Professional Cycling For the Fans - WADA Urges Feds To Turn Over All Evidence On Armstrong

Looks like he might not be completely out of hot water yet. WADA is urging the feds to turn over "significant evidence (proof)" about Armstrong doping. I cant post the link/article, as Im posting from my phone. However, it is posted on the front page of yahoo, so someone can post it here, if they wouldnt mind?

http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=ap-armstrong-wada

http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=ap-armstrong-wada

Thanks alot, Interesting read.

WADA is urging the feds to turn over "significant evidence (proof)" about Armstrong doping.

The word "proof" doesn't show-up anywhere in the article after "significant evidence".

If there were proof, the criminal case would not have been dropped.

Not very objective of you to add that word...

Significant Evidence=proof

Nothing to be objective about really. Having read between the lines, thats essentially what they said. Doesnt matter if the charges were dropped, there was still significant evidence to allow it to get to where it did. WADA must feel there is, or they wouldnt be asking for it?

"Significant Evidence" A large amount of material about doping in the cycling community. NOT necessarily about Armstrong.

Guaranteed this goes nowhere.

Significant Evidence=proof

Nothing to be objective about really. Having read between the lines, thats essentially what they said. Doesnt matter if the charges were dropped, there was still significant evidence to allow it to get to where it did. WADA must feel there is, or they wouldnt be asking for it?

It matters very much that the charges were dropped. The "significant evidence" didn't lead to "proof" of guilt, or "prove" him guilty. If the evidence were that conclusive, the criminal charges would not have been dropped. DA's are suckers for publicity and any DA would love to have a Lance Armstrong conviction on their resumes.

The federal investigation that was dropped was investigating fraud and misuse of funds. It is possible they obtained evidence of LA doping but if he didn't use Postal money for it or influence the rest of the team to partake then it would not support the criminal case.

It could be used by the USADA to disqualify his results as they still have on going non-criminal investigation.

This whole thing needs to just end, no sense in tarnishing a man with circumstancial evidence aquired by known dopers and cheats. Has there ever been a single person actually clean making these claims?

I think theres enough proof out there that age 37 he could still finish on the podium against a "known" doper, that hes clean and always has been.

What I'm fearful for is that this crap is going to be still going on 5 years from now trying to prove or disprove things from 15 years ago. With that being said, if they didn't strip Riis of the 1996 Tour de France in which HE OPENLY ADMITTED to doping, then you shouldnt strip anyone else without real evidence, not just the opinions of known liars. Really if you can't find that evidence within a year or two then the whole thing needs to closed and final, because if you can't find enough evidence within that amount of time then it's probably not legit in the first place.

I'm going to laugh up my lunch if the WADA charges the people who testified.

My two thoughts:

(1) Aren't there rules & laws restricting what information can be released out of a grand jury investigation if an indictment is not made?

(2) While I don't doubt that there are people in WADA who would be interested in evidence against Lance Armstrong, based on statements in the linked article I think they are also hoping that there would be evidence concerning other riders including those that may still be active in the sport.

It matters very much that the charges were dropped. The "significant evidence" didn't lead to "proof" of guilt, or "prove" him guilty. If the evidence were that conclusive, the criminal charges would not have been dropped. DA's are suckers for publicity and any DA would love to have a Lance Armstrong conviction on their resumes.

Youve missed the point: WADA must have a difference of opinion on everything, or else they wouldnt be asking for the info. Theyre probably looking to bust someone, be it: Contador/Armstrong/whoever, or else they wouldnt be asking for something that supposedly doesnt exist?

(1) Aren't there rules & laws restricting what information can be released out of a grand jury investigation if an indictment is not made?

http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/206584.htm
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/11mcrm.htm


Good question. There is. I'm not an attorney but the DOJ website has the legal jargon on it (link above). From what I can tell, the WADA would make a Freedom Of Information Act request. A determination by a judge would be made to decide what can and cannot be released to protect the innocence of all parties. GL getting that.

Youve missed the point: WADA must have a difference of opinion on everything, or else they wouldnt be asking for the info. Theyre probably looking to bust someone, be it: Contador/Armstrong/whoever, or else they wouldnt be asking for something that supposedly doesnt exist?

There might be useful information and there might not be. I think WADA could be grasping for anything at this point in the hope they find something useful.

In any case, it's time for this thing to be dropped. I have little faith that WADA, upon recieving this information, would bring there "trial" to a speedy or conclusive conclusion. So as Americans, one has to ask, how long can you drag somebody through the mud before it becomes harrasement? Isn't this a form of double jeopardy, or even unending jeopardy? Don't we have the right to a speedy trial and judgement? Our judicial system has become a mockery of our Founding Fathers intent...

http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/206584.htm
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/11mcrm.htm


Good question. There is. I'm not an attorney but the DOJ website has the legal jargon on it (link above). From what I can tell, the WADA would make a Freedom Of Information Act request. A determination by a judge would be made to decide what can and cannot be released to protect the innocence of all parties. GL getting that.

Maybe, maybe not. There's some indication that cooperation could be possible:


There are, however, obligations under the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport (http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31037&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html), the 2005 treaty to which the U.S. is a signator. The treaty encourages officials to share relevant evidence with anti-doping authorities. Furthermore there is considerable evidence in this case that had not yet been presented to the grand jury. Some of that could be shared as part of the government’s duty under the treaty or under any cooperative agreements various agencies have with USADA.
Source: http://redkiteprayer.com/?p=7669

Significant Evidence=proof

Nothing to be objective about really. Having read between the lines, thats essentially what they said. Doesnt matter if the charges were dropped, there was still significant evidence to allow it to get to where it did. WADA must feel there is, or they wouldnt be asking for it?

Interesting how you are all about reading between the lines when it comes to Armstrong...but anything like that about other riders you are quick to dismiss.

Maybe, maybe not. There's some indication that cooperation could be possible:
Source: http://redkiteprayer.com/?p=7669

Yup, I agree it's possible. Anything's possible. Probable? That's another story.

This whole thing needs to just end, no sense in tarnishing a man with circumstancial evidence aquired by known dopers and cheats. Has there ever been a single person actually clean making these claims?




In regards to what, just doping? Then there's a bunch of guys who've been clean and not doped: Hinault/Lemond/Hampsten/Indurain/Bauer/Heiden/Phinney etc. People here keep claiming lemond doped, but when i asked them to actually post any proof of any sort(from a credible source), guess what happened? it never showed up, in the numerous attempts to get it.

There might be useful information and there might not be. I think WADA could be grasping for anything at this point in the hope they find something useful.

In any case, it's time for this thing to be dropped. I have little faith that WADA, upon recieving this information, would bring there "trial" to a speedy or conclusive conclusion. So as Americans, one has to ask, how long can you drag somebody through the mud before it becomes harrasement? Isn't this a form of double jeopardy, or even unending jeopardy? Don't we have the right to a speedy trial and judgement? Our judicial system has become a mockery of our Founding Fathers intent...

I agree that it needs to be dropped. One of my points from the very beginning, has been that Armstrong has allowed this whiole thing to draw out till a few days ago. he's partly to blame for the whole fiasco, as he just couldnt "admit" one way or another to anything. When you do that, it gets dragged out to the point we're @ now. Sad it's had to come to this. But, when you're dishonest, and/or withhold information, thats what happens.

The federal investigation that was dropped was investigating fraud and misuse of funds. It is possible they obtained evidence of LA doping but if he didn't use Postal money for it or influence the rest of the team to partake then it would not support the criminal case.

It could be used by the USADA to disqualify his results as they still have on going non-criminal investigation.

+1

Who funds WADA? USADA? More tax dollars at work?

Youve missed the point: WADA must have a difference of opinion on everything, or else they wouldnt be asking for the info. Theyre probably looking to bust someone, be it: Contador/Armstrong/whoever, or else they wouldnt be asking for something that supposedly doesnt exist?

I believe you missed the point. WADA has probably seen little to none of the "significant evidence." US Federal Investigators generally share very little information. And, WADA wouldn't be privy to the Grand Jury testimony. WADA doesn't have enough information to have an opinion. They want to obtain the information so they can form one.

The federal investigation that was dropped was investigating fraud and misuse of funds. It is possible they obtained evidence of LA doping but if he didn't use Postal money for it or influence the rest of the team to partake then it would not support the criminal case.

It could be used by the USADA to disqualify his results as they still have on going non-criminal investigation.

Which contrasted to many of the posts here shows that Lance has the best PR team of any cyclist in history. The way this gets spun is brilliant.

I believe you missed the point. WADA has probably seen little to none of the "significant evidence." US Federal Investigators generally share very little information. And, WADA wouldn't be privy to the Grand Jury testimony. WADA doesn't have enough information to have an opinion. They want to obtain the information so they can form one.

Ive missed no point... if WADA "wasnt privy to GJ testimony/evidence" as you claim, then why would they be asking for it, and expect to get it? But if they cant "obtain it" as you claim, then how could they form an opinion of their own? Youve contradicted yourself.

Which contrasted to many of the posts here shows that Lance has the best PR team of any cyclist in history. The way this gets spun is brilliant.

He definitely should get an award for his creativity

Ive missed no point... if WADA "wasnt privy to GJ testimony/evidence" as you claim, then why would they be asking for it, and expect to get it? But if they cant "obtain it" as you claim, then how could they form an opinion of their own? Youve contradicted yourself.

1) Why would they give info to WADA about their investigation? WADA has nothing to do with corruption and fraud in the US. That would be like the FBI sharing info from a mob investigation with a local police force simply because one of the people being looked at is originally from that town.

2) They are asking for the info because they want to investigate it based on the things that have been made public. If they had access t the info why would they be asking for it now?

Ive missed no point... if WADA "wasnt privy to GJ testimony/evidence" as you claim, then why would they be asking for it, and expect to get it? But if they cant "obtain it" as you claim, then how could they form an opinion of their own? Youve contradicted yourself.

You've missed lots of points and or been misinformed in numerous other posts such as your belief that there is no test to detect EPO. Did I say that they could not obtain it? No, I said they would not be privy to the Grand Jury testimony. They are requesting it so they can form an opinion & determinine whether there is anything worth pursuing. Whether they will be able to acquire it or not, neither I nor you know.

1) Why would they give info to WADA about their investigation? WADA has nothing to do with corruption and fraud in the US...
Cuz the US signed a treaty a few years back that said they would.

If they fail to do so, they will be ruled a 'non-compliant' nation by the WADA. Just like Britain and Italy are now, because they've broke with WADA code and disallow former dopers entrance to the national olympic teams.

Maybe the US officials don't care about this, and maybe LAs legal team will be successful in getting the info sealed, but these things would have to be seen as a blow to the US's credibility in terms of global competition.

Cuz the US signed a treaty a few years back that said they would.

If they fail to do so, they will be ruled a 'non-compliant' nation by the WADA. Just like Britain and Italy are now, because they've broke with WADA code and disallow former dopers entrance to the national olympic teams.

Maybe the US officials don't care about this, and maybe LAs legal team will be successful in getting the info sealed, but these things would have to be seen as a blow to the US's credibility in terms of global competition.

Ok, but does that treaty say that they must pass on the evidence as it comes in or when/if WADA requests it? I am guessing it is the latter, which goes right back to what I said.

Ok, but does that treaty say that they must pass on the evidence as it comes in or when/if WADA requests it? I am guessing it is the latter, which goes right back to what I said.
As they get it. The WADA can't request something they may not even know about!

Today Lance placed 2nd in the Ironman Panama 70.3. Assuming he continues to test clean in International competitions, it's going to strengthen his position. I'm not saying he didn't dope, I'm not saying he did (I really don't care).

Today Lance placed 2nd in the Ironman Panama 70.3. Assuming he continues to test clean in International competitions, it's going to strengthen his position. I'm not saying he didn't dope, I'm not saying he did (I really don't care).

Ah, but you DO care, or else you wouldnt post a response, nor would you bring it up.

You've missed lots of points and or been misinformed in numerous other posts such as your belief that there is no test to detect EPO. Did I say that they could not obtain it? No, I said they would not be privy to the Grand Jury testimony. They are requesting it so they can form an opinion & determinine whether there is anything worth pursuing. Whether they will be able to acquire it or not, neither I nor you know.

In your mind you think so & good for you. They would need evidence either way in order to form an opinion, which is what I was saying that you missed apparently. Why request something if there wasnt some form of evidence supporting either viewpoint? Also, if WADA simply forms an opinion on things, why are they so important to doping? Everyone has an opinion, what makes theirs stand out over others? I dont think WADA is the main cyciing governing body are they? I was always led to believe they were simply a totally independant, unbiased agency?

Ah, but you DO care, or else you wouldnt post a response, nor would you bring it up.

You're quite the expert. I care about it because I have an opinion on something related to it?

It does not make a difference to me whether Or not anyone in professional cycling took PED's. I would argue that the governing bodies in cycling don't care. If they really wanted to solve the doping problem, they would simply set a policy stating whatever you did in the past does not matter but going forward, if you are caught doping, you are banned from the sport FOREVER. None of this two-year farce.

It doesn't make a difference to me because the arguments go around in circles. If Armstrong had to be doping because everyone else was doping and there's no way he could have beat them otherwise...who gives a crap? Under that logic, a doper was going to win anyway. It might as well be the guy who was the best at getting away with it.

Anyway, the point of my post was that he's still competing in a pro sport that tests for PEDs and yesterday, he turned in a world-class performance. If he continues to compete and not test positive for PEDs, that will back up his position.

Does that articulate my position well enough for you, Don Quixote?

In your mind you think so & good for you. They would need evidence either way in order to form an opinion, which is what I was saying that you missed apparently. Why request something if there wasnt some form of evidence supporting either viewpoint? Also, if WADA simply forms an opinion on things, why are they so important to doping? Everyone has an opinion, what makes theirs stand out over others? I dont think WADA is the main cyciing governing body are they? I was always led to believe they were simply a totally independant, unbiased agency?

Dude, what drugs are you on?


Gold star for you, 100% correct, EXCEPT, I would say post 94ish. Guys in the 80s have never been accused of, or doped.

As they get it. The WADA can't request something they may not even know about!

Can you show me a link and a quote where it says they must turn it over as soon as they get it, as I have seen nothing like that.

Can you show me a link and a quote where it says they must turn it over as soon as they get it, as I have seen nothing like that.
What is the point of this line of inquiry? It seems like you've done little to no research here. I don't understand your interest. Are you a fan of LA's? Do you want the investigation blocked because you believe he doped and do not want him sanctioned? I'm just trying to understand what you want here, if anything, so maybe I can point you in the right direction or just ignore you as warranted.

If you are interested, go to the first page of this thread, and read the RKP link I posted. The summary there will give you the information you need.

What is the point of this line of inquiry? It seems like you've done little to no research here. I don't understand your interest. Are you a fan of LA's? Do you want the investigation blocked because you believe he doped and do not want him sanctioned? I'm just trying to understand what you want here, if anything, so maybe I can point you in the right direction or just ignore you as warranted.

If you are interested, go to the first page of this thread, and read the RKP link I posted. The summary there will give you the information you need.


I simply asked you to show me something that backs up your assertion and you respond with insults and the usual rhetoric spouted by the anti-Armstrong crew. Do you guys belong to every forum and act like petulant children towards everyone who does not agree with 100% of what you say?

About your link, from what I read I did not see anything that says they must turn over info as they get it. I see things like "The treaty encourages officials to share relevant evidence with anti-doping authorities" and "Some of that could be shared as part of the government’s duty under the treaty or under any cooperative agreements various agencies have with USADA." and "If it appears that investigators are prepared to share some of that information,..." and "You might also keep in mind, however, that Tygart may already have a fair share of evidence acquired outside of the grand jury process."

You were right, the summery gave me all of the information needed. Now, will you provide a link that actually backs up your assertion, admit you were wrong or continue with insults?

Today Lance placed 2nd in the Ironman Panama 70.3. Assuming he continues to test clean in International competitions, it's going to strengthen his position. I'm not saying he didn't dope, I'm not saying he did (I really don't care).

He didn't test clean, he wasn't tested. Only those who finished from 4th place down were tested, which is a bit unusual.
Oh, by the way, "Livestrong" is sponsor of that triathlon series.

He didn't test clean, he wasn't tested. Only those who finished from 4th place down were tested, which is a bit unusual.
Oh, by the way, "Livestrong" is sponsor of that triathlon series.

Sounds like a good way to clean up sport. Don't test the winners because they are obviously the uber-humans and would win the races with or without drugs. But its those folks who come in 4th through 15th that are very talented but maybe willing to try a little something extra in order to win.

I simply asked you to show me something that backs up your assertion and you respond with insults and the usual rhetoric spouted by the anti-Armstrong crew. Do you guys belong to every forum and act like petulant children towards everyone who does not agree with 100% of what you say?

About your link, from what I read I did not see anything that says they must turn over info as they get it. I see things like "The treaty encourages officials to share relevant evidence with anti-doping authorities" and "Some of that could be shared as part of the government’s duty under the treaty or under any cooperative agreements various agencies have with USADA." and "If it appears that investigators are prepared to share some of that information,..." and "You might also keep in mind, however, that Tygart may already have a fair share of evidence acquired outside of the grand jury process."

You were right, the summery gave me all of the information needed. Now, will you provide a link that actually backs up your assertion, admit you were wrong or continue with insults?
lol? When did I insult you? When did I provide any rhetoric whatsoever?

I don't understand why every time I let myself get dragged into one of these conversations I have to spell out everything in painful detail, but here goes I guess. The US is a sovereign nation. The purpose of the treaty is to provide a framework in which various nations can cooperate. Obviously no one is going to FORCE the US government to do anything.

Okay? They signed a treaty. It says they're supposed to. It's a very vague treaty, as these things always are, because no one would sign them otherwise. The various nations want some 'wiggle room' because they don't like people telling them what to do.

So, either this little chunk of the US government is going to protect a possible doper or not. I dunno maybe this is fine, but I seem to remember a few people criticizing Spain lately, and what just happened in the US is so much vastly worse.

But I sort of suspect I'm wasting my time here. Answer one question to prove me wrong: Do you believe the information should be shared? Why or why not?

lol? When did I insult you? When did I provide any rhetoric whatsoever?

I don't understand why every time I let myself get dragged into one of these conversations I have to spell out everything in painful detail, but here goes I guess. The US is a sovereign nation. The purpose of the treaty is to provide a framework in which various nations can cooperate. Obviously no one is going to FORCE the US government to do anything.

Okay? They signed a treaty. It says they're supposed to. It's a very vague treaty, as these things always are, because no one would sign them otherwise. The various nations want some 'wiggle room' because they don't like people telling them what to do.

So, either this little chunk of the US government is going to protect a possible doper or not. I dunno maybe this is fine, but I seem to remember a few people criticizing Spain lately, and what just happened in the US is so much vastly worse.

But I sort of suspect I'm wasting my time here. Answer one question to prove me wrong: Do you believe the information should be shared? Why or why not?

When did you insult me? What was the whole first paragraph about? That was a blatant attempt at insulting me and the tired, usual type of post used on every cycling forum by the people with unhealthy obsessions with seeing LA go down.

You said the US signed a treaty that says they must pass on evidence when they get it and then claimed your link on the first page proved this. I posted quoted and highlighted certain parts that prove this wrong. Now what is your response? Spin. Not that I am surprised as it is another tactic of the obsessives.

Now will you man up and admit you oversold this or will you keep making excuses and spin? Part of me says the latter while part of me thinks you will slink away since you guys can't admit when you are wrong. Either way it will be a laugh.

When did you insult me? What was the whole first paragraph about? That was a blatant attempt at insulting me and the tired, usual type of post used on every cycling forum by the people with unhealthy obsessions with seeing LA go down.

You said the US signed a treaty that says they must pass on evidence when they get it and then claimed your link on the first page proved this. I posted quoted and highlighted certain parts that prove this wrong. Now what is your response? Spin. Not that I am surprised as it is another tactic of the obsessives.

Now will you man up and admit you oversold this or will you keep making excuses and spin? Part of me says the latter while part of me thinks you will slink away since you guys can't admit when you are wrong. Either way it will be a laugh.

Dude. Get some help. There is no 'us guys' and you're reading things that just aren't there. I promise I am not interested in insulting you.

Now you want to argue about something that I never said, regarding something you had never even heard of until like two weeks ago. It makes you sound like a crazy person.

You still didn't answer my question, but that's okay. I think we both know the answer, and honestly I don't even know if I disagree. Everyone who's interested, even a little, in pro cycling already knows the truth and the sport can probably use a break from doping news, even at the cost of hypocrisy.

So try and move on. You're a big fan of LA I guess? So you're happy with the outcome maybe? Smile a little. Try and get some sleep.

Dude. Get some help. There is no 'us guys' and you're reading things that just aren't there. I promise I am not interested in insulting you.

Now you want to argue about something that I never said, regarding something you had never even heard of until like two weeks ago. It makes you sound like a crazy person.

You still didn't answer my question, but that's okay. I think we both know the answer, and honestly I don't even know if I disagree. Everyone who's interested, even a little, in pro cycling already knows the truth and the sport can probably use a break from doping news, even at the cost of hypocrisy.

So try and move on. You're a big fan of LA I guess? So you're happy with the outcome maybe? Smile a little. Try and get some sleep.

Dude? Are you Bill or Ted? No matter, you have done a fantastic job following the game plan of the anti-Armstrong crowd.

Insults? Check

Avoiding the facts that shoot you down? Check

Lying to avoid facing the facts about what you posted? Check

Refuse to step up to points and questions and then demand people answer your questions? Check

Nice job, my real question now is how many cycling forums do you post this nonsense on?

No matter, I made my point and shut down your nonsense easily, everyone knows it, so need for me to continue. Enjoy your last word...if you feel you need it.

Here's some great info on Mr. Pharmstrong(more proof that the guy is a cheater-Pay attention to the guy near the 5:00 mark):

http://youtu.be/wnPttjysfA4


http://youtu.be/gZw-1PpsyKA

Dude. Get some help. There is no 'us guys' and you're reading things that just aren't there. I promise I am not interested in insulting you.

Now you want to argue about something that I never said, regarding something you had never even heard of until like two weeks ago. It makes you sound like a crazy person.

You still didn't answer my question, but that's okay. I think we both know the answer, and honestly I don't even know if I disagree. Everyone who's interested, even a little, in pro cycling already knows the truth and the sport can probably use a break from doping news, even at the cost of hypocrisy.

So try and move on. You're a big fan of LA I guess? So you're happy with the outcome maybe? Smile a little. Try and get some sleep.

ROTFLMAO, he's an insufferable windbag, what do you expect? he cant handle the fact that someone doesn't agree with him, and that his golden boy/idol could very well be a cheater/phoney/fraud. It does happen. Marion Jones never tested positive for PED's either, and look what happened to her? He'll never directly answer your question, so you or someone else asking one, is pointless. I told you all, Lemond is the Jose Canseco of the entire fiasco, the ONLY one that's told the truth.

I think he honestly talks just to hear himself speak. As usual, he offers up no evidence(proof), either way, he just argues just to argue, he can't help it though, this is the only place someone will possibly listen/pay attention to him, we dont though. He's obviously a huge Pharmstrong fan, isn't that evident? he goes on @ nauseum about him.

Give it up, you cant reason with this person, there's no point. You can't reason with the unreasonable.

BTW, check out my new sig, fits this thread/discussion perfectly, dont you agree?:thumb::)

ROTFLMAO, he's an insufferable windbag, what do you expect? he cant handle the fact that someone doesn't agree with him, and that his golden boy/idol could very well be a cheater/phoney/fraud. It does happen. Marion Jones never tested positive for PED's either, and look what happened to her? He'll never directly answer your question, so you or someone else asking one, is pointless. I told you all, Lemond is the Jose Canseco of the entire fiasco, the ONLY one that's told the truth.

I think he honestly talks just to hear himself speak. As usual, he offers up no evidence(proof), either way, he just argues just to argue, he can't help it though, this is the only place someone will possibly listen/pay attention to him, we dont though. He's obviously a huge Pharmstrong fan, isn't that evident? he goes on @ nauseum about him.

Give it up, you cant reason with this person, there's no point. You can't reason with the unreasonable.

BTW, check out my new sig, fits this thread/discussion perfectly, dont you agree?:thumb::)

Do you still claim to have me on ignore or did you stop lying about it?
Anyway, I am reading what you wrote and I can't help but think you are really talking about yourself. Insufferable windbag, can't handle when someone doesn't agree with him(add, must insult those people when we make this about you), never directly answer your question, talks to hear himself speak, offers no evidence (proof), argues to argue, only place someone will possibly pay attention (oops, you lie when you say "we" don't, because you do and you know it), can't reason with this person. All of that describes you perfectly.

By the way, if you really were a Lemond fan and not just some insecure kid obsessed with hating one rider (Did LA nt give you an autograph?), you would never call him the Jose Canseco, because Greg isn't a real scumbag like Canseco is. Wait, are you trying to say Lemond knows about doping because he was one of the biggest dopers? (LOL, it's so easy to rip on you that it almost isn't even fun anymore.)

Do you still claim to have me on ignore or did you stop lying about it?


I didnt "lie"
about anything, I showed you that you're on my ignore list, and you are, still, then, and forever.


Anyway, I am reading what you wrote and I can't help but think you are really talking about yourself. Insufferable windbag, can't handle when someone doesn't agree with him(add, must insult those people when we make this about you),

There is no "we" only YOU< YOU have taken issue with what ive said from the beginning, I stopped listening to you a while ago, yet you keep responding, in hopes you'll accomplish some goal or win something, which, sad to say, you will not.
never directly answer your question, talks to hear himself speak, offers no evidence (proof), argues to argue, only place someone will possibly pay attention (oops, you lie when you say "we" don't, because you do and you know it), can't reason with this person. All of that describes you perfectly. (Follow me here), Thats why I didnt respond to you sooner, Ive moved on, I suggest you do the same? I just had to comment on the other persons post, which i still find hysterical.


Genius, Ive posted article after article on your mancrush Pharmstrong, yet, youve offered NONE, NADA, ZILCH on Lemond supposedly doping, as you've claimed(here we are in I think month 7-8) that he has? Like I said, you never directly answer any questions, and when you're called to the carpet on it, you resport back to the same old, tired stuff. That usually happens when you have nothing new, or any new material to use, you just keep going back to the old "Lemond doped...nah nah nah nah boo boo" response. Which, proves my point, that you dont know WTF you're talking about, and never have.



By the way, if you really were a Lemond fan and not just some insecure kid obsessed with hating one rider (Did LA nt give you an autograph?), you would never call him the Jose Canseco, because Greg isn't a real scumbag like Canseco is. Wait, are you trying to say Lemond knows about doping because he was one of the biggest dopers? (LOL, it's so easy to rip on you that it almost isn't even fun anymore.)


I am a Lemond fan, and you're obviously NOT. If you really were a Pharmstrong fan, you'd realize that it's painfully obvious that your mancrush cheated, and is a cheater(you yourself even admitted you thought he did, you're so dumb though, you cant remember that you said that). Canseco might be a "scumbag" but he's an honest scumbag, unlike your mancrush Pharmstrong, who lies through his teeth about doping. Lemond said from the beginning(like Canseco did in his sport), that Pharmstrong was a scam artist, liar, and cheater. Just b/c YOU cant come to grips with it, is no reason to get upset with folks here. I wouldnt ask Pharmstrong for an autograph, I dont collect things from cheaters, like you.

Maybe you can go back to giving your Pharmstrong poster it's nightly kiss you normally give it before you go to bed tonight?

By the way, is this like the time you claimed that "everyone here doesnt like you", and yet, you offered no proof to back up your blatant lie? I think so. That was funny too. Like I've explained before, you're comedic gold.

Lets not get into the fact that you went to the mods, and cried like the little girl you are, and begged them to ask me to change my sig, so that people wouldnt continue knowing the obvious(thats you're an insufferable, clueless windbag, who knows NOTHING) Oh wait, you didnt do that did you? I bet you'll claim you didnt, when we both know that you did.

Back to "ignore" for you(pretty sad, only 2 people are on it, and you have to be one of the unlucky ones).

Dude? Are you Bill or Ted? No matter, you have done a fantastic job following the game plan of the anti-Armstrong crowd.


As you have done following the anit-Lemond Crowd(which is a crowd of 1, yourself)


Insults? Check


Pot Kettle, this is the story of your life right here, heed your own advice champ.



Avoiding the facts that shoot you down? Check


See response above...Ive asked you for "facts" on Lemond supposedly doping, and as usual, you offer none, and continue to prove you're completely full of $hit.



Lying to avoid facing the facts about what you posted? Check


Again, look in the mirror @ yourself, this fits you to a tee, you're just a liar, like your man Pharmstrong, and nobody likes a liar.


Refuse to step up to points and questions and then demand people answer your questions? Check


I sound like a broken record with my responses.......see above answers, you yourself offer up nothing of substance to any conversation, which isnt surprising.



Nice job, my real question now is how many cycling forums do you post this nonsense on?


I was just about to ask you the same thing, I guess none other for you, as people on other cycling forums figured out along tiome ago, you're completely full of $hit? this is the only place you can probably post your nonsensical drivel.



No matter, I made my point and shut down your nonsense easily, everyone knows it, so need for me to continue. Enjoy your last word...if you feel you need it


You have no "point" not now, not then, not ever. Ive shut down your "nonsense" for weeks, yet you still keep coming back for more punishment? you keep getting clowned by myself and others, yet you still keep going on, you must like the punishment and embarrassment, or why else would you keep trying to matter?

Uh oh...quick, run to the mods again, and whine to them so they'll send me another email asking me to remove something, like you did last time?