That is amazing, a couple grains of Tide. You are smarter than the entire testing staff of the UCI, you should run their program.
Or I could just join in the dogpile resulting from a witch hunt stemming from a one sided kangaroo court in which the accused isn't given a fair chance to defend himself.
Maybe if you actually knew something about the issue, and the evidence against this cheating puke you'd have something to say. Since you don't know then please refrain from commenting. This isn't new information, anyone who follows this guy and this sport knows all about blood doping, recovery rates and masking. Come on, now, show some competence. The overwhelming evidence against him forced him to bail out. Also, how could the entire team be doping, testify under oath they did, and said he did as well, yet he says he didn't. Laughable.
He can choose to defend himself, the evidence shows he's indefensible, hence he walked away. If you are innocent you don't let this happen. Guilty!
Well, let's see, first, I wasn't being snide. You, however, appear to have a big case of chip-on-the-shoulderitis. What is amazing to me is your lack of ability to see the difference between how all of these races used to be raced in the 70's (when Merckx was racing) 80's (Hinault and Fignon) and early 90's (end of Lemond's career and beginning of Indurain's) and now. You're absolutely right that the L-Factor has only raced the Giro once (although to answer you assholish demand, IIRC, he's raced the Vuelta twice - 1996? with no results (although I could be wrong on the year), and 1998, in which he finished 4th). But that's going from memory, and I don't really give a fart. WRT to this little gem: "Perhaps your perception is that twisted or perhaps you just like the Tour that much," I'll just say: 1) I don't give a rat fuck about the Tour. I'm a track cyclist. 2) Armstrong has repeatedly stated that ALL he cares about is the Tour, FWIW. 3) I'm not the one with a twisted perception here. You lack of knowledge regarding how racing has change over the last 20 years is providing all the twisted perception necessary. You need look no further than Froome to see what happens when you try to race two of the large stage races in a year NOW. Froome is struggling quite mightily to hold par with riders (excepting maybe a non-doped Contador and Rodriguez) that were (or would have been in Contador's case) been second-rate at the tour, whereas a month ago in France he could have easily dropped all of them and his team leader Wiggo as well. Modern racing takes a toll that racing in the 70's and 80's didn't. That's why Merckx COULD enter an win all those races. Now it's impossible. The season is too long, and far to hard. Contador is the only recent rider to win two GT's in a year. The first, if I recall correctly, since Pantani in 1998. Since then, other than Contador, NO ONE has done what used to be a quite common feat (winning two GTs in a year). The only reason he (Contador) was able to do so is that the ASO didn't invite Astana to the TdF - and the UCI had changed the race calendar, moving the Veulta to later in the year (after the TdF), giving him time to come into the Giro, recover, and then build for the Vuelta. Because that's what you have to do nowadays. And, of course, the fields were somewhat reduced in both the Giro and the Vuelta because all the strong riders were focusing on the Tour. "There have been so many long break-aways in the Paris-Roubaix (how in the world can any team control that race with the havoc wreaked by the pave?) and you can't tell us any differently. I watch Marc Madiot get out and stay out for ever in 1985. What a race. And again in 1991. And 2003 winner Peter Van Petegem won with that astoundingly strong Lotto team behind him and 2004 Magnus Backstedt won with the perrenial powerhouse Alessio-Bianchi. Seriously? Cancellara put it on the line in 2006 and won. " 1) 1985 Roubaix: Madiot was by himself in 1985 for all of 15 kilometers. Until then he was in a group of 8 riders, including Kelly, Lemond, Kuiper, Van De Pol, and Plankaert, the group of which formed AFTER ARENBURG (sector 17). 2) 1991 P-R I didn't see, however, there's video of Madiot in a group of 4 chasing Bauer and Fignon with 30K to go, so you may wish to recheck your memory. 3) 2003 / 2004 / 2006 are all modern era P-R's, and make my point for me. One-day specialists (rather than generalists like Merckx, Hinault, Lemond, Fingon, Kelly, etc) started coming to the fore at the same time Armstrong started focusing on that little race in France. My point remains the same: racing now (late 90's on) is different than then (early 90's back). Generalists can't race all year and win like they used to. This is born out simply by looking at the palmeres of every single top rider. Only the sprinters are winning a lot of stages / races, and even they not reliably (except for in the Tour, in which there always seems to be one dominant sprinter). Since you seem to enjoy assigning me tasks, here's one for you. Name one top rider (as in, had a chance to win any of them) that rode all three GTs, and at least three of the major classics (even if they just cruised Milan-San Remo) in the last 10 years. Just RODE them. I enjoyed the conversation. Not.
Uh, he's retired, and answered the same complaints over and over. not defending himself this time doesn't mean Jack - and I DO think he doped, fwiw, but I'm not dumb enough to think saying 'fuck this' means much about his innocence or lack there of.
Since you don't know me, or how much I know about this. Please put me on ignore and run along to troll elsewhere. But I guess you do posess all the evidence. Don't you Mr. Tygart?
That was going to be my reply as well. Armstrong really never got to see the evidence. I have 12 witnesses against you, and YOU CAN'T SEE WHO THEY ARE OR WHAT THEY TOLD ME. When would you like to start your arbitration hearing?
this is pretty much what UCI's statement says... since neither LA or UCI has seen any evidence of what USADA is basing their charges on. How in the world could this be possibly be fair to accused? further.. UCI states they have zero interest in protecting LA. until they or an independent panel see the hard evidence and are convinced of it's validity. they will not sanction LA. UCI is the entity that has authority to strip LA's 7 TDF wins.. not USADA. most folks wants to see fair play .. especially from entities funded by US tax payers. IMHO.. this is why LA is enjoying continued support from the general public. lets say for the sake of argument that LA did cheat, despite passing 500+ drug test without a single failure. going back to events 1996 and stripping LA's achievements is beyond fair play. statue of limitations has got to come up somewhere. LA getting accused of doping is not new. fair is fair ... why did they wait 17 years to charge him??? what other pro-racers are saying.... if passing hundreds of drugs tests means NOTHING... why are they still taking drug tests all year long??? you can bet your ass... two years and millions $$$ later. if there was one shred of hard evidence against LA ... NO way the US district attorney's office would have dropped charges against LA.
And you are no longer invited to this conversation. Primary school name calling is where I stopped reading. A good day to you, sir.
Unless you would like to bestow us with the magic information you possess. Give a bunch of known dopers immunity to cry foul against a team mate, claim evidence that the accused can't see and use imaginary authority to "strip" wins that happened before your organization existed. Sounds fair.
Don't get mad at me because you exhibited a douchenozzle attitude and got called out on both it and your mistaken impressions.
+1 For someone who appears to envision themselves as high brow elite; I would think he would produce the evidence he believes is so evident. It would seem to me he is the mudslinger, and fails to realize he is grabbing from the dung pile on this one. You can hate Lance and that is fine, you can assume he doped that is your prerogative; but you really do not have hard evidence to prove it. Nor does Tygart, otherwise it would have been presented to the public or leaked to the public. It is all talk, talk, talk and that proves nothing either way.
Interesting method of avoidence. Your comments illustrate that you don't know the subject matter, and because I know more than you then you say I'm a troll. Well, I guess I'm glad that I am because being smart is hard work and a virtue. I have read, covered and debated this subject of Doping for two decades. I know what happened. Lance was advised to give up which will ensure the evidence will never be presented. Case closed, so nothing comes out. His partner, his number one friend, the most loyal person he knows, and the person he dedicated two autobiagraphies to was going to testify under oath. George Hincapie, was going to get into details, but now he won't be heard. Its exceedingly rare for athletes to rat each other out for doping. Its rarer still for someone with nothing to gainthat is, someone who isnt Jose Cansecoto talk openly about a teammates drug use. When it does happen, it tends to be devastating. Even though Roger Clemens was ultimately found not guilty of perjury, his reputation was destroyed by Andy Pettittes declaration that the Rocket had told him hed taken HGH. Hincapies testimony promised to be more extensive and direct, implicating himself as a participantperhaps in exchange for a reduced suspensionin the alleged doping of Armstrongs cycling teams. For a man who has called everyone who questioned him a liar and a fraud, this was an existential threat: The man he trusted most telling the whole world he cheated his way to the mountaintop.
Nearly his entire team has admitted the truth. He hasn't though and probably never will. Do you believe one man over the many men who helped win him those titles? Do you honestly believe he was clean while his whole team was cheating? Do you really believe they were all lying when they implicated him in teaching them how to do said cheating? Do you honestly believe that? If so, you're either five years old or delusional. Let me guess: Jerry Sandusky was just misunderstood, right? All of those boys were lying too, just like Lance's teammates.
