8 Things On Lance Armstrong From Another Side Of The Grass

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Ron

unread,
Nov 29, 2009, 8:39:31 PM11/29/09
to
Full article here : http://bit.ly/7MA2Ro

A great person once said that history is written by the victor. The
one who is smart and cunning, who wins and has the money, who is
extremely powerful and has a throng of followers around them, who can
literally decide your fate if you turn your back on them...these are
the people who have the muscle to bend a true story to their liking
and ultimately to their advantage.

It's all too easy to be star-struck watching the hundreds of video
clips of Lance Armstrong on Youtube. Yeah, it looks all so cool and
inspiring, no doubt. And its easy to buy a bunch of books written by
him and his lieutenants and believe what he invariably asks you to
slurp in. And it's easier going with the fan following based around
him and his brand and do exactly what they're all doing.

But it's difficult to go out against the tide and exercise some
independent critical thinking skills to challenge the root of the
system. We're often times lazy to explore or plainly just narrow
minded to accept the other half of the story. When we believe in
something, we fix it in our world view and build castles around it to
protect it. But if castles are built on loose foundation, like the
story of the man who built his house on mud, it will topple sooner or
later. When it crashes down, that will be a mind-blowing experience.

So what is the other half of the story for those of you who haven't
heard at all? Join in this post as I amass together a few facts,
figures and audio clips that are absolutely critical if you are to
have a "balanced knowledge" of the persona of Lance Armstrong. Some of
these I collected over from some who were bold enough to only share,
talk and write. By all means, this is a re-pollination of facts but
done so as to never let people forget the past. So get yourself a cup
of tea or coffee and focus for a while from the 'other side of the
grass'.

Read On : http://bit.ly/7MA2Ro

-Ron
www.twitter.com/cyclingbee
http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com

Choppy Warburton

unread,
Nov 29, 2009, 9:30:37 PM11/29/09
to
The prezo # 1 sucks. No credibility. Totally amateur analysis and
presentation.

However the Ashenden interview is solid.

MagillaGorilla

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 11:02:09 AM11/30/09
to
Ron wrote:

This is an excellent one-stop shopping center for the ultimate Lance
beatdown. You should also link to the Stephanie McIlvain phone
call....it speaks for itself.

Thanks,

Magilla

--D-y

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 12:14:41 PM11/30/09
to

(from the Ashenden interview, above):
(quoting)
MA: The unfortunate reality is that we've conducted a couple of
studies in Denmark where we have replicated that practice in
volunteers, and we were puzzled and disheartened to find that there
just wasn't the increases in hemoglobin that we had expected. For some
reason the body regulates differently between transfusions and EPO.
With EPO your hemoglobin rises markedly. With transfusions it just
doesn't seem to.

We don't fully understand why, we've got a few clues, but the bottom
line is yes, transfusion is apparent in the blood passport approach,
but the changes aren't usually substantial enough that in itself we
will be able to impose a doping violation just on changes in the
blood. We would probably need to supplement that with other sorts of
evidence.

AS: Is that why no one's been caught using the bio passport to date?

MA: No, that's more related to the care and the diligence that the UCI
is using to gather all of the evidence they'll need before they'll
prosecute the first case. So no, there is no relation to that. (end
quote)

Nice little bit of two-steppin' there.

(more of the same, kinda long):
MA: Something that sits at the forefront of my mind, a discussion that
I had with a group of cyclists, I'm not going to say who they were,
and I said to them, "Look, guys, if you tell me what you're doing, I
don't need names, so I can go away, develop that test, and come back
here and remove that particular doping problem once and for all."

And their response is still a guiding light to me. They said, "If you
can come back to us with a test that captures everyone so that we can
all stop, you can expect us to support it. But if you come back with a
test that only captures a quarter of the people, and those quarter are
punished but then they're replaced by another quarter and the problem
keeps going, don't expect us to support it. Because you're destroying
careers and families and livelihoods, and you're not getting rid of
the problem." And I've always held that as an ultimate goal.

That's why I was particularly proud of our homologous test, because
there is no way you can get away with homologous doping now if you're
tested. It's as simple as that. I believe that the incidence of
homologous doping is virtually zero. I think the only time an athlete
would get caught now is if they've made a mistake and put someone
else's blood in them when they thought they were putting their own.

And that's the sort of strategy that I think if the scientific world
can come to athletes and say, "Here, this is a test that will stop
doping," I think the athletes will support it 100% and I'd expect them
to. And until the scientists can come to the athletes with that
argument, we're forever in this grey area where "We'll get some of ya,
and we sort of wish you'd help us catch some of ya", and on a personal
level I can see that's just not...it doesn't comply with human nature.
We're asking the athletes to do something which, I don't think if I
were in their position I would do either.

Which is to say, you talk about the Simeoni's and people who speak
out, overnight they virtually, well they do jeopardize their career,
and perhaps they even destroy it. And what has it achieved? Some could
say it has raised awareness, but has it changed anything? And that's
an incredibly hard choice for us to foist upon an athlete, to say, "We
want you to be brave, stand up in the media, tell us that you doped,
tell us who else doped, and we'll publicize that story." Now, the
athlete could do that, next day, particularly with this omerta in
cycling, the guy's going to be out of a job, he's gonna be ostracized
from his friends and his peers, and a week later that newspaper is
fish wrappings, and nothing's changed. That's the sort of humane
perspective that I always try to keep with me, and as I've said
before, it doesn't show usually, because I'm being drawn into these
polar arguments of yes and no, right or wrong.(end "words from the
horse's mouth")

So, they have one good test (if true) for blood doping. Other stuff,
athletes are "getting away with", leading to the sad situation
described above.
Careers ruined, etc. etc. while many skate, by skill or just dumb
luck, or "not finishing high enough to be tested". What about that is
proper or moral?

"We knew they were doping!" Yeah, and how are you going to be fair
about enforcing your rules?

"Dopers: the Spawn of Satan" isn't playing here, if you couldn't tell
already.
"Bad rules, bad enforcement" continues in the War on People.
--D-y

Ron

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 9:55:57 PM11/30/09
to

Magilla,

That phone conversation has been added. The only reason I didn't add
it prior to you telling me was because the quality of the clips
weren't *great*. Thank you so much for the tip. Scroll down to point #
8 : http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2009/11/8-things-on-lance-armstrong-from-other.html.

Thanks for the support.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages