A demented theory of why Lance is coming back

In article
,
wrote:

On Sep 13, 12:15*am, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article
,





wrote:
On Sep 12, 3:52*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"mtb Dad" wrote in message

...
On Sep 12, 12:08 am, Ryan Cousineau wrote:

Lance was never particularly enthusiastic about doping from a
philosophical point of view. He saw it as a necessary part of racing,
and feared getting popped only slightly less than he feared losing.

I think that he probably was using all sorts of drugs before his cancer
as
was noted by Andreu's wife and then used as proof that because he used
drugs
before he got so near death it proved that he used drugs after.

you wouldn't consider andreu's wife might have been bought for false
testimony by the insurance company that owed lance ? who were the
doctors in the room at the time ? men in black perhaps ?

Well, I'd consider that, but it requires a pretty big conspiracy, for a
pretty small payoff.

What would it cost to buy off Betsy? "A lot" is my guess; by any
calculus such a lie was going to seriously screw up her husband's life
and career (and I'd argue that's what happened).

Then you have to look at the real return to the insurers, who would
specifically reap that yield, and the monstrously large penalties if any
one of the conspirators were caught.

--
Ryan Cousineau /
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It sounds like the possibility never occured to you before; consider
frankie- yes it cost him his job, but it could've cost him his wife if
he didn't side with her, some people take their marriage vows very
seriously, and according to walshs book frankie stated he didn't
actually hear what his wife said she heard. insurance companies
especially in the states, or off shore, have not been known as icons
of honesty, fairness and integrity. no one says " he's as honest or
fair as an insurance company" unless they say it in a sarcastic
manner. insurers think in terms of mathematical possibilities and win/
loss gaming theory- everything has some risk, but for say perhaps $500
000, they thought they could save $5 million. getting caught ? nah, it
was just an overly zealous now ex-employee. guess they didn't expect
to lose double in the settlement, otherwise they would've paid him the
5 straight out as it still would've been cheaper than the $10 million
they were ordered.

Yes, but the employee has to agree too, and there's nothing in it for
them. Oh, except whatever charge pertains when you participate in a
conspiracy to commit perjury.

Look, there's all kinds of ways I could save my employer money, too. But
I'm not going to lie and steal for them because it makes no sense.
Leaving aside the purely moral issues (I like to think those matter to
me), there's little my employer could do to make it worth my while.

You said above that insurers live in the land of risk and reward. $5
million wasn't going to sink that insurance company. I bet the
settlement didn't even show up as a meaningful event in their annual
report, assuming that they're routinely paying out many many millions a
year.

It was, however, enough money to be worth sending out a hundred thousand
dollars or so of lawyering (good risk-reward ratio).

The only thing that gives your theory credence is that the actual
lawyering was double-damages incompetent, which maybe means that they
were dumb enough to try bribing a witness.

I reciently read that lance allowed the retesting of the 1999 samples
that they state showed some blood doping... now, if he had cheated he
had gotten away with it till then, so why would he then allow
retesting ?

I can't really explain this. The game-theory is roughly the same as for
doing a lie-detector test, though: if you're innocent, the lie-detector
test can only make things worse. If you're guilty, there's a chance the
lie-detector will make things better.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

On Sep 13, 9:29*am, wrote:

I reciently read that lance allowed the retesting of the 1999 samples
that they state showed some blood doping... now, if he had cheated he
had gotten away with it till then, so why would he then allow
retesting ?

dumbass,

you are changing the facts.

armstrong did not "allow" the retesting of his samples from '99. the
LNDD decided to test the stored samples - ostensibly to check their
EPO test. he may not even have known that they had been tested.

armstrong merely let the UCI release his doping control forms to
ressiot who (ostensibly) was doing a story to debunk the idea that
armstrong has a TUE for some performance enhancer.

but using those two sources of information ressiot was able to infer
that some of the EPO containing samples from '99 were belonged to
armstrong.




if you pass an academic exam, or say some job performance
evaluation, would you really want to risk those results by *agreeing
to doing it again ? that just goes against human nature to me. I don't
think lance knew at the time he was asked that the retesting would
destroy those last samples, that's like agreeing to go to court a 2nd
time on serious charges because your lawyer tells you that even if the
verict is guilty, he can say double-jepoardy, anull the verdict and
you're clear for life of those charges- that just doesn't happen.

On Sep 13, 11:06*am, Amit Ghosh wrote:
On Sep 13, 9:29*am, wrote:

I reciently read that lance allowed the retesting of the 1999 samples
that they state showed some blood doping... now, if he had cheated he
had gotten away with it till then, so why would he then allow
retesting ?

dumbass,

you are changing the facts.

armstrong did not "allow" the retesting of his samples from '99. the
LNDD decided to test the stored samples - ostensibly to check their
EPO test. he may not even have known that they had been tested.

armstrong merely let the UCI release his doping control forms to
ressiot who (ostensibly) was doing a story to debunk the idea that
armstrong has a TUE for some performance enhancer.

but using those two sources of information ressiot was able to infer
that some of the EPO containing samples from '99 were belonged to
armstrong.

Math is not my strong point-- what is obstensibly² ?
Wonderingly, --D-y

Amit Ghosh wrote:

dumbass,

you are changing the facts.

armstrong did not "allow" the retesting of his samples from '99. the
LNDD decided to test the stored samples - ostensibly to check their
EPO test. he may not even have known that they had been tested.

armstrong merely let the UCI release his doping control forms to
ressiot who (ostensibly) was doing a story to debunk the idea that
armstrong has a TUE for some performance enhancer.

but using those two sources of information ressiot was able to infer
that some of the EPO containing samples from '99 were belonged to
armstrong.

Dumbass,

They didn't need the forms. They knew as soon as all four of the prologue
samples turned up positive.

On Sep 13, 12:19*pm, "
wrote:
On Sep 13, 11:06*am, Amit Ghosh wrote:



On Sep 13, 9:29*am, wrote:

I reciently read that lance allowed the retesting of the 1999 samples
that they state showed some blood doping... now, if he had cheated he
had gotten away with it till then, so why would he then allow
retesting ?

dumbass,

you are changing the facts.

armstrong did not "allow" the retesting of his samples from '99. the
LNDD decided to test the stored samples - ostensibly to check their
EPO test. he may not even have known that they had been tested.

armstrong merely let the UCI release his doping control forms to
ressiot who (ostensibly) was doing a story to debunk the idea that
armstrong has a TUE for some performance enhancer.

but using those two sources of information ressiot was able to infer
that some of the EPO containing samples from '99 were belonged to
armstrong.

Math is not my strong point-- what is obstensibly² ?
Wonderingly, --D-y

The L'equipe reporters made up the story that they were going to help
Armstrong. This story also convinced the UCI, and the person
responsible there actually resigned as a result. One of the effects of
the L'Equipe/Armstrong debacle is that the most honest person in the
UCI resigned as a point of principle for believing a lie. The samples
were given by the riders under the guarantee of anonymity and were
supposed to be used only for research purposes, therefore also under
condition of anonymity.

Another point is that, unlike Landis, Armstrong has an inexhaustible
source of money for a defense in case he tests positive. I believe
that this was already given as a reason that L'Equipe waited until he
retired to publish their story (another thing is that they knew I
would never buy another copy of the paper, so they postponed it as
long as possible for that reason).

-ilan

On Sep 13, 10:17*am, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
wrote in message

Argue? *Robbie Ventura is slowly taking over his job.

What has that got to do with anything? Maybe you haven't noticed it but
Franky isn't exactly the most exciting TV commentator we've ever seen. Why
wouldn't you expect someone a bit more interesting to take over?

You could pull Frankie quickly and stick Robbie in his place and I
wouldn't notice the difference. It's about time Assos got their assos
in gear and have their hottie model doing color commentary. The
accent would be a major plus, but she could just stand there and I'd
be fine with it.

R

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 07:08:16 GMT, Ryan Cousineau
wrote:

Lance sincerely believes that the current peleton [sic; my evil twin
can't spell very well] is clean enough that he could compete clean.

My thought was it also gives him a chance to ride against Floyd.

Certainly your idea is most definitely the case. Note, though, he said
they're riding slower. The speed of the winner was about 40kph. Same
as the last 4-5 years.

TdF winner's speeds, 1999-2008:

40.273
39.556
40.02
39.93
40.94
40.553
41.654
40.784
38.98
40.5

wrote:

obstensibly² ?

If you figure out what this is, let me know. It sounds like a great
word. Sensibly obstructive, perhaps?

The O.P. undoubtedly included the first "b" unintentionably.

Nobody wrote:
Note, though, he said
they're riding slower. The speed of the winner was about 40kph. Same
as the last 4-5 years.

TdF winner's speeds, 1999-2008:

40.273
39.556
40.02
39.93
40.94
40.553
41.654
40.784
38.98
40.5

It'd be easier to understand if you put it in a chart. Maybe a scatterplot
against some other variable. Just sayin'.

"Robert Chung" wrote in message
...
Nobody wrote:
Note, though, he said
they're riding slower. The speed of the winner was about 40kph. Same
as the last 4-5 years.

TdF winner's speeds, 1999-2008:

40.273
39.556
40.02
39.93
40.94
40.553
41.654
40.784
38.98
40.5

It'd be easier to understand if you put it in a chart. Maybe a scatterplot
against some other variable. Just sayin'.

Robert knows best - HA! 10 numbers sure are difficult to compare and analyze
without a meaningless chart.