Told you so, you motherfuckers...
DA74
You're Welcome Again,
DA74
Uncle Dave
> ...straight from the horses mouth. Finally.
Everyone knew Landis was doping. As to anyone else doping, a doper
sending emails claiming other people did is, well, hardly convincing.
It's what they all do to try and assuage their own guilt.
For my part, I can't see how Armstrong couldn't be doping - his
transition from one day specialist and tour domestique to dominant
tour winner was, if you take out the time he was being treated for
cancer, an overnight sensation. I'm happy to concede that his post-
cancer physique had a lot to do with it. He was an outstanding rider
pre-cancer IMHO, but didn't have the physique, direction or nous to
ever be other than a stage winner in tours.
Evidence of doping it ain't.
UD
Mike Jacoubowsky
>transition from one day specialist and tour domestique to dominant
>tour winner was, if you take out the time he was being treated for
>cancer, an overnight sensation.
So he decided all of a sudden, post-cancer, that he was going to dope...
something you're implying he didn't do before? What kept him from doping
in the pre-cancer days? It just seems a bit odd that one would have a
post-cancer epiphany that says hey, that's it, I've wasted my life up to
now, time to start winning and doing whatever it takes?
Maybe. Maybe not. Can't say that I've been through anything like that
(cancer, near-death experience). It's now how I'd react, and it's not
the way you imagine others would react. The Hollywoood vision is that
one becomes more noble, seeing life as more precious and generally one
becomes a more ethical and moral person. But Hollywood has nothing to do
with this.
Funny, isn't this all playing out a bit early? Isn't it normally the
first or second week of June, and isn't Walsh normally at the center of
it all?
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
ilan
That argument is specious. If everyone was doping back in 1999, then
Armstrong wouldn't have been an overnight sensation by doping. Also,
Armstrong's earlier Tour results were unspectacular, but solid. If he
had been riding for GC in 1995, he would have had a GC comparable to
Indurain's in his development years.
-ilan
RicodJour
wrote:
> >For my part, I can't see how Armstrong couldn't be doping - his
> >transition from one day specialist and tour domestique to dominant
> >tour winner was, if you take out the time he was being treated for
> >cancer, an overnight sensation.
>
> So he decided all of a sudden, post-cancer, that he was going to dope...
> something you're implying he didn't do before? What kept him from doping
> in the pre-cancer days? It just seems a bit odd that one would have a
> post-cancer epiphany that says hey, that's it, I've wasted my life up to
> now, time to start winning and doing whatever it takes?
The first one is free...
EPO is routinely given to cancer patients, so maybe, after having had
his first taste for free, he acquired a taste for it.
R
Anton Berlin
wrote:
God damn Mike how can ou be so fucking obtuse? Armstrong was doing
with Strock back at the OTC, it's how he got the testicular cancer in
the first place.
You think it's just a coincidence that T is adminstered through the
scrotum and the link between steroids use and testicular cancer is
just a statistical anomaly? Look at the research coming out of
Australia in the last 20 years.
Landis finally realized no more milk was coming from the Armstrong
tit. We will see this again and again in the future.... every rider
that develops a conscience around the same time Lance won't come to
promote their failing bike shop in South America will come back on
him.
Are you going to be the last fucking person in the world to realize
Lance Armstrong is a god damn fraud and doper?
Anton Berlin
>
> - Show quoted text -
Motherfuckers - Indurain was doping. Holy shit -where do you all get
your reasoning from? Coin flips?
Fred Flintstein
> For my part, I can't see how Armstrong couldn't be doping - his
> transition from one day specialist and tour domestique to dominant
> tour winner was, if you take out the time he was being treated for
> cancer, an overnight sensation. I'm happy to concede that his post-
> cancer physique had a lot to do with it. He was an outstanding rider
> pre-cancer IMHO, but didn't have the physique, direction or nous to
> ever be other than a stage winner in tours.
Dumbass,
LANCE was working with Dr Orange Juice pre-cancer.
Fred Flintstein
Scott
There's a 50/50 chance that's how they do it.
Amit Ghosh
> On May 20, 7:09 am, DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ...straight from the horses mouth. Finally.
>
> Everyone knew Landis was doping.
dumbass,
not everyone. there are pundits here on rbr that will tell you that
landis was framed by incompetent french lab techs.
Fred Flintstein
Dumbass,
Are you going to follow this up by telling us
which direction the sun will rise from tomorrow
morning?
Last year I called Flanders, Roubaix, and Dancing
With the Stars. I missed this year on the classics
but I'm still in on DWTS with Evan Lysacek.
Grow some nuts and tell us who is going to win the
Giro.
Fred Flintstein
DA74
>
> - Show quoted text -
I like your enthusiasm here bro, but the cancer link is most likely
linked to the massive doses of human growth hormome that were used in
the early years. There was the thinking that if a little is good then
more is better, kind of like with epo. The problem with epo is that
you die if your hematocrit gets too high (i.e. throw a clot) whereas
with hgh you encourage wholesale cell growth throughout your body. If
there are some cancer cells lingering about that your body would
normally fight off, they get the benefit of a turbo-boost and
proliferate unchecked. That's how you get lung and brain involvement
in no time flat.
You're Welcome,
DA74
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<davida...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> That's how you get lung and brain involvement
>in no time flat.
I thought that they reported the lung and brain cancers as clearly
metastasized. That is not multiple cancers from multiple sources -
that is a common occurence of an identifiable source sending cells to
other locations. Happens all the time and is why many cancers are
discovered elsewhere and then traced back to the source after further
testing. The lungs and the brain are among the most common organs for
metastasis.
Yours is a nice story, but seems to smell more of prejudice than
science.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
DA74
> wrote:
>
> > > >For my part, I can't see how Armstrong couldn't be doping - his
> > >transition from one day specialist and tour domestique to dominant
> > >tour winner was, if you take out the time he was being treated for
> > >cancer, an overnight sensation.
>
>
> with Strock back at the OTC, it's how he got the testicular cancer in
> the first place.
>
>
> tit. We will see this again and again in the future.... every rider
> that develops a conscience around the same time Lance won't come to
> promote their failing bike shop in South America will come back on
> him.
>
I think Trek dealers by and large are still at LA's tit and will have
his back no matter what comes out. They are promoting these bikes as
having something special in them and getting a premium from the
community of Freds who buy the hype. Here's a quote from Trek: "Nine
Tour de France Wins. Greatness is built into our DNA...Read on and see
why we believe it must be the bike."
Treks has as much to do with winning the Tour as orange juice (no the
real kind). I think dealers should refund the Freds a percentage of
the sales price they added in for the "Tour de France DNA" bullshit
now that the door to the dope fridge is open.
You're Welcome,
DA74
Anton Berlin
>
> - Show quoted text -
HgH links to cancer are usually in the frame of they accelerate the
cancerous cell growth.
Lance's testicular cancer is most likely due to t patches on the
scrotum given at the OTC and other injections given by Wenzel et al
(eg Carmichael who settled a lawsuit in the Armstrong 'glory' years )
according to Greg Strock.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5350332
Mike Jacoubowsky
this???
"These guys coming out now with things like this from the past is only
damaging the sport. If they've any love for the sport they wouldn't do
it," he said.
Anton Berlin
wrote:
Mike - you're on target and McQuaid is a total fucking tool.
Amit Ghosh
> The first one is free...
>
> EPO is routinely given to cancer patients, so maybe, after having had
> his first taste for free, he acquired a taste for it.
>
dumbass,
you need to read up on history:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5508863
F. Kurgan Gringioni
"Fred Flintstein" <bob.sc...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> Last year I called Flanders, Roubaix, and Dancing
> With the Stars. I missed this year on the classics
> but I'm still in on DWTS with Evan Lysacek.
Dumbass -
Nicole Scherzinger is going to destroy him. She's 10x better. She a natural.
He's more of an acrobat than a dancer - he does everything like he's going
for a triple axel.
thanks,
Fred. presented by Gringioni.
Fred Flintstein
Scherzinger is a better dancer, no doubt. And Derek
Hough is a way better choreographer. Also, she's
totally hot, and he's completely devoid of color.
Sort of like how Gilles Marini was a much better
dancer than Shawn Johnson. It'll come down to voters
that have shown a past preference for Olympic heroes.
If the voting population looked like rbr it would be
Scherzinger in a walk. But the voting population
looks like a Womens 40+ race.
Fred Flintstein
Ben Trovato
wrote:
Like an Irish headmaster w/ empty Jamesons piling up in the bottom
drawer...
Anton Berlin
> Like an Irish headmaster w/ empty Jamesons piling up in the bottom
> drawer...
English ones much more demonstrative
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTMlZSKEu-Y
cur...@the-md-russells.org
The first half meets the rbr 50/50 standard and the second is one of
those rare 100%, each and every time things.
Uncle Dave
<snip>
>
> Motherfuckers - Indurain was doping. Holy shit -where do you all get
> your reasoning from? Coin flips?
I think you'd have to be very naive to not think Indurain was dopig.
He went from total domination back to also ran at, oh, just the same
time they introduced an effective test for blood doping. I'm no
historian and no expert on doping either but I remember those two
things seemd to be just a little too coincidental. Ditto Riis, in
reverse.
UD
Michael Press
<4a74e5bc-62ed-4516...@o12g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
Amit Ghosh <amit....@gmail.com> wrote:
Just because he is guilty does not mean he was not framed.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
> Does McQuaid have any idea how he sounds when he says something like
> this???
>
> "These guys coming out now with things like this from the past is only
> damaging the sport. If they've any love for the sport they wouldn't do
> it," he said.
A drunken, narcoleptic, hypocrite.
What did I win?
--
Michael Press
Fred Flintstein
Dumbass,
The hematocrit testing started the season after Indurain retired.
Riis became Mr 60% during Indurain's last Tour.
Fred Flintstein
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:0b953fc7-130f-47c9...@g5g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On May 20, 6:04 am, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 20, 2:26 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > >For my part, I can't see how Armstrong couldn't be doping - his
> > >transition from one day specialist and tour domestique to dominant
> > >tour winner was, if you take out the time he was being treated for
> > >cancer, an overnight sensation.
>
>
> God damn Mike how can ou be so fucking obtuse? Armstrong was doing
> with Strock back at the OTC, it's how he got the testicular cancer in
> the first place.
>
>
> Landis finally realized no more milk was coming from the Armstrong
> tit. We will see this again and again in the future.... every rider
> that develops a conscience around the same time Lance won't come to
> promote their failing bike shop in South America will come back on
> him.
>
I think Trek dealers by and large are still at LA's tit and will have
his back no matter what comes out. They are promoting these bikes as
having something special in them and getting a premium from the
community of Freds who buy the hype. Here's a quote from Trek: "Nine
Tour de France Wins. Greatness is built into our DNA...Read on and see
why we believe it must be the bike."
Treks has as much to do with winning the Tour as orange juice (no the
real kind). I think dealers should refund the Freds a percentage of
the sales price they added in for the "Tour de France DNA" bullshit
now that the door to the dope fridge is open.
You're Welcome,
DA74
==================
I don't think that's true anymore; I think Lance's affect on bicycle sales
is more wide-spread than it is limited to just Trek dealers. In fact, to
some extent the $$$ paid to Lance and his two teams (don't forget the U23
guys) is seen as a "tax" on Trek dealers that no longer gives us that much
of an advantage over the other brands. It's been great in terms of
motivating engineers to build better product, no question about that, and in
general it's given the company a strong focus. But even when the Tur de
France, domestically, was all about Lance, all the time, other dealers saw
their road bike sales rise as well. The overall awareness of cycling,
specifically road cycling, has benefitted greatly.
I apologize for introducing a bit of the real world in RBR. I'd be lying to
say it won't happen again.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Betty Munro
> Like an Irish headmaster w/ empty Jamesons piling up in the bottom
> drawer...
Sounds like something from a (late) Pink Floyd song. Perhaps he's
comfortably numb.