A demented theory of why Lance is coming back

[Ryan Cousineau]

LA's legacy is currently tainted, to a large extent, by the "did he
dope?" question. He's noticed.

I asked my evil vanishing twin about this, and here's what he had to say:

Lance was never particularly enthusiastic about doping from a
philosophical point of view. He saw it as a necessary part of racing,
and feared getting popped only slightly less than he feared losing.

Lance sincerely believes that the current peleton [sic; my evil twin
can't spell very well] is clean enough that he could compete clean.

Double win: do the new-fangled biological passport thing, race clean,
and reestablish his legacy by winning a few things (not necessarily the
Tour; he is 37 after all, and that's 81 in bike-racer years) while
clean, thus clearing his reputation and his conscience all in one blow,
plus making all the current young guns look like pretenders to the
throne.

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

[ilanpsi@gmail.com]

On Sep 12, 12:08*am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> LA's legacy is currently tainted, to a large extent, by the "did he
> dope?" question. He's noticed.
>
> I asked my evil vanishing twin about this, and here's what he had to say:
>
> Lance was never particularly enthusiastic about doping from a
> philosophical point of view. He saw it as a necessary part of racing,
> and feared getting popped only slightly less than he feared losing.
>
> Lance sincerely believes that the current peleton [sic; my evil twin
> can't spell very well] is clean enough that he could compete clean.
>
> Double win: do the new-fangled biological passport thing, race clean,
> and reestablish his legacy by winning a few things (not necessarily the
> Tour; he is 37 after all, and that's 81 in bike-racer years) while
> clean, thus clearing his reputation and his conscience all in one blow,
> plus making all the current young guns look like pretenders to the
> throne.
>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau rcous...@gmail.comhttp://www.wiredcola.com/
> "In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
> "In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

After thinking about it some more, I think the main reason is that he
was annoyed because he could have easily won this year and two years
ago to make it 9 wins. Speaking of which, his real competition for
next year isn't Contador at all, but Rassumussen if he beats his 2
year suspension and ASO lets him in.

-ilan

[Bounty Bob]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

Well I'm surprised that with all the cynics and
depressed about dopers in here that nobody suggested
that with all his money from the TDFs and etc.
that someone hasn't suggested he's worked out he's
the only guy who can afford to be an early adopter
of the fourth generation EPOs (after they caught Ricco
with a 3rd gen).

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

My wife had another demented theory, that Armstrong is close to being
broke.

[Bob Schwartz]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> Lance sincerely believes that the current peleton [sic; my evil twin
> can't spell very well] is clean enough that he could compete clean.

Dumbass,

[Diablo Scott]

On Sep 12, 12:08*am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lance sincerely believes that the current peleton [sic; my evil twin
> can't spell very well] is clean enough that he could compete clean.
>
> Double win: do the new-fangled biological passport thing, race clean,
> and reestablish his legacy by winning a few things (not necessarily the
> Tour; he is 37 after all, and that's 81 in bike-racer years) while
> clean, thus clearing his reputation and his conscience all in one blow,
> plus making all the current young guns look like pretenders to the
> throne.

But how will he prevent LNDD/Equipe from sabotaging his samples again?

[mtb Dad]

On Sep 12, 12:08*am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> LA's legacy is currently tainted, to a large extent, by the "did he
> dope?" question. He's noticed.
>
> I asked my evil vanishing twin about this, and here's what he had to say:
>
> Lance was never particularly enthusiastic about doping from a
> philosophical point of view. He saw it as a necessary part of racing,
> and feared getting popped only slightly less than he feared losing.
>
> Lance sincerely believes that the current peleton [sic; my evil twin
> can't spell very well] is clean enough that he could compete clean.
>
> Double win: do the new-fangled biological passport thing, race clean,
> and reestablish his legacy by winning a few things (not necessarily the
> Tour; he is 37 after all, and that's 81 in bike-racer years) while
> clean, thus clearing his reputation and his conscience all in one blow,
> plus making all the current young guns look like pretenders to the
> throne.
>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau rcous...@gmail.comhttp://www.wiredcola.com/
> "In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
> "In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

I think you might be at least partly right. The only reservation I
have is his apparent ruthlessness towards Simeoni and other anti-
doping types. And if he was as ambivalent to doping as you say, why
not advocate for better doping control? This years Tour demonstrated
that as simple a thing as chaperones threw the dopers into a biy of a
tail spin. How hard would it have been to ask for that? Retroactive
testing might have been harder to ask for though ;).

My personal feeling is that the UCI leadership is more responsible
than anyone for maintainng the doping culture that supports your
theory. When's the truth and reconciliation commission for that era?

[r15757@aol.com]

On Sep 12, 1:08 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> LA's legacy is currently tainted, to a large extent, by the "did he
> dope?" question. He's noticed.
>
> I asked my evil vanishing twin about this, and here's what he had to say:
>
> Lance was never particularly enthusiastic about doping from a
> philosophical point of view. He saw it as a necessary part of racing,
> and feared getting popped only slightly less than he feared losing.
>
> Lance sincerely believes that the current peleton [sic; my evil twin
> can't spell very well] is clean enough that he could compete clean.
>
> Double win: do the new-fangled biological passport thing, race clean,
> and reestablish his legacy by winning a few things (not necessarily the
> Tour; he is 37 after all, and that's 81 in bike-racer years) while
> clean, thus clearing his reputation and his conscience all in one blow,
> plus making all the current young guns look like pretenders to the
> throne.

It seems that while in Leadville, with the euphoria of altitude and
the joy of kicking serious ass on a serious climb, LANCE realized that
he was still ridonkulously strong. I think he figured that if he was
going to haul that much ass he may as well do it in the Tour. And,
he learned that Wiens was in his 40s.

[Nobody]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 07:08:16 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Lance sincerely believes that the current peleton [sic; my evil twin
>can't spell very well] is clean enough that he could compete clean.

My thought was it also gives him a chance to ride against Floyd.

Certainly your idea is most definitely the case. Note, though, he said
they're riding slower. The speed of the winner was about 40kph. Same
as the last 4-5 years.

TdF winner's speeds, 1999-2008:

40.273
39.556
40.02
39.93
40.94
40.553
41.654
40.784
38.98
40.5

[Howard Kveck]

In article <01901c0b-e706-4534-9e36-a0d40001ac39@c22g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
ilanpsi@gmail.com wrote:

> After thinking about it some more, I think the main reason is that he
> was annoyed because he could have easily won this year and two years
> ago to make it 9 wins. Speaking of which, his real competition for
> next year isn't Contador at all, but Rassumussen if he beats his 2
> year suspension and ASO lets him in.

I'd have a hard time thinking that ASO will let him in.

By the way, you mentioned a bike shop in Berkeley in your first post in this
thread. Which one?

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:36:16 -0700 (PDT), ilanpsi@gmail.com wrote:

>Speaking of which, his real competition for
>next year isn't Contador at all, but Rassumussen if he beats his 2
>year suspension and ASO lets him in.

No way. Armstrong in any kind of shape can crack Rasmussen. Not
physically, but mentally.

[ilanpsi@gmail.com]

On Sep 12, 12:43*am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> In article <01901c0b-e706-4534-9e36-a0d40001a...@c22g2000prc.googlegroups..com>,
>
> *ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > After thinking about it some more, I think the main reason is that he
> > was annoyed because he could have easily won this year and two years
> > ago to make it 9 wins. Speaking of which, his real competition for
> > next year isn't Contador at all, but Rassumussen if he beats his 2
> > year suspension and ASO lets him in.
>
> * *I'd have a hard time thinking that ASO will let him in.
>
> * *By the way, you mentioned a bike shop in Berkeley in your first post in this
> thread. Which one?
>
> --
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tanx,
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Howard
>
> * * * * * * * * * *The bloody pubs are bloody dull
> * * * * * * * * * *The bloody clubs are bloody full
> * * * * * * * * * *Of bloody girls and bloody guys
> * * * * * * * * * *With bloody murder in their eyes
>
> * * * * * * * * * * *remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Oh, the one next to McDonald's, Shattuck corner of university. They
have a nice selection of pseudo-ancient cycling caps. There is an uber-
nerd salesman there who is really good and will talk to you for at
least 20 minutes on any cycling topic, independent of whether you will
buy something or not, all the other ones are not so good. They have an
amazing 2 week return policy on all their saddles (as long as you
don't destroy the upper), I bought my SLR gel-flow there for that
reason.

-ilan

[Diablo Scott]

On Sep 12, 12:54*am, ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 12, 12:43*am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> > > * *By the way, you mentioned a bike shop in Berkeley in your first post in this
> > thread. Which one?
>
> > --
>
> Oh, the one next to McDonald's, Shattuck corner of university. They
> have a nice selection of pseudo-ancient cycling caps.

The Missing Link. I met Eddy Merckx there on a promotional tour in
1985. He was giving away autographed Eddy Merckx cycling caps too.

[DirtRoadie]

On Sep 12, 3:48*am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
wrote:
> My wife had another demented theory, that Armstrong is close to being
> broke.

Probably not broke, but not nearly as capable of earning income as he
once was. "FRS" is a long way from Subaru. A little jump start to the
endorsement machine wouldn't hurt.

DR

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <vnekc49ve24dkhbj0pi51v2fse13jdidop@4ax.com>,
John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:

> My wife had another demented theory, that Armstrong is close to being
> broke.

He wouldn't be the first athlete to earn big and blow it early, but I
would be surprised if Lance had managed to screw up his finances.

He strikes me as too much of a control-freak not to manage this sort of
stuff, what with the weighing food, the early adoption of a Blackberry
for Jan-stalking, and so forth.

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

[ilanpsi@gmail.com]

On Sep 12, 2:51*am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:36:16 -0700 (PDT), ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Speaking of which, his real competition for
> >next year isn't Contador at all, but Rassumussen if he beats his 2
> >year suspension and ASO lets him in.
>
> No way. Armstrong in any kind of shape can crack Rasmussen. Not
> physically, but mentally.

And then there's new blood with Brillo, I mean old blood with Basso.

-ilan

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
<3074791b-3e84-4b0c-b854-778a54a023bd@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Diablo Scott <diabloscott@terra.es> wrote:

> On Sep 12, 12:08*am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Lance sincerely believes that the current peleton [sic; my evil twin
> > can't spell very well] is clean enough that he could compete clean.
> >
> > Double win: do the new-fangled biological passport thing, race clean,
> > and reestablish his legacy by winning a few things (not necessarily the
> > Tour; he is 37 after all, and that's 81 in bike-racer years) while
> > clean, thus clearing his reputation and his conscience all in one blow,
> > plus making all the current young guns look like pretenders to the
> > throne.
>
> But how will he prevent LNDD/Equipe from sabotaging his samples again?

By not winning.

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

[raamman@gmail.com]

On Sep 12, 11:08*am, Diablo Scott <diablosc...@terra.es> wrote:
> On Sep 12, 12:08*am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Lance sincerely believes that the current peleton [sic; my evil twin
> > can't spell very well] is clean enough that he could compete clean.
>
> > Double win: do the new-fangled biological passport thing, race clean,
> > and reestablish his legacy by winning a few things (not necessarily the
> > Tour; he is 37 after all, and that's 81 in bike-racer years) while
> > clean, thus clearing his reputation and his conscience all in one blow,
> > plus making all the current young guns look like pretenders to the
> > throne.
>
> But how will he prevent LNDD/Equipe from sabotaging his samples again?

pee into a few more vials at the same time which are then sealed and
kept by a 3rd party

[Donald Munro]

Diablo Scott wrote:
>> But how will he prevent LNDD/Equipe from sabotaging his samples again?

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> By not winning.

Your logic ties him up and rapes him.

[Tom Kunich]

"Ryan Cousineau" <rcousine@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rcousine-0CE675.09180012092008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
> In article
> <3074791b-3e84-4b0c-b854-778a54a023bd@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> Diablo Scott <diabloscott@terra.es> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 12, 12:08 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Lance sincerely believes that the current peleton [sic; my evil twin
>> > can't spell very well] is clean enough that he could compete clean.
>> >
>> > Double win: do the new-fangled biological passport thing, race clean,
>> > and reestablish his legacy by winning a few things (not necessarily the
>> > Tour; he is 37 after all, and that's 81 in bike-racer years) while
>> > clean, thus clearing his reputation and his conscience all in one blow,
>> > plus making all the current young guns look like pretenders to the
>> > throne.
>>
>> But how will he prevent LNDD/Equipe from sabotaging his samples again?
>
> By not winning.

Firstly I don't think winning or not would effect the fact that ASO would
happily sabotage him given just half a chance. As I said before, I'm only
surprised that they actually stuck to the contracts they originally signed
with Lance. And consider this - he OK'd them testing his 1999 samples and
they then said they were positive but of course they had no backup samples
for anyone else to test.

I expect that the reason the Lance intends to give entirely separate samples
each day to a reliable testing laboratory is so that LNDD could be proven
liars if they attempt to spike the sample taken from ASO.

Of course the stupid asses posting here would expect all this is about Lance
trying to win "without dope". The idea that he almost died from cancer which
could easily have been caused by drugs he used before he came back from
cancer seems not to even phase these morons. Of course perhaps if they faced
death and won they might think a bit differently.

[Tom Kunich]

"mtb Dad" <listerfarrar@telus.net> wrote in message
news:24021558-ee5a-4099-a8c6-d32b2533d777@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 12, 12:08 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Lance was never particularly enthusiastic about doping from a
> philosophical point of view. He saw it as a necessary part of racing,
> and feared getting popped only slightly less than he feared losing.

I think that he probably was using all sorts of drugs before his cancer as
was noted by Andreu's wife and then used as proof that because he used drugs
before he got so near death it proved that he used drugs after.

> Double win: do the new-fangled biological passport thing, race clean,
> and reestablish his legacy by winning a few things (not necessarily the
> Tour; he is 37 after all, and that's 81 in bike-racer years) while
> clean, thus clearing his reputation and his conscience all in one blow,
> plus making all the current young guns look like pretenders to the
> throne.

What if he were to win the Tour with an average speed at or higher than his
other wins? What if this was done while he had a complete biological
passport workup? Does this mean that his rides before were or weren't
drugged?

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
<24021558-ee5a-4099-a8c6-d32b2533d777@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
mtb Dad <listerfarrar@telus.net> wrote:

> On Sep 12, 12:08*am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > LA's legacy is currently tainted, to a large extent, by the "did he
> > dope?" question. He's noticed.
> >
> > I asked my evil vanishing twin about this, and here's what he had to say:
> >
> > Lance was never particularly enthusiastic about doping from a
> > philosophical point of view. He saw it as a necessary part of racing,
> > and feared getting popped only slightly less than he feared losing.
> >
> > Lance sincerely believes that the current peleton [sic; my evil twin
> > can't spell very well] is clean enough that he could compete clean.
> >
> > Double win: do the new-fangled biological passport thing, race clean,
> > and reestablish his legacy by winning a few things (not necessarily the
> > Tour; he is 37 after all, and that's 81 in bike-racer years) while
> > clean, thus clearing his reputation and his conscience all in one blow,
> > plus making all the current young guns look like pretenders to the
> > throne.

>
> I think you might be at least partly right. The only reservation I
> have is his apparent ruthlessness towards Simeoni and other anti-
> doping types. And if he was as ambivalent to doping as you say, why
> not advocate for better doping control? This years Tour demonstrated
> that as simple a thing as chaperones threw the dopers into a biy of a
> tail spin. How hard would it have been to ask for that? Retroactive
> testing might have been harder to ask for though ;).

Remember, this theory isn't mine, it belongs to my evil vanishing twin,
who must remain nameless because he writes my secret blog. I, myself,
would never engage in such utterly reckless and unfounded speculation.

My evil twin suggests that you reread the first paragraph: Lance feared
getting popped only slightly less than he feared losing. I think it's
fair to say that more than seeing Simeoni as an enemy of doping, he saw
him as an enemy of Lance's reputation.

> My personal feeling is that the UCI leadership is more responsible
> than anyone for maintainng the doping culture that supports your
> theory. When's the truth and reconciliation commission for that era?

The truth and reconciliation committee knocked on Zabel and Riis' doors,
and demanded their shirts back.

Which is pretty emblematic of how screwed up cycling is, really.

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

[2bowlers@gmail.com]

On Sep 12, 3:17*pm, r15...@aol.com wrote:

> he learned that Wiens was in his 40s.- Hide quoted text -

I hope he asks Wiens to go ride on the road with him. He's obviously
got a huge engine.

Mark

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <48cac328$0$22200$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Diablo Scott wrote:
> >> But how will he prevent LNDD/Equipe from sabotaging his samples again?
>
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > By not winning.
>
> Your logic ties him up and rapes him.

My logic could face the death penalty in Texas.

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

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <kYWdnf4DLpsES1fVnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> "mtb Dad" <listerfarrar@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:24021558-ee5a-4099-a8c6-d32b2533d777@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 12, 12:08 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Lance was never particularly enthusiastic about doping from a
> > philosophical point of view. He saw it as a necessary part of racing,
> > and feared getting popped only slightly less than he feared losing.
>
> I think that he probably was using all sorts of drugs before his cancer as
> was noted by Andreu's wife and then used as proof that because he used drugs
> before he got so near death it proved that he used drugs after.

I think the best evidence that Lance used drugs was a combination of the
various eye-witnesses and his performance in a peloton that, in
retrospect, was probably doped from end to end.

> > Double win: do the new-fangled biological passport thing, race clean,
> > and reestablish his legacy by winning a few things (not necessarily the
> > Tour; he is 37 after all, and that's 81 in bike-racer years) while
> > clean, thus clearing his reputation and his conscience all in one blow,
> > plus making all the current young guns look like pretenders to the
> > throne.
>
> What if he were to win the Tour with an average speed at or higher than his
> other wins? What if this was done while he had a complete biological
> passport workup? Does this mean that his rides before were or weren't
> drugged?

Ultimately, that will depend on where David Millar finishes, of course.

In all seriousness, peloton speeds are way too variable to be a useful
proxy for doped-up performance. If his VAM on key climbs goes up by 5%,
though, then we'll talk.

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

[raamman@gmail.com]

On Sep 12, 3:52*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "mtb Dad" <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote in message
>
> news:24021558-ee5a-4099-a8c6-d32b2533d777@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 12, 12:08 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Lance was never particularly enthusiastic about doping from a
> > philosophical point of view. He saw it as a necessary part of racing,
> > and feared getting popped only slightly less than he feared losing.
>
> I think that he probably was using all sorts of drugs before his cancer as
> was noted by Andreu's wife and then used as proof that because he used drugs
> before he got so near death it proved that he used drugs after.
>
>

you wouldn't consider andreu's wife might have been bought for false
testimony by the insurance company that owed lance ? who were the
doctors in the room at the time ? men in black perhaps ?

[Donald Munro]

Diablo Scott wrote:
>> >> But how will he prevent LNDD/Equipe from sabotaging his samples
>> >> again?

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> > By not winning.

Donald Munro wrote:
>> Your logic ties him up and rapes him.

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> My logic could face the death penalty in Texas.

Logic is illegal in Texas.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
<1ff27206-34d6-4716-925c-c247f4ddc33e@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
raamman@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sep 12, 3:52*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > "mtb Dad" <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:24021558-ee5a-4099-a8c6-d32b2533d777@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > On Sep 12, 12:08 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Lance was never particularly enthusiastic about doping from a
> > > philosophical point of view. He saw it as a necessary part of racing,
> > > and feared getting popped only slightly less than he feared losing.
> >
> > I think that he probably was using all sorts of drugs before his cancer as
> > was noted by Andreu's wife and then used as proof that because he used drugs
> > before he got so near death it proved that he used drugs after.
> >
> >
>
> you wouldn't consider andreu's wife might have been bought for false
> testimony by the insurance company that owed lance ? who were the
> doctors in the room at the time ? men in black perhaps ?

Well, I'd consider that, but it requires a pretty big conspiracy, for a
pretty small payoff.

What would it cost to buy off Betsy? "A lot" is my guess; by any
calculus such a lie was going to seriously screw up her husband's life
and career (and I'd argue that's what happened).

Then you have to look at the real return to the insurers, who would
specifically reap that yield, and the monstrously large penalties if any
one of the conspirators were caught.

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

[zzfranklin@mac.com]

On Sep 12, 10:15*pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What would it cost to buy off Betsy? "A lot" is my guess; by any
> calculus such a lie was going to seriously screw up her husband's life
> and career (and I'd argue that's what happened).

Argue? Robbie Ventura is slowly taking over his job.

[raamman@gmail.com]

On Sep 13, 12:15*am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <1ff27206-34d6-4716-925c-c247f4ddc...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> *raam...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sep 12, 3:52*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > > "mtb Dad" <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:24021558-ee5a-4099-a8c6-d32b2533d777@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com....
> > > On Sep 12, 12:08 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Lance was never particularly enthusiastic about doping from a
> > > > philosophical point of view. He saw it as a necessary part of racing,
> > > > and feared getting popped only slightly less than he feared losing.
>
> > > I think that he probably was using all sorts of drugs before his cancer as
> > > was noted by Andreu's wife and then used as proof that because he used drugs
> > > before he got so near death it proved that he used drugs after.
>
> > you wouldn't consider andreu's wife might have been bought for false
> > testimony by the insurance company that owed lance ? who were the
> > doctors in the room at the time ? men in black perhaps ?
>
> Well, I'd consider that, but it requires a pretty big conspiracy, for a
> pretty small payoff.
>
> What would it cost to buy off Betsy? "A lot" is my guess; by any
> calculus such a lie was going to seriously screw up her husband's life
> and career (and I'd argue that's what happened).
>
> Then you have to look at the real return to the insurers, who would
> specifically reap that yield, and the monstrously large penalties if any
> one of the conspirators were caught.
>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau rcous...@gmail.comhttp://www.wiredcola.com/
> "In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
> "In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It sounds like the possibility never occured to you before; consider
frankie- yes it cost him his job, but it could've cost him his wife if
he didn't side with her, some people take their marriage vows very
seriously, and according to walshs book frankie stated he didn't
actually hear what his wife said she heard. insurance companies
especially in the states, or off shore, have not been known as icons
of honesty, fairness and integrity. no one says " he's as honest or
fair as an insurance company" unless they say it in a sarcastic
manner. insurers think in terms of mathematical possibilities and win/
loss gaming theory- everything has some risk, but for say perhaps $500
000, they thought they could save $5 million. getting caught ? nah, it
was just an overly zealous now ex-employee. guess they didn't expect
to lose double in the settlement, otherwise they would've paid him the
5 straight out as it still would've been cheaper than the $10 million
they were ordered.

I reciently read that lance allowed the retesting of the 1999 samples
that they state showed some blood doping... now, if he had cheated he
had gotten away with it till then, so why would he then allow
retesting ? if you pass an academic exam, or say some job performance
evaluation, would you really want to risk those results by agreeing
to doing it again ? that just goes against human nature to me. I don't
think lance knew at the time he was asked that the retesting would
destroy those last samples, that's like agreeing to go to court a 2nd
time on serious charges because your lawyer tells you that even if the
verict is guilty, he can say double-jepoardy, anull the verdict and
you're clear for life of those charges- that just doesn't happen.

[Tom Kunich]

<zzfranklin@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dbe15a58-e64f-4ba5-a72c-b2a49fa8a8c9@a8g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 12, 10:15 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What would it cost to buy off Betsy? "A lot" is my guess; by any
> > calculus such a lie was going to seriously screw up her husband's life
> > and career (and I'd argue that's what happened).
>
> Argue? Robbie Ventura is slowly taking over his job.

What has that got to do with anything? Maybe you haven't noticed it but
Franky isn't exactly the most exciting TV commentator we've ever seen. Why
wouldn't you expect someone a bit more interesting to take over?

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
<14ea2337-576b-4345-8289-699030e5bc05@l43g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
raamman@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sep 13, 12:15*am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <1ff27206-34d6-4716-925c-c247f4ddc...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *raam...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sep 12, 3:52*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > > > "mtb Dad" <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote in message
> >
> > > >news:24021558-ee5a-4099-a8c6-d32b2533d777@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On Sep 12, 12:08 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Lance was never particularly enthusiastic about doping from a
> > > > > philosophical point of view. He saw it as a necessary part of racing,
> > > > > and feared getting popped only slightly less than he feared losing.
> >
> > > > I think that he probably was using all sorts of drugs before his cancer
> > > > as
> > > > was noted by Andreu's wife and then used as proof that because he used
> > > > drugs
> > > > before he got so near death it proved that he used drugs after.
> >
> > > you wouldn't consider andreu's wife might have been bought for false
> > > testimony by the insurance company that owed lance ? who were the
> > > doctors in the room at the time ? men in black perhaps ?
> >
> > Well, I'd consider that, but it requires a pretty big conspiracy, for a
> > pretty small payoff.
> >
> > What would it cost to buy off Betsy? "A lot" is my guess; by any
> > calculus such a lie was going to seriously screw up her husband's life
> > and career (and I'd argue that's what happened).
> >
> > Then you have to look at the real return to the insurers, who would
> > specifically reap that yield, and the monstrously large penalties if any
> > one of the conspirators were caught.
> >
> > --
> > Ryan Cousineau rcous...@gmail.comhttp://www.wiredcola.com/
> > "In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
> > "In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> It sounds like the possibility never occured to you before; consider
> frankie- yes it cost him his job, but it could've cost him his wife if
> he didn't side with her, some people take their marriage vows very
> seriously, and according to walshs book frankie stated he didn't
> actually hear what his wife said she heard. insurance companies
> especially in the states, or off shore, have not been known as icons
> of honesty, fairness and integrity. no one says " he's as honest or
> fair as an insurance company" unless they say it in a sarcastic
> manner. insurers think in terms of mathematical possibilities and win/
> loss gaming theory- everything has some risk, but for say perhaps $500
> 000, they thought they could save $5 million. getting caught ? nah, it
> was just an overly zealous now ex-employee. guess they didn't expect
> to lose double in the settlement, otherwise they would've paid him the
> 5 straight out as it still would've been cheaper than the $10 million
> they were ordered.

Yes, but the employee has to agree too, and there's nothing in it for
them. Oh, except whatever charge pertains when you participate in a
conspiracy to commit perjury.

Look, there's all kinds of ways I could save my employer money, too. But
I'm not going to lie and steal for them because it makes no sense.
Leaving aside the purely moral issues (I like to think those matter to
me), there's little my employer could do to make it worth my while.

You said above that insurers live in the land of risk and reward. $5
million wasn't going to sink that insurance company. I bet the
settlement didn't even show up as a meaningful event in their annual
report, assuming that they're routinely paying out many many millions a
year.

It was, however, enough money to be worth sending out a hundred thousand
dollars or so of lawyering (good risk-reward ratio).

The only thing that gives your theory credence is that the actual
lawyering was double-damages incompetent, which maybe means that they
were dumb enough to try bribing a witness.

> I reciently read that lance allowed the retesting of the 1999 samples
> that they state showed some blood doping... now, if he had cheated he
> had gotten away with it till then, so why would he then allow
> retesting ?

I can't really explain this. The game-theory is roughly the same as for
doing a lie-detector test, though: if you're innocent, the lie-detector
test can only make things worse. If you're guilty, there's a chance the
lie-detector will make things better.

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

[Amit Ghosh]

On Sep 13, 9:29*am, raam...@gmail.com wrote:

> I reciently read that lance allowed the retesting of the 1999 samples
> that they state showed some blood doping... now, if he had cheated he
> had gotten away with it till then, so why would he then allow
> retesting ?

dumbass,

you are changing the facts.

armstrong did not "allow" the retesting of his samples from '99. the
LNDD decided to test the stored samples - ostensibly to check their
EPO test. he may not even have known that they had been tested.

armstrong merely let the UCI release his doping control forms to
ressiot who (ostensibly) was doing a story to debunk the idea that
armstrong has a TUE for some performance enhancer.

but using those two sources of information ressiot was able to infer
that some of the EPO containing samples from '99 were belonged to
armstrong.




> if you pass an academic exam, or say some job performance
> evaluation, would you really want to risk those results by *agreeing
> to doing it again ? that just goes against human nature to me. I don't
> think lance knew at the time he was asked that the retesting would
> destroy those last samples, that's like agreeing to go to court a 2nd
> time on serious charges because your lawyer tells you that even if the
> verict is guilty, he can say double-jepoardy, anull the verdict and
> you're clear for life of those charges- that just doesn't happen.

[Amit Ghosh]

On Sep 13, 9:29*am, raam...@gmail.com wrote:

> *It sounds like the possibility never occured to you before; *consider
> frankie- yes it cost him his job, but it could've cost him his wife if
> he didn't side with her, some people take their marriage vows very
> seriously, and according to walshs book frankie stated he didn't
> actually hear what his wife said she heard. insurance companies
> especially in the states, or off shore, have not been known as icons
> of honesty, fairness and integrity.

dumbass,

so you 're willing to entertain the possibility that betsy andreu was
paid off by SCA.

how do you account for Stephanie McIlvain's taped admission to Lemond
(it's on the internet you can listen to it) that she was in the room
and heard armstrong's admission and her subsequent retraction in her
testimony ?

[RicodJour]

On Sep 13, 10:17*am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> <zzfrank...@mac.com> wrote in message
>
> > Argue? *Robbie Ventura is slowly taking over his job.
>
> What has that got to do with anything? Maybe you haven't noticed it but
> Franky isn't exactly the most exciting TV commentator we've ever seen. Why
> wouldn't you expect someone a bit more interesting to take over?

You could pull Frankie quickly and stick Robbie in his place and I
wouldn't notice the difference. It's about time Assos got their assos
in gear and have their hottie model doing color commentary. The
accent would be a major plus, but she could just stand there and I'd
be fine with it.

R

[dustoyevsky@mac.com]

On Sep 13, 11:06*am, Amit Ghosh <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 13, 9:29*am, raam...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I reciently read that lance allowed the retesting of the 1999 samples
> > that they state showed some blood doping... now, if he had cheated he
> > had gotten away with it till then, so why would he then allow
> > retesting ?
>
> dumbass,
>
> you are changing the facts.
>
> armstrong did not "allow" the retesting of his samples from '99. the
> LNDD decided to test the stored samples - ostensibly to check their
> EPO test. he may not even have known that they had been tested.
>
> armstrong merely let the UCI release his doping control forms to
> ressiot who (ostensibly) was doing a story to debunk the idea that
> armstrong has a TUE for some performance enhancer.
>
> but using those two sources of information ressiot was able to infer
> that some of the EPO containing samples from '99 were belonged to
> armstrong.

Math is not my strong point-- what is obstensibly² ?
Wonderingly, --D-y

[Robert Chung]

Amit Ghosh wrote:

> dumbass,
>
> you are changing the facts.
>
> armstrong did not "allow" the retesting of his samples from '99. the
> LNDD decided to test the stored samples - ostensibly to check their
> EPO test. he may not even have known that they had been tested.
>
> armstrong merely let the UCI release his doping control forms to
> ressiot who (ostensibly) was doing a story to debunk the idea that
> armstrong has a TUE for some performance enhancer.
>
> but using those two sources of information ressiot was able to infer
> that some of the EPO containing samples from '99 were belonged to
> armstrong.

Dumbass,

They didn't need the forms. They knew as soon as all four of the prologue
samples turned up positive.

[ilanpsi@gmail.com]

On Sep 13, 12:19*pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com>
wrote:
> On Sep 13, 11:06*am, Amit Ghosh <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 13, 9:29*am, raam...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > I reciently read that lance allowed the retesting of the 1999 samples
> > > that they state showed some blood doping... now, if he had cheated he
> > > had gotten away with it till then, so why would he then allow
> > > retesting ?
>
> > dumbass,
>
> > you are changing the facts.
>
> > armstrong did not "allow" the retesting of his samples from '99. the
> > LNDD decided to test the stored samples - ostensibly to check their
> > EPO test. he may not even have known that they had been tested.
>
> > armstrong merely let the UCI release his doping control forms to
> > ressiot who (ostensibly) was doing a story to debunk the idea that
> > armstrong has a TUE for some performance enhancer.
>
> > but using those two sources of information ressiot was able to infer
> > that some of the EPO containing samples from '99 were belonged to
> > armstrong.
>
> Math is not my strong point-- what is obstensibly² ?
> Wonderingly, --D-y

The L'equipe reporters made up the story that they were going to help
Armstrong. This story also convinced the UCI, and the person
responsible there actually resigned as a result. One of the effects of
the L'Equipe/Armstrong debacle is that the most honest person in the
UCI resigned as a point of principle for believing a lie. The samples
were given by the riders under the guarantee of anonymity and were
supposed to be used only for research purposes, therefore also under
condition of anonymity.

Another point is that, unlike Landis, Armstrong has an inexhaustible
source of money for a defense in case he tests positive. I believe
that this was already given as a reason that L'Equipe waited until he
retired to publish their story (another thing is that they knew I
would never buy another copy of the paper, so they postponed it as
long as possible for that reason).

-ilan

[Fred Fredburger]

dustoyevsky@mac.com wrote:

> obstensibly² ?

If you figure out what this is, let me know. It sounds like a great
word. Sensibly obstructive, perhaps?

The O.P. undoubtedly included the first "b" unintentionably.

[Robert Chung]

Nobody wrote:
> Note, though, he said
> they're riding slower. The speed of the winner was about 40kph. Same
> as the last 4-5 years.
>
> TdF winner's speeds, 1999-2008:
>
> 40.273
> 39.556
> 40.02
> 39.93
> 40.94
> 40.553
> 41.654
> 40.784
> 38.98
> 40.5

It'd be easier to understand if you put it in a chart. Maybe a scatterplot
against some other variable. Just sayin'.

[Tom Kunich]

"Robert Chung" <anonymous.coward@invalid.address> wrote in message
news:yuXyk.286$Ws1.116@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Nobody wrote:
>> Note, though, he said
>> they're riding slower. The speed of the winner was about 40kph. Same
>> as the last 4-5 years.
>>
>> TdF winner's speeds, 1999-2008:
>>
>> 40.273
>> 39.556
>> 40.02
>> 39.93
>> 40.94
>> 40.553
>> 41.654
>> 40.784
>> 38.98
>> 40.5
>
> It'd be easier to understand if you put it in a chart. Maybe a scatterplot
> against some other variable. Just sayin'.

Robert knows best - HA! 10 numbers sure are difficult to compare and analyze
without a meaningless chart.

[Nobody]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:52:09 -0700, "Robert Chung"
<anonymous.coward@invalid.address> wrote:

>Nobody wrote:
>> Note, though, he said
>> they're riding slower. The speed of the winner was about 40kph. Same
>> as the last 4-5 years.
>>
>> TdF winner's speeds, 1999-2008:
>>
>> 40.273
>> 39.556
>> 40.02
>> 39.93
>> 40.94
>> 40.553
>> 41.654
>> 40.784
>> 38.98
>> 40.5
>
>It'd be easier to understand if you put it in a chart. Maybe a scatterplot
>against some other variable. Just sayin'.
>

I understand. Any post with three significant figures after the
decimal point -should- be mocked.

(hangs head)

[Fred Fredburger]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Robert Chung" <anonymous.coward@invalid.address> wrote in message
> news:yuXyk.286$Ws1.116@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> Nobody wrote:
>>> Note, though, he said
>>> they're riding slower. The speed of the winner was about 40kph. Same
>>> as the last 4-5 years.
>>>
>>> TdF winner's speeds, 1999-2008:
>>>
>>> 40.273
>>> 39.556
>>> 40.02
>>> 39.93
>>> 40.94
>>> 40.553
>>> 41.654
>>> 40.784
>>> 38.98
>>> 40.5
>>
>> It'd be easier to understand if you put it in a chart. Maybe a
>> scatterplot against some other variable. Just sayin'.
>
> Robert knows best - HA! 10 numbers sure are difficult to compare and
> analyze without a meaningless chart.
>

Without that additional axis you lose the correlation between the
average speed in the TdF and the number of civilian deaths in Iraq.

We need to make those guys slow down. Wont SOMEONE think of the children?