Saint Armstrong - Warning - not recommended for cowards or the faint of mind.
Anton Berlin
BLafferty
> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4111/5040547056_3dacf5edfd.jpg
>
Thank God Armstrong was able to do what he did riding clean. If
Escartin and Schleck had Armstrong's work ethic, they'd be on top of the
drug heap, too. :-)
Phil H
Positive samples from 99 should read, unconfirmed so-called positive
samples from 99. There is a reason those results were thrown out.
Phil H
BLafferty
research. But, don't worry. They'll be admissible at his criminal trial.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:053a0fb4-1d82-42c7...@w29g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4111/5040547056_3dacf5edfd.jpg
Ohmygosh, I hadn't made up my mind until I saw that graphic. It's just
so.... graphic! Not to mention a revelation. Who knew any of that stuff
before now?
Why is it only relevant for the Armstrong years, by the way? Because doping
isn't exciting unless you think Lance is involved? Oh, right, there weren't
any doping issues or scandals in the non-Lance years. I forgot. How stupid
of me.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Anton Berlin
> "Anton Berlin" <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Mike call 911 since you're so averse to 411
RicodJour
> On Jan 5, 3:49 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
> > "Anton Berlin" <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > Ohmygosh, I hadn't made up my mind until I saw that graphic. It's just
> > so.... graphic! Not to mention a revelation. Who knew any of that stuff
> > before now?
>
> > Why is it only relevant for the Armstrong years, by the way? Because doping
> > isn't exciting unless you think Lance is involved? Oh, right, there weren't
> > any doping issues or scandals in the non-Lance years. I forgot. How stupid
> > of me.
>
In your book rehashing tired tripe is news? What network are you on?
R
Phil H
I don't worry. Bad science is bad science whether used in a trial or
not. "Research only" wasn't the only reason for the lack of
credibility.
Phil H
Mike Jacoubowsky
=====
Mike call 911 since you're so averse to 411
=====
Anton: This is 2011. I know you thought it a secret, that nobody knew that
stuff, but get a clue. We've got this thing called the Internet, and before
that, the Pony Express.
Give us something we don't know about. Rehashing stuff everybody knows is
simply cheerleading.
"Warning - not recommended for cowards of the faint of mind." Did you mean
to include a photo of you cheerleading?
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Brad Anders
> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4111/5040547056_3dacf5edfd.jpg
So, how many virtual Tours does that mean for Escartin?
IMO, nailing LA won't change the acceptability or use of doping in
cycling. It also won't change the past. If that table went another 10
deep each year, you'd have another pile of dopers to add to the mix. I
also suspect that if it were possible in each of those years to have
eliminated all methods of doping, the results would have been
essentially the same. Anybody worth a shit was doping.
The main thing that will happen if LA is nailed is the further exodus
of sponsors and fans from pro cycling, regardless of the current state
of doping and regulation in the sport. Seems rather cannibalistic to
me.
Fred
Speaking of aversion, why are you so averse to a reality check???
How many years ago was it that you were allegedly harmed by some
action by Armstrong? When the f..k are you going to get over it?
Your constant harping on him, whether he's guilty or not, speaks
volumes about your mental state, far more than it could possibly say
about him. You really, really should just let it go and get on with
your otherwise pathetic life.
Fred
Beloved Fred No. 1
> "Warning - not recommended for cowards of the faint of mind." Did you
> mean to include a photo of you cheerleading?
No, his girlfriend cheerleading.
BLafferty
Bad science? Facts to support your assertion other than just the gas
coming from your bung hole?
Plano Dude
PBA,
From my line of sight, there are more teams with more $ than ever
before competing for ProTour and Pro Continental licenses. Even
Domestically, there are probably more pro and "pro" teams than ever
before. No, it's not Formula 1 numbers but cycling has never had more
money than it does now. And the "fans" that are leaving? Were they
really true fans in the first place? What did they turn to as an
alternative that is actually cleaner than cycling?
Brad Anders
>
> - Show quoted text -
Maybe you're right that there's more money in cycling. It doesn't seem
that way to me. Some actual facts and figures would be useful, but I
have to wonder if they're available.
Plano Dude
To your point, I wonder if Armstrong was the leader/on the cusp of a
new sponsorship paradigm. Normally you can see a historical family
tree with regard to teams whether it is simply a sponsor shift or it
is a rise from a lower tier of team classification (even Rasmussen's
new team has lineage). Perhaps that was still the case with Armstrong/
Bruyneel/Trek/Giro but with Leopard and Pegasus, they were built from
scratch. The question is, will teams of the future just pop up then
disappear as Radio Shack will next year?
Beloved Fred No. 1
> Maybe you're right that there's more money in cycling. It doesn't seem
> that way to me. Some actual facts and figures would be useful, but I
> have to wonder if they're available.
In the current economic climate in Europe, just keeping the status quo
would be doing well.
Anton Berlin
>
> In the current economic climate in Europe, just keeping the status quo
> would be doing well.
True for all of us.
Phil H
>
> - Show quoted text -
Duhhh, lets just mildly scratch the surface. What was the result of
the A sample?
Phil H