody out then what exactly would your standard be?

Oh thats right....we've already had this same discussion before. You must've forgotten about it?

My mistake on Contador/Ullrich, I was thinking Landis/someone else......But, Ullrich was banned for a few years?

Of course, he(Ullrich) and others have been banned for "suspicisons of doping" too, so there you go.

YOU know where I stand on all of this, so i dont "get" why you keep bringing it up, to try to porve a point,that isnt there?

Oh thats right....we've already had this same discussion before. You must've forgotten about it?

My mistake on Contador/Ullrich, I was thinking Landis/someone else......But, Ullrich was banned for a few years?

Of course, he(Ullrich) and others have been banned for "suspicisons of doping" too, so there you go.

YOU know where I stand on all of this, so i dont "get" why you keep bringing it up, to try to porve a point,that isnt there?

I didn't forget, I reminded you.

Take a look at a few of the years that Lance won. Look up the next few guys in line until you find somebody who there are no "suspicisons of doping (sic)". Tell me who the winners should be.

I don't bring it up anymore than you do. I was responding to you. It's a forum. That's what people do here. You're free to stop posting and I won't have anything to respond to or you can put me on your ignore list.

I didn't forget, I reminded you.


Of what exactly did you "remind me of"? that our opinions differ from one another? If so, then yes, you did forget.



Take a look at a few of the years that Lance won. Look up the next few guys in line until you find somebody who there are no "suspicisons of doping (sic)". Tell me who the winners should be.


I never singled him out, YOU keep doing so...I've maintained that he, along with others have doped. But, since you're bringing it up, there probably couldve been others who couldve won? didnt Contador come in second in 2-3 of the Tours Lance won? there you go, but then again, he's a supposed "doper" too, so he might not count. Regardless, what is your point exactly? that b/c there werent any other "clean" alternatives to LA/Contador, that it's ok that Armstrong won?



I don't bring it up anymore than you do.
Oh but you did/do. You seem to follow me around, wherever I post, and inject your take on the situation. You have that right, even though it's off base, you do.



I was responding to you. It's a forum.That's what people do here.

Probably best to heed your own advice here, one would think? we'll agree to disagree. You keep responding, b/c apparently you feel you've been offended in some way? That LA has been tarnished in some way? Im sorry if you have, its a touchy subject I'm sure, one with no real answers & most likely, never will have. There's always going to be a cloud of controversy around the man/subject, I cant do anything about that. Happened before I/we started posting, and Im sure, will continue, long after both of us are gone? Dont beat yourself up over it, it's not worth it.




You're free to stop posting and I won't have anything to respond to

You're free to stop telling me what to do? When you start paying my bills, then, maybe.... or, how about just going about your business, and not worrying about what I say, that I've somehow "offended you", and that you're on this crusade of sorts, to troll people, who's opinions,/beliefs, dont mirror yours?

You're "free" to knock it off anytime. That way, you dont have to "respond to anything I post",and your blood pressure, will go down, we wont have to hear anymore incessant diatribes, or oneupsmanship from you, and we wont continue dragging this dead horse into the ground, any longer than it should? But, thats too easy isnt it, and you cant help yourself, can you? I told you, they have medicine for that.

I can post all kinds of suspicions surrounding the man(as well as other riders), as Im sure, you can post stuff to the contrary? So, neither would win, or have their point stand out more than it has? = no win situation.




or you can put me on your ignore list.


Why? You arent important enough to me, to do so. That would be a perfectly good waste of "ignore" wouldnt it?

PS, hopefully, you can now stop with all of this, so that we can stop wasting bandwidth, on a story/subject, there really isnt any right or wrong answer to? We'll agree to disagree, thats what makes this country so great.

By all means, keep showing how you just cant handle it though, and continue posting, proving me right

didnt Contador come in second in 2-3 of the Tours Lance won?

Yes, this would be a good place to stop since you obviously don't actually watch cycling.

Without even reading, I won $5 from my friend, thanks to you. I bet him that you wouldnt be able to help yourself & youd reply, I won, thanks.

Oh yeah, my bad, I was thinking of Jan Ullrich, not Contador.

PS, thanks for proving my point.

Should I be concerned? The money doesn't come from my pocket.

Enjoy your payday.

I don't care much about whether Lance will be punished or not but saying you need more proof to believe he was doping does sound a bit weird to me.

Probably all of those things were discussed before, I could barely get through this thread, apologies for not looking at the others but in case you missed something:
As everyone knows, he tested + for cortisone in 1999. He wasn't banned because he presented a backdated TUE- which may be enough to avoid suspension but it's hardly logical to assume he was innocent.
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden If you don't feel like reading the whole thing (though there's some good analysis there), just have a look at " '99 Tour Urine Samples Re-Tested in '05" and "Lance Armstrong's '99 Samples Test Positive". You can choose to believe those tests aren't credible but I would think such detailed interpretation by Ashenden is worth a little bit more than Lance saying he likes his word and pitying people for not believing in miracles.
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis/instantmessage.html The conversation between Vaughters/Andreu. They weren't 100% right about everything, some of the things they say are just rumours but it's a nice description of the climate around Lance. And as they were only talking to each other, I can hardly think of any reason why they'd make something up on purpose.
Also the whole Ferrari thing. If you believe someone would work so close with him and pay him so much just for good training advice- and that belief would be not only against common sense but also claims of people like Willy Voet- well, that's your choice.

And even without all that, it's a bit naive to believe that Lance was so talented and so much more motivated than his rivals to beat them when they were all blood doping. Given the benefits, it's virtually impossible. Zulle admitted to taking EPO, Dufaux is a confessed doper, Escartin was riding for Kelme (whole team on the program), Ullrich and Basso were both Fuentes clients, Heras tested positive for EPO, Gonzalez tested + twice for salbutamol, Rumsas caught as well, just like Vino, Hamilton, Mayo, Mancebo. There's nothing to suggest Armstrong could beat them clean. Some of those were considered incredible talents while Armstrong wasn't even thought of as (future) GC contender before his cancer. Where would Lance find those few percent to close the gap made by doping if he wasn't juiced himself? I rate mental strength and hard work but... well, I guess I don't believe in miracles. I'm pretty sure there were more extremely motivated and hard working riders between 1999 and 2005.

Sure if you strip Armstrong off the titles (and you can only go back 7 years btw, that's why they couldn't do anything when Riis confessed), you'll face the problem- what to do with them? Anyway, you can't rewrite the whole history of cycling and if you try, you'll probably only damage it further. And Armstrong is as guilty in ruining cycling's reputation as others- he might have had a better program and he might be an a$$ but it's pretty irrelevant here. (But think about what would happen if other sports were similarly exposed, had similar number of anti-doping tests blah blah blah- you'd quickly see tennis players and footballers bringing their respective sports into disrepute.) Time to move on, he's a closed chapter and no reason to keep bringing him up and arguing over him.

I don't care much about whether Lance will be punished or not but saying you need more proof to believe he was doping does sound a bit weird to me.

Probably all of those things were discussed before, I could barely get through this thread, apologies for not looking at the others but in case you missed something:
As everyone knows, he tested + for cortisone in 1999. He wasn't banned because he presented a backdated TUE- which may be enough to avoid suspension but it's hardly logical to assume he was innocent.
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden If you don't feel like reading the whole thing (though there's some good analysis there), just have a look at " '99 Tour Urine Samples Re-Tested in '05" and "Lance Armstrong's '99 Samples Test Positive". You can choose to believe those tests aren't credible but I would think such detailed interpretation by Ashenden is worth a little bit more than Lance saying he likes his word and pitying people for not believing in miracles.
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis/instantmessage.html The conversation between Vaughters/Andreu. They weren't 100% right about everything, some of the things they say are just rumours but it's a nice description of the climate around Lance. And as they were only talking to each other, I can hardly think of any reason why they'd make something up on purpose.
Also the whole Ferrari thing. If you believe someone would work so close with him and pay him so much just for good training advice- and that belief would be not only against common sense but also claims of people like Willy Voet- well, that's your choice.

And even without all that, it's a bit naive to believe that Lance was so talented and so much more motivated than his rivals to beat them when they were all blood doping. Given the benefits, it's virtually impossible. Zulle admitted to taking EPO, Dufaux is a confessed doper, Escartin was riding for Kelme (whole team on the program), Ullrich and Basso were both Fuentes clients, Heras tested positive for EPO, Gonzalez tested + twice for salbutamol, Rumsas caught as well, just like Vino, Hamilton, Mayo, Mancebo. There's nothing to suggest Armstrong could beat them clean. Some of those were considered incredible talents while Armstrong wasn't even thought of as (future) GC contender before his cancer. Where would Lance find those few percent to close the gap made by doping if he wasn't juiced himself? I rate mental strength and hard work but... well, I guess I don't believe in miracles. I'm pretty sure there were more extremely motivated and hard working riders between 1999 and 2005.

Sure if you strip Armstrong off the titles (and you can only go back 7 years btw, that's why they couldn't do anything when Riis confessed), you'll face the problem- what to do with them? Anyway, you can't rewrite the whole history of cycling and if you try, you'll probably only damage it further. And Armstrong is as guilty in ruining cycling's reputation as others- he might have had a better program and he might be an a$$ but it's pretty irrelevant here. (But think about what would happen if other sports were similarly exposed, had similar number of anti-doping tests blah blah blah- you'd quickly see tennis players and footballers bringing their respective sports into disrepute.) Time to move on, he's a closed chapter and no reason to keep bringing him up and arguing over him.





Excellent post

I find it ironic that the people who respond to threads like this are the ones who care the LEAST about the topic because they already have their minds made up.


You dont have yo be proven guilty to be guilty.

Well, for the sake of THIS discussion, yes, you do. Whether it's murder, a parking ticket, or doping, that is the standard that we, as a civil society, have agreed upon, at least until we have some supreme God-like power to perfectly tell the past. The alternative that you suggest is akin to what society has tried in the past, be it to discover witches in Salem, or anything else. We tried it, it wasn't fair, and we grew up as a society. Join us.

I find it ironic that the people who respond to threads like this are the ones who care the LEAST about the topic because they already have their minds made up.


I find it even more ironic, that people who dont know what they're talking about, are chiming in? Read the links the above poster, was kind enough to include.....come back and tell me anything said is untrue?






Well, for the sake of THIS discussion, yes, you do. Whether it's murder, a parking ticket, or doping, that is the standard that we, as a civil society, have agreed upon, at least until we have some supreme God-like power to perfectly tell the past. The alternative that you suggest is akin to what society has tried in the past, be it to discover witches in Salem, or anything else. We tried it, it wasn't fair, and we grew up as a society. Join us.

Actually, for the sake of this arguement: NO YOU DONT. Armstrong hasnt been "proven guilty", yet it's a pretty well known fact that he did dope. Or did you miss the post 2 posts up, saying that very thing?

All I've heard from folks here is "well, Lance didnt do anything...blah blah blah, where's your proof that he did...what proof does he have to give that says he didnt..blah blah blah" & major butt hurtness from folks who dont like the fact(or, dont want to believe-ehich is more accurate) that Lance could be a doper, and a scam artist. You dont have to be proven guilty, to be such, case in point Lance Armstrong. C'mon, even someone such as yourself, has to admit...LA just got busted?

"Witches in Salem" or not, he's guilty, you know it, I do, the poster who posted facts does, just admit it and move on. Problem is, LA & his supporters cant seem to do that.

Let it go...your man has been busted........time to move on.

Interesting read, those articles. Really details what I've stood by all along. This part, especially stands out to me(and proves that alot of what I said, was/is right on):

4. Trust. See page 179 of "Its not about the bike", where Armstrong says: ""The old me had weighed 175 pounds. Now I was 158, my face looked narrow and hawkish, and you could see every sinew in my legs." In the context of the book, this was post-cancer shortly before he resumed racing. 175 pounds (~79kg) vs. 158 pounds (~72kg). Later, Armstrong confirmed under oath that he had never raced at 72 kg - yet this leaner body weight has entered folklore (and Coyle's publication!) as the explanation for his improved performance. He had lied to the public about his weight loss. To quote Armstrong's agent Bill Stapleton, when questioning the motives of allegations against his friend: "He lied once, therefore it brings everything else into question".

(We have a winner!!!)

Now, pardon me for speaking out of turn here, but if your own agent throws you under the bus, it's a pretty good assumption, you're guilty.

I find it even more ironic, that people who dont know what they're talking about, are chiming in?







Actually, for the sake of this arguement: NO YOU DONT. Armstrong hasnt been "proven guilty", yet it's a pretty well known fact that he did dope. Or did you miss the post 2 posts up, saying that very thing?

All I've heard from folks here is "well, lance didnt do anything...blah blah blah, where's your proof that he did...what proof does he have to give that says he didnt..blah blah blah". You dont have ot be proven guilty, to be such, case in point Lance Armstrong. C'mon, even someone such as yourself, has to admit...LA just got outed?

"Witches in Salem" or not, he's guilty, you know it, I do, the poster who posted facts does, just admit it and move on. Problem is, LA supporters cant seem to do that.

Let it go...your man has been outed........time to move on.


Why are you attacking me? I'm just stating how the world works and wondering why it upsets you so much. I think he probably cheated, and if he did, I hope he gets caught and punished. I'm smart enough to realize that whining about it on the internet won't do any good though. I have to trust that the system, as flawed as it may be, will weigh the evidence and come to the best, most accurate possible conclusion.

I really don't get what your point is if you have one at all. There's a good chance he cheated, and there seems to be a lot of evidence, so he is being tried. We can't punish everyone who is suspicious. That's more corrupt and lacking integrity than having cheaters slip through the cracks because we don't have enough evidence to punish them.

Why are you attacking me? I'm just stating how the world works and wondering why it upsets you so much. I think he probably cheated, and if he did, I hope he gets caught and punished. I'm smart enough to realize that whining about it on the internet won't do any good though. I have to trust that the system, as flawed as it may be, will weigh the evidence and come to the best, most accurate possible conclusion.

I really don't get what your point is if you have one at all. There's a good chance he cheated, and there seems to be a lot of evidence, so he is being tried. We can't punish everyone who is suspicious. That's more corrupt and lacking integrity than having cheaters slip through the cracks because we don't have enough evidence to punish them.

Because YOU were 'attacking me".

You're not related to the other guy are you?

You said it had to be proven for a person to be guilty, and I said it didnt. Relating to the case/topic @ hand, it's not the case of LA having to prove he's guilty, he is, I even cited a source from his own agent(and another poster did as well).YOU took issue with something I said, I corrected you on it, and you got all mad.

Because YOU were 'attacking me".

You're not related to the other guy are you?

You said it had to be proven for a person to be guilty, and I said it didnt. Relating to the case/topic @ hand, it's not the case of LA having to prove he's guilty, he is, I even cited a source from his own agent(and another poster did as well).YOU took issue with something I said, I corrected you on it, and you got all mad.

I wasn't attacking you. I was just explaining that your opinion doesn't really matter, and neither does mine. My point is that they handle issues like these in a civil manner. You could try calling everybody involved, telling them he's guilty, and that they don't need to waste their time, but I promise that won't work. You seem like this really bothers you to an unhealthy degree, and all I'm saying is there's nothing you can do about it, and you might want to start thinking about how to handle it if he's found not guilty.

I wasn't attacking you. I was just explaining that your opinion doesn't really matter, and neither does mine. My point is that they handle issues like these in a civil manner. You could try calling everybody involved, telling them he's guilty, and that they don't need to waste their time, but I promise that won't work. You seem like this really bothers you to an unhealthy degree, and all I'm saying is there's nothing you can do about it, and you might want to start thinking about how to handle it if he's found not guilty.

LOL, Truth be told, it wont bother me if he is. Itd be nice to see the throne hes been put on, come crumbling down. Wont affect me one way or another, Ill just enjoy, sitting back & watching so many peoples heto, be exposed. I think, if anything, his supporters should probably go & start picking out ledges to jump from, if & when it comes out, that the guys ponzy scheme, has been exposed. Just dont say I &(others) told you so. The media putting on some huge pedestal, is the most annoying of all. I hope (for his sake, and the sport) he is found to be clean. Lets not kid ourselves here, probably wishful thinking. Doesnt affect me thougj, I dont buy anything he endorses, and I dont believe anything he says. Its going to be fun, I must admit, watching him fall.

LOL, Truth be told, it wont bother me if he is. Itd be nice to see the throne hes been put on, come crumbling down. Wont affect me one way or another, Ill just enjoy, sitting back & watching so many peoples heto, be exposed. I think, if anything, his supporters should probably go & start picking out ledges to jump from, if & when it comes out, that the guys ponzy scheme, has been exposed. Just dont say I &(others) told you so. The media putting on some huge pedestal, is the most annoying of all. I hope (for his sake, and the sport) he is found to be clean. Lets not kid ourselves here, probably wishful thinking. Doesnt affect me thougj, I dont buy anything he endorses, and I dont believe anything he says. Its going to be fun, I must admit, watching him fall.

I just don't see the point of bringing Lance up in every thread on this forum pertaining to doping, even when he isn't mentioned. I think everybody here gets that you don't like him, and most of us don't want to talk about him anyway, unless there's some actual news. That's what this thread is about, but it shouldn't have gone past one or two replies. No news to be had. End of topic.

I just don't see the point of bringing Lance up in every thread on this forum pertaining to doping, even when he isn't mentioned. I think everybody here gets that you don't like him, and most of us don't want to talk about him anyway, unless there's some actual news. That's what this thread is about, but it shouldn't have gone past one or two replies. No news to be had. End of topic.

I have no issues ending it, do you? Thought it was over with alteady? You yourself, need to let it end, but you cant. we get it, you like him.......its cool. The relevancy of talking about him, is that its still a hot button topic.

He's not a hot button topic, he's retired. I don't particularly like him or care to talk about him unless some news on his case occured, in which case he would be worth talking about.

He's not a hot button topic, he's retired. I don't particularly like him or care to talk about him unless some news on his case occured, in which case he would be worth talking about.

He must be "worth talking about", b/c you ke,ep talking about him? You asked me to stop, I have, yet you keep going. Just stop, end it. You cant though, can you? No, otherwise, youd have stopped. By you continuing to post, after asking me to stop, proves you do want to keep on about it.

Stop talking about it & move on(lets see if you can do that? Bet you cant, bet you post again)

He must be "worth talking about", b/c you ke,ep talking about him? You asked me to stop, I have, yet you keep going. Just stop, end it. You cant though, can you? No, otherwise, youd have stopped. By you continuing to post, after asking me to stop, proves you do want to keep on about it.

Stop talking about it & move on(lets see if you can do that? Bet you cant, bet you post again)

Judging from your post times you apparently pulled an all-nighter talking about a topic that you say others can't end.

Judging from your post times you apparently pulled an all-nighter talking about a topic that you say others can't end.

Not at all...Ive stopped, lets move on.

Someone asked for news ;) :
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gB5N_sqINRm-daSpbtMwYxBoglhA?docId=6e9152afb40f4d699be5b2b3ed794fe4
(I'm being serious. Corriere della Sera published the article about money laundering and doping investigation and Armstrong is one of the cyclists named. They accuse him of not only working with Ferrari (after 2002) but also dirty money operations via Health & Performance company.He's of course not the part of Italian investigation but they say Feds were informed.)

Someone asked for news ;) :
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gB5N_sqINRm-daSpbtMwYxBoglhA?docId=6e9152afb40f4d699be5b2b3ed794fe4
(I'm being serious. Corriere della Sera published the article about money laundering and doping investigation and Armstrong is one of the cyclists named. They accuse him of not only working with Ferrari (after 2002) but also dirty money operations via Health & Performance company.He's of course not the part of Italian investigation but they say Feds were informed.)

Great info, thanks PBW. Armstrongs got an explanation(excuse)for everything, wonder how he'll weasel his way out of this?

There's a major difference between being guilty in your mind and being found Guilty in
a court of law.

just sayin

He must be "worth talking about", b/c you ke,ep talking about him? You asked me to stop, I have, yet you keep going. Just stop, end it. You cant though, can you? No, otherwise, youd have stopped. By you continuing to post, after asking me to stop, proves you do want to keep on about it.

Stop talking about it & move on(lets see if you can do that? Bet you cant, bet you post again)


Judging from your post times you apparently pulled an all-nighter talking about a topic that you say others can't end.

look! it's the new bellweatherman!!

There's a major difference between being guilty in your mind and being found Guilty in
a court of law.

just sayin

this^^^, the internets sure bring out the fruitcake hate easily. the feds will go after bonds, baseball players, etc... yet they won't prosecute the bankers or those associated w/ the economic collapse.

bread and circuses...

look! it's the new bellweatherman!!

Nahhh. Much more of an Assos Man.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_t8PHYRHMaVk/S9D2cMtB1eI/AAAAAAAAAOU/VhAgORS9eQs/s400/TFI.13_S5_1.jpg

Nahhh. Much more of an Assos Man.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_t8PHYRHMaVk/S9D2cMtB1eI/AAAAAAAAAOU/VhAgORS9eQs/s400/TFI.13_S5_1.jpg

Thought you werent going to post in this thread anymore? You just cant help yourself can you? Pathetic.

Thought you werent going to post in this thread anymore? You just cant help yourself can you? Pathetic.

I never said that. You did (see post #35).

this^^^, the internets sure bring out the fruitcake hate easily. the feds will go after bonds, baseball players, etc... yet they won't prosecute the bankers or those associated w/ the economic collapse.

bread and circuses...

Love how so many here cant seem to comprehend that LAs under federal investigation for things, yet keep assuming its only in "my mind"? apparently not.

I agree all the investigations of athletes after the fact, are pointless. Esp. With all the problems thr country is facing right now. I guess someone else thinks these guys are liars too?

I never said that. You did (see post #35).

Whatever....Assos man:rolleyes:

I agree all the investigations of athletes after the fact, are pointless.

???? Wtf?

Yep....you read that right. Though, I do believe they will find out LAs a liar(& a doper), I agree that they are wasting taxpayer money, on something we all knew anyways. Now, I just want to see them bust him, since theyve come this far. Had LA Just been honest from the start, we wouldnt be here now w: LA/Bonds/Anyone.

Thats the sad part of it all. So, thank these guys for getting us to this point

I haven't seen ANYTHING on the Armstrong doping investigation, and google fails to reveal anything recent. Did I miss something? I am a LA homer, don't want to see it or believe it, but wondering if anything has come out. Landis continues to degrade his credibility. Thx.

Okay... so has Novitsky come out with anything on LA?
I haven't seen anything either.