More Proof Lance Armstrong Is a Liar - Posted by Jeanne Sager on May

Source: http://thestir.cafemom.com/sports/12...e_armstrong_is

If Lance Armstrong wants to convince anyone he doesn't dope, he needs
to brush up on his excuses. To answer allegations on 60 Minutes from
former teammate Tyler Hamilton that he saw Armstrong giving himself
injections of red-cell boosting drug EPO, Lance has his attorneys out
there doing damage control with gems like, "Most people will see this
for exactly what it is: More washed-up cyclists talking trash for
cash."

We've heard this one on the playground, haven't we? Although it
sounded a bit more like "I know you are, but what am I?" In fact,
Armstrong's entire "Facts 4 Lance" site, a blog he tweeted about last
night, reads like an attempt not to clear up the allegations that have
been floating around for years, but to smear the people who dare voice
their concerns about Armstrong's activities.

Hamilton, whose interview with 60 Minutes is part of the CBS news
show's six-month investigation into allegations about doping in
cycling, gets his own page dubbed simply "Hamilton Is Not Credible."
I'll save you the trouble of skimming it with this summation: the way
Armstrong's camp tells it, Hamilton can't be trusted because he's
doped himself and he's writing a book.

But let's consider this. A host of other people have made allegations
about Armstrong. People like Stephen Swart, a teammate of Armstrong's
in the '90s who claims Lance instigated EPO use by the whole team.
People like cyclist Floyd Landis, who claims Lance used private planes
to bypass customs with his illegal substances. People like Mike
Anderson, a bike mechanic who alleges he saw "andro" in Armstrong's
home (referring to androstene, a steroid). That's just the tip of the
iceberg, begging the question -- are they all former dopers writing
books too?

Now let's flip the coin. If we can't trust Hamilton because he's used
drugs and wants to make some money with a book deal, how can we trust
Armstrong himself? He's got a handful of books on the shelves. AND
it's looking more and more like he is himself a junkie, a doper, a
drug addict ... the sort of person he doesn't want us to trust. By his
own rubric, he's a liar, liar pants on fire!

Who do you believe? Is Armstrong innocent or lying?

Now let's flip the coin. If we can't trust Hamilton because he's used
drugs and wants to make some money with a book deal, how can we trust
Armstrong himself? He's got a handful of books on the shelves. AND
it's looking more and more like he is himself a junkie, a doper, a
drug addict ... the sort of person he doesn't want us to trust. By his
own rubric, he's a liar, liar pants on fire!

Wow, what a revelation. We live in a world inhabited by people whom we
find difficult to trust because they all have their own agendas and/or
are actively covering up their tracks and trying to lay groundwork
for... not trusting someone else, because that is somehow supposed to
make us believe their own story.

It is disgusting that there is so little real investigative journalism
in all of this. Everything we read or see is based around an
"exclusive'" interview with someone "in a position to know" what "really
happened" and it's "reported" verbatim instead of having the allegations
looked into. 5 years from now when this might all finally be over, Lance
could be thinking about the inept job done by the press (and those
claiming to be members of the press) and how their sloppiness kept the
truth from the light of day for a good many years.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Zenon" wrote in message
...
Source:
http://thestir.cafemom.com/sports/12...e_armstrong_is

If Lance Armstrong wants to convince anyone he doesn't dope, he needs
to brush up on his excuses. To answer allegations on 60 Minutes from
former teammate Tyler Hamilton that he saw Armstrong giving himself
injections of red-cell boosting drug EPO, Lance has his attorneys out
there doing damage control with gems like, "Most people will see this
for exactly what it is: More washed-up cyclists talking trash for
cash."

We've heard this one on the playground, haven't we? Although it
sounded a bit more like "I know you are, but what am I?" In fact,
Armstrong's entire "Facts 4 Lance" site, a blog he tweeted about last
night, reads like an attempt not to clear up the allegations that have
been floating around for years, but to smear the people who dare voice
their concerns about Armstrong's activities.

Hamilton, whose interview with 60 Minutes is part of the CBS news
show's six-month investigation into allegations about doping in
cycling, gets his own page dubbed simply "Hamilton Is Not Credible."
I'll save you the trouble of skimming it with this summation: the way
Armstrong's camp tells it, Hamilton can't be trusted because he's
doped himself and he's writing a book.

But let's consider this. A host of other people have made allegations
about Armstrong. People like Stephen Swart, a teammate of Armstrong's
in the '90s who claims Lance instigated EPO use by the whole team.
People like cyclist Floyd Landis, who claims Lance used private planes
to bypass customs with his illegal substances. People like Mike
Anderson, a bike mechanic who alleges he saw "andro" in Armstrong's
home (referring to androstene, a steroid). That's just the tip of the
iceberg, begging the question -- are they all former dopers writing
books too?

Now let's flip the coin. If we can't trust Hamilton because he's used
drugs and wants to make some money with a book deal, how can we trust
Armstrong himself? He's got a handful of books on the shelves. AND
it's looking more and more like he is himself a junkie, a doper, a
drug addict ... the sort of person he doesn't want us to trust. By his
own rubric, he's a liar, liar pants on fire!

Who do you believe? Is Armstrong innocent or lying?

On Jun 5, 6:46*am, Zenon wrote:
Source:http://thestir.cafemom.com/sports/12...e_armstrong_is

If Lance Armstrong wants to convince anyone he doesn't dope, he needs
to brush up on his excuses.

Armstrong doesn't have to convince anyone he doesn't dope. In fact,
proving you don't dope is impossible. The burden of proof is on his
accusers.

-ilan

Zenon wrote:
If Lance Armstrong wants to convince anyone he doesn't dope, he needs
to brush up on his excuses.

ilan wrote:
Armstrong doesn't have to convince anyone he doesn't dope. In fact,
proving you don't dope is impossible. The burden of proof is on his
accusers.

Saddam never tested positive.

On Jun 5, 1:09*am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:
Now let's flip the coin. If we can't trust Hamilton because he's used
drugs and wants to make some money with a book deal, how can we trust
Armstrong himself? He's got a handful of books on the shelves. AND
it's looking more and more like he is himself a junkie, a doper, a
drug addict ... the sort of person he doesn't want us to trust. By his
own rubric, he's a liar, liar pants on fire!

Wow, what a revelation. We live in a world inhabited by people whom we
find difficult to trust because they all have their own agendas and/or
are actively covering up their tracks and trying to lay groundwork
for... not trusting someone else, because that is somehow supposed to
make us believe their own story.

It is disgusting that there is so little real investigative journalism
in all of this. Everything we read or see is based around an
"exclusive'" interview with someone "in a position to know" what "really
happened" and it's "reported" verbatim instead of having the allegations
looked into. 5 years from now when this might all finally be over, Lance
could be thinking about the inept job done by the press (and those
claiming to be members of the press) and how their sloppiness kept the
truth from the light of day for a good many years.

--Mike-- * * Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Zenon" wrote in message

...







Source:
http://thestir.cafemom.com/sports/12...e_armstrong_is

If Lance Armstrong wants to convince anyone he doesn't dope, he needs
to brush up on his excuses. To answer allegations on 60 Minutes from
former teammate Tyler Hamilton that he saw Armstrong giving himself
injections of red-cell boosting drug EPO, Lance has his attorneys out
there doing damage control with gems like, "Most people will see this
for exactly what it is: More washed-up cyclists talking trash for
cash."

We've heard this one on the playground, haven't we? Although it
sounded a bit more like "I know you are, but what am I?" In fact,
Armstrong's entire "Facts 4 Lance" site, a blog he tweeted about last
night, reads like an attempt not to clear up the allegations that have
been floating around for years, but to smear the people who dare voice
their concerns about Armstrong's activities.

Hamilton, whose interview with 60 Minutes is part of the CBS news
show's six-month investigation into allegations about doping in
cycling, gets his own page dubbed simply "Hamilton Is Not Credible."
I'll save you the trouble of skimming it with this summation: the way
Armstrong's camp tells it, Hamilton can't be trusted because he's
doped himself and he's writing a book.

But let's consider this. A host of other people have made allegations
about Armstrong. People like Stephen Swart, a teammate of Armstrong's
in the '90s who claims Lance instigated EPO use by the whole team.
People like cyclist Floyd Landis, who claims Lance used private planes
to bypass customs with his illegal substances. People like Mike
Anderson, a bike mechanic who alleges he saw "andro" in Armstrong's
home (referring to androstene, a steroid). That's just the tip of the
iceberg, begging the question -- are they all former dopers writing
books too?

Now let's flip the coin. If we can't trust Hamilton because he's used
drugs and wants to make some money with a book deal, how can we trust
Armstrong himself? He's got a handful of books on the shelves. AND
it's looking more and more like he is himself a junkie, a doper, a
drug addict ... the sort of person he doesn't want us to trust. By his
own rubric, he's a liar, liar pants on fire!

Who do you believe? Is Armstrong innocent or lying?

Mike just wrote a post in RBR and wants to sell you a bike.
DOPER !!!!

On Jun 5, 7:43*am, Simply Fred wrote:
Zenon wrote:
If Lance Armstrong wants to convince anyone he doesn't dope, he needs
to brush up on his excuses.
ilan wrote:
Armstrong doesn't have to convince anyone he doesn't dope. In fact,
proving you don't dope is impossible. The burden of proof is on his
accusers.

Saddam never tested positive.

What we need is a blue dress with some EPO on it.

On 6/5/2011 9:00 AM, Anton Berlin wrote:
On Jun 5, 7:43 am, Simply wrote:
Zenon wrote:
If Lance Armstrong wants to convince anyone he doesn't dope, he needs
to brush up on his excuses.
ilan wrote:
Armstrong doesn't have to convince anyone he doesn't dope. In fact,
proving you don't dope is impossible. The burden of proof is on his
accusers.

Saddam never tested positive.

What we need is a blue dress with some EPO on it.

I'm sure we'll learn about it first from cafemom.com.