RBR Enquirer Headline: Lance: "Yes, I cheated"

"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
...
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in message
m...
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
...

I want to believe Lance, and what he says may be completely true. I hope
so. But nothing that he's gone through should be seen as a guarantee of
future clean living etc.

Wait a minute. I didn't say anything about guarantees. But I do doubt
that he'd risk it. He is rather more intelligent than most people.

You've met Lance I gather? What Lance has upstairs isn't so much
"intelligence" as it is street smarts.

I did meet his mother and she was a pretty savvy person. I can't believe
that Lance is far from her.

"Scott" wrote in message
...

As for how intelligent he is, I don't know.

But you're willing to argue about it.....

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
The peculiar thing about EPO is that there's no transition between its
effectiveness as a doping agent and sudden death. If you take a little
EPO, you get a little advantage. If you take a lot of EPO, you become Mr.
60% and can TT off the front of pelotons. And if you try to become Mr.
61%* you die suddenly in your sleep.

You can also die from dilutional hyponatremia due to drinking too much
orange juice.

Fred Fredburger wrote:
You're going to have to explain that "ego" thing. I'm sure no one in RBR
has one.

SchwartzSoft provided me with a super-ego.

Tom Kunich wrote:
I did meet his mother and she was a pretty savvy person.

Dumbass,
Was she hot ?

In article ,
Donald Munro wrote:

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
The peculiar thing about EPO is that there's no transition between its
effectiveness as a doping agent and sudden death. If you take a little
EPO, you get a little advantage. If you take a lot of EPO, you become Mr.
60% and can TT off the front of pelotons. And if you try to become Mr.
61%* you die suddenly in your sleep.

You can also die from dilutional hyponatremia due to drinking too much
orange juice.

Correct . But there are few incentives for a cyclist to try to do so.

Non-cyclists, however...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0125073wii1.html

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

On Jan 29, 11:08*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

...



As for how intelligent he is, I don't know.

But you're willing to argue about it.....

I'm not arguing about it. It's pretty tough to argue about something
when you admit up front you don't know anything about it. Of course,
admitting you don't know something is something you don't know
anything about. It can be very refreshing to do so, as it opens up
the opportunity to learn something new.

My question to you was HOW you determined he was so smart. See, it
was all about questioning how you came to make such a declarative
statement as IF you knew first hand he IS smart. You don't know how
intelligent he is, or isn't, and yet it is YOU who's willing to argue
about it. Some day you'll learn to write a sentence that portrays
opinion instead of fact.

a comparison: "He is rather more intelligent than most people. He
doesn't dope." vs. "He seems pretty smart and that's why I don't
think he would dope."

Please think up some examples on your own. There may be a pop quiz
tomorrow.

On Jan 29, 10:06*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message

...

"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in message
om...
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
. ..

I want to believe Lance, and what he says may be completely true. I hope
so. But nothing that he's gone through should be seen as a guarantee of
future clean living etc.

Wait a minute. I didn't say anything about guarantees. But I do doubt
that he'd risk it. He is rather more intelligent than most people.

You've met Lance I gather? What Lance has upstairs isn't so much
"intelligence" as it is street smarts.

I did meet his mother and she was a pretty savvy person. I can't believe
that Lance is far from her.



Dumbass -


Your intuition isn't worth crap. A few years ago you posted about how
you met Hamid Karzai and how great he was.

Well, he ain't so great. They're trying to figure out what to do about
him. It's becoming a narco-state.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article
,
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

On Jan 29, 7:41 am, Bob Schwartz
wrote:
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
You know, I think drugs do a lot of things. But I'm not sure I see an
evidence-based risk between most of the drugs that cyclists were accused
of (or caught) taking during Lance's heyday and cancer or the recurrence
thereof.
I one person I know that has experienced kidney failure
came away from it with, among other things, a very high
opinion of EPO. And absolutely no fear of it.

Dumbass -


A professional rider (clean) I know has a mother who was worried about
him doping. She is a nurse. One day she finally asked him about the
doping stuff and when he told her it was EPO she said, "that's all?!"
She was relieved. They give that stuff to their patients regularly.
She was worried about stuff like 'roids and meth.

He never did dope up even with the blessing of mom.

Seriously, that's a great story. Also seriously, the dose is the poison,
and never was that truer than EPO.

The peculiar thing about EPO is that there's no transition between its
effectiveness as a doping agent and sudden death. If you take a little
EPO, you get a little advantage. If you take a lot of EPO, you become
Mr. 60% and can TT off the front of pelotons. And if you try to become
Mr. 61%* you die suddenly in your sleep.

Mebbe a bissle warfarin...

I don't think most doctors are EPO-ing their patients to 60% HCTs. My
impression is that any value in the 40s makes doctors happy.

*or whatever HCT it is that happens to be the unlucky number for your
physiology and circumstances, with a frisson of chance thrown in

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
The question is: what chances?

First, cancer isn't a proximate risk from most forms of illegal doping.
So a hypothetical cancer-surviving cyclist wouldn't be putting himself
at a cancer risk by using most of them.

Second, I'm not sure the mindset of all near-miss survivors is the same.
I know a lot of people who have experienced close calls in an activity,
and never thought twice about returning to them. Lance Armstrong, for
example, teammate of the killed-while-racing Casartelli:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabio_Casartelli

None of this is conclusive, but that's the problem: none of this is
conclusive. There's simply no refutation of "Lance doped" to be found in
"Lance survived cancer." Lots of people have had visceral near-death
experiences and gone on to risk-filled lives. Some have taken MORE risks
after than before.

I'm not saying Lance doped: let me be clear.

Let me reiterate: this isn't a question of "did Lance dope?" for me,
inasmuch as my answer is "I don't know, and you can't prove a negative."
But it's folly to think you're closing in on any sort of truth about the
matter through this line of reasoning. As even Lance can sincerely say
at this point, all he can do to prove his cleanliness is keep training
and keep passing drug tests.

Also, no more Irish masseuses.


So what does it mean when a guy hires someone that has become
a millionaire designing doping programs for cyclists?

Not that I give a ****, I don't. But for some reason a lot
of people do.

Bob Schwartz