Lance Armstrong and [censored] Pound at it again

http://www.cbc.ca/story/sports/national/2006/06/21/armstrong-pound.html

Pound rejected the report that exonerated Armstrong recently. Lance is
ticked about that, and frankly, I don't blame him.

"Brian Huntley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/sports/national/2006/06/21/armstrong-pound.html

Pound rejected the report that exonerated Armstrong recently. Lance is
ticked about that, and frankly, I don't blame him.

Is there anyone in the universe who actually likes Lance Armstrong? He has
all the personality of a viper. He seems to have lots of trouble keeping a
wife to boot.

However, the one thing I do like best about Lance is that he knew how to
kick French ass when it came to the Tour de France. For that I will be
forever grateful to him.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Brian Huntley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/sports/national/2006/06/21/armstrong-pound.html

Pound rejected the report that exonerated Armstrong recently. Lance is
ticked about that, and frankly, I don't blame him.

Is there anyone in the universe who actually likes Lance Armstrong? He has
all the personality of a viper. He seems to have lots of trouble keeping a
wife to boot.

However, the one thing I do like best about Lance is that he knew how to
kick French ass when it came to the Tour de France. For that I will be
forever grateful to him.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Brian Huntley said:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/sports/national/2006/06/21/armstrong-pound.html

Pound rejected the report that exonerated Armstrong recently. Lance is
ticked about that, and frankly, I don't blame him.

The report does not exonerate LA. It criticises the method by which
the data was obtained and, on that basis, questions whether the data
can be trusted. Period.

Pound supports the laboratory's methods. Nothing more.

Fact: There will only ever be denial from LA's camp

It's a smoke and mirrors show for the lawyers to milk.

End of story.
--
zk

Brian Huntley said:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/sports/national/2006/06/21/armstrong-pound.html

Pound rejected the report that exonerated Armstrong recently. Lance is
ticked about that, and frankly, I don't blame him.

The report does not exonerate LA. It criticises the method by which
the data was obtained and, on that basis, questions whether the data
can be trusted. Period.

Pound supports the laboratory's methods. Nothing more.

Fact: There will only ever be denial from LA's camp

It's a smoke and mirrors show for the lawyers to milk.

End of story.
--
zk

Zoot Katz said:

Brian Huntley said:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/sports/national/2006/06/21/armstrong-pound.html

Pound rejected the report that exonerated Armstrong recently. Lance is
ticked about that, and frankly, I don't blame him.

The report does not exonerate LA. It criticises the method by which
the data was obtained and, on that basis, questions whether the data
can be trusted. Period.

Which leaves us at the point we can presume innocence until there is
actual proof of guilt, or we can just condemn the guy 'cuz we feel
like it.

Seems like the former option is the prudent and fair one to me.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

In article <[email hidden]>,

Edward Dolan said:

he knew how to kick French ass when it came to the Tour de France

what a [censored] attitude. and what a [censored] thing to say.

ZeMascouflatte said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Edward Dolan said:

he knew how to kick French ass when it came to the Tour de France

what a [censored] attitude. and what a [censored] thing to say.

From Messr. Dolan ... that was diplomacy at its finest :-(

Neil
Happy to be en route to France awfully soon :-)

"ZeMascouflatte" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Edward Dolan said:

he knew how to kick French ass when it came to the Tour de France

what a [censored] attitude. and what a [censored] thing to say.

I think Armstrong being subjected to a fruitless 21-month long dope
investigation by the French police, among other things, warrants the
comment.

Zoot Katz <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Brian Huntley said:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/sports/national/2006/06/21/armstrong-pound.html

Pound rejected the report that exonerated Armstrong recently. Lance is
ticked about that, and frankly, I don't blame him.

The report does not exonerate LA. It criticises the method by which
the data was obtained and, on that basis, questions whether the data
can be trusted. Period.

Pound supports the laboratory's methods. Nothing more.

Fact: There will only ever be denial from LA's camp

It's a smoke and mirrors show for the lawyers to milk.

End of story.

In which case it's apparent that just about every cyclist involved in the
testing is NOW SUSPECT by your criteria?

Let's see:

Someone makes an accusation based on 'test results'

The 'results' used to make the accusation, and the methodology that was
used to 'fabricate' it are found to be fatally flawed by an independent
investigator, to the point of leading the independent investigator (who
is an attorney) to suggest further actions against the laboratory would
not be unrealistic.

So, logically:

The person making the accusation is still right?!?

Sounds like your criteria is based on something other than the facts of
the matter. You sound like that 'person' whom the writer of Freakonomics
tries to gently disabuse of the 'certainty' that the sudden jump in
cycling performance is ONLY ATTIRBUTABLE TO DRUGS. You know, the
'person' whose accomplishments were pretty much buried by LA's
performances, and who has no proof other than a gut feeling.

Mark Hickey said:

Zoot Katz said:

Brian Huntley said:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/sports/national/2006/06/21/armstrong-pound.html

Pound rejected the report that exonerated Armstrong recently. Lance is
ticked about that, and frankly, I don't blame him.

The report does not exonerate LA. It criticises the method by which
the data was obtained and, on that basis, questions whether the data
can be trusted. Period.

Which leaves us at the point we can presume innocence until there is
actual proof of guilt, or we can just condemn the guy 'cuz we feel
like it.

Seems like the former option is the prudent and fair one to me.

Did you hear the NPR story on Lance yesterday?

Some woman back in 1996 (*former* friend I guess) claims in a
legal deposition, that she heard Lance admit to having used
steroids and various performance enhancers to a pair of doctors
in a hospital when she was visiting him. (Of course, he *was*
taking some of them, steroids at any rate, at the time as
part of his anti-cancer treatment.)

She claims the doctors were not his oncologists and had never
seen them before. She offered to leave the room when they
came in but he said she could stay, and then overhead his
answers to their questions regarding use of "performance
enhancing drugs".

This is stuff being dug up by L'Equipe and Le Monde so they
still seem very motivated to get Lance on the doping charges.

I don't really understand why Lance would let someone watch
while he was admitting to doping, even in 1996 before he became
a world name.

Also I'd wonder who those doctors were? I think it is generally
frowned upon in medical circles for doctors to be seeing patients
under the care of another doctor without that doctor knowing
anything about them.

I think Lance is now doomed to a Barry Bond existence, although
it seems doping is almost "proven" in BB's case. The French
aren't going to let Armstrong off the hook. He dominated "their"
race and "their" sport for too long, *and* he's American to boot.

Then of course, it's always possible the guy really is guilty
and it's finally time to pay the piper.

The French in particular, IMHO, are going to make him pay
whether he's actually guilty or not.

SMH

Stephen Harding said:

Mark Hickey said:

Zoot Katz said:

On 21 Jun 2006 18:42:56 -0700, "Brian Huntley"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> http://www.cbc.ca/story/sports/national/2006/06/21/armstrong-pound.html
>
> Pound rejected the report that exonerated Armstrong recently. Lance is
> ticked about that, and frankly, I don't blame him.

The report does not exonerate LA. It criticises the method by which
the data was obtained and, on that basis, questions whether the data
can be trusted. Period.

Which leaves us at the point we can presume innocence until there is
actual proof of guilt, or we can just condemn the guy 'cuz we feel
like it.

Seems like the former option is the prudent and fair one to me.

Did you hear the NPR story on Lance yesterday?

Some woman back in 1996 (*former* friend I guess) claims in a
legal deposition, that she heard Lance admit to having used
steroids and various performance enhancers to a pair of doctors
in a hospital when she was visiting him. (Of course, he *was*
taking some of them, steroids at any rate, at the time as
part of his anti-cancer treatment.)

She claims the doctors were not his oncologists and had never
seen them before. She offered to leave the room when they
came in but he said she could stay, and then overhead his
answers to their questions regarding use of "performance
enhancing drugs".

This is stuff being dug up by L'Equipe and Le Monde so they
still seem very motivated to get Lance on the doping charges.

I don't really understand why Lance would let someone watch
while he was admitting to doping, even in 1996 before he became
a world name.

Also I'd wonder who those doctors were? I think it is generally
frowned upon in medical circles for doctors to be seeing patients
under the care of another doctor without that doctor knowing
anything about them.

I think Lance is now doomed to a Barry Bond existence, although
it seems doping is almost "proven" in BB's case. The French
aren't going to let Armstrong off the hook. He dominated "their"
race and "their" sport for too long, *and* he's American to boot.

Then of course, it's always possible the guy really is guilty
and it's finally time to pay the piper.

The French in particular, IMHO, are going to make him pay
whether he's actually guilty or not.

SMH

You have to remember one thing about the French, they are very uppity
when they don't get their way. They were the country that wasn't going
to allow the Internet in their country unless it was in French, Yeah,
fat chance on that one. The French are the French and that attitude of
being a sore loser will probably never go away. There were probably some
stages that L.A. could have won but left to a Frenchman to win in his
own country since he did not need them to take the overall tour. I think
that out of 7 tours Lance was being gracious by not flattening every
French rider in sight at every chance he had.
Bill Baka

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 18:53:23 GMT, Bill <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Stephen Harding said:

Mark Hickey said:

Zoot Katz <[email hidden]> wrote:

> On 21 Jun 2006 18:42:56 -0700, "Brian Huntley"
> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/story/sports/national/2006/06/21/armstrong-pound.html
>>
>> Pound rejected the report that exonerated Armstrong recently. Lance is
>> ticked about that, and frankly, I don't blame him.
>
> The report does not exonerate LA. It criticises the method by which
> the data was obtained and, on that basis, questions whether the data
> can be trusted. Period.

Which leaves us at the point we can presume innocence until there is
actual proof of guilt, or we can just condemn the guy 'cuz we feel
like it.

Seems like the former option is the prudent and fair one to me.

Did you hear the NPR story on Lance yesterday?

Some woman back in 1996 (*former* friend I guess) claims in a
legal deposition, that she heard Lance admit to having used
steroids and various performance enhancers to a pair of doctors
in a hospital when she was visiting him. (Of course, he *was*
taking some of them, steroids at any rate, at the time as
part of his anti-cancer treatment.)

She claims the doctors were not his oncologists and had never
seen them before. She offered to leave the room when they
came in but he said she could stay, and then overhead his
answers to their questions regarding use of "performance
enhancing drugs".

This is stuff being dug up by L'Equipe and Le Monde so they
still seem very motivated to get Lance on the doping charges.

I don't really understand why Lance would let someone watch
while he was admitting to doping, even in 1996 before he became
a world name.

Also I'd wonder who those doctors were? I think it is generally
frowned upon in medical circles for doctors to be seeing patients
under the care of another doctor without that doctor knowing
anything about them.

I think Lance is now doomed to a Barry Bond existence, although
it seems doping is almost "proven" in BB's case. The French
aren't going to let Armstrong off the hook. He dominated "their"
race and "their" sport for too long, *and* he's American to boot.

Then of course, it's always possible the guy really is guilty
and it's finally time to pay the piper.

The French in particular, IMHO, are going to make him pay
whether he's actually guilty or not.

SMH

You have to remember one thing about the French, they are very uppity
when they don't get their way. They were the country that wasn't going
to allow the Internet in their country unless it was in French, Yeah,
fat chance on that one. The French are the French and that attitude of
being a sore loser will probably never go away. There were probably some
stages that L.A. could have won but left to a Frenchman to win in his
own country since he did not need them to take the overall tour. I think
that out of 7 tours Lance was being gracious by not flattening every
French rider in sight at every chance he had.
Bill Baka

Yeah well, I suppose former all-american cycing hero, Greg LeMond, is
French at heart.

Armstrong threatened my life, claims LeMond
Jun 25 11:11 AM US/Eastern

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/25/060625151133.h15qwb4a.html

Seems Lance didn't like Greg's public comment about certain doctors
so threatened to get ten people to testify that LeMond had used EPO.

No comment.
--
zk

Zoot Katz said:

Yeah well, I suppose former all-american cycing hero, Greg LeMond, is
French at heart.

I'm afraid that's true.

Quoted message said:

Armstrong threatened my life, claims LeMond
Jun 25 11:11 AM US/Eastern

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/25/060625151133.h15qwb4a.html

Seems Lance didn't like Greg's public comment about certain doctors
so threatened to get ten people to testify that LeMond had used EPO.

No comment.

The bad blood between Lemond and Armstrong goes way back. I have the
greatest respect for Lemond's accomplishments (which were very much a
one man against the world exploit), but lost boatloads of respect for
him when he came out (much like the French media) and started casting
derision on Armstrong, intimating that he MUST be doping to be so
successful.

I would have thought that he'd be bright enough to figure out that
that particular argument would implicate him as well as Armstrong
(even while Greg was claiming HE was crushing everyone in the world in
his prime without doping).

If I were Armstrong, I'd be pretty likely to threaten to turn the
tables as well. And it's a shame, since it'll probably be another 30
years before we have anyone of Lemond's or Armstrong's stature.
Having them exchanging barbs through the press smacks of a cheeseball
wrestling promotion.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark Hickey said:

The bad blood between Lemond and Armstrong goes way back. I have the
greatest respect for Lemond's accomplishments (which were very much a
one man against the world exploit), but lost boatloads of respect for
him when he came out (much like the French media) and started casting
derision on Armstrong, intimating that he MUST be doping to be so
successful.

I would have thought that he'd be bright enough to figure out that
that particular argument would implicate him as well as Armstrong
(even while Greg was claiming HE was crushing everyone in the world in
his prime without doping).

If I were Armstrong, I'd be pretty likely to threaten to turn the
tables as well. And it's a shame, since it'll probably be another 30
years before we have anyone of Lemond's or Armstrong's stature.
Having them exchanging barbs through the press smacks of a cheeseball
wrestling promotion.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

One thing that Lemond forgot about is that Lance had a race planner and
radio contact during the race. They may be equals, but Lance had the
better planning behind him. The race strategist may have told Lance to
forget about taking one stage because there was an even more important
one the next day so don't burn himself out to take one stage.
I doubt Lemond had that kind of planning. Lance also had a wind tunnel
at his disposal and the bikes were custom made by Trek just for him.
Technology counts here too.
Bill Baka

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 13:56:23 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The bad blood between Lemond and Armstrong goes way back. I have the
greatest respect for Lemond's accomplishments (which were very much a
one man against the world exploit), but lost boatloads of respect for
him when he came out (much like the French media) and started casting
derision on Armstrong, intimating that he MUST be doping to be so
successful.

How's Tyler Hamilton doin' these days?

Gimmee a break.
--
zk

Zoot Katz said:

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 13:56:23 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The bad blood between Lemond and Armstrong goes way back. I have the
greatest respect for Lemond's accomplishments (which were very much a
one man against the world exploit), but lost boatloads of respect for
him when he came out (much like the French media) and started casting
derision on Armstrong, intimating that he MUST be doping to be so
successful.

How's Tyler Hamilton doin' these days?

Gimmee a break.

What?
If Hamilton hadn't broken his collarbone he might have been able to give
Lance a good run for his money. You have to respect him for even staying
in the race, much less placing so high in the overall.

6 days until TdF 2006.

I'm curious who made the cut and if Cancillero (sp?) will be more of a
presence. He did blast everyone on the beginning. Maybe that was a one
shot wonder? Jan Ullrich may have his last chance this year too since he
is over the 'old man' mark of 30.
Can't wait. Watch OLN then go out and ride (and wish).

Bill Baka

Stephen said:

Did you hear the NPR story on Lance yesterday?

I liked what Scott Simon said about the Lance bands.

Quoted message said:

Some woman back in 1996 (*former* friend I guess) claims in a
legal deposition, that she heard Lance admit to having used
steroids and various performance enhancers to a pair of doctors
in a hospital when she was visiting him. (Of course, he *was*
taking some of them, steroids at any rate, at the time as
part of his anti-cancer treatment.)

Frankie Andreu's wife.

Quoted message said:

She claims the doctors were not his oncologists and had never
seen them before. She offered to leave the room when they
came in but he said she could stay, and then overhead his
answers to their questions regarding use of "performance
enhancing drugs".

My sis, who is a critical care physician, says that no competent M.D.s
would a) wait until after major surgery to compile a complete medical
history, b) ask about "performance-enhancing" drugs, c) release said
info to ANYONE. (Look up HPPA.) And d) interview a patient after brain
surgery and expect to get coherent, complete, accurate answers.

Quoted message said:

Also I'd wonder who those doctors were? I think it is generally
frowned upon in medical circles for doctors to be seeing patients
under the care of another doctor without that doctor knowing
anything about them.

And I have a few friends who make a nice income being hired experts to
testify in trials. Wonder if the insurance company said, "hey, Frankie
& Mrs, if you can help us save $4.5M we'll giva ya $1M"? Or if the
deposition (supposedly subpoenaed by a Michigan court) took place in a
very far-off courtroom to which they had to travel, and pay for
parking, and meals, and so forth. (If they are still living in
Dearborn, that would have been Wayne County court, and gosh it might be
10 miles away down US-12! "Our standard compensation rate is $10k per
mile. We'll pay for the parking garage, too."😉

HTH

--Karen D.

Veloise said:

Stephen said:

She claims the doctors were not his oncologists and had never
seen them before. She offered to leave the room when they
came in but he said she could stay, and then overhead his
answers to their questions regarding use of "performance
enhancing drugs".

My sis, who is a critical care physician, says that no competent M.D.s
would a) wait until after major surgery to compile a complete medical
history, b) ask about "performance-enhancing" drugs, c) release said
info to ANYONE. (Look up HPPA.) And d) interview a patient after brain
surgery and expect to get coherent, complete, accurate answers.

Yes the entire described situation didn't ring true to me,
but I confess I'm still a Lance believer. Haven't heard
anything convincing enough to believe he took performance
enhancing drugs, even though I surmise the pressures to do
so must have been enormous.

I don't know why LA would allow someone to witness answers
to such questions if they were actually asked and the whole
question of who these "doctors" actually were hasn't been
explained.

Yep, to my mind, the dastardly French are still up to their
anti-American ways!

SMH