If you work and sleep the basement of Lance's bike shop
Anton Berlin
Frederick the Great
<b4e43b61-8378-43b4...@j25g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
Anton Berlin <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> wouldn't it cause some problems for you to be this guy?
>
> http://www.universalsports.com/news-blogs/article/newsid=486757.html#report+former+armstrong+teammate+alleges+drug
I'm getting deja vu all over again.
Wasn't there another teammate said
the same thing last August?
--
Old Fritz
Substance McGravitas
Yeah, but THIS time it's the shit that will kill them.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:4db4c00e$1...@news.x-privat.org...
This is the reason it might not stick-
"The former teammate said he detailed some of his own drug use to
investigators, even though he has never tested positive for performance
enhancing drugs or methods."
If I were Novitsky, I would be testing and retesting and then testing
again any remaining samples that might exist from this guy, hoping to
find something to back up his claims. It's ironic that the rider's
claims would go further if there was evidence he (the accusing rider)
had actually doped.
It is just so bizarre that, in a world full of phones that take photos
and record conversations (photos generally since 2002; memo/conversation
recording long before that), nobody has anything incriminating. Nobody
accidentally left a phone in record mode during a meeting, nobody took
any photos of doping paraphernalia on the sly. Look at all the stuff the
Enron guys did that got them nailed. Look at Nixon's tapes. Lots more
examples if you look for them, but nothing from cyclists?
Are people here going to now claim that pro cyclists are too intelligent
to do such things? That would be a first!
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com.
Fred Flintstein
>
> This is the reason it might not stick-
>
> "The former teammate said he detailed some of his own drug use to
> investigators, even though he has never tested positive for performance
> enhancing drugs or methods."
>
> If I were Novitsky, I would be testing and retesting and then testing
> again any remaining samples that might exist from this guy, hoping to
> find something to back up his claims. It's ironic that the rider's
> claims would go further if there was evidence he (the accusing rider)
> had actually doped.
The samples would have to date from 2004 or earlier. Otherwise they
are of no relevance to Novitsky since this is a fraud investigation,
not a doping investigation. And even then they might not be relevant,
he's got a lot of work to do to even prove a crime has occurred
given that the alleged victim saw considerable benefit from the
alleged crime.
Such evidence might prove to be exceptional whacking material for
Lafferty, there's always that.
Fred Flintstein