Talk:Lance Armstrong/Archive 2

message: The yesterday allegations about Tour de France's 1999 makes me wonder if the whole affair could not be easier to read if we had another wikipedia article about Lance ; I don't create it myself because I'm not proud about the two titles in my own mind : So-called drug-addicted Armstrong or Lance after retirement. BTW, French being my native language, I write now few remarks about those matters : :fr:Christophe Bassons  devrait aussi faire l'objet d'un article ici sur le wiki anglais car l'on y remarque que ce texte français rappelle que Lance admettait, dès 1999, suivre le même style de traitement médical que les meilleurs du peloton de l'époque d'autant que, sur le podium en 2005, Armstrong a félicité au micro du podium des Champs son équipe pour avoir les meilleurs médécins.
Autre entrée à créer, celle sur Thibault de Montbrial, que j'ai entendu ce matin sur la radio RMC mentir lui-même tout en accusant Armstrong de mensonge. En effet, il prétend que Lance a affirmé ne s'être jamais dopé alors que sa phrase habituelle, encore reprise sur son site hier, ne parle que de performance enhancing drugs. Il est vrai que l'avocat français, par de tels effets de manche dans les médias (l'équipe encore aujourd'hui), cherche surtout à défendre les dix millions de dollards de la compagnie d'assurance, sa cliente. 82.224.88.52 10:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spliting Lance's entry 

message: Since there are enough frozen extracts left, the next stage is expected to let some independant body
Independent of what? David.Monniaux 21:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent body 

message: I deleted the 'one argument against' paragraph because...
EPO can be used without testing positive for it. 
Other riders have admitted to using EPO after the test came out, but never tested positive (See David Millar).
There are other blood boosting drugs available , and new ones unknown to the public, or at least not testable currently, may also be available. Peoplesunionpro 03:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted 'arguments against' paragraph 

message: I don't think it bears belaboring.  But given Armstrong's cancer recovery, many journalist asked him about god, faith, etc. getting him through it.  I found it striking that he refused to engage in those little polite conceits about his lack of religious belief.  For example, at :
:In his book It’s Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life, Armstrong wrote about the night before undergoing brain surgery: “I asked myself what I believed. I had never prayed a lot. I hoped hard, I wished hard, but I didn’t pray. I had developed a certain distrust of organized religion growing up, but I felt I had the capacity to be a spiritual person, and to hold some fervent beliefs. Quite simply, I believed I had a responsibility to be a good person, and that meant fair, honest, hardworking, and honorable.”
:In an interview with TIME, Armstrong said: “I don’t have anything against organized religion per se. We all need something in our lives. I personally just have not accepted that belief. But I’m one of the few.” [Humanist Network News]
Slightly later from same source:
:According to an article in the UK Times Online, he believes it is possible to be a good person while not believing in God. “I think we all have obligations to be good, honest, hard-working, caring and 
compassionate,” he said. 
A google search will produce about a million similar hits (well 24 thousand).  Do editors who work on this page think it would be OK to incorporate some kind of brief reference to this, maybe in the cancer section? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added atheist category 

message: Cite your sources. slambo 10:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisted GA 

message: The percentage of the type of EPO being tested for that was talked about in said section that I just deleted is either almost always or always (don't remember) below %40 of the total EPO in tested samples if the person being tested on has not taken artificial EPO. Usually this number is around %20. Yet positives only result on this test when it's above %80 (or was it 75-85? I don't remember exactly). There is no such thing as a variable minimum positive percentage under a certain test group, and there is no such thing as altitude training raising said type of EPO levels above %80.
(I guess I'll dig up all of the sources later if anyone wishes...)
If not already mentioned in the article, I think it would only be honest to mention how unlikely EPO use is to result in a positive test.  Peoplesunionpro 16:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Even more on EPO