Recent positive tests stretch Lance Armstrong's credibility further?

It seems that, as many suspected, doping is so endemic in cycling that
the people who *don't* use EPO are probably in the minority. LA never
tested positive for EPO although many suspected that he was indeed a
user. Now that we have proof that so many of the other top competitors
on the TDF were/are dopers, does this cast further doubt on LA's
supposed innocence? For LA's story to be true, this means he was
always clean yet managed to beat a doped-up field that had a massive
advantage over him from EPO use - and not beat them once, but beat
them 7 TIMES consecutively. So what's the truth: was LA really so good
that his natural talent, fitness and work ethic could substantially
compensate for the advantage that his competitors had through EPO, or
was it his natural talent, fitness and work ethic combined with EPO
that brought him the 7 titles in a row?

Logic says it's the latter.

On Jul 25, 7:31 pm, Darn Good Intelligence
wrote:
It seems that, as many suspected, doping is so endemic in cycling that
the people who *don't* use EPO are probably in the minority. LA never
tested positive for EPO although many suspected that he was indeed a
user. Now that we have proof that so many of the other top competitors
on the TDF were/are dopers, does this cast further doubt on LA's
supposed innocence? For LA's story to be true, this means he was
always clean yet managed to beat a doped-up field that had a massive
advantage over him from EPO use - and not beat them once, but beat
them 7 TIMES consecutively. So what's the truth: was LA really so good
that his natural talent, fitness and work ethic could substantially
compensate for the advantage that his competitors had through EPO, or
was it his natural talent, fitness and work ethic combined with EPO
that brought him the 7 titles in a row?

Logic says it's the latter.

Logic says he took EPO when there was no test for it which was until 3
months before the Sydney Olympics.

Then he probably stopped and did something else. The French however
had frozen some of his blood and done a retrospective test. They used
a 2004 test on 1999 blood and got a positive test. 1999 tests on 1999
blood would have been negative.

How gutted Floyd must be that LA is swanning around with pop stars and
actors following Floyds help in the tour and when he gets his chance
of glory he gets caught.

Thats why he fights so hard....he is just ****ed off.

One day the beans will be spilt. Money wins the day.

On Jul 25, 5:31 pm, Darn Good Intelligence
wrote:
It seems that, as many suspected, doping is so endemic in cycling that
the people who *don't* use EPO are probably in the minority. LA never
tested positive for EPO although many suspected that he was indeed a
user. Now that we have proof that so many of the other top competitors
on the TDF were/are dopers, does this cast further doubt on LA's
supposed innocence? For LA's story to be true, this means he was
always clean yet managed to beat a doped-up field that had a massive
advantage over him from EPO use - and not beat them once, but beat
them 7 TIMES consecutively. So what's the truth: was LA really so good
that his natural talent, fitness and work ethic could substantially
compensate for the advantage that his competitors had through EPO, or
was it his natural talent, fitness and work ethic combined with EPO
that brought him the 7 titles in a row?

Logic says it's the latter.

If they were all doping then what's the problem? doesn't that level
the playing field?

Aren't you being childish in assuming that a professional sport and
professional entertainers are clean and honest? Grow up and get over
it.

Clean and honest should be for amateur athletes, let the pros do their
job, entertain us.

Actually, Lance HAS tested positive for EPO, but he can never be
penalized for it as the EPO test was not in use at the time the
samples were collected (1999). The lab froze his urine and tested it
some years later. Well documented.

On Jul 25, 4:31 pm, Darn Good Intelligence
wrote:
It seems that, as many suspected, doping is so endemic in cycling that
the people who *don't* use EPO are probably in the minority. LA never
tested positive for EPO although many suspected that he was indeed a
user. Now that we have proof that so many of the other top competitors
on the TDF were/are dopers, does this cast further doubt on LA's
supposed innocence? For LA's story to be true, this means he was
always clean yet managed to beat a doped-up field that had a massive
advantage over him from EPO use - and not beat them once, but beat
them 7 TIMES consecutively. So what's the truth: was LA really so good
that his natural talent, fitness and work ethic could substantially
compensate for the advantage that his competitors had through EPO, or
was it his natural talent, fitness and work ethic combined with EPO
that brought him the 7 titles in a row?

Logic says it's the latter.

On 26 Jul, 00:41, kaiser wrote:
Actually, Lance HAS tested positive for EPO, but he can never be
penalized for it as the EPO test was not in use at the time the
samples were collected (1999). The lab froze his urine and tested it
some years later. Well documented.

I know about that retrospective test, but it's just so disputed that
it can't really count as proof that LA doped. My point was that,
logically, LA must have doped because all the people he was competing
against were doped-up, and it stretches logic to think that he was
THAT much better in terms of fitness and talent that he could say
clean and beat them even though they had an advantage of EPO use. All
these new positive tests since last year and now do cast a new light
on this subject imo, because know we now FOR SURE that the rest of the
field that LA beat was doped-up, whereas before we suspected it but
didn't know for certain. And TBH, I'm even surprised about how many
are testing positive - they're getting caught, left, right and centre.
PED use in cycling could be even worse than we suspected.

On Jul 25, 4:58 pm, Darn Good Intelligence
wrote:
On 26 Jul, 00:41, kaiser wrote:

Actually, Lance HAS tested positive for EPO, but he can never be
penalized for it as the EPO test was not in use at the time the
samples were collected (1999). The lab froze his urine and tested it
some years later. Well documented.

I know about that retrospective test, but it's just so disputed that
it can't really count as proof that LA doped. My point was that,
logically, LA must have doped because all the people he was competing
against were doped-up, and it stretches logic to think that he was
THAT much better in terms of fitness and talent that he could say
clean and beat them even though they had an advantage of EPO use. All
these new positive tests since last year and now do cast a new light
on this subject imo, because know we now FOR SURE that the rest of the
field that LA beat was doped-up, whereas before we suspected it but
didn't know for certain. And TBH, I'm even surprised about how many
are testing positive - they're getting caught, left, right and centre.
PED use in cycling could be even worse than we suspected.

You seem to forget the legions of believers on here who would
immediately drop to their knees and suck Lance's cock if given the
chance.

wrote:
On Jul 25, 7:31 pm, Darn Good Intelligence
wrote:
It seems that, as many suspected, doping is so endemic in cycling that
the people who *don't* use EPO are probably in the minority. LA never
tested positive for EPO although many suspected that he was indeed a
user. Now that we have proof that so many of the other top competitors
on the TDF were/are dopers, does this cast further doubt on LA's
supposed innocence? For LA's story to be true, this means he was
always clean yet managed to beat a doped-up field that had a massive
advantage over him from EPO use - and not beat them once, but beat
them 7 TIMES consecutively. So what's the truth: was LA really so good
that his natural talent, fitness and work ethic could substantially
compensate for the advantage that his competitors had through EPO, or
was it his natural talent, fitness and work ethic combined with EPO
that brought him the 7 titles in a row?

Logic says it's the latter.

Logic says he took EPO when there was no test for it which was until 3
months before the Sydney Olympics.

Bull****, from the Puerto files and the Cofidis files etc we know that
the following riders all used EPO after the introduction af the EPO
test - They just micro dosed and used EPO durring training:

Michele Scarponi, Marcos Antonio Serrano, David Etxebarria, Joseba
Beloki, Angel Vicioso, Isidro Nozal, Unai Osa, Jaksche Joorg,
Giampaolo Caruso, Ivan Basso, Constantino Zaballa,,Carlos Zarate,
Francisco Mancebo, Jan Ullrich, Oscar Sevilla, Jose Enrique Gutierrez,
Jose Ignacio Gutierrez, Vicente Ballester, David Bernabeu, David
Rodriguez, Jose Adrian Bonilla, Juan Gomis Lopez, Eladio Jimenez
Sanchez, David Latasa, Ruben Plaza, Jose Luis Martinez, Manuel
Llorent, Antonio Olmo, David Munoz, Javier Cherro, Javier Pascual,
Carlos Garcia Quesada, Roberto Heras, Angel Casero, Santiago Perez,
Tyler Hamilton, Igor Gonzalez Galdeano, Sergio Paulinio, Alberto
Contador, Allan Davis, Santiago Bottero and Aljerado Valverde.

Only a few of them ever tested positive for EPO.

--
Morten Reippuert Knudsen :-) http://blog.reippuert.dk

Merlin Works CR-3/2.5 & Campagnolo Chorus 2007.

Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
It seems that, as many suspected, doping is so endemic in cycling that
the people who *don't* use EPO are probably in the minority. LA never
tested positive for EPO although many suspected that he was indeed a
user. Now that we have proof that so many of the other top competitors
on the TDF were/are dopers, does this cast further doubt on LA's
supposed innocence? For LA's story to be true, this means he was
always clean yet managed to beat a doped-up field that had a massive
advantage over him from EPO use - and not beat them once, but beat
them 7 TIMES consecutively. So what's the truth: was LA really so good
that his natural talent, fitness and work ethic could substantially
compensate for the advantage that his competitors had through EPO, or
was it his natural talent, fitness and work ethic combined with EPO
that brought him the 7 titles in a row?

Logic says it's the latter.

Have you seen the letters "EPO" mentioned in connection with this year's
accused dopers?

Your entire diatribe lacks logic.

On Jul 25, 9:06 pm, Colin Campbell wrote:
Darn Good Intelligence wrote:
It seems that, as many suspected, doping is so endemic in cycling that
the people who *don't* use EPO are probably in the minority. LA never
tested positive for EPO although many suspected that he was indeed a
user. Now that we have proof that so many of the other top competitors
on the TDF were/are dopers, does this cast further doubt on LA's
supposed innocence? For LA's story to be true, this means he was
always clean yet managed to beat a doped-up field that had a massive
advantage over him from EPO use - and not beat them once, but beat
them 7 TIMES consecutively. So what's the truth: was LA really so good
that his natural talent, fitness and work ethic could substantially
compensate for the advantage that his competitors had through EPO, or
was it his natural talent, fitness and work ethic combined with EPO
that brought him the 7 titles in a row?

Logic says it's the latter.

Have you seen the letters "EPO" mentioned in connection with this year's
accused dopers?

Your entire diatribe lacks logic.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Colin mate, they have moved on. EPO is very "90's"

Now it is synthetic blood and lots of yet to be discovered things.

They accused Marion Jones of delaying her B test for EPO for 6 weeks, so
that the stuff would disappear from the system.

And you claim that a frozen sample 8 years old would give accurate results.
At least accurate enough to bury a career?