Landis picks Lemond's Lawyer

Anton Berlin wrote:
If only there was a blue ring around those that pee in pools and those
that dope?

But if they pee in the pool then everyone else will get 2nd hand dope.

In article ,
"GoneBeforeMyTime" wrote:

Amit Ghosh wrote:
On Jun 8, 10:05 am, --D-y wrote:

Snip..

, the violations we are talking about are really
sports violations rather than significant crimes or fraud against the
public.

What an idiot. The biggest crime against humanity here is fraud against the
public for stealing the spotlight for 7 years if he doped.

"... if he doped."

That means it's
all one of the biggest hoaxes in the history of cycling, but only because he
won 7 tours. It casts a lot of doubt on the point that he was supposed the
be the greatest tour rider of all times. If true he molded and stole 7 years
of the TDF from not just fans, but riders, and countless other organizations
who supported and bought into the science of Lance. Do you think Giro, Nike
and Trek knew or thought he was cheating? The people affected all 7 years of
this is astronomical in scope. That is a crime against humanity, IF HE
DOPED.



What makes it grievous is that the Science of Lance is thought to be an
unfair advantage because he used his money and connections, popularity to
obtain the services of Giro, Nike and Trek to get that extra advantage. In
fact he became so huge as a public figure, that Nike actually came to him
and asked him what they could do to make him go faster. He was able to gain
cutting edge technology secrets and use them while other teams didn't. If he
was doping too, then he had a double advantage which pushed him over the top
into that million dollar salary which at the time was a first and unheard of
since any time in previous history. That's puts an unusual asterisk over the
doping exclamation point. This isn't a simple case of a typical rider who
got busted at a typical UCI race which the fans could care less about. For
crying out loud Ulrich never won and the German fans were so ****ed, they
were spitting on Lance at the tour. Those are public fans, some of which
wrote EPO Lance on the road. If he doped, he also stole some of those wins
from Jan and others cause none of them had the Science of Lance advantage at
that time.



Just saying as a matter of speculation, cause we still don't have solid
proof, there are no nails being hammered into the coffin as of yet. I always
wanted to give him credit for passing those countless doping tests, never
failed a test, but if the whole thing is a big scam where big money and
doping agencies rubber stamped his tests, then the whole thing smacks of a
big media and corporate scam. That's would quite grievous to fans worldwide
and indeed is significant in the eyes of the public. The PUBLIC could of
been spending their leisure dollars elsewhere. I don't know where this thing
is going to end, but if convicted of doping, that's going to be devastating
for cycling. Greg is likely to benifit though over time.

So all this is dependent on "... if he doped."
What if he did not dope?

--
Michael Press

On Jun 8, 1:05*pm, Fred Flintstein
wrote:
On 6/8/2010 1:52 PM, GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:

GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:

This is grevious I am sure to Merckx.

Fockstick,

No, I am certain it is not. Merckx was busted three times
for dope.

Anquetil, may he rest in peace, would also be totally OK
with it. He was quite outspoken about the need to be
properly prepared.

We don't have to speculate about Hinault. He's spent too
much time on the Tour podium congratulating LANCE.

Fred Flintstein

I hadn't thought of that. Hinault had to abandon his last Tour, and
then retire, because of knee problems allegedly from pushing too big a
gear. Maybe his quads were, you know, a little *too* strong.

sa

On 6/8/2010 2:49 PM, GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:
Anton Berlin wrote:
On Jun 8, 2:05 pm, Fred
wrote:
On 6/8/2010 1:52 PM, GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:

GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:

This is grevious I am sure to Merckx.

Fockstick,

No, I am certain it is not. Merckx was busted three times
for dope.

Anquetil, may he rest in peace, would also be totally OK
with it. He was quite outspoken about the need to be
properly prepared.

We don't have to speculate about Hinault. He's spent too
much time on the Tour podium congratulating LANCE.

Fred Flintstein

I haven't soent too much time but you're right about those three and
almost any rider that has a name on the international scale is more
than likely doped in one form or another. Anytime I go to look,
there's dope, dope connections or dope attempts (same as doped) - just
got caught making the buy.

My point is that Merckx had a hard time swallowing Lance winning five tours,
then six and seven breaking his record he held with the others. I followed
Merckx comments during those years. I read a lot of that stuff he said. It's
a fact. I would bet all five would take issue over EPO compared to what
those guys were using back then. Huge performance difference, which can
extend a tour winning streak. EPO use is key, critical in how it changed the
record books. Look at Jeanson for a clue, stripping 50 wins out of
Bessette's grasp, and a huge amount of prize money as well.

Fockstick,

Bet you Indurain wouldn't have an issue with EPO. You're so
far off base you've lost your understanding of what a base
looks like or represents.

Fred Flintstein

On Jun 8, 12:49*pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime" wrote:

EPO use is key, critical in how it changed the
record books. Look at Jeanson for a clue, stripping 50 wins out of
Bessette's grasp, and a huge amount of prize money as well

How do you know for certain (dope tests don't count - we know they can
be beaten) that Jeanson's competitors weren't using EPO or some other
form of doping? Because Jeanson was on EPO and she was beating them?

Brad Anders

On Jun 8, 2:11*pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime" wrote:
Brad Anders wrote:
On Jun 8, 9:32 am, "GoneBeforeMyTime" wrote:
For
crying out loud Ulrich never won and the German fans were so ****ed,
they were spitting on Lance at the tour.

You might want to check the results of the 1997 TdF. Oh, and later, he
got busted for dope.

Yeah but we already have been through the argument of doping was fair across
the board, although it was breaking the rules. So if they were both doping,
still Lance had a leg up with his Science thing which was said to be able to
shave off as much as another five minutes for a tour GC.



As you and I previously discussed, I think the whole "Science of
Lance" as being a huge advantage for him is hogwash. He won because
he's got more talent, luck, attitude, preparation, and general racing
smarts than his other equally-advantaged competitors.

"Crime against humanity"? I really like pro and amateur sports of many
types, but I'm continually amazed by the views of people as to their
relative importance in society. To assign huge amounts of police and
scientific resources to make sure that the person I watch winning a
race is somehow "clean" (which, as we know, is impossible) isn't my
idea of a good way to use those resources.

Brad Anders

In my mind, the crime against humanity would be a huge moral asterisk,
exclamation point. Lance became a huge moral bright and shining role model
by winning and coming back against all odds from cancer. What he did for
cycling and cancer is unparallel. Doing it for 7 years not only made him the
greatest tour rider ever, but it made him larger then life. Cycling exploded
under his reign during those years here in the USA. It's incredible how he
overhauled the sport and turned it into something so big, at one point it
probably even sent some minor shockwaves through the big five. It was doping
that took a great sport that Lance built up and was brought to it's knees
after he left. We sort of grieved in a way that we lost everything Lance
built up during those years. Now to find out he was doing it too, is just
more then the sport can bear I think. Millions of people loved and idolized
this guy, still do. If things turn out badly, it's going to be seen as a
crime against humanity by some because of the length, depth and scope of
what it entails. Back then, I thought Lance was clean, but in this day and
age, it's very hard to look at it that way.

As I've said before, it's a shame all this performance-enhancing
scientific experimentation and endeavor has to remain secret because
of ill-conceived rules and regulations.

The suggested perspective is, "they're all doping". So: Lance's doping
was superior? Maybe not. Maybe the reported intense preparation,
including looking at stage routes well ahead of time, along with wind
tunnel work, and whatever else doesn't come readily to my mind at the
moment, was the determining factor. Don't forget, Lance didn't get
caught except maybe by retro-testing, which implies that if he was
doping, he was using *less* dope.

http://www.steroid.com/ gives a version of history that shows
steroids being in use at least back to the early 1950's.

Athletes (and people in all walks of life) have tried everything
possible, since the dawn of time, to increase performance and
pleasure; not limited to ingestible/injectable substances. IOW, "it's
[sport, life] never been clean" and probably won't ever be clean.

Hey, they might actually find a way to land Lance & Co. in the
slammer. God knows they've had a couple of good practice swings with
Bonds and BALCO g. Well, not such good practice swings, actually,
but certainly informative. The question is, how do you think the Great
American Public (excuse me for a moment, those not members of the GAP)
will react? End of the LAF? End of all admiration for Lance Armstrong?
Actually, I'm hoping for a great big ol' Growing Up. But what we're
going to get is a shrug. --D-y

But what we're
going to get is a shrug. *

Dogs - longer attention span than most Amerikans (and with the kids
it's getting even worse)

On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 12:49:41 -0700, "GoneBeforeMyTime"
wrote:

My point is that Merckx had a hard time swallowing Lance winning five tours,
then six and seven breaking his record he held with the others. I followed
Merckx comments during those years

He was far more exercised by LA's single minded approach to the Tour.
Even there he had a more balanced reply than many have here, which was
the qualification that modern cyclists were paid more, so they didn't
have to ride 11 1/2 months of the year.

I respect Greg for the Pernod. And really respect Eddy for winning on
the track at times in the 'off-season' after his Tour wins. But times
change and Eddy seems to have realized that perfectly well.

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

Mark J. wrote:
GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:
K. Fred Gauss wrote:
GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:

What an idiot. The biggest crime against humanity here is fraud
against the public for stealing the spotlight for 7 years if he
doped. That means it's all one of the biggest hoaxes in the history
of cycling, but only because he won 7 tours. It casts a lot of
doubt on the point that he was supposed the be the greatest tour
rider of all times. If true he molded and stole 7 years of the TDF
from not just fans,
Yeah! Don't forget poor, clean, Jan Ullrich! If Armstrong hadn't
stolen those TdFs, Tyler Hamilton might have won one!

Right, that doping equation is never one I argued anymore. We
already agreed in other threads that doping was fair use across the
board. I only argue that Lance had a leg up with his millions which
allowed his science part to prevail. They quoted that the Science of
Lance gave him as much as five minutes more on the TDF GC. That's a
lot. If everyone is using EPO, Lance still got that extra huge
advantage with his science and technology.

Ahh, and science is against the rules. I get it.

Mark J.

No, its probably more like cheating, but not against the rules. Cheating
doesn't always means it's against the rules.

K. Fred Gauss wrote:
Brad Anders wrote:
On Jun 8, 9:32 am, "GoneBeforeMyTime" wrote:
For
crying out loud Ulrich never won and the German fans were so
****ed, they were spitting on Lance at the tour.

You might want to check the results of the 1997 TdF. Oh, and later,
he got busted for dope.

As you and I previously discussed, I think the whole "Science of
Lance" as being a huge advantage for him is hogwash. He won because
he's got more talent, luck, attitude, preparation, and general racing
smarts than his other equally-advantaged competitors.

Belief in "The Science of Lance" is magical thinking.

Those combined technologies shaved minutes off his GC time. I'm not sure if
it could amount to five as they stated, but it was something obviously worth
pursuing or Lance wouldn't of wasted his time with it.