For Coggan and Coyle

B. Lafferty wrote:

I cited to three or four physicians/PhDs who
have differed publicly and significantly with the opinions you have stated
here with regard to doping, doping methods and the efficacy of same in
enhancing performance.

No, you have not: my position isn't that performance can't be enhanced
via undetected doping, but that the scope of plausible *natural*
performance is so large that you can't rely on physiological/power data
to definitively identify dopers. The only person foolish enough to
claim otherwise has been Ashenden.

Nowhere have I represented that because any one of
these professionals states a position, it as to be absolutely true.

It's still an appeal to authority, i.e., you can't successfully argue
the merits of your position on your own, so you try to bolster it by
(mis)quoting others. Surely they taught you in law school that this was
the weakest of debate tactics?

On the other hand, some of your assertions have
been little more than comical sophistry. For example, puffing (a legal term
of art) about the two calls you fielded from coaches at the "highest level
of the sport"---Cecchini and Ferrari? :-)

Sorry: I don't kiss-and-tell.

Andy Coggan

B. Lafferty wrote:

I cited to three or four physicians/PhDs who
have differed publicly and significantly with the opinions you have stated
here with regard to doping, doping methods and the efficacy of same in
enhancing performance.

No, you have not: my position isn't that performance can't be enhanced
via undetected doping, but that the scope of plausible *natural*
performance is so large that you can't rely on physiological/power data
to definitively identify dopers. The only person foolish enough to
claim otherwise has been Ashenden.

Nowhere have I represented that because any one of
these professionals states a position, it as to be absolutely true.

It's still an appeal to authority, i.e., you can't successfully argue
the merits of your position on your own, so you try to bolster it by
(mis)quoting others. Surely they taught you in law school that this was
the weakest of debate tactics?

On the other hand, some of your assertions have
been little more than comical sophistry. For example, puffing (a legal term
of art) about the two calls you fielded from coaches at the "highest level
of the sport"---Cecchini and Ferrari? :-)

Sorry: I don't kiss-and-tell.

Andy Coggan

" wrote in
ups.com:


wrote:
Dumbass,

Brian Lafferty and David Walsh, with the assistance of Stephen Swart,
have all proven that LANCE - a highly competitive, aggressive,
dirty-dog-take-no-prisoners personality - was doped to the gills
before cancer (which was also before the EPO test and the 50%
hematocrit limit, so the sky was the limit). So by the limited
axioms of logic that hold in this thread, doping also doesn't explain
why he became a better climber and a GT contender after cancer,
either.

(Oddly, Coyle's explanation is better, since he actually appears
to have measured a change in LA's efficiency, even if his
interpretation of why this happened is basically hand-waving.)

"Something changed when he came back from cancer, even if his racing
weight returned to the same or near the same weight as before cancer".
Ya think maybe the weight loss had an effect, after all?

No one is mentioned how much better a TT'er he became, either. Some of
it from wind tunnel work, I would guess. --D-y



Maybe somebody has already come up with this, but I think what happened
was that the original Lance Armstrong did die of cancer. However, his
body was reanimated by Greg Lemond, who then had his brain inserted into
Armstrong's body. Lemond then put Armstrong's brain into his body since
it had to go somewhere, but Lance's competitive drive spontaneously
restarted his brain, and kept Lemond's body alive too, only now the only
thing fueling Lemond/Armstrong was blind hatred of what Armstrong/Lemond
had done to him. Armstrong/Lemond, after "recovering from cancer,"
convinced everyone he had lost weight, doped himself to the gills like
Lemond did before he became Armstrong/Lemond (and Armstrong did before
he became Lemond/Armstrong for that matter, but don't get me confused
here), and won seven straight TdF's. This further filled the hatred
Lemond/Armstrong felt for Armstrong/Lemond, explaining the criticisms
and snide comments so typical of Armstrong/Lemond (or maybe I mean
Lemond/Armstrong, even I don't remember which is which anymore, which is
why this plot is so incredibly diabolical). So Armstrong/Lemond was
doping when he won the TdF's, but it really wasn't Armstrong, it was
Lemond (or Armstrong/Lemond, I think), who got back at Armstrong (or
Lemond/Armstrong, maybe?) by not only winning more TdF's than he
(Lemond/Armstrong or was that Armstrong/Lemond?) but also besmirching
his reputation by doping to do it, something that Lemond/Armstrong would
never have done. The only thing for Lemond/Armstrong to do was to ruin
Armstrong/Lemond's reputation by making increasingly shrill and
irrational accusations against Lemond/Armstrong.

--
Bill Asher

wrote:
Down with the Systeme Internationale! Join me in lobbying
Congress to rename the centimeter the "freedom inch"!

Stu would be lobbying to make the Doughnut the official unit of length.

Donald Munro wrote:
wrote:
Down with the Systeme Internationale! Join me in lobbying
Congress to rename the centimeter the "freedom inch"!

Stu would be lobbying to make the Doughnut the official unit of length.


Donuts are a unit of girth.

William Asher wrote:
Maybe somebody has already come up with this, but I think what happened
was that the original Lance Armstrong did die of cancer. However, his
body was reanimated by Greg Lemond, who then had his brain inserted into
Armstrong's body.

So who invented Finite Element Analysis ?

wrote:


Watch the door if you're really leaving. --D-y


Yawn..you are boring me now..

need more sun wrote:
wrote:


Watch the door if you're really leaving. --D-y


Yawn..you are boring me now..

Oh, so you're *not* really leaving... Gosh, "how did I know"?
--D-y