I just heard Lance , oops I mean ....

[E1A104]

If AC even sinks that low. I doubt he expects/needs/wants all and sundry to bow down and worship at his feet and if you don't there must be something wrong with you.

[SwissVan]

If AC even sinks that low. I doubt he expects/needs/wants all and sundry to bow down and worship at his feet and if you don't there must be something wrong with you.

 

Can you get lower than a proven doper?

[DaLoCo]

Can you get lower than a proven doper?

 

I was going to say it can only get lower if you blame the Nesquik bunny, but then I remembered that he already blamed the cows...

[SwissVan]

Can you get lower than a proven doper?

 

 

Fork it your getting old...Should have said:

 

Can you get lower than a proven doper who denies doping?

Edited July 1, 2011 by SwissVan

[Andyr249]

spin spin baby!

 

At least AC is claiming the peleton only, la was the most tested athlete in the whole wide world and Texas.

 

Texas is not the whole wide world!

[E1A104]

Texas is not the whole wide world!

 

Texas is bigger than the whole wide world and that is why I had to add it seperately

[E1A104]

Can you get lower than a proven doper?

 

naaa probably not, although perhaps the one that gets bust and then only gets the "exemption note" from his Doctor. No, you are right, nothing lower than a proven doper who denies doping, scum of the earth the lot of them.

 

What about a hubber who leaves in a huff threatening never to return but then returns using a different name, is that low? What about cyclists who say that they are finished with racing but stage a dismal comeback a few years later or cyclists who say they will post the results of their tests on the www and then don't cause it is apparently too expensive?

[Big H*]

naaa probably not, although perhaps the one that gets bust and then only gets the "exemption note" from his Doctor. No, you are right, nothing lower than a proven doper who denies doping, scum of the earth the lot of them.

 

What about a hubber who leaves in a huff threatening never to return but then returns using a different name, is that low? What about cyclists who say that they are finished with racing but stage a dismal comeback a few years later or cyclists who say they will post the results of their tests on the www and then don't cause it is apparently too expensive?

 

Now that has never been proven AAR TOO DEE TOO, he has never been stripped of his tite like Berto may be.

Edited July 1, 2011 by eccentric1

[E1A104]

Now that has never been proven AAR TOO DEE TOO, he has never been stripped of his tite like Berto may be.

 

What was never proven? That he tested positive and the exemption only appeared after the test?

[Big H*]

What was never proven? That he tested positive and the exemption only appeared after the test?

 

Whaddever you fil your own words in the gaps anyways, you could have been a reporter

[E1A104]

Whaddever you fil your own words in the gaps anyways, you could have been a reporter

 

Quite a mature response for a toppie. I asked the question as it was not clear from yr post what you were on about.

[pastapouch]

What was never proven? That he tested positive and the exemption only appeared after the test?

Jaaaaa right, he never tested positive(ie never doped) but he outridden Ulrich who was caught, vinokourov. Ulrich, Vino must sue their doctors for giving them crappy roids.

[Wrigs]

And whilst this debate goes too and fro ------ Go Andy!!!!!!!!

[TNT1]

Now that has never been proven AAR TOO DEE TOO, he has never been stripped of his tite like Berto may be.

 

What was never proven? That lance tested positive, and his team magically produced a back dated TUE?

 

After denying to the press that he had a therapeutic use exemption (TUE) to use any drug in the 1999 Tour, Armstrong tested positive for a corticosteroid. The team, as related by Emma O'Reilly, created a backdated TUE that was accepted by the UCI.

 

That seems like proof to me.

[TNT1]

Do you have any Therapeutic Use Exemptions?

No. Never have.

 

Never? What about the cortisone?

Well, obviously there was the cortisone.

 

From the horse's mouth.

 

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/345599/lance-armstrong-exclusive-interview.html

Edited July 5, 2011 by TNT1

[Big H*]

What was never proven? That lance tested positive, and his team magically produced a back dated TUE?

 

After denying to the press that he had a therapeutic use exemption (TUE) to use any drug in the 1999 Tour, Armstrong tested positive for a corticosteroid. The team, as related by Emma O'Reilly, created a backdated TUE that was accepted by the UCI.

 

That seems like proof to me.

 

NOT while he was winning hs seven TdF races. Emma the snitch "related" her own version, verrrrry correct as you wrote it, show better proof, after you had your wee.

 

If your Auntie just wanted, I could have been "related" to you!

Edited July 5, 2011 by eccentric1