You've just started a new diplomatic row which will appear 24/7 on most news scrollbars under the title : "French say Americans are junk !" I think the appropriate retaliation will be to sink the Charles-de-Gaulle...
They'll start with something they know really hurts us so bad... Countdown to InTheButt calling for a (yet) another boycott of French products ( yes, that includes fries) 10 - 9 - 8 -7...
Excuse my ignorance but I thought it was an open secret that most of the top riders were smackheads. Is this not actually the case and hasn't he retired anyway?
OK, so, if French ----> Freedom hence I've been living in the Freedom Republic and I'm a Freedomman, sounds cool...
The fact is L'Equipe decided to go personal, well he'd been the most exposed. I wouldn't be too surprised. You know, legacy, pride, legend and all.
I am starting to see why he said I feel sorry for you. I will keep an open mind the LA situation. But I am starting to have a conclusive view on why we feel sorry for you.
No, there is a claim of six positive tests. That's quite a bit different from there actually being six positive, reliable, certifiable tests that contain Lance's urine. Do you understand the difference? Here let me help you. If a woman named Cécile who lives in Lyon claims that you had unprotected anal sex with 95 3 year old girls, well then you must have done so, because someone made a claim, and afterall, every claim that is ever made must definitely be true, right? Nooo! Only an imbecile thinks like that way. You must ask yourself 3 questions: (1) Has it been proven that Lance's urine was used for the samples? (2) Has it been proven that the testing technique is valid and that proper procedures were followed, especially for samples that are more than 6 years old? (3) Has it been proven that the published results correspond to Lance's urine samples? I think you will find that the answer to all 3 questions is NO. Therefore, there is no proof of anything. You must also ask yourself why 11 of 17 samples were NEGATIVE, and 6 were POSITIVE? If EPO was used before the start of the race, then it would have shown up in EVERY test of the Tour. That means that all 17 samples should have tested POSITIVE. But they didn't. Your natural explanation will be that Lance only used EPO at the very end of the race, meaning that only the final 6 samples would be POSITIVE. No, that doesn't compute. For you see, Lance won the prologue. He also won the time trials at stages 8 and 19. He held the yellow jersey after stages 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19. In stages 3-7, he was near the top of the standings. He held the yellow jersey in Stages 1-2 and 9-19 or 68% of the time. But only 6 of 17 samples have tested positive. That should be the first indication that these "results" are bogus. Lance has been tested for 7 years. 7 years of A and B samples and not a single positive result. Over 300 tests performed, and not a single positive. Then, out of the woodwork a man in a laboratory north of Paris miraculously finds that 6 of the B samples in 1999 tested positive for high levels of EPO. Lo and behold, there are no A samples to corroborate his findings. Come on, you're not that naive are you? It's either junk science or deliberate corruption. Please go away. I am tired of your stupidity.
I'm a mark for Lance Armstrong, so maybe I'm biased. But I wouldn't even convict Dema Kovalenko on the strength of that evidence.
Well our real problem is that one of our nation's only hero's is placed along side our nation's growing list of villians, in terms of Truth. E.g Bush (lies about everything), Baseball (lies for money, BB, RP), and Big business (lies for souls, Enron.) If we didn't have these villians Lance wouldn't be placed in such an amoral landscape. PS, for you Bush fans, let's just pretend that I am viewing this from the rest of the world's eyes.
This is a better retort than even Armstrong has been using. The fact that he didn't test postive on the other eleven samples is a very important fact unless the samples are the first six samples (he had EPO prior to the race) or the last six (he took EPO in the middle of the race).
(1) I trust the lab. It's actually the lab that invented the test. You can put that kind of doubts absolutely everywhere and in every imaginable case. You can do the same thing with, let's say, men walking on the moon. How do you prove that the photos of Armstrong (Neil) on the Moon are not fakes, for example ? (2) Every experts I've read are saying the technique was perfectly valid and that the results can't be dubious (it's actually 3 methods combined together). (3)The lab tested samples with numbers only. L'Equipe has merged the numbers of the samples with the numbers written on the reports made by the doctors who controled the riders. All the documents are published in the PDF I sent in page 3. If you were well-informed, you'd know the tests only detect the EPO that has been taken 2 or 3 days before the controls. The fact there's some samples tested negative actually indicates that Armstrong took 3 short treatments of EPO during the Tour 99. Armstrong has been tested positive to corticoids in 99. He said 10 days later, that it was because he took salve for his arse to explain it, but if it was the case he should have told it to the doctors controlling him the day of the control. If the legal procedure had been applied in that case he would have been suspended for several months, but the UCI smugly tolerated that. Try to get some information before posting that kind of bullsh!t.
Why is so hard for Americans to believe Lance may have been doping in 1999? Before it was all he-said, she-said. Now there seems to be more to the story.
I'm reserving judgment on these lab results until I have more information on chain of custody and other similar controls, but the fact that you bring up the corticoids allegations just goes to show that you're not objectively or fairly evaluating the situation. No one who is the least bit serious treats that incident as anything other than evidence of the overblown French press hype trying to pin something on Armstrong that was absolutely meritless. You've brought that point up several times as if it strengthens your argument. It doesn't. It makes you look like you believe in UFO's, second shooters, and fake airplanes in the Pentagon.
MK said Armstrong's never ever been tested positive. It's untrue, that's all. The fact I've brought that point up several times is because people don't bother reading what I've wrote before. Stop thinking it as a "french press" thing. Eurosport UK called the affair the "Lance-Gate". And the English can't be suspected of backing the French up for no reason, hmm ?