WADA Got Under Armstrong's Skin

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10063.0.html

B. Lafferty wrote:
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10063.0.html

Looks like attack/counter-attack to me. If cycling is 'chess on
wheels', then LANCE is playing 'chess in the press'.

~bob

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
ink.net...
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10063.0.html

Lafferty, you must admit, if they had the goods on Armstrong then they would
have gone by the book and followed every procedure perfectly. If they
really had found evidence of Armstrong doping then I doubt it would have
been handled this way. It makes no sense. L'Equipe just needed to increase
their revenues and this was a way to guarantee it for the next few years.
Armstrong may have been doped to the gills, but so far there is no evidence
of it.

You will have to get used to the idea of an American being the all time
greatest TdF champion. I bet the fact that he is a Texan chaps your ass all
the more, eh? What's your address, I'm going to buy you some Preparation H?

routebeer wrote:
"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
ink.net...
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10063.0.html

Lafferty, you must admit, if they had the goods on Armstrong

They? Where do you get the idea that the issue is some big conspiracy?
Why couldn't it have happened as stated; research, leaked, journo gets
forms, puts two and two together?

bob sullivan wrote:
Looks like attack/counter-attack to me. If cycling is 'chess on
wheels', then LANCE is playing 'chess in the press'.

So he must have made the switch to beta blockers then. Lafferty please
take note.

mtb Dad wrote:

They? Where do you get the idea that the issue is some big conspiracy?
Why couldn't it have happened as stated; research, leaked, journo gets
forms, puts two and two together?




Dumbass -


It's pretty damn obvious that Pound has an axe to grind.

That's not a good way to run a nascent "worldwide" governing body. He
should be sticking to the book, that's how any governing body
gains/keeps its credibility.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

"mtb Dad" wrote in message
ups.com...

routebeer wrote:
"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
ink.net...
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10063.0.html

Lafferty, you must admit, if they had the goods on Armstrong

They? Where do you get the idea that the issue is some big conspiracy?
Why couldn't it have happened as stated; research, leaked, journo gets
forms, puts two and two together?

You have to understand that this forum is predominantly pro-Armstrong and
anti-Pound. Just relax and watch the truth about Sir Lance unfold.

B. Lafferty wrote:

You have to understand that this forum is predominantly pro-Armstrong and
anti-Pound. Just relax and watch the truth about Sir Lance unfold.




Dumbass -


I'm not pro-LANCE (he very well could be dirty), but I am anti-Pound.

That's no way to run a governing body. Not just a sports governing
body, any governing body. Pound is way too biased. He's like Hugo
Chavez on the United States, Peter Gammons on the Red Sox, W. Bush on
Saddam Hussein, Sierraman on women's racing, a priest on pedophelia. No
credibility when you do that.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in message
ups.com...

B. Lafferty wrote:

You have to understand that this forum is predominantly pro-Armstrong and
anti-Pound. Just relax and watch the truth about Sir Lance unfold.




Dumbass -


I'm not pro-LANCE (he very well could be dirty), but I am anti-Pound.

That's no way to run a governing body. Not just a sports governing
body, any governing body. Pound is way too biased. He's like Hugo
Chavez on the United States, Peter Gammons on the Red Sox, W. Bush on
Saddam Hussein, Sierraman on women's racing, a priest on pedophelia. No
credibility when you do that.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Yada, yada, yada. Thanks.

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
mtb Dad wrote:

They? Where do you get the idea that the issue is some big conspiracy?
Why couldn't it have happened as stated; research, leaked, journo gets
forms, puts two and two together?

Dumbass -


It's pretty damn obvious that Pound has an axe to grind.

That's not a good way to run a nascent "worldwide" governing body. He
should be sticking to the book, that's how any governing body
gains/keeps its credibility.

dumbass,

you (but not just you) are naive if you think pound has an axe to grind
with armstrong and that's where it ends.

a friend of mine who's more informed had what i thought was the right
take: pound doesn't care about cycling or armstrong, what he wants to
do is retroactively test olympic medals.

right now the provisions for retroactive testing within the WADA code
are vague, it had to be to get all these sports to agree to those
terms. but if he can lay some groundwork for retroactive testing with
the UCI, there's going to be huge pressure for other sports to enact
the same standards.

the tatic of declaring armstrong positive back in '99 when it's obvious
there's no way he can possibly be penalized (he's retired, there's no
B-samples etc.) is designed to put into place some concrete terms
allowing retroactive testing.