Lance on Jim Rome

[psycholist]

www.jimrome.com

Lance denied ever taking anything and said they can keep his samples and
test them 15 or 20 years from now.

Not the usual, "I've never tested positive" stuff.
--
Bob C.

"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)

[psycholist]

Sorry, this is a subscription site. I've read some reports about what was
said over on slowtwitch.com in the forums. Sounds like Lance asked to be on
the show for some damage control and made some very emphatic
statements/denials of ever using banned PEDs.

Didn't hear it for myself, but sounds interesting. Oh ... and I'm too cheap
to pay Rome to hear Lance spew.
--
Bob C.

"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)
"psycholist" > wrote in message
...
> www.jimrome.com
>
> Lance denied ever taking anything and said they can keep his samples and
> test them 15 or 20 years from now.
>
> Not the usual, "I've never tested positive" stuff.
> --
> Bob C.
>
> "Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
> T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)
>

[Scott]

psycholist wrote:
> Sorry, this is a subscription site. I've read some reports about
what was
> said over on slowtwitch.com in the forums. Sounds like Lance asked
to be on
> the show for some damage control and made some very emphatic
> statements/denials of ever using banned PEDs.
>
> Didn't hear it for myself, but sounds interesting. Oh ... and I'm
too cheap
> to pay Rome to hear Lance spew.
> --
> Bob C.
>
> "Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
> T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)
> "psycholist" > wrote in message
> ...
> > www.jimrome.com
> >
> > Lance denied ever taking anything and said they can keep his
samples and
> > test them 15 or 20 years from now.
> >
> > Not the usual, "I've never tested positive" stuff.
> > --
> > Bob C.
> >
> > "Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
> > T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)
> >


I've been listening to the Rome show on am radio, and heard the
interview and the seemingly hundreds of phone calls afterwards. For
that matter, I saw the interview on ESPN this morning w/ Anderson.

>From the ESPN interview and the info I've read on the allegations, it
seems painfully clear that we're dealing with a disgruntled former
employee who THOUGHT he'd latched onto the golden teat, and is ****ed
that his job was terminated. He's so ****ed he's making completely
unfounded and unverifiable allegations in an attempt to discredit
Armstrong. His (Anderson's, that is) momma should be ashamed of him.

As for Lance on Rome, it was a definitive, clear denial. No waffling,
no legal-ese, no BS. He seemed geniunely irritated, as to be expected.


Unlike the throng of r.b.r. loonies who want to attack Lance at every
opportunity, 100% of the callers (at least 100% of the one's they put
through on the show) were completely behind Lance. Seems his
reputation in the general public (US, at least) has NOT been tarnished
by any of these allegations. If anything, he's apparently developing
quite a bit of sympathy out there. The US non-cycling public loves the
guy.

S.

[B. Lafferty]

"psycholist" > wrote in message
...
> Sorry, this is a subscription site. I've read some reports about what was
> said over on slowtwitch.com in the forums. Sounds like Lance asked to be
> on the show for some damage control and made some very emphatic
> statements/denials of ever using banned PEDs.
>
> Didn't hear it for myself, but sounds interesting. Oh ... and I'm too
> cheap to pay Rome to hear Lance spew.
> --
> Bob C.
>
> "Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
> T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)
> "psycholist" > wrote in message
> ...
>> www.jimrome.com
>>
>> Lance denied ever taking anything and said they can keep his samples and
>> test them 15 or 20 years from now.
>>
>> Not the usual, "I've never tested positive" stuff.
>> --
>> Bob C.
>>
>> "Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
>> T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)

Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very credible.

[B. Lafferty]

"Scott" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Unlike the throng of r.b.r. loonies who want to attack Lance at every
> opportunity, 100% of the callers (at least 100% of the one's they put
> through on the show) were completely behind Lance.

Interesting. Which rbr are you tuning in to? Rome and Armstrong go back
several years together. Rome essentially worships the ground Armstrong
walks on; water too for that matter. Do you really think they'd let anyone
calling in question Armstrong's veracity? If you do, I have real estate for
you.


> Seems his
> reputation in the general public (US, at least) has NOT been tarnished
> by any of these allegations. If anything, he's apparently developing
> quite a bit of sympathy out there. The US non-cycling public loves the
> guy.
>
> S.
>

[Scott]

Hmmm... anyone out there have any doubts that Lafferty would've
responded any other way that he did to my note or to Bob C.'s ?

Anderson was anything but credible. He's an extortionist, nothing
more. You see, employers don't fire folks they're afraid of. They
promote them, pay them off, whatever. If Lance really thought Anderson
had the goods on him, as Anderson alleges, would Lance really send him
packing without a sufficient buyout and confidentiality agreement? No.

Too bad he didn't work for M. Jackson. He might have gotten paid off.


For what it's worth, I'm fully aware of Rome's love for Lance, and I
took that into consideration as I listened to his show.

[psycholist]

"B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
nk.net...

> Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very credible.

You're the only person I've heard who saw it and thought so. It doesn't
sound to me like there's much of anything in what Anderson is saying or
doing that has much credibility. He says he saw something. He says he's
not sure what it was, but he looked it up on WADA.com and it was banned. He
never saw Lance taking it. And, oh by the way, he's in a legal ****ing
contest with Lance.

There's nothing concrete here. There's only the word of a disgruntled
former employee vs. Lance. HA! This guy wasn't even smart enough to wait
until a week before the Tour to heighten interest in his story.
--
Bob C.

"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)

[Tom Kunich]

"B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very credible.

Let me see, who would I believe........Lance Armstrong or a lawyer? Hard one
that.

[psycholist]

"Tom Kunich" > wrote in message
k.net...
> "B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very credible.
>
> Let me see, who would I believe........Lance Armstrong or a lawyer? Hard
> one that.
>

That'd be a hard one even if Lance were caught doping red-handed!
--
Bob C.

"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)

[B. Lafferty]

"Scott" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Hmmm... anyone out there have any doubts that Lafferty would've
> responded any other way that he did to my note or to Bob C.'s ?

Personal attacks prove nothing.

>
> Anderson was anything but credible.

Your opinion and that's ok. I ran into two people I don't know at my LBS
today who saw Anderson on ESPN and found him believable. Credibility is for
the trier of fact, be that judge or jury, to determine in context with the
totality of the evidence.

> He's an extortionist, nothing
> more. You see, employers don't fire folks they're afraid of. They
> promote them, pay them off, whatever.

You must live in a very interesting business world. And, you're making
quite a few assumptions about Armstrong as an employer (as opposed to
Tailwind) that may or may not be valid.

> If Lance really thought Anderson
> had the goods on him, as Anderson alleges, would Lance really send him
> packing without a sufficient buyout and confidentiality agreement? No.

My understanding is that Armstrong did try to get Anderson to sign a
confidentiality agreement and that he apparently refused. As a strategy,
commencing an action against someone with a strong case is often best,
especially when you can afford to pay hefty legal fees as Armstrong can.

>
> Too bad he didn't work for M. Jackson. He might have gotten paid off.

Does Michael race bicycles?

>
>
> For what it's worth, I'm fully aware of Rome's love for Lance, and I
> took that into consideration as I listened to his show.

It's not worth very much because you don't know how many non-positive calls
were received by the Rome show.

>

[Tom Kunich]

"B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> I ran into two people I don't know at my LBS today who saw Anderson on
> ESPN and found him believable.

Were they anonymous rbr posters as well?

[Jet]

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 14:59:05 -0500, "psycholist" > wrote:

>Sorry, this is a subscription site. I've read some reports about what was
>said over on slowtwitch.com in the forums. Sounds like Lance asked to be on
>the show for some damage control and made some very emphatic
>statements/denials of ever using banned PEDs.

I'm a little surprised. Don't PR people counsel not to give these obviously
dumbass comments wings by replying to them? Seems to me the typical LA
thing to do would be to say nothing and file additional lawsuits? Since the
guy has no proof and can't even remember the name of this alleged stuff
you'd think his lawyer would be cringing.

jj

>Didn't hear it for myself, but sounds interesting. Oh ... and I'm too cheap
>to pay Rome to hear Lance spew.

[B. Lafferty]

"Tom Kunich" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> "B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> I ran into two people I don't know at my LBS today who saw Anderson on
>> ESPN and found him believable.
>
> Were they anonymous rbr posters as well?

If I run into them again, I'll be certain to ask them.

[B. Lafferty]

"psycholist" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom Kunich" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>> "B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>> Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very credible.
>>
>> Let me see, who would I believe........Lance Armstrong or a lawyer? Hard
>> one that.
>>
>
> That'd be a hard one even if Lance were caught doping red-handed!

Would you believe Lance Armstrong's lawyer?

[psycholist]

"B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "psycholist" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Tom Kunich" > wrote in message
>> k.net...
>>> "B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
>>> nk.net...
>>>>
>>>> Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very credible.
>>>
>>> Let me see, who would I believe........Lance Armstrong or a lawyer? Hard
>>> one that.
>>>
>>
>> That'd be a hard one even if Lance were caught doping red-handed!
>
> Would you believe Lance Armstrong's lawyer?

Ha ... I couldn't say. I'm in dangerous territory here. I'm married to a
lawyer and right now she's in the room using my fax machine. Gotta lay low.

Bob C.

[B. Lafferty]

"psycholist" > wrote in message
...
> "B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "psycholist" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Tom Kunich" > wrote in message
>>> k.net...
>>>> "B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
>>>> nk.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very credible.
>>>>
>>>> Let me see, who would I believe........Lance Armstrong or a lawyer?
>>>> Hard one that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That'd be a hard one even if Lance were caught doping red-handed!
>>
>> Would you believe Lance Armstrong's lawyer?
>
> Ha ... I couldn't say. I'm in dangerous territory here. I'm married to a
> lawyer and right now she's in the room using my fax machine. Gotta lay
> low.
>
> Bob C.
Good luck. :-)

[[email protected]]

B. Lafferty wrote:
>
> Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very
credible.

So you're buying real estate from him.

ray

[MagillaGorilla]

psycholist wrote:
> "B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>
>>Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very credible.
>
>
> You're the only person I've heard who saw it and thought so. It doesn't
> sound to me like there's much of anything in what Anderson is saying or
> doing that has much credibility. He says he saw something. He says he's
> not sure what it was, but he looked it up on WADA.com and it was banned. He
> never saw Lance taking it. And, oh by the way, he's in a legal ****ing
> contest with Lance.
>
> There's nothing concrete here. There's only the word of a disgruntled
> former employee vs. Lance. HA! This guy wasn't even smart enough to wait
> until a week before the Tour to heighten interest in his story.


What Brian really means is this:

1. Anderson finds Andro in Girona apartment.
2. Anderson asks for $500/month raise.
3. Armstrong interprets this as a form of legal extortion related to the
Andro DISCOVERY.
4. Armstrong gives Anderson the raise.
5. Armstrong asks Anderson to sign a confidentiality agreement to
preempt disclosure of the Andro DISCOVERY.
6. Anderson says no way, Lancé.
7. Anderson asks for $500,000, signed yellow jersey, and endorsement to
set up a bike shop to buy his hush-up (but doesn't come ut and say he
knows about the Andro)
8. Armstrong sees the writing on the wall and sues Anderson, knowing
full well that a claim of finding Andro in a countersuit will look like
retaliation for the lawsuit. Armstrong gains the upper hand in the PR war.

Magilla

[Bob Schwartz]

MagillaGorilla > wrote:
> What Brian really means is this:

> 1. Anderson finds Andro in Girona apartment.
> 2. Anderson asks for $500/month raise.
> 3. Armstrong interprets this as a form of legal extortion related to the
> Andro DISCOVERY.
> 4. Armstrong gives Anderson the raise.
> 5. Armstrong asks Anderson to sign a confidentiality agreement to
> preempt disclosure of the Andro DISCOVERY.
> 6. Anderson says no way, Lanc?.
> 7. Anderson asks for $500,000, signed yellow jersey, and endorsement to
> set up a bike shop to buy his hush-up (but doesn't come ut and say he
> knows about the Andro)
> 8. Armstrong sees the writing on the wall and sues Anderson, knowing
> full well that a claim of finding Andro in a countersuit will look like
> retaliation for the lawsuit. Armstrong gains the upper hand in the PR war.

> Magilla

Wow! That actually made sense. I'm astounded to be in agreement!

Bob Schwartz

[Tom Kunich]

"psycholist" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ha ... I couldn't say. I'm in dangerous territory here. I'm married to a
> lawyer and right now she's in the room using my fax machine. Gotta lay
> low.

So THAT'S the way you used to cover all your legal costs!

[Tim Lines]

B. Lafferty wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>>Hmmm... anyone out there have any doubts that Lafferty would've
>>responded any other way that he did to my note or to Bob C.'s ?
>
>
> Personal attacks prove nothing.

I don't think this is a personal attack, just an observation.

I don't know what kind of law you practice, but I'll bet you're pretty
damned good at it. If I needed a lawyer, I'd want one that was so
one-sided he couldn't understand any point of view other than my own and
would just hammer on it, and beat the other side to a bloody pulp with
single-minded claptrap. One like you.

[Kurgan Gringioni]

Tim Lines wrote:
> B. Lafferty wrote:
> > "Scott" > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> >
> >>Hmmm... anyone out there have any doubts that Lafferty would've
> >>responded any other way that he did to my note or to Bob C.'s ?
> >
> >
> > Personal attacks prove nothing.
>
> I don't think this is a personal attack, just an observation.
>
> I don't know what kind of law you practice, but I'll bet you're
pretty
> damned good at it. If I needed a lawyer, I'd want one that was so
> one-sided he couldn't understand any point of view other than my own
and
> would just hammer on it, and beat the other side to a bloody pulp
with
> single-minded claptrap. One like you.




Dumbass -

I'll bet Lafferty sucks at it.

If I was on a jury, I'd vote against his client just because his
counsel was so goddamm annoying.



thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[Robert Chung]

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
> If I was on a jury, I'd vote against his client just because his
> counsel was so goddamm annoying.

But it might be pretty entertaining when he called a gym teacher as his
star witness.

[B. Lafferty]

"MagillaGorilla" > wrote in message
...
> psycholist wrote:
>> "B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>
>>
>>>Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very credible.
>>
>>
>> You're the only person I've heard who saw it and thought so. It doesn't
>> sound to me like there's much of anything in what Anderson is saying or
>> doing that has much credibility. He says he saw something. He says he's
>> not sure what it was, but he looked it up on WADA.com and it was banned.
>> He never saw Lance taking it. And, oh by the way, he's in a legal
>> ****ing contest with Lance.
>>
>> There's nothing concrete here. There's only the word of a disgruntled
>> former employee vs. Lance. HA! This guy wasn't even smart enough to
>> wait until a week before the Tour to heighten interest in his story.
>
>
> What Brian really means is this:
>
> 1. Anderson finds Andro in Girona apartment.
> 2. Anderson asks for $500/month raise.
> 3. Armstrong interprets this as a form of legal extortion related to the
> Andro DISCOVERY.
> 4. Armstrong gives Anderson the raise.
> 5. Armstrong asks Anderson to sign a confidentiality agreement to preempt
> disclosure of the Andro DISCOVERY.
> 6. Anderson says no way, Lancé.
> 7. Anderson asks for $500,000, signed yellow jersey, and endorsement to
> set up a bike shop to buy his hush-up (but doesn't come ut and say he
> knows about the Andro)
> 8. Armstrong sees the writing on the wall and sues Anderson, knowing full
> well that a claim of finding Andro in a countersuit will look like
> retaliation for the lawsuit. Armstrong gains the upper hand in the PR war.
>
> Magilla

Possible. It will be interesting to learn if the details of any post-firing
communication between them.

[B. Lafferty]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>
>> Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very
> credible.
>
> So you're buying real estate from him.
>
> ray

Funny. There are at least three possibilities:
1. He's credible and telling the truth.
2. He appears credible but would/will not under cross-examination.
3. He's a true grifter, appears credible, will not fold under
cross-examination.

[Tim Lines]

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> Tim Lines wrote:
>
>>B. Lafferty wrote:
>>
>>>"Scott" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hmmm... anyone out there have any doubts that Lafferty would've
>>>>responded any other way that he did to my note or to Bob C.'s ?
>>>
>>>
>>>Personal attacks prove nothing.
>>
>>I don't think this is a personal attack, just an observation.
>>
>>I don't know what kind of law you practice, but I'll bet you're
>
> pretty
>
>>damned good at it. If I needed a lawyer, I'd want one that was so
>>one-sided he couldn't understand any point of view other than my own
>
> and
>
>>would just hammer on it, and beat the other side to a bloody pulp
>
> with
>
>>single-minded claptrap. One like you.
>
>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> I'll bet Lafferty sucks at it.
>
> If I was on a jury, I'd vote against his client just because his
> counsel was so goddamm annoying.
>

But lawyers are sometimes paid to be annoying and tenacious. At least
partly. They should also choose the ground they defend carefully enough
to be persuasive in the end. Without that last bit, they are just
tenaciously annoying. Which is a reasonable basis for a series of rbr
posts, but not a law career.

[David Goldberg]

psycholist wrote:

> www.jimrome.com
>
> Lance denied ever taking anything and said they can keep his samples and
> test them 15 or 20 years from now.
>
> Not the usual, "I've never tested positive" stuff.

Lance went from cycling nobody to winning the TDF 6 times in a row right
after having a brain tumor and a testicle removed.

The guy is ON something.

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 17:23:43 -0800, David Goldberg
> wrote:

>Lance went from cycling nobody to
>winning the TDF 6 times in a row right
>after having a brain tumor and a testicle removed.

Two Tour of France stage wins, a pro world road championship, two
classics and a couple top fives in a monumental classic is a "nobody"?

Your ignorance is remarkable.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[gwhite]

Tim Lines wrote:
>
> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> > Tim Lines wrote:
> >
> >>B. Lafferty wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Scott" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Hmmm... anyone out there have any doubts that Lafferty would've
> >>>>responded any other way that he did to my note or to Bob C.'s ?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Personal attacks prove nothing.
> >>
> >>I don't think this is a personal attack, just an observation.
> >>
> >>I don't know what kind of law you practice, but I'll bet you're
> >
> > pretty
> >
> >>damned good at it. If I needed a lawyer, I'd want one that was so
> >>one-sided he couldn't understand any point of view other than my own
> >
> > and
> >
> >>would just hammer on it, and beat the other side to a bloody pulp
> >
> > with
> >
> >>single-minded claptrap. One like you.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dumbass -
> >
> > I'll bet Lafferty sucks at it.
> >
> > If I was on a jury, I'd vote against his client just because his
> > counsel was so goddamm annoying.
> >
>
> But lawyers are sometimes paid to be annoying and tenacious. At least
> partly. They should also choose the ground they defend carefully enough
> to be persuasive in the end. Without that last bit, they are just
> tenaciously annoying. Which is a reasonable basis for a series of rbr
> posts, but not a law career.

I was going to say that lawyers put their pants on the same way as everyone else
but realized Phil Moore must think his underwear is a hat.

[[email protected]]

I amazed that the rest of world seems to operate on the guilt by
inuendo theory of justice. This just goes to show how lucky that the US
does not utilize the Napoleonic code.


psycholist wrote:
> www.jimrome.com
>
> Lance denied ever taking anything and said they can keep his samples
and
> test them 15 or 20 years from now.
>
> Not the usual, "I've never tested positive" stuff.
> --
> Bob C.
>
> "Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
> T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 3 Apr 2005 22:10:54 -0700, wrote:

>I amazed that the rest of world seems to operate on the guilt by
>inuendo theory of justice. This just goes to show how lucky that the US
>does not utilize the Napoleonic code.

Do you apply a courtroom standard of justice in your daily life? If
you do, you're in idiot. If you don't, you're a hypocrite.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[MagillaGorilla]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

> On 3 Apr 2005 22:10:54 -0700, wrote:
>
>
>>I amazed that the rest of world seems to operate on the guilt by
>>inuendo theory of justice. This just goes to show how lucky that the US
>>does not utilize the Napoleonic code.
>
>
> Do you apply a courtroom standard of justice in your daily life? If
> you do, you're in idiot. If you don't, you're a hypocrite.
>
> JT
>


Well, most people don't..but only because the penalty isn't
incarceration or a huge monetary fine and a criminal record. So there's
no need to do so in a practical sense, or out of expediency.

Magilla

[Tom Kunich]

"John Forrest Tomlinson" > wrote in message
...
> On 3 Apr 2005 22:10:54 -0700, wrote:
>
>>I amazed that the rest of world seems to operate on the guilt by
>>inuendo theory of justice. This just goes to show how lucky that the US
>>does not utilize the Napoleonic code.
>
> Do you apply a courtroom standard of justice in your daily life? If
> you do, you're in idiot. If you don't, you're a hypocrite.

I try to not reach conclusions on someone's private life without a whole lot
of proof that he's doing something wrong. That's why I give most everyone
but Lafferty a lot of leeway. And Lafferty has convicted himself.

[[email protected]]

B. Lafferty wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> >>
> >> Anderson was on ESPN this morning and he came across as very
> > credible.
> >
> > So you're buying real estate from him.
> >
> > ray
>
> Funny. There are at least three possibilities:
> 1. He's credible and telling the truth.
> 2. He appears credible but would/will not under cross-examination.
> 3. He's a true grifter, appears credible, will not fold under
> cross-examination.

No wonder, its your joke.

[[email protected]]

No one has bothered to answer why the hell Lance would take Andro? If
he was going to take something that would get him banned wouldn't it be
better than a cheap ass Supplement? Just doesn't pass any reasonable
cost/benifit analysis.

Even if Lance was going to take a cheap ass supplement, wouldn't he
just buy it at the GNC with cash rather than get it shipped to his
house w/ a prescription and ahuge paper trail.

Got an answer Brian? Or will you ignore the tough questions that don't
fit you thesis again?

[Bob Schwartz]

wrote:
> No one has bothered to answer why the hell Lance would take Andro? If
> he was going to take something that would get him banned wouldn't it be
> better than a cheap ass Supplement? Just doesn't pass any reasonable
> cost/benifit analysis.

> Even if Lance was going to take a cheap ass supplement, wouldn't he
> just buy it at the GNC with cash rather than get it shipped to his
> house w/ a prescription and ahuge paper trail.

> Got an answer Brian? Or will you ignore the tough questions that don't
> fit you thesis again?

Oh, but we don't know what this guy says he saw. Because he's not
sure. He claims he looked it up and found it on the WADA prohibited
list. But if the plug "Androstenine" into the search box at
http://www.wada-ama.org/en/ you get "Sorry, no results were found
containing Androstenine". So this guy doesn't know what the ****
he saw (allegedly).

This guy needs to brush up on his extortion. If he had a brain he'd
have claimed he saw some **** in the fridge and done a little
research first so that he could at least name something that was
actually prohibited.

But Lafferty says he came off as credible in a TV interview. So there
you go.

Bob Schwartz