In the News: Armstrong took EPO reports paper

[Jason Spaceman]

From the article:
-----------------------------------------
Friday, June 23, 2006 Posted: 1036 GMT (1836 HKT)

PARIS, France (Reuters) -- Lance Armstrong admitted that he had taken the
performance-enhancing drug erythropoietin (EPO) at the time he was treating his
cancer, French daily newspaper Le Monde reported on Friday.

"According to new testimonies gathered from October 2005 to January 2006 by a
court in Dallas, the seven-times Tour de France winner told a Indiana
University Hospital doctor on October 28, 1996 he has taken
performance-enhancing drugs," Le Monde said.

"The doctor questioned him on a possible use of doping products after his brain
surgery in order to prescribe his post-surgery treatment."

Le Monde added: "In front of (former team mate) Frankie Andreu and his wife, who
have testified under oath in Dallas, Armstrong said he had taken 'EPO,
testosterone, growth hormones and cortisone'."

The International Cycling Union (UCI), cycling's governing body, declined to
comment to Reuters.
--------------------------------------------

Read it at http://edition.cnn.com/2006/SPORT/06/23/cycling.lance.reut/










J. Spaceman

--
My email address ) is fake. Email sent to it
will only get caught in my spam tarpit.

[Jason Spaceman]

Also see 'Report: Armstrong admitted doping before cancer' at
http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__sport/&articleid=275282

It's all the fault of Frankie 'Judas' Andreu, ;-)


--------------------------------
Seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong allegedly admitted taking
banned doping products before suffering from cancer, according to evidence
given under oath to a court in Dallas earlier this year and published in
Saturday's edition of French daily Le Monde.

According to former friends of the American cyclist, Armstrong, who suffered
from testicular cancer in 1996, allegedly told a doctor at Indiana University
Hospital in October of that year after undergoing brain surgery that he had
previously taken the banned substances EPO, testosterone, growth hormones and
cortisone.

The allegations are based on evidence given on January 17 this year under oath
in a Dallas court by Betsy Andreu, wife of Frankie Andreu, the former best
friend of Armstrong, who claim they were both present when the cyclist told the
doctor of his past doping.

Frankie Andreu made the same statement in court on October 25 2005, according to
Le Monde, which claims that the Andreus previously told the same story during a
arbitration hearing between Armstrong and his insurance company SCA Promotions.

A third person, Stephanie McIlvain, who was also present at the meeting with the
doctor in 1996, denied to the court, however, having heard Armstrong say that
he took doping products. -- AFP
------------------------------------







J. Spaceman

--
My email address ) is fake. Email sent to it
will only get caught in my spam tarpit.

[Tuschinski]

Jason Spaceman wrote:
> From the article:
> -----------------------------------------
> Friday, June 23, 2006 Posted: 1036 GMT (1836 HKT)
>
> PARIS, France (Reuters) -- Lance Armstrong admitted that he had taken the
> performance-enhancing drug erythropoietin (EPO) at the time he was treating his
> cancer, French daily newspaper Le Monde reported on Friday.
>
> "According to new testimonies gathered from October 2005 to January 2006 by a
> court in Dallas, the seven-times Tour de France winner told a Indiana
> University Hospital doctor on October 28, 1996 he has taken
> performance-enhancing drugs," Le Monde said.
>
> "The doctor questioned him on a possible use of doping products after his brain
> surgery in order to prescribe his post-surgery treatment."
>
> Le Monde added: "In front of (former team mate) Frankie Andreu and his wife, who
> have testified under oath in Dallas, Armstrong said he had taken 'EPO,
> testosterone, growth hormones and cortisone'."
>
> The International Cycling Union (UCI), cycling's governing body, declined to
> comment to Reuters.
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Read it at http://edition.cnn.com/2006/SPORT/06/23/cycling.lance.reut/
>
>
> J. Spaceman
>
> --
> My email address ) is fake. Email sent to it
> will only get caught in my spam tarpit.


Well, Epo is THE standard prescription drug for people taking
Chem-therapy. So that he has taken Epo when he was treated for cancer
is no surprise.

"Tuschinski" > a écrit dans le message de news:
om...
>
> Jason Spaceman wrote:
>> From the article:
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Friday, June 23, 2006 Posted: 1036 GMT (1836 HKT)
>>
>> PARIS, France (Reuters) -- Lance Armstrong admitted that he had taken the
>> performance-enhancing drug erythropoietin (EPO) at the time he was
>> treating his
>> cancer, French daily newspaper Le Monde reported on Friday.
>>
>> "According to new testimonies gathered from October 2005 to January 2006
>> by a
>> court in Dallas, the seven-times Tour de France winner told a Indiana
>> University Hospital doctor on October 28, 1996 he has taken
>> performance-enhancing drugs," Le Monde said.
>>
>> "The doctor questioned him on a possible use of doping products after his
>> brain
>> surgery in order to prescribe his post-surgery treatment."
>>
>> Le Monde added: "In front of (former team mate) Frankie Andreu and his
>> wife, who
>> have testified under oath in Dallas, Armstrong said he had taken 'EPO,
>> testosterone, growth hormones and cortisone'."
>>
>> The International Cycling Union (UCI), cycling's governing body, declined
>> to
>> comment to Reuters.
>> --------------------------------------------
>>
>> Read it at http://edition.cnn.com/2006/SPORT/06/23/cycling.lance.reut/
>>
>>
>> J. Spaceman
>>
>> --
>> My email address ) is fake. Email sent
>> to it
>> will only get caught in my spam tarpit.
>
>
> Well, Epo is THE standard prescription drug for people taking
> Chem-therapy. So that he has taken Epo when he was treated for cancer
> is no surprise.
>

....testosterone, growth hormones and cortisone also is THE standard ?



Indeed, if EPO is THE standard prescription drug for people taking
Chem-therapy, WHY DID THE DOCTOR ASKED ?

[mtb Dad]

Tuschinski wrote:
> Jason Spaceman wrote:
> > From the article:
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Friday, June 23, 2006 Posted: 1036 GMT (1836 HKT)
> >
> > PARIS, France (Reuters) -- Lance Armstrong admitted that he had taken the
> > performance-enhancing drug erythropoietin (EPO) at the time he was treating his
> > cancer, French daily newspaper Le Monde reported on Friday.
> >
> > "According to new testimonies gathered from October 2005 to January 2006 by a
> > court in Dallas, the seven-times Tour de France winner told a Indiana
> > University Hospital doctor on October 28, 1996 he has taken
> > performance-enhancing drugs," Le Monde said.
> >
> > "The doctor questioned him on a possible use of doping products after his brain
> > surgery in order to prescribe his post-surgery treatment."
> >
> > Le Monde added: "In front of (former team mate) Frankie Andreu and his wife, who
> > have testified under oath in Dallas, Armstrong said he had taken 'EPO,
> > testosterone, growth hormones and cortisone'."
> >
> > The International Cycling Union (UCI), cycling's governing body, declined to
> > comment to Reuters.
> > --------------------------------------------
> >
> > Read it at http://edition.cnn.com/2006/SPORT/06/23/cycling.lance.reut/
> >
> >
> > J. Spaceman
> >
> > --
> > My email address ) is fake. Email sent to it
> > will only get caught in my spam tarpit.
>
>
> Well, Epo is THE standard prescription drug for people taking
> Chem-therapy. So that he has taken Epo when he was treated for cancer
> is no surprise.

The article suggests he took it before he had cancer. "...previously
taken the banned substances..."

"According to former friends of the American cyclist, Armstrong, who
suffered
from testicular cancer in 1996, allegedly told a doctor at Indiana
University
Hospital in October of that year after undergoing brain surgery that he
had
previously taken the banned substances EPO, testosterone, growth
hormones and
cortisone. "

[gym.gravity]

Tuschinski wrote:

> Well, Epo is THE standard prescription drug for people taking
> Chem-therapy. So that he has taken Epo when he was treated for cancer
> is no surprise.

your comprehension is off, as others will point out. This has been
rumored for at least 4 years and has actually made press 2 years ago on
ESPN. But then they just said a "former teamate" was a witness. Now
it looks like Andreau has testified.

[[email protected]]

seems that...an old story with missing proof (all words..), what does
the doctor say,is there any document?

[Curtis L. Russell]

On 23 Jun 2006 05:36:28 -0700, "mtb Dad" >
wrote:

>"According to former friends of the American cyclist, Armstrong, who
>suffered
>from testicular cancer in 1996, allegedly told a doctor at Indiana
>University
>Hospital in October of that year after undergoing brain surgery that he
>had
>previously taken the banned substances EPO, testosterone, growth
>hormones and
>cortisone. "


I don't see the issues you do. Unless the brain surgery was the first
step-unlikely -this could be no more than rehashing prior treatments.

That a doctor would ask even with complete charts in front of him
also doesn't surprise me. I've heard second hand about precautions
taken to avoid mistakes (starting with, don't make jokes when they ask
your name on the day of surgery-they may wheel you back to your
room.)

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

[Tuschinski]

>
> ...testosterone, growth hormones and cortisone also is THE standard ?
>

Nope and I didn't imply that (Maybe it is, but I know next to nothing
about testicular cancer)

>
> Indeed, if EPO is THE standard prescription drug for people taking
> Chem-therapy, WHY DID THE DOCTOR ASKED ?

I replied on this tidbit:

> PARIS, France (Reuters) -- Lance Armstrong admitted that he had taken the
> performance-enhancing drug erythropoietin (EPO) at the time he was treating his
> cancer, French daily newspaper Le Monde reported on Friday.

Do not misunderstand me, I'm one of those who find it more than
"likely" that Lance was a heavy-user. But this statement in itself
isn't damning.

[Stu Fleming]

gym.gravity wrote:

> your comprehension is off, as others will point out. This has been
> rumored for at least 4 years and has actually made press 2 years ago on
> ESPN. But then they just said a "former teamate" was a witness. Now
> it looks like Andreau has testified.

Presumably either in the Mike Anderson case or the insurance company
counterclaim.

[Scott Johnson]

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?


--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

[[email protected]]

Scott Johnson wrote:

> I understand the first three, but why is cortisone
> beneficial?

I believe the idea is that it takes away your aches and pains and
probably more importantly spares glycogen.

[Snippy Bobkins]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> seems that...an old story with missing proof (all words..), what does
> the doctor say,is there any document?

Multiple witnesses offering recent corroborating statements lends the rag
(book) credibility.

Et tu, Frankie?

--
Snippy

[[email protected]]

Snippy Bobkins ha scritto:

> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > seems that...an old story with missing proof (all words..), what does
> > the doctor say,is there any document?
>
> Multiple witnesses offering recent corroborating statements lends the rag
> (book) credibility.
>
> Et tu, Frankie?

two witness and no proof

[gym.gravity]

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.

[gym.gravity]

Stu Fleming wrote:
> gym.gravity wrote:
>
> > your comprehension is off, as others will point out. This has been
> > rumored for at least 4 years and has actually made press 2 years ago on
> > ESPN. But then they just said a "former teamate" was a witness. Now
> > it looks like Andreau has testified.
>
> Presumably either in the Mike Anderson case or the insurance company
> counterclaim.

what do you mean possibly, don't you read cyclingnews first thing,
every morning:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/jun06/jun23news2

[Scott Johnson]

wrote:
> Scott Johnson wrote:
>
>
>>I understand the first three, but why is cortisone
>> beneficial?
>
>
> I believe the idea is that it takes away your aches and pains and
> probably more importantly spares glycogen.

Or to reduce inflammation a ton so you can
overtrain? You body needs _some_ amount of
inflammation response in order to heal correctly.

That coupled with the sides of corticosteroids
makes me wonder if it's really something worth
bothering with, not that I have to worry about it
in any capacity.


--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

[Ewoud Dronkert]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 08:50:50 -0500, Scott Johnson wrote:
> I understand the first three, but why is cortisone
> beneficial?

From http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/athletic-drug-test4.htm

Protein Hormones
Adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH) is a naturally occurring protein
hormone that is secreted by the pituitary gland and stimulates the
production of hormones from the adrenal cortex. These adrenal cortex
hormones are important in reducing inflammation in injuries and
allergic responses. So, by using ACTH to stimulate internal adrenal
cortex hormones, an athlete could mask an injury. Possible side
effects include stomach irritation, ulcers, mental irritation and
long-term effects (weakening bones and muscles).

Cortisone
Cortisone is one of the adrenal cortex hormones. Clinically, it is
injected to reduce inflammation in injuries and allergic responses.
The advantages and side effects of its use are the same as with ACTH.

From
http://daryl1947.mlblogs.com/daryls_place/2005/09/performance_enh.html

Last year, I had an injection of Cortisone, which is a steroid, to
enhance the performance of my left arm. It went from almost no
performance to performance. I was told by the Doctor who administered
the injection that he would only do it twice. If two shots didn’t
help the situation, 30 shots wouldn’t help it, and he stressed the
risks of prolonged use. By the way, if you have ever had the
experience of having a Cortisone shot in your elbow, you might guess
that I didn’t give him the chance to give me the second shot. As long
as my arm isn’t hanging limply at my side, it’s good enough.

Et cetera, et cetera. Search for "cortisone performance enhancing" or
"cortisone performance enhancer" (without the quotes).

--
E. Dronkert

[Tom Kunich]

<Montesquiou> wrote in message
...
>
> ...testosterone, growth hormones and cortisone also is THE standard ?
>
> Indeed, if EPO is THE standard prescription drug for people taking
> Chem-therapy, WHY DID THE DOCTOR ASKED ?

Are you under the impression that drugs taken previous to '96 effected his
performance in '99?

Do you believe that a man who underwent serious cancer treatements would use
drugs that have been implicated in the past as causing cancer?

That Lance used drugs before his cancer wouldn't surprise me in the least.
That he used them after would.

[[email protected]]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> <Montesquiou> wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > ...testosterone, growth hormones and cortisone also is THE standard ?
> >
> > Indeed, if EPO is THE standard prescription drug for people taking
> > Chem-therapy, WHY DID THE DOCTOR ASKED ?
>
> Are you under the impression that drugs taken previous to '96 effected his
> performance in '99?
>
> Do you believe that a man who underwent serious cancer treatements would use
> drugs that have been implicated in the past as causing cancer?
>
> That Lance used drugs before his cancer wouldn't surprise me in the least.
> That he used them after would.

This leak seems worse than the others. Frankie and his wife have
nothing to gain and everything to lose with this testimony. Frankie
just started a cycling team--I'm sure it's not good to have Lance and
US cycling ****ed off at you. Plus, there's guilt by association for
Frankie. Maybe Lance should have just let the $5 million bonus slip on
by. That's a lot of money to most people, but not to Lance. It's
beginning to look like Martha Stewart's error of greed and hubris.

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:01:29 GMT, "Tom Kunich" >
wrote:

>Do you believe that a man who underwent serious cancer treatements would use
>drugs that have been implicated in the past as causing cancer?


Reality check here. I've waited in my car for my wife to get off work
and watched patients walk by with a cigarette in one hand and the
rolling drip in the other, because they don't permit smoking in the
oncology center. People do the damnedest things.

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

[Mark]

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On 23 Jun 2006 05:36:28 -0700, "mtb Dad" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"According to former friends of the American cyclist, Armstrong, who
>>suffered
>
>>from testicular cancer in 1996, allegedly told a doctor at Indiana
>
>>University
>>Hospital in October of that year after undergoing brain surgery that he
>>had
>>previously taken the banned substances EPO, testosterone, growth
>>hormones and
>>cortisone. "
>
>
>
> I don't see the issues you do. Unless the brain surgery was the first
> step-unlikely [...]

ISTR from reading his book that the brain surgery *was* the first step.

Mark

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 12:33:16 -0700, Mark
> wrote:

>ISTR from reading his book that the brain surgery *was* the first step.
>
>Mark

I've checked since the last post. He had one cycle of chemo before the
brain surgery and then most of the chemo afterwards. Since EPO is not
really part of the chemo, but part of the restoration of damage from
chemo, it is possible, or maybe probable, that there would not be any
EPO use before the surgery.

My wife isn't answering the cell phone, so my line to actual knowledge
is cut right now...

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

[[email protected]]

Armstrong made a rebuttal statement today. The most interesting tidbit:

"We have instituted proceedings to determine who did so" (leak selected
statements to the media) "; ironically, but predictably, our
investigation to date has revealed that the only person to whom
documents have been provided by any trial participant is Richard Pound
of WADA.

I'm curious to know why a participant in this trial would hand any of
its documents over to Dick Pound. It'd be interesting to see Pounds
response now. Lance is going just short of asking him to step outside.

Bill C wrote:
> Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 12:33:16 -0700, Mark
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >ISTR from reading his book that the brain surgery *was* the first step.
> > >
> > >Mark
> >
> > I've checked since the last post. He had one cycle of chemo before the
> > brain surgery and then most of the chemo afterwards. Since EPO is not
> > really part of the chemo, but part of the restoration of damage from
> > chemo, it is possible, or maybe probable, that there would not be any
> > EPO use before the surgery.
> >
> > My wife isn't answering the cell phone, so my line to actual knowledge
> > is cut right now...
> >
> > Curtis L. Russell
> > Odenton, MD (USA)
> > Just someone on two wheels...
>
> The problem here, like all the other situations, is that someone
> committed perjury. We have the Andreus saying it happened under oath,
> and others saying it didn't.
> Is this more of the personal vendetta, or the truth? I don't know, and
> neither does anyone but the people directly involved.
> My problem is that people like that great American Sen. Joseph
> McCarthy wrecked a ****load of peoples lives by trumpeting tons of
> charges with little to no solid proof. Seems to be a lot of
> accusations, innuendo, smears, etc...with very little concrete evidence
> being confirmed.
> This, as so many have pointed out, is a PR war and objectivity,
> honesty, and justice don't figure in any of it.
> I don't know if he doped or not, but you don't make accusations that
> can wreck someones life without concrete proof, at least I don't, but I
> seem to have a set of working ethics that are out of step with the rest
> of the planet.
> Bill C

[Donald Munro]

Curtis L. Russell 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.

[Michael Press]

In article
om>,
wrote:

> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > <Montesquiou> wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > ...testosterone, growth hormones and cortisone also is THE standard ?
> > >
> > > Indeed, if EPO is THE standard prescription drug for people taking
> > > Chem-therapy, WHY DID THE DOCTOR ASKED ?
> >
> > Are you under the impression that drugs taken previous to '96 effected his
> > performance in '99?
> >
> > Do you believe that a man who underwent serious cancer treatements would use
> > drugs that have been implicated in the past as causing cancer?
> >
> > That Lance used drugs before his cancer wouldn't surprise me in the least.
> > That he used them after would.
>
> This leak seems worse than the others. Frankie and his wife have
> nothing to gain and everything to lose with this testimony. Frankie
> just started a cycling team--I'm sure it's not good to have Lance and
> US cycling ****ed off at you. Plus, there's guilt by association for
> Frankie. Maybe Lance should have just let the $5 million bonus slip on
> by. That's a lot of money to most people, but not to Lance. It's
> beginning to look like Martha Stewart's error of greed and hubris.

Of course he does not _need_ the money. Money is how they
keep score. Armstrong got the $5 million _plus_ $2.5
million penalty, making him the big winner this round.

The war's not over? 7 TdF victories, and crushing
victories over Greg Anderson and the insurance company so
far.

Next battle:
> I respected the panel's unconditional prohibition against providing any
> documents or testimony to others, and made no mention of this complete
> victory. Others did not, as selected items have apparently been recently
> released to the press. We have instituted proceedings to determine who did
> so; ironically, but predictably, our investigation to date has revealed that
> the only person to whom documents have been provided by any trial participant
> is Richard Pound of WADA.

--
Michael Press

[Tom Kunich]

"Curtis L. Russell" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:01:29 GMT, "Tom Kunich" >
> wrote:
>
>>Do you believe that a man who underwent serious cancer treatements would
>>use
>>drugs that have been implicated in the past as causing cancer?
>
>
> Reality check here. I've waited in my car for my wife to get off work
> and watched patients walk by with a cigarette in one hand and the
> rolling drip in the other, because they don't permit smoking in the
> oncology center. People do the damnedest things.

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?

In my opinion he trained, then he trained some more and then he trained some
more. I'm sure that he cut corners here and there. Perhaps he blood packed
to maintain his hematocrit at or near the limit which as we've seen from
report WAS NOT at the limits nor in many cases not even near it.

I worked on blood typing machines several times so I know something about
blood typing and have read perhaps 1/3rd of Willams Hematology in
consequence of my work.

But I don't know what the normal variations in hematocrit in individuals are
though and I don't know if the numbers I've seen reflect normal variations
or not. I will say this - I've seen comments from people who claim to have
never taken anything that would effect their hematocrit claiming variations
from 36% to 49% for themselves without ANY excessive exercise or any
illnesses involved.

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill C" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> My problem is that people like that great American Sen. Joseph
> McCarthy wrecked a ****load of peoples lives by trumpeting tons of
> charges with little to no solid proof.

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.

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

And let us be QUITE explicit that McCarthy held HEARINGS ONLY.

Where's that old desire for openness that seems so prevalent when Bush might
be injured by it?

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, <Montesquiou> ('')
wrote:

>>
>> Well, Epo is THE standard prescription drug for people taking
>> Chem-therapy. So that he has taken Epo when he was treated for cancer
>> is no surprise.
>
> ...testosterone, growth hormones and cortisone also is THE standard ?

Testosterone (hormone replacement therapy) is certainly normal for anyone
who has, errr, dropped a goolie, as they say. And EPO is certainly
normal in counteracting the side effects of strong chemotherapy for
cancer. You would only be prescribed EPO /while/ undergoing
chemotherapy, but you'd be quite likely to be - perfectly legitimately -
prescribed the testosterone for life, or at least into your 60s.

Men with reduced levels of testosterone (for example, men who have had a
testicle removed and who are not receiving HRT) typically have sharply
reduced levels of aggression and competitiveness. In other words, they
are not Headstrong. However, if prescribed just ever so slightly more
than a replacement dose... these things are so hard to calculate
exactly, after all...

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundum variat.

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Curtis L.
Russell ') wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:01:29 GMT, "Tom Kunich" >
> wrote:
>
>>Do you believe that a man who underwent serious cancer treatements
>>would use drugs that have been implicated in the past as causing
>>cancer?
>
> Reality check here. I've waited in my car for my wife to get off work
> and watched patients walk by with a cigarette in one hand and the
> rolling drip in the other, because they don't permit smoking in the
> oncology center. People do the damnedest things.

Yup. I helped my little sister downstairs so she could go outside the
hospital to smoke, just three days before she died, because they
wouldn't let he smoke in the hospice ward. She was inoperable; there
wasn't any point in making her last few days any more miserable.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
;; Voltaire RIP Dr David Kelly 1945-2004

[gym.gravity]

Donald Munro wrote:
> Curtis L. Russell 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.

POTM

[trg]

"Tom Kunich" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
| "Bill C" > wrote in message
| oups.com...
| >
| > My problem is that people like that great American Sen. Joseph
| > McCarthy wrecked a ****load of peoples lives by trumpeting tons of
| > charges with little to no solid proof.
|
| 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.
|
| The records from the old Soviet Union pretty much backed up everything
| McCarthy said.
|


McCarthy accused a ****load of people of being communists. Most were not,
although many lives were ruined by the accusations. The records from the
Soviet Union and from VENONA did not indicate who was a communist, but
rather who was a spy (not the same thing) and who was approached by the
Soviets (regardless of whether that contact yielded anything).

In fact typical of Tailgunner Joe, when he stated he would turn over
evidence of subversive activities by government employees and Senator Lehmen
called him on it, he couldn't produce anything.

[Tom Kunich]

"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
> in message >, <Montesquiou> ('')
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Well, Epo is THE standard prescription drug for people taking
>>> Chem-therapy. So that he has taken Epo when he was treated for cancer
>>> is no surprise.
>>
>> ...testosterone, growth hormones and cortisone also is THE standard ?
>
> Testosterone (hormone replacement therapy) is certainly normal for anyone
> who has, errr, dropped a goolie, as they say. And EPO is certainly
> normal in counteracting the side effects of strong chemotherapy for
> cancer. You would only be prescribed EPO /while/ undergoing
> chemotherapy, but you'd be quite likely to be - perfectly legitimately -
> prescribed the testosterone for life, or at least into your 60s.
>
> Men with reduced levels of testosterone (for example, men who have had a
> testicle removed and who are not receiving HRT) typically have sharply
> reduced levels of aggression and competitiveness. In other words, they
> are not Headstrong. However, if prescribed just ever so slightly more
> than a replacement dose... these things are so hard to calculate
> exactly, after all...

Come on Simon, as long as your imagination is going you can do better than
that. Why don't you imagine a miracle drug that makes you a perfect bicycle
racer but it completely undetectable? Isn't that a whole lot easier to
explain than imaginary testorsterone treatments which his doctors claim
isn't necessary if you only lose one testical and which no record of which
was ever found by l'Equipe?

[Mark]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message >, <Montesquiou> ('')
> wrote:
>
>
>>>Well, Epo is THE standard prescription drug for people taking
>>>Chem-therapy. So that he has taken Epo when he was treated for cancer
>>>is no surprise.
>>
>>...testosterone, growth hormones and cortisone also is THE standard ?
>
>
> Testosterone (hormone replacement therapy) is certainly normal for anyone
> who has, errr, dropped a goolie, as they say. And EPO is certainly
> normal in counteracting the side effects of strong chemotherapy for
> cancer. You would only be prescribed EPO /while/ undergoing
> chemotherapy, but you'd be quite likely to be - perfectly legitimately -
> prescribed the testosterone for life, or at least into your 60s.

Even if you've only lost ONE testicle? (serious question) I always
imagined it was like losing one kidney - no extraordinary compensating
measures required, since the other one takes over. Again, seriously,
for men losing only one of two testicles, is lifetime HRT often prescribed?

> Men with reduced levels of testosterone (for example, men who have had a
> testicle removed and who are not receiving HRT) typically have sharply
> reduced levels of aggression and competitiveness. In other words, they
> are not Headstrong. However, if prescribed just ever so slightly more
> than a replacement dose... these things are so hard to calculate
> exactly, after all...

All understood if both testicles were lost, but does it really read that
way with just one?

-Mark

[[email protected]]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Bill C" > wrote in message
> >
> > My problem is that people like that great American Sen. Joseph
> > McCarthy wrecked a ****load of peoples lives by trumpeting tons of
> > charges with little to no solid proof.
>
> 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.

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

Incorrect. Even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then.
Some of the most prominent people who were tried for
being spies, much later were discovered to actually have
been spies. These people were put on trial without any help
from grandstander McCarthy. But hardly any of the little,
powerless people that McCarthy accused - State Department
Far East analysts, Army dentists - were guilty of anything.
Or at most they were guilty of a _legal_ political party
affiliation.

> And let us be QUITE explicit that McCarthy held HEARINGS ONLY.

At the time, being brought before a HEARING ONLY could
ruin your life - your job disappeared, your friends and neighbors
shunned you, and everyone knew that if they offered you support
or even continued to see you, they placed themselves at risk
for the same fate. No trial was necessary. That was part of
the problem. In fact, no hearing was necessary. Even the start
of the inquiry was enough to put you under suspicion and out
of society. There are thousands of people whose names you've
never heard, because they were much too little for anybody to
bother with but the bureaucracy of inquisition, who were
victimized during the blacklist era. Including a relative
of mine, which is how I know a little bit about how the
machinery operated.

> Where's that old desire for openness that seems so prevalent when Bush might
> be injured by it?

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

Ben
Are you now or have you ever been?

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > "Bill C" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > My problem is that people like that great American Sen. Joseph
> > > McCarthy wrecked a ****load of peoples lives by trumpeting tons of
> > > charges with little to no solid proof.
> >
> > 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.
>
> > The records from the old Soviet Union pretty much backed up everything
> > McCarthy said.
>
> Incorrect. Even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then.
> Some of the most prominent people who were tried for
> being spies, much later were discovered to actually have
> been spies. These people were put on trial without any help
> from grandstander McCarthy. But hardly any of the little,
> powerless people that McCarthy accused - State Department
> Far East analysts, Army dentists - were guilty of anything.
> Or at most they were guilty of a _legal_ political party
> affiliation.
>
> > And let us be QUITE explicit that McCarthy held HEARINGS ONLY.
>
> At the time, being brought before a HEARING ONLY could
> ruin your life - your job disappeared, your friends and neighbors
> shunned you, and everyone knew that if they offered you support
> or even continued to see you, they placed themselves at risk
> for the same fate. No trial was necessary. That was part of
> the problem. In fact, no hearing was necessary. Even the start
> of the inquiry was enough to put you under suspicion and out
> of society. There are thousands of people whose names you've
> never heard, because they were much too little for anybody to
> bother with but the bureaucracy of inquisition, who were
> victimized during the blacklist era. Including a relative
> of mine, which is how I know a little bit about how the
> machinery operated.
>
> > Where's that old desire for openness that seems so prevalent when Bush might
> > be injured by it?
>
> Your advice on politics is as good as your advice on time trialing.
>
> Ben
> Are you now or have you ever been?


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.

[rich]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>

> 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

[[email protected]]

rich wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
>
> > 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

What if it wasn't new information to the Andreus? It's not like these
guys only see each other from 9 to 5.

[OMC]

wrote:
> rich wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> >
> > > 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....

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> rich wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > 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?
>
> What if it wasn't new information to the Andreus? It's not like these
> guys only see each other from 9 to 5.

I wonder how much they actually say to each other and
how much is sort of wink-and-nod, though.

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.

[Howard Kveck]

In article om>,
" > wrote:

> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > "Bill C" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > My problem is that people like that great American Sen. Joseph
> > > McCarthy wrecked a ****load of peoples lives by trumpeting tons of
> > > charges with little to no solid proof.
> >
> > 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.
>
> > The records from the old Soviet Union pretty much backed up everything
> > McCarthy said.
>
> Incorrect. Even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then.
> Some of the most prominent people who were tried for
> being spies, much later were discovered to actually have
> been spies. These people were put on trial without any help
> from grandstander McCarthy. But hardly any of the little,
> powerless people that McCarthy accused - State Department
> Far East analysts, Army dentists - were guilty of anything.
> Or at most they were guilty of a _legal_ political party
> affiliation.

This is exactly right. There has never been any evidence that McCarthy was
getting any information from the Venona Project, and the archives from the Soiet
Union didn't offer any proof that any of the people McCarthy accused of being
communists were in fact Soviet agents.

> > And let us be QUITE explicit that McCarthy held HEARINGS ONLY.
>
> At the time, being brought before a HEARING ONLY could
> ruin your life - your job disappeared, your friends and neighbors
> shunned you, and everyone knew that if they offered you support
> or even continued to see you, they placed themselves at risk
> for the same fate. No trial was necessary. That was part of
> the problem. In fact, no hearing was necessary. Even the start
> of the inquiry was enough to put you under suspicion and out
> of society. There are thousands of people whose names you've
> never heard, because they were much too little for anybody to
> bother with but the bureaucracy of inquisition, who were
> victimized during the blacklist era. Including a relative
> of mine, which is how I know a little bit about how the
> machinery operated.

Well, McCarthy wasn't actually part of the HUAC investigations, but they
certainly took him as their inspiration. The overwhelming majority of the
blacklisting stuff occurred during the HUAC era.

Anyway, McCarthy is the definition of "demogogue."

> Are you now or have you ever been?

Experienced?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[rich]

> wrote in message
ps.com...

> 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:
> > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>
>
>>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:
> > > wrote in message
> > ps.com...
> >
> >
> >>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:
> > > wrote in message
> > ps.com...
> >
> >
> >>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 . com>,
"Bill C" > 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]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> 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" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> 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" >
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, 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
> 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
> 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" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> rich wrote:
>> > > wrote in message
>> > oups.com...
>> > >
>> >
>> > > 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.