Lance Armstrong Ball Garglers - Have you read this article?
Anton Berlin
to your brain.
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
B. Lafferty
Time for a Kingston Trio revival. Where have all the ball garglers
gone, long time passing............
Anton Berlin
They are a little quiet lately - either reality has set in or they are
trying to pick a pubic hair out of their teeth.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
You know, there's a lot of BS out there defending LANCE,
and Ashenden actually shows reasonableness in a few places,
but when the interviewer goes from questioning LANCE's
famous weight loss, to suggesting that LANCE lies about
his _height_ :
The other thing that surprised me is this idea of cancer
taking away 15 pounds, it's another one of these publicly
held beliefs that became so ingrained, and it was surprising
to find that he didn't lose any weight post cancer. And not only
that, he's listed as 5' 9", 5' 10", but we know from speaking to
his teammates he's more like 5' 5", 5' 6".
then I begin to think the interviewer has an agenda.
Fredmaster Ben
Brad Anders
wrote:
Don't forget that Ashenden was "shocked" when he found out about EPO
microdosing. Surprising for a guy so inside of the doping world.
Brad Anders
B. Lafferty
Got anything of substance to say about the formal, peer questioning of
Coyle's "research" or the odds of tampering with the 1999 urine samples,
little boy? You really have Ashenden in the cross hairs. LOL.
B. Lafferty
So tell us Fred, exactly how tall is the Uniballer? And tell us his
weight as well. The weight loss argument was show for the garbage of
liars that it is.
That Coyle was accused of impropriety in his research in such detail is
telling considering that Armstrong relied on it in a quasi legal
proceeding to establish that he hasn't doped. If that's th best he can
do, he's dead in the water.
At every turn when Coyle was called on to defend or substantiate his
research he was shown to have lied (same ergometer), guessed (weight) or
"lost" data necessary to substantiate his claims. The research design
of his "study" was totally flawed and, from all appearances, totally
disingenuous. Coyle certainly looks like a charlatan, pure and simple.
He got caught red handed in the Lie for Lance Program.
The odds of there having been tampering with Armstrong's 1999 epo
positives has also been fully debunked.
Go ahead and attack Ashenden every way you can, but he's the real deal
and he has Lance and you ball suckers by the short hairs.
Anyone know if Coggan was involved in questioning the study. Ashenden
didn't mention who the other signers of the letters were questioning the
Coyle "research."
It's over. If Lance is indicted, let's see if he calls Coyle as an
expert at his criminal trial.
snogfest
Put your money where your mouth is
--D-y
(Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote):
> > You know, there's a lot of BS out there defending LANCE,
> > and Ashenden actually shows reasonableness in a few places,
> > but when the interviewer goes from questioning LANCE's
> > famous weight loss, to suggesting that LANCE lies about
> > his _height_ :
>
> > The other thing that surprised me is this idea of cancer
> > taking away 15 pounds, it's another one of these publicly
> > held beliefs that became so ingrained, and it was surprising
> > to find that he didn't lose any weight post cancer. And not only
> > that, he's listed as 5' 9", 5' 10", but we know from speaking to
> > his teammates he's more like 5' 5", 5' 6".
>
> > then I begin to think the interviewer has an agenda.
> So tell us Fred, exactly how tall is the Uniballer? And tell us his
> weight as well. The weight loss argument was show for the garbage of
> liars that it is.
You're sputtering a little there, Brian. Calm down a little. "Weight
loss argument was shown for the garbage of lies that it is"? That what
you meant?
The big deal seems to be 72 kilos v. 74, as to which low weight LA
raced at. The way I read the quotes, Armstrong was 72 kilos right
after cancer treatment. He raced (possibly) at 74. Four point four
pounds' difference. This is petty, picayune compared to the gathering
storm, but just pointing out, when treatment was first concluded,
Armstrong was debilitated, taking some time to come back to any sort
of riding shape. Two kilo's worth? I'd guess that could be reasonable.
BTW, another even less important item: unless he had lifts in his
sandals, I'd say Armstrong is every bit of 5' 10", and maybe another
half-inch or more on top of that. Since I'm 5' 9" and he's an eyeball
or two taller.
>
> That Coyle was accused of impropriety in his research in such detail is
> telling considering that Armstrong relied on it in a quasi legal
> proceeding to establish that he hasn't doped. If that's th best he can
> do, he's dead in the water.
I'm mildly curious to know what has happened to Coyle, professionally.
I could probably find someone to ask but I'm busy <g>. He's screwed or
should be, if what Ashenden has said is true.
> At every turn when Coyle was called on to defend or substantiate his
> research he was shown to have lied (same ergometer), guessed (weight) or
> "lost" data necessary to substantiate his claims. The research design
> of his "study" was totally flawed and, from all appearances, totally
> disingenuous. Coyle certainly looks like a charlatan, pure and simple.
> He got caught red handed in the Lie for Lance Program.
Again, from the Ashenden "testimony", Coyle is screwed.
> The odds of there having been tampering with Armstrong's 1999 epo
> positives has also been fully debunked.
That one doesn't come off quite iron-clad to me. But then, I'm not one
to trust tests or labs much.
> Go ahead and attack Ashenden every way you can, but he's the real deal
> and he has Lance and you ball suckers by the short hairs.
Let it rip, Brian. You still have a fixation. Calling people names
might feel therapeutic, but it's probably not.
> Anyone know if Coggan was involved in questioning the study. Ashenden
> didn't mention who the other signers of the letters were questioning the
> Coyle "research."
> It's over. If Lance is indicted, let's see if he calls Coyle as an
> expert at his criminal trial.
No, it's not "over", it's just getting started. Remember? The End is
maybe two or three years away, right?
Coyle, called right after Ferrari, I would guess.
--D-y
B. Lafferty
So tell us Fred, exactly how tall is the Uniballer? And tell us his
weight as well. The weight loss argument was show for the garbage of
liars that it is.
That Coyle was accused of impropriety in his research in such detail is
telling considering that Armstrong relied on it in a quasi legal
proceeding to establish that he hasn't doped. If that's th best he can
do, he's dead in the water.
At every turn when Coyle was called on to defend or substantiate his
research he was shown to have lied (same ergometer), guessed (weight) or
"lost" data necessary to substantiate his claims. The research design
of his "study" was totally flawed and, from all appearances, totally
disingenuous. Coyle certainly looks like a charlatan, pure and simple.
He got caught red handed in the Lie for Lance Program.
The odds of there having been tampering with Armstrong's 1999 epo
B. Lafferty
Please take Lance's pubic hair out of your teeth before typing here. It
might help to wash your hands as well. Thanks.
Michael Press
<dc109c8f-2cb5-4e93...@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Omerta is history. Former teammates abandon LANCE.
LANCE is actually 5' 5".
--
Michael Press
snogfest
no, really, you put up some money (you can choose a charity) and if LA
is proved to be a doper, you don't have to front up
trash talk is cheap troll-boy
--D-y
> Omerta is history. Former teammates abandon LANCE.
> LANCE is actually 5' 5".
Novitsky is the present and future. "Abandon"? They might all be in
the same boat, more or less-- no wait, the Novitsky deals. I'll bet
they don't even come and visit!
5' 10" at least. Or lifts in his sandals.
--D-y
B. Lafferty
LA has been proved to have been a doper. What world are you living in?
snogfest
Not yours obviously; I reject your reality and replace it with my own
So, come on, ante-up. LA gets absolved by the senate committee
whatever-it-is, you pay some $, doesn't have to be a lot, and
apologise to everyone you flamed in RBR.
Or are you *just* a troll ?
Anton Berlin
snogfest
> Read the article. What's left to argue about after that?
proof. evidence. due process. presumption of innocence. credentials of
experts. documentation. audits of lab's.
maybe it's different where you live.
Andy Coggan
> At every turn when Coyle was called on to defend or substantiate his
> research he was shown to have lied (same ergometer), guessed (weight) or
> "lost" data necessary to substantiate his claims. The research design
> of his "study" was totally flawed and, from all appearances, totally
> disingenuous. Coyle certainly looks like a charlatan, pure and simple.
> He got caught red handed in the Lie for Lance Program.
"Ah the great tragedy of science: the slaying of a beautiful
hypothesis by one ugly fact" (or in this case, several):
1) there is no evidence *that the data Coyle presented* was obtaining
use any ergometer other than the one he said was used;
2) the fact that Coyle was forced to use Armstrong's self-reported
body mass is clearly stated in the paper;
3) there is no evidence that Coyle did not, in fact, lose much of
Armstrong's data as he claims;
4) Coyle actually presented the data published in the paper in an
abstract several years *before* the SCA lawsuit was filed - thus, the
claim that the paper was commissioned as part of Armstrong's defense
is nonsensical.
> Anyone know if Coggan was involved in questioning the study. Ashenden
> didn't mention who the other signers of the letters were questioning the
> Coyle "research."
Ashenden was referring to his coauthors on his letter-to-the-editor of
JAP, Schumacher whose letter was also published, and possibly a couple
of others (who have been at odds with Coyle previously). I did not
question the study when it was first published*, and do not have any
more (or less) reason to do so now. Those who have chosen to use it as
a way of getting at Armstrong (e.g., Ashenden, yourself) are, as I
have said before, trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
*That is, aside from recognizing its obvious flaw, i.e., that it is a
post-hoc analysis of a sample of "convenience" data from a single
subject.
Andy Coggan
Andy Coggan
> I'm mildly curious to know what has happened to Coyle, professionally.
> I could probably find someone to ask but I'm busy <g>. He's screwed or
> should be, if what Ashenden has said is true.
Well, let's see:
1) he is still a tenured full professor at UT-Austin;
2) he continues to publish at the same rate (i.e., 1-2 original papers
and 0-1 review articles/year) as he has for the past 10-15 y;
3) the frequency with which his papers are cited still remains quite
high (and, notably I think, much higher than that of his detractors);
4) a couple of year's ago, he was awarded ACSM's Citation Award, which
is granted to an "individual or group who has made significant and
important contributions to sports medicine and/or the exercise
sciences."
So, while Ashenden's actions have undoubtly brought him some
embarrasment and unwanted attention, and even an admonishment from the
UT-Austin administration, he seems to have weathered this storm fairly
well.
Andy Coggan
Andy Coggan
> You know, there's a lot of BS out there defending LANCE,
> and Ashenden actually shows reasonableness in a few places,
> but when the interviewer goes from questioning LANCE's
> famous weight loss, to suggesting that LANCE lies about
> his _height_ :
>
> The other thing that surprised me is this idea of cancer
> taking away 15 pounds, it's another one of these publicly
> held beliefs that became so ingrained, and it was surprising
> to find that he didn't lose any weight post cancer. And not only
> that, he's listed as 5' 9", 5' 10", but we know from speaking to
> his teammates he's more like 5' 5", 5' 6".
>
> then I begin to think the interviewer has an agenda.
The interviewer or the interviewee?
It is well known that Ashenden has an agenda - even his colleagues
admit that he can be a bit of a loose cannon. When he starts making a
big deal out of precisely how tall Armstrong is, though, he just ends
up looking silly.
Andy Coggan
Ronko
b688d1...@q40g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
snogfest_...@yahoo.com says...
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Just to clarify, that quote is what was said by the interviewer.
I don't think Ashenden mentions Armstrong's height in the
interview. He does make a mountain out of a molehill with
respect to Armstrong's weight.
There are enough pictures of Armstrong in racing shape
from 1993 or so and 1999-2000 to tell that he looks skinnier
afterwards.
The place where I thought Ashenden demonstrated a
momentary flash of reason is when he was talking about
criminal penalties, and drew back from the idea that
sporting violations should be criminalized.
Fredmaster Ben
William R. Mattil
>
> It is well known that Ashenden has an agenda - even his colleagues
> admit that he can be a bit of a loose cannon. When he starts making a
> big deal out of precisely how tall Armstrong is, though, he just ends
> up looking silly.
>
Andy,
As usual - a voice of reason on rbr.
Bill
--
William R. Mattil
B. Lafferty
It's quite a bit more than a mountain out of a mole hill. Lying about
the ergometer used is an amazing piece of outright dishonesty. The fact
that he was admonished by his university is itself damning--especially
considering how universities tend to protect their own. By attackin the
motives of Ashenden and the others who questioned Coyle's work, rather
than address the issues that they raised, you have placed yourself in
the same pit of disrepute your friend and academic co-author Coyle, has
thrown himself into.
To say that you don't have any more or less reason to question your
friend and co-author Coyle's work now, is a clear indication that you've
shit canned your own credibility.
B. Lafferty
>
>> At every turn when Coyle was called on to defend or substantiate his
>> research he was shown to have lied (same ergometer), guessed (weight) or
>> "lost" data necessary to substantiate his claims. The research design
>> of his "study" was totally flawed and, from all appearances, totally
>> disingenuous. Coyle certainly looks like a charlatan, pure and simple.
>> He got caught red handed in the Lie for Lance Program.
>
> "Ah the great tragedy of science: the slaying of a beautiful
> hypothesis by one ugly fact" (or in this case, several):
>
> 1) there is no evidence *that the data Coyle presented* was obtaining
> use any ergometer other than the one he said was used;
Wrong. Read the interview again. There is clear evidence that the same
ergometer was not used throughout the "research" in contradiction of
Coyle's assertions.
>
> 2) the fact that Coyle was forced to use Armstrong's self-reported
> body mass is clearly stated in the paper;
That's not the point. The point is that such reliance is scientifically
unsound in such a research paper. Coyle should have know the negative
impact and not relied on such suspect data. That is the point you
choose to ignore.
>
> 3) there is no evidence that Coyle did not, in fact, lose much of
> Armstrong's data as he claims;
If he did lose the information, he is incredibly inept. That does not
speak well for his research and data collection skills.
>
> 4) Coyle actually presented the data published in the paper in an
> abstract several years *before* the SCA lawsuit was filed - thus, the
> claim that the paper was commissioned as part of Armstrong's defense
> is nonsensical.
That was not the claim as I read the interview. Coyle was called as an
expert witness by Armstrong at the SCA hearing. His testimony was
therefore "commissioned" (retained) by Armstrong including the paper he
presented and which was accepted into evidence at the SCA hearing. It's
not clear to me whether or not his university had admonished him
regarding that research prior to that hearing. Probably not. It would
be a wonderful impeachment moment.
Andy Coggan
> Lying about
> the ergometer used is an amazing piece of outright dishonesty.
As I said, there is no proof that Coyle lied about what ergometer was
used to collect the data that were presented. If anything, raising
this as an issue just made Ashenden et al. look petty/a bit desperate,
since they claimed that the ergometer that was stated to be used never
existed, when in reality it does. I know that for a fact, because I'm
the one who got it out of mothballs and up-and-running to use in my
dissertation.
> The fact
> that he was admonished by his university is itself damning--especially
> considering how universities tend to protect their own.
I seriously doubt that this was the basis of the university's
admonishment of Coyle. More likely they reprimanded him for not citing
the correct paper describing the method used to calculate delta
efficiency, and/or for not keeping good records.
> By attackin the
> motives of Ashenden and the others who questioned Coyle's work, rather
> than address the issues that they raised, you have placed yourself in
> the same pit of disrepute your friend and academic co-author Coyle, has
> thrown himself into.
As I said, it is no secret that Ashenden wishes to bring down
Armstrong, and that he merely used Coyle's paper as an attempt to do
so. Indeed, he says precisely this in the nyvelocity interview.
As for that same "pit of disrepute", I would be happy if my papers
were cited as often as Coyle's, etc. I'm getting there, but he's had a
pretty good head start and has had a number of excellent graduate
students work with him.
> To say that you don't have any more or less reason to question your
> friend and co-author Coyle's work now, is a clear indication that you've
> shit canned your own credibility.
How so? Nothing has come to light re. the paper or its genesis that I
did not know when it was first published - before, actually, since I
was at the small, by-invitation-only scientific meeting where the data
were first presented in abstract form.
Andy Coggan
Andy Coggan
wrote:
> On Aug 23, 9:15 am, Andy Coggan <acog...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 22, 1:45 pm, Fredmaster of Brainerd <bjwei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You know, there's a lot of BS out there defending LANCE,
> > > and Ashenden actually shows reasonableness in a few places,
> > > but when the interviewer goes from questioning LANCE's
> > > famous weight loss, to suggesting that LANCE lies about
> > > his _height_ :
>
> > > The other thing that surprised me is this idea of cancer
> > > taking away 15 pounds, it's another one of these publicly
> > > held beliefs that became so ingrained, and it was surprising
> > > to find that he didn't lose any weight post cancer. And not only
> > > that, he's listed as 5' 9", 5' 10", but we know from speaking to
> > > his teammates he's more like 5' 5", 5' 6".
>
> > > then I begin to think the interviewer has an agenda.
>
> > The interviewer or the interviewee?
>
> > It is well known that Ashenden has an agenda - even his colleagues
> > admit that he can be a bit of a loose cannon. When he starts making a
> > big deal out of precisely how tall Armstrong is, though, he just ends
> > up looking silly.
>
> > Andy Coggan
>
> Just to clarify, that quote is what was said by the interviewer.
> I don't think Ashenden mentions Armstrong's height in the
> interview.
You're right, it was Andy Shen who brought up that red herring.
Andy Coggan
Beloved Fred No. 1
> That single testicle lodged in your throat must be shutting off oxygen
> to your brain.
>
> http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
Ashenden is the "scientist" who doesn't like peer reviews. No doubt the
medieval church would have approved.
Andy Coggan
> On 8/23/2010 11:56 AM, Andy Coggan wrote:
>
> > On Aug 22, 3:28 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> At every turn when Coyle was called on to defend or substantiate his
> >> research he was shown to have lied (same ergometer), guessed (weight) or
> >> "lost" data necessary to substantiate his claims. The research design
> >> of his "study" was totally flawed and, from all appearances, totally
> >> disingenuous. Coyle certainly looks like a charlatan, pure and simple.
> >> He got caught red handed in the Lie for Lance Program.
>
> > "Ah the great tragedy of science: the slaying of a beautiful
> > hypothesis by one ugly fact" (or in this case, several):
>
> > 1) there is no evidence *that the data Coyle presented* was obtaining
> > use any ergometer other than the one he said was used;
>
> Wrong. Read the interview again. There is clear evidence that the same
> ergometer was not used throughout the "research" in contradiction of
> Coyle's assertions.
Sorry, but you are simply wrong. That is, a rumored photo (which has
apparently never surfaced) of Armstrong being tested on another
ergometer is not proof that the data from said test were utilized in
preparing the paper.
> > 2) the fact that Coyle was forced to use Armstrong's self-reported
> > body mass is clearly stated in the paper;
>
> That's not the point. The point is that such reliance is scientifically
> unsound in such a research paper. Coyle should have know the negative
> impact and not relied on such suspect data. That is the point you
> choose to ignore.
As I pointed out, this detail is clearly indicated in the paper.
Obviously, that means that the reviewers (note: I was not one of them)
did not agree with your assertion that this was a "fatal flaw".
Indeed, the focus of non-scientists such as yourself on changes in
Armstrong's power/body mass, or even that of other scientists who
emphasize the issues related to precisely how *delta* efficiency was
measured, overlook the most important observation, which is that
Armstrong's *gross* efficiency apparently improved. Whether he did or
did not lose a significant amount of weight is irrelevant from the
scientific perspective.
Another thing I should point out: contrary to Ashenden's assertion
that cycling efficiency is practically immutable, such that Coyle's
data are, at a minimum, rather eye-opening, there are actually studies
in the scientific literature from the early part of the 20th century
showing that cycling efficiency does indeed improve with training.
Perhaps more importantly (in terms of judging the historical
importance of Coyle's paper), there have been more than a dozen
studies published in just the last ~5 y revisiting this issue, with
almost (but not quite) all of them lending support to Coyle's results.
> > 3) there is no evidence that Coyle did not, in fact, lose much of
> > Armstrong's data as he claims;
>
> If he did lose the information, he is incredibly inept. That does not
> speak well for his research and data collection skills.
> > 4) Coyle actually presented the data published in the paper in an
> > abstract several years *before* the SCA lawsuit was filed - thus, the
> > claim that the paper was commissioned as part of Armstrong's defense
> > is nonsensical.
>
> That was not the claim as I read the interview. Coyle was called as an
> expert witness by Armstrong at the SCA hearing. His testimony was
> therefore "commissioned" (retained) by Armstrong including the paper he
> presented and which was accepted into evidence at the SCA hearing.
Coyle's *testimony* was "commissioned", yes - but then again, so was
Ashenden's. The data in the paper, however, had been collected and
presented previously, so it is illogical to claim (as many have done,
and as you implied) that the paper itself was produced as a front for
Armstrong.
Andy Coggan
BLafferty
Then where is the data that was previously presented? Is it nowhere in
the universe to be found after is dissemination? Of the two commissioned
expert witnesses, it looks to me like Ashenden torpedoed and sent Coyle
to the bottom of the forensic ocean.
You friend and co-author is a slime ball who go caught with his pants
showing his smelly ass crack. And you aren't much better, Mr. Co-Author.
BLafferty
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:5cKdnX4Z5NcfBOzR...@giganews.com...
> On 8/22/2010 2:45 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>> On Aug 21, 5:07 pm, Anton Berlin<truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> That single testicle lodged in your throat must be shutting off
>>> oxygen
>>> to your brain.
>>>
>>> http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
>>
>> You know, there's a lot of BS out there defending LANCE,
>> and Ashenden actually shows reasonableness in a few places,
>> but when the interviewer goes from questioning LANCE's
>> famous weight loss, to suggesting that LANCE lies about
>> his _height_ :
>>
>> The other thing that surprised me is this idea of cancer
>> taking away 15 pounds, it's another one of these publicly
>> held beliefs that became so ingrained, and it was surprising
>> to find that he didn't lose any weight post cancer. And not only
>> that, he's listed as 5' 9", 5' 10", but we know from speaking to
>> his teammates he's more like 5' 5", 5' 6".
>>
>> then I begin to think the interviewer has an agenda.
>>
>> Fredmaster Ben
>
> So tell us Fred, exactly how tall is the Uniballer? And tell us his
> weight as well. The weight loss argument was show for the garbage of
> liars that it is.
Where have I heard this before? Oh, right, here-
http://videosift.com/video/How-many-lights-do-you-see-Captain-Great-Picard-Moment
If you say it often enough (Lance is 5'5"), do you really believe it
will become true?
This is just too bizarre to be real. If someone's belief in the
legitimacy of the "bring down Lance, it's all a conspiracy" camp is
dependent upon believing the testimony of people who think they're
helping their cause by claiming they know that lance is possibly as
short as 5'5, maybe 5'6 on a good-posture day... it just doesn't make
sense. You would think those trying to bring down Lance would do
everything possible to verify facts and seal off the loose cannons that
erode credibility through their attempts to embellish and manufacture
"facts" that put Lance in a negative light.
The weight issue may have merit. But when the same people are talking
about his height, it calls everything into question.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Beloved Fred No. 1
> Sorry, but you are simply wrong. That is, a rumored photo (which has
> apparently never surfaced) of Armstrong being tested on another
> ergometer is not proof that the data from said test were utilized in
> preparing the paper.
Arguing with Lafferty is like being psychoanalyzed by Eliza.
--D-y
wrote:
> "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5cKdnX4Z5NcfBOzR...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8/22/2010 2:45 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> >> On Aug 21, 5:07 pm, Anton Berlin<truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> That single testicle lodged in your throat must be shutting off
> >>> oxygen
> >>> to your brain.
>
> >>>http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
>
> >> You know, there's a lot of BS out there defending LANCE,
> >> and Ashenden actually shows reasonableness in a few places,
> >> but when the interviewer goes from questioning LANCE's
> >> famous weight loss, to suggesting that LANCE lies about
> >> his _height_ :
>
> >> The other thing that surprised me is this idea of cancer
> >> taking away 15 pounds, it's another one of these publicly
> >> held beliefs that became so ingrained, and it was surprising
> >> to find that he didn't lose any weight post cancer. And not only
> >> that, he's listed as 5' 9", 5' 10", but we know from speaking to
> >> his teammates he's more like 5' 5", 5' 6".
>
> >> then I begin to think the interviewer has an agenda.
>
> >> Fredmaster Ben
>
> > So tell us Fred, exactly how tall is the Uniballer? And tell us his
> > weight as well. The weight loss argument was show for the garbage of
> > liars that it is.
>
>
> If you say it often enough (Lance is 5'5"), do you really believe it
> will become true?
>
> This is just too bizarre to be real. If someone's belief in the
> legitimacy of the "bring down Lance, it's all a conspiracy" camp is
> dependent upon believing the testimony of people who think they're
> helping their cause by claiming they know that lance is possibly as
> short as 5'5, maybe 5'6 on a good-posture day... it just doesn't make
> sense. You would think those trying to bring down Lance would do
> everything possible to verify facts and seal off the loose cannons that
> erode credibility through their attempts to embellish and manufacture
> "facts" that put Lance in a negative light.
>
> The weight issue may have merit. But when the same people are talking
> about his height, it calls everything into question.
There is a difference between prosecution and persecution <g>.
Assenden didn't correct Shen on the point of Armstrong's height. Just
kinda let that one slide, didn't he?
While painting Coyle with shit (along with some fine company here)
because he accepted data by hearsay or "testimony", if you want.
This is a nasty rhetorical attack on Armstrong and Coyle, an attempt
to undermine any credibility they might have.
Noting again, even Ashenden says he knows it is a common practice, and
tactical necessity, for athletes to obfuscate "personal data".
Also, one more time: I've stood toe-to-toe with Lance Armstrong. He
had flat sandals on; I had some kind of running shoes on. IOW, I
probably had the sole height advantage. I'm 5' 9", and maybe still 5'
9- 1/2". He's a good inch, or more, taller than I am.
Didn't I comment earlier that, by word of mouth, Lance had been tested
at the OTC in Colorado Springs? When Ashenden says "no one knew
anything" (my words) IRT Lance's height, weight, whatever, where is
the due diligence in his "investigation"?
This is one of those deals where yes, there is an agenda and a de
facto "conspiracy" to bring Lance down.
There is some evidence that Lance may have doped. But when Ashenden
lets what amounts to personal attack ("Hey everybody: not only does
Lance lie, but he's a short little fucker, too!") fly undisturbed, and
that where he knows this crap is going to be published, it doesn't do
his own credibility any good here. Because he does have some of the
smear artist thing going for him.
Sort of like that SOB Dick Pound-- "We knew they were doping". I mean,
you can think you know what they "were doing", but making that sort of
public statement really stinks.
Plus threatening Marion Jones after she rightfully called WADA a
"kangaroo court"-- in essence, saying "She'd better watch out or we'll
take all her medals away!"
If Pound is such a wonderful agent for truth and goodness, why wasn't
he already taking all her medals away? IOW, is this all about
"justice" or personal vendettas?
Novitsky v. Barry Bonds, for another example. Seizing evidence clearly
outside the scope of a search warrant, bragging about a "book deal",
and then denying it?
Wow. Lies and innuendo? Plenty enough to go around.
Bad cops, bad cops
Whatcha gonna do?
Whatcha gonna do
When they come for YOU?
--D-y
Mark J.
Wow, you get serious geek cred for that reference. I'm not sure if I
should be proud or embarrassed that I recognized your subject header
right away.
yes, the Big Lie is making the rounds in lots of fora these days.
Mark J.
Mike Jacoubowsky
--to undermine any credibility they might have.
It has also become an attack on one of our own (Andy Coggan)
--Noting again, even Ashenden says he knows it is a common practice, and
--tactical necessity, for athletes to obfuscate "personal data".
--Also, one more time: I've stood toe-to-toe with Lance Armstrong. He
--had flat sandals on; I had some kind of running shoes on. IOW, I
--probably had the sole height advantage. I'm 5' 9", and maybe still 5'
--9- 1/2". He's a good inch, or more, taller than I am.
I can probably obtain centerlines of Lance's various bikes; many are on
display at Trek in Waterloo, WI, set up exactly as raced. 58cm frames
(measured center to top), at least through 2005.
Why do people trying to claim they know the truth make up such wild
stories to support that truth? Don't they understand that it undermines
credibility?
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"--D-y" <dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:29ea899d-0875-40e8...@k10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Mike Jacoubowsky
>> http://videosift.com/video/How-many-lights-do-you-see-Captain-Great-Picard-Moment
>
> Wow, you get serious geek cred for that reference. I'm not sure if I
> should be proud or embarrassed that I recognized your subject header right
> away.
I own up to being a geek. But that was a great stand-alone episode with
great applicability to this situation. I think a non-ST fan would have no
problem watching the piece and seeing the point.
>
> yes, the Big Lie is making the rounds in lots of fora these days.
The sad thing about it is that it (the Big Lie) may be getting in the way of
discovering the Inconvenient Truth. There's a lot of fascinating stuff going
on, a lot of food for thought. But both sides are more interested in
throwing knives at each other than getting to the truth. Both sides. Why?
Normal strategy, if you think you have the upper hand, is to let the bad
guys just make fools of themselves. String them along, supply the rope,
whatever. But those who believe they're the good guys are just making stuff
up as they go along, anything that they think will make the bad guys look
badder. If the bad guys really are that bad, it will come out on its own. If
the good guys make up enough nonsensical garbage that they lose credibility,
the bad guys often get away.
Please note that I'm not making judgements about good & bad here, just
trying to simplify things. Because each side is acting similarly, you can
apply good or bad to either and it all works out the same.
> Mark J.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Mark J." <MarkU...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:i50qf5$3ea$1...@news.eternal-september.org...