For Coggan and Coyle

B. Lafferty wrote:

And we now know from Armstrong's testimony that he lost a kilo, not the 7
or 8 kilos

No, we don't know that, because we don't know at what mass Armstrong
was before he got down to 74 kg and change.

So let's see: 83 mL/min/kg x 74 kg = a VO2max of 6.14 L/min. That's
essentially identical to Chris Boardman's VO2max, yet Boardman's race
weight was only 68-69 kg. Are you now going to argue that Boardman was
also a doper? How about Obree (VO2max = 88 mL/min/kg, mass similar to
Boardman's)?

Andy Coggan

B. Lafferty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

B. Lafferty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

B. Lafferty wrote:

Conclusion de Michael Ashenden : "Aucun doute possible : il a utilisé
des
produits dopants à un moment donné."
DUMBASS,

THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE OF DOPING.

Incorrect. It is circumstantial evidence. The weight of circumstantial
evidence of doping continues to grow.

dumbass,

nothing in this line of "analysis" -- based on physical parameters and
crude calculations -- connects LANCE to drugs.

if you tried to present this as "circumstantial evidence", the other
side would strip you naked,

the best circumstantial evidence against lance is from swart and from
potentially other teamates (like the andreu vaughters IMs).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Beleive in any fantasy you like such as Armstong and USPS being a clean
team.

And that is quite clearly NOT what was said.

Believe in any fantasy you like such as anyone disagreeing with you
being guilty of cannibalism.

In article
. net,
"B. Lafferty" wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

B. Lafferty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

B. Lafferty wrote:

Conclusion de Michael Ashenden : "Aucun doute possible : il a utilisé
des
produits dopants à un moment donné."

DUMBASS,

THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE OF DOPING.

Incorrect. It is circumstantial evidence. The weight of circumstantial
evidence of doping continues to grow.

dumbass,

nothing in this line of "analysis" -- based on physical parameters and
crude calculations -- connects LANCE to drugs.

if you tried to present this as "circumstantial evidence", the other
side would strip you naked,

the best circumstantial evidence against lance is from swart and from
potentially other teamates (like the andreu vaughters IMs).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Beleive in any fantasy you like such as Armstong and USPS being a clean
team. Ooops.....not all of them were clean according to rider admissions.

You're making this up as you go along. When your
evidence is confounded you abandon rational argument
and say "He's guilty because everybody knows they were
all doping all along."

--
Michael Press

"Michael Press" wrote in message
...
In article
. net,
"B. Lafferty" wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

B. Lafferty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

B. Lafferty wrote:

Conclusion de Michael Ashenden : "Aucun doute possible : il a utilisé
des
produits dopants à un moment donné."

DUMBASS,

THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE OF DOPING.

Incorrect. It is circumstantial evidence. The weight of
circumstantial
evidence of doping continues to grow.

dumbass,

nothing in this line of "analysis" -- based on physical parameters and
crude calculations -- connects LANCE to drugs.

if you tried to present this as "circumstantial evidence", the other
side would strip you naked,

the best circumstantial evidence against lance is from swart and from
potentially other teamates (like the andreu vaughters IMs).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Beleive in any fantasy you like such as Armstong and USPS being a clean
team. Ooops.....not all of them were clean according to rider
admissions.

You're making this up as you go along. When your
evidence is confounded you abandon rational argument

Bull****.

and say "He's guilty because everybody knows they were
all doping all along."

Show me where I ever wrote that, Chump. You can't.

--
Michael Press

"Fred Fredburger" wrote in message
. ..
B. Lafferty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

B. Lafferty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

B. Lafferty wrote:

Conclusion de Michael Ashenden : "Aucun doute possible : il a utilisé
des
produits dopants à un moment donné."
DUMBASS,

THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE OF DOPING.

Incorrect. It is circumstantial evidence. The weight of circumstantial
evidence of doping continues to grow.

dumbass,

nothing in this line of "analysis" -- based on physical parameters and
crude calculations -- connects LANCE to drugs.

if you tried to present this as "circumstantial evidence", the other
side would strip you naked,

the best circumstantial evidence against lance is from swart and from
potentially other teamates (like the andreu vaughters IMs).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Beleive in any fantasy you like such as Armstong and USPS being a clean
team.

And that is quite clearly NOT what was said.

Yada, yada, yada.


Believe in any fantasy you like such as anyone disagreeing with you being
guilty of cannibalism.

ROTFL!

wrote in message
ps.com...
B. Lafferty wrote:

And we now know from Armstrong's testimony that he lost a kilo, not the
7
or 8 kilos

No, we don't know that, because we don't know at what mass Armstrong
was before he got down to 74 kg and change.

Keep dancing, Andy. Lets talk about weight. It's quite clear now that
Armstrong and his minions were misrepresenting how much weight he lost
post-cancer.


So let's see: 83 mL/min/kg x 74 kg = a VO2max of 6.14 L/min. That's
essentially identical to Chris Boardman's VO2max, yet Boardman's race
weight was only 68-69 kg. Are you now going to argue that Boardman was
also a doper? How about Obree (VO2max = 88 mL/min/kg, mass similar to
Boardman's)?

And how did Boardman do climbing in the Tour?


Andy Coggan

B. Lafferty wrote:
]
And we now know from Armstrong's testimony that he lost a kilo, not the 7
or 8 kilos that has been the stock myth for public consumption coming from
Armstrong and his camp.

I weigh myself many mornings, pretty much first thing. Wed AM I was 125.3.
This morning I was 128.0. I'll probably be 125 and change again within
a few days. One kilo is essentially nothing -- a liter of water. Armstrong's
loss was a lot more than that.

Dan

"Dan Connelly" wrote in message
...
B. Lafferty wrote:
]
And we now know from Armstrong's testimony that he lost a kilo, not the
7 or 8 kilos that has been the stock myth for public consumption coming
from Armstrong and his camp.

I weigh myself many mornings, pretty much first thing. Wed AM I was
125.3.
This morning I was 128.0. I'll probably be 125 and change again within
a few days. One kilo is essentially nothing -- a liter of water.
Armstrong's
loss was a lot more than that.

Dan

Let us know when your weight varies by 15 to 20 lbs in one day.

In article
.net
,
"B. Lafferty" wrote:

"Michael Press" wrote in message
...
In article
. net,
"B. Lafferty" wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

B. Lafferty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

B. Lafferty wrote:

Conclusion de Michael Ashenden : "Aucun doute possible : il a utilisé
des
produits dopants à un moment donné."

DUMBASS,

THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE OF DOPING.

Incorrect. It is circumstantial evidence. The weight of
circumstantial
evidence of doping continues to grow.

dumbass,

nothing in this line of "analysis" -- based on physical parameters and
crude calculations -- connects LANCE to drugs.

if you tried to present this as "circumstantial evidence", the other
side would strip you naked,

the best circumstantial evidence against lance is from swart and from
potentially other teamates (like the andreu vaughters IMs).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Beleive in any fantasy you like such as Armstong and USPS being a clean
team. Ooops.....not all of them were clean according to rider
admissions.

You're making this up as you go along. When your
evidence is confounded you abandon rational argument

Bull****.

and say "He's guilty because everybody knows they were
all doping all along."

Show me where I ever wrote that, Chump. You can't.

Up there in the comment to which I replied.

Beleive in any fantasy you like such as Armstong and USPS being a clean
team. Ooops.....not all of them were clean according to rider
admissions.

I believe that's `believe'.

--
Michael Press

B. Lafferty wrote:
Lets talk about weight. It's quite clear now that
Armstrong and his minions were misrepresenting how much weight he lost
post-cancer.

How much do you say they say, Brian? Something around 20 lbs?

How much do you say? That is, what do you think was the weight he raced
at (generally, of course) before cancer, and what did he bottom out at
post cancer? What was the difference, according to what you believe?

Maybe later we can backtrack on this thread and you can explain how SCA
didn't lose that $7.5 million in arbitration, $2.5 million more than if
they had just paid up-- that they didn't see the writing on the wall,
and bail, thinking to have done the most damage they could without
having to pay another million or three. Or why did they bail, again?
--D-y