In the News: Armstrong took EPO reports paper

[rich]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> At the time, Armstrong was thinking about surviving a
> very scary cancer and probably not worrying so much about
> whether this could come back on him ten years later.
> This is long before Lance became LANCE, after all.
> There was no guarantee he would live, let alone become
> a megastar whose entire career would be pored over and
> who would have a lot to lose.

Yeah, but he didn't tell his primary doctors but he tells these other
doctors? And where are these other doctors, anyway? It shouldn't have been
that hard to track them down and see if they corroborate the story. With
all the efforts put into a lawsuit with potential damages in the millions,
tracking down those doctors would have been a no-brainer for the defense.
*If* the story was true and if those doctors even existed.

Rich

 

[Kyle Legate]

rich wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>At the time, Armstrong was thinking about surviving a
>>very scary cancer and probably not worrying so much about
>>whether this could come back on him ten years later.
>>This is long before Lance became LANCE, after all.
>>There was no guarantee he would live, let alone become
>>a megastar whose entire career would be pored over and
>>who would have a lot to lose.
>
>
> Yeah, but he didn't tell his primary doctors but he tells these other
> doctors? And where are these other doctors, anyway? It shouldn't have been
> that hard to track them down and see if they corroborate the story. With
> all the efforts put into a lawsuit with potential damages in the millions,
> tracking down those doctors would have been a no-brainer for the defense.
> *If* the story was true and if those doctors even existed.
>
The doctors all deny that any discussion or admission of doping took
place. It has also been mentioned in this group that doctors lie quite
often and their colleagues all back their side of the story to
perpetuate the lie.

 

[[email protected]]

Kyle Legate wrote:
> rich wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >>At the time, Armstrong was thinking about surviving a
> >>very scary cancer and probably not worrying so much about
> >>whether this could come back on him ten years later.
> >>This is long before Lance became LANCE, after all.
> >>There was no guarantee he would live, let alone become
> >>a megastar whose entire career would be pored over and
> >>who would have a lot to lose.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, but he didn't tell his primary doctors but he tells these other
> > doctors? And where are these other doctors, anyway? It shouldn't have been
> > that hard to track them down and see if they corroborate the story. With
> > all the efforts put into a lawsuit with potential damages in the millions,
> > tracking down those doctors would have been a no-brainer for the defense.
> > *If* the story was true and if those doctors even existed.
> >
> The doctors all deny that any discussion or admission of doping took
> place. It has also been mentioned in this group that doctors lie quite
> often and their colleagues all back their side of the story to
> perpetuate the lie.

The Austin-American has links to partial pdf transcripts of Betsy and
Frankie's testimony. Betsy's in particularly interesting as she
contradicts, under oath, comments that the Lemonds made under oath. In
that particular instance, either Betsy or the Lemonds are lying under
oath or choosing to remember very differently. Very weird.
http://www.statesman.com/sports/content/sports/stories/other/06/24lance.html

 

[[email protected]]

Kyle Legate wrote:
> rich wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >>At the time, Armstrong was thinking about surviving a
> >>very scary cancer and probably not worrying so much about
> >>whether this could come back on him ten years later.
> >>This is long before Lance became LANCE, after all.
> >>There was no guarantee he would live, let alone become
> >>a megastar whose entire career would be pored over and
> >>who would have a lot to lose.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, but he didn't tell his primary doctors but he tells these other
> > doctors? And where are these other doctors, anyway? It shouldn't have been
> > that hard to track them down and see if they corroborate the story. With
> > all the efforts put into a lawsuit with potential damages in the millions,
> > tracking down those doctors would have been a no-brainer for the defense.
> > *If* the story was true and if those doctors even existed.
> >
> The doctors all deny that any discussion or admission of doping took
> place. It has also been mentioned in this group that doctors lie quite
> often and their colleagues all back their side of the story to
> perpetuate the lie.

The Austin-American has links to partial pdf transcripts of Betsy and
Frankie's testimony. Betsy's in particularly interesting as she
contradicts, under oath, comments that the Lemonds made under oath. In
that particular instance, either Betsy or the Lemonds are lying under
oath or choosing to remember very differently. Very weird.
http://www.statesman.com/sports/content/sports/stories/other/06/24lance.html

 

[Scott Johnson]

gym.gravity wrote:
> Scott Johnson wrote:
>> Jason Spaceman wrote:
>>
>>> From the article:Armstrong said he had taken 'EPO,
>>> testosterone, growth hormones and cortisone'."
>> I understand the first three, but why is cortisone
>> beneficial?
>
> It's thought to prevent excessive tissue damage from inflamation after
> hard efforts, among other stuff. even as a masking agent. so many
> things have been attributed to cortisone. lots of people can't see the
> logic in taking it for many reasons...but the fact is, lots of riders
> get caught with it.

Thanks.


--
Scott Johnson / johnson dot sa at comcast dot net

 

[Bill C]

OMC wrote:

>
> Maybe because he was a dumbass.........or maybe because he did what
> Betsy said.
> It really doesn't matter, the source of such information will always
> be a
> ex-teammate/roommate/coach/mechanic/therapist/girlfriend/boyfriend/significant
> other.
> All have some vendetta or pay-back against Lance according to his
> attorneys.
> Is it really possible that all these people have conspired against
> Lance or do they really know the truth....
> Let's face it, the guy survived cancer and he is a hero to millions and
> anyone attacking him must be out to get him or simply envious of his
> fame and fortune.
> Someday the truth will come out and people will know that he wasn't
> what everyone thought he was.
> Don't sell Brian Lafferty short on his Lance campaign, maybe Brian has
> had it right all along....

If there was a credible, responsible, objective agency that had even a
decent ethical record we'd be able to have some confidence in their
findings.
Finding hoards of people to smear someone is pretty easy, just ask
John Kerry. I can't stand him, but the Swift Boat folks and all the
others were happy to say all kinds of BS to bring him down even though
all the evidence, including official paperwork, supported him.
Lance can be a total asshole, I don't think that's in doubt, so why
wouldn't they try to cut him down a size or two? I have no problem
believing it.
If they'd held those samples intact until they had created and vetted
a good test, then found the "positives" this would be over. That's why
I brought up the subject with Sandy. I just can't see using
uncontrolled, in that you don't have data on which are positive,
irreplaceable, sure to create a political/PR firestorm to develop a
test. Something there really stinks to me.
If they'd established the methodology and had it reviewed, then nailed
Lance it'd be over, but now we will never know without tons of doubt.
That was brutally irresponsible and unethical IMO.
Bill C

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Finding hoards of people to smear someone is pretty easy, just ask
> John Kerry. I can't stand him, but the Swift Boat folks and all the
> others were happy to say all kinds of BS to bring him down even though
> all the evidence, including official paperwork, supported him.

Well, the So-Called Liberal Media gave the Swift Boat Liars a platform to do it.

> If they'd held those samples intact until they had created and vetted
> a good test, then found the "positives" this would be over. That's why
> I brought up the subject with Sandy. I just can't see using
> uncontrolled, in that you don't have data on which are positive,
> irreplaceable, sure to create a political/PR firestorm to develop a
> test. Something there really stinks to me.
> If they'd established the methodology and had it reviewed, then nailed
> Lance it'd be over, but now we will never know without tons of doubt.
> That was brutally irresponsible and unethical IMO.

Here's an idea. The athlete gives three urine samples. The officials take two,
the team takes one. They're sealed in a way that makes tampering obvious.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Tom Kunich]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately no one seems to be interested in the fact that McCarthy was
>> being fed his information by the CIA who then cut his channels after
>> pressure from the White House and Congressmen who might have been
>> involved
>> in stupidity if not outright criminal activity themselves.
>
> Incorrect.

Lie #1

>> The records from the old Soviet Union pretty much backed up everything
>> McCarthy said.
>
> Incorrect.

Lie #2

>> And let us be QUITE explicit that McCarthy held HEARINGS ONLY.
>
> At the time, being brought before a HEARING ONLY could
> ruin your life

Do you mean like standing before the microphone and telling the American
public - "I did not have sex with that woman, that Monica Lewinski!"?

> Your advice on politics is as good as your advice on time trialing.

I suggest that you have absolutely NO idea about anything pertaining to the
McCarthy hearings. But it's not a surprise that you'd talk about it.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"OMC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Don't sell Brian Lafferty short on his Lance campaign, maybe Brian has
> had it right all along....

Yeah, I can see it now - Lance is in the hospital after brain surgery, loss
of a testical and a future of probable death from chemo treatments etc.

He says to himself, "If I recover from this I promise to dope myself to the
gills and win the Tour de France."

Too bad that Michael is doping this very minute huh? After all he IS a pro
so according to Lafferty he's a doper.

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 01:55:20 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Addictions aren't the same thing and you know that full well. Lance was
>faced with death and won. Do you suppose he would roll the dice again?

It isn't always addiction - for quite a few of them, its just habit.
Some are coming out of several weeks in units where they did not touch
a cigarette. The word 'addiciton' at that point is a mental
reason/excuse to do what they want to do.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On 24 Jun 2006 11:04:55 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>There is an excellent NPR report on this at:
>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5508863
>It has some new info and audio of Betsy commenting on the case. I have
>to say that even though I prefer not to believe it, she sounds pretty
>convincing. It comes down to: what's her motivation to lie? I can't
>think of a really plausible one, though I'd like to know why the two
>dislike each other so much. My apologies if this link was already
>posted.

The problem is that everyone wants everything to be logical from the
outside. There was a recent case where a person made public claims to
a military history he did not have. How did it happen? Because he
evidently told a couple of friends in private a fib and then by the
time it was a public issue, he would have had to come clean in front
of everyone that now thought he was a war hero.

She may be telling the truth. She might have started down a path with
a minor fib in front of friends. We simply will not know. It doesn't
have to be as logical as we all seem to want it to be.

By the way, if my wife asks, this is a forum on relative theology. One
little fib can't be that big a deal...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 14:20:20 -0700, Howard Kveck
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Here's an idea. The athlete gives three urine samples. The officials take two,
>the team takes one. They're sealed in a way that makes tampering obvious.

And stored and paid by whom? And if the team no longer has any
interest in the samples five years down the road, who picks up the
tab? And how far down the list do we go - who knows, last place may
work his or her way up the line and found to be taking baking soda on
the side.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 23:52:54 +0200, Donald Munro
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> My wife isn't answering the cell phone, so my line to actual knowledge
>> is cut right now...
>
>Perhaps you should try dialling from a number she doesn't recognise as
>yours.

All right, you're on my list, Munro. But it IS a good idea...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Donald Munro]

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> The problem is that everyone wants everything to be logical from the
> outside. There was a recent case where a person made public claims to
> a military history he did not have. How did it happen? Because he
> evidently told a couple of friends in private a fib and then by the
> time it was a public issue, he would have had to come clean in front
> of everyone that now thought he was a war hero.

Kunich ?

 

[B. Lafferty]

"OMC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>> rich wrote:
>> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> > >
>> >
>> > > There is an excellent NPR report on this at:
>> > > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5508863
>> > > It has some new info and audio of Betsy commenting on the case. I
>> > > have
>> > > to say that even though I prefer not to believe it, she sounds pretty
>> > > convincing. It comes down to: what's her motivation to lie? I can't
>> > > think of a really plausible one, though I'd like to know why the two
>> > > dislike each other so much. My apologies if this link was already
>> > > posted.
>> >
>> > Looking at it from another perspective, though, can you really believe
>> > that
>> > if he was guilty Lance would be so stupid as to make these admissions
>> > in
>> > front of *anyone*? Even friends? Even doctors who were not his
>> > primary
>> > physicians? Why would he do that?
>> >
>> > Rich
>>
>
> Maybe because he was a dumbass.........or maybe because he did what
> Betsy said.
> It really doesn't matter, the source of such information will always
> be a
> ex-teammate/roommate/coach/mechanic/therapist/girlfriend/boyfriend/significant
> other.
> All have some vendetta or pay-back against Lance according to his
> attorneys.
> Is it really possible that all these people have conspired against
> Lance or do they really know the truth....
> Let's face it, the guy survived cancer and he is a hero to millions and
> anyone attacking him must be out to get him or simply envious of his
> fame and fortune.
> Someday the truth will come out and people will know that he wasn't
> what everyone thought he was.
> Don't sell Brian Lafferty short on his Lance campaign, maybe Brian has
> had it right all along....
>
Thanks. I'm happy Michael landed where he did, on both feet.

 

[Donald Munro]

OMC wrote:
> Someday the truth will come out and people will know that he wasn't
> what everyone thought he was.
> Don't sell Brian Lafferty short on his Lance campaign, maybe Brian has
> had it right all along....

I expect he did both EPO early on and blood doping later, but I expect
everybody else was too. I'm not a LANCE fan and find the freds hero
worship rather silly, but I don't think it detracts from his wins - he was
the most focused and mentally strong rider of his time and probably would
have won if nobody was doping.