Lance Armstrong stripped of all Tour De France titles & banned...

[casmith07]

People actually care about this!?

Come on guys...it's cycling!

[jterrell]

Originally Posted by ABQCOWBOY

http://www.tdfblog.com/2005/08/lequipe_story_a.html

So the story linked above is getting a lot of play this morning, and a lot of the headlines I'm seeing totally miss the point. "Armstrong tested positive in 1999," screams one.

Well, no. There was no test for EPO until 2001, and Tour riders weren't specifically screened for it until 2004. What L'Equipe has done is built what they claim is a paper trail, linking Armstrong's "B" samples, collected in 1999, with samples that were provided to the World Anti-Doping Agency for use in developing the EPO test.

[View Full Quote]The blood urine samples in question were allegedly anonymous, with only a numerical identifier, but L'Equipe claims to have copies of Armstrong's medical certificates, signed by both race doctors and the rider after doping tests, that show the same numerical identifier as the WADA samples.

Armstrong is unlikely to be sanctioned, since there's no corroborating sample available, and since the French national lab provided them to WADA “on condition that they could not be used in any disciplinary proceeding.

Just a nit, but the samples in question seem to have been urine rather than blood. I am also puzzled as to why some reports suggest there is enough remaining of the B sample to allow further testing, whereas Armstrong's statement ("I have no way to defend myself") and other articles suggest that there is nothing left of the B sample. I hope Armstrong continues to press the British libel prosecution and the lawsuit against the insurance company denying the $5MM Tour victory bonus, since this will clearly become an issue in those cases. If Armstrong is clean, the lawsuits will provide a forum for him to prove it (either by retesting the sample or by refuting the science).

________________________

Cycling didn't even have an organization that monitored PEDs until after 1999. PEDs were not even illegal in 1999.

ROFL. Armstrong tested positive which laughs at the major cry he had made at every turn. And the same lame one you are making now.

He flat out failed multiple tests. He had tests overturned, had tests that weren't considered illegal "at the time" but he tested positive for the drugs in question. He had doctor's excuses provided after the fact for other positive tests.

If you want to continue to insult your own intelligence with this lazy and inaccurate line of reasoning feel free. Not even Lance is bothering with that defense anymore. There are tons of evidence including financial trails for paid off testing officials and doping doctors.
There is email and text evidence sent from Lance's account admitting he doped.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sport...d-decision.pdf

B. 1999 Tour de France Samples
In 2004, the French Anti-Doping Laboratory (LNDD) decided, on its own initiative, to
start a research project on stored urine samples from the 1999 Tour de France in order to
evaluate, among other things, the use of EPO during the 1999 Tour, as a valid test for EPO had
not been available until 2000. At the time it conducted this research project, LNDD did not have
any way to know or determine the source of any urine samples it tested. The results of this
research were sent to WADA by LNDD in August 2005.
On August 23, 2005, L’Equipe published an article headlined, “The Armstrong Lie.” The
article published six doping control forms pertaining to Armstrong’s urine samples from the
1999 Tour, and a summary of findings from LNDD concerning its research on these samples.
The newspaper reported that, on six occasions during the 1999 Tour, Armstrong’s samples
showed the presence of EPO. L’Equipe had been able to connect these samples to Armstrong by
obtaining Armstrong’s 1999 doping control forms from UCI with Armstrong’s consent.
Following this publication linking Armstrong to samples containing EPO, WADA asked
UCI to look into the matter. In October 2005, in response to calls by the IOC and WADA for an
independent investigation, the UCI appointed Dutch lawyer Emile Vrijman to investigate
LNDD’s handling of the urine samples. In May 2006, Vrijman published his report, concluding
LNDD had not followed proper anti-doping protocol (e.g., failing to confirm a positive A
Sample with analysis of a B Sample) in its testing of the samples and therefore the samples could
not constitute proof of anti-doping rule violations by Armstrong.
In the course of the investigation, LNDD confirmed to WADA that the samples in
question had been stored in a controlled access zone of the laboratory at -20ºC the entire time
and there was no scientific basis to believe the samples could have undergone any process of
Page | 143
deterioration that would explain the presence of EPO other than it was present in the samples
when originally provided in 1999. As WADA pointed out in its official response to Vrijman’s
report, his report inappropriately focused solely on whether LNDD had followed established
protocol applicable to the analysis of samples for the purpose of making “adverse analytical
findings.”798 As the Code makes clear, however, analytical information which does not
otherwise satisfy all requirements to establish “Presence” of a prohibited substance under Article
2.1 may nevertheless constitute “reliable means” to corroborate other evidence establishing an
anti-doping rule violation.799
Even accepting that LNDD’s analysis of Armstrong’s 1999 samples would not have met
the requirements for establishing the “Presence” of a prohibited substance under Article 2.1 of
the Code, this does not take away from the fact that LNDD’s findings may be used to corroborate
other evidence to support a finding of “Use” of a prohibited substance or other anti-doping rule
violation.
USADA recently obtained the chart of LNDD’s testing results relating to the 1999
samples. This information was provided to USADA by the French Anti-Doping Agency in
accordance with its authority under the French Code of Sport. The chart shows the results for all
of the 1999 Tour de France samples tested for EPO by LNDD in 2004 and 2005, including the
six samples subsequently identified in the L’Equipe article as Armstrong’s. According to the
chart, each of Armstrong’s six samples from the 1999 Tour de France tested positive for the
presence of EPO on each of three positivity criteria, including the current EPO positivity criteria.

[jterrell]

Originally Posted by casmith07

People actually care about this!?

Come on guys...it's cycling!

To me this has nothing to do with cycling.

This is about a person lying and cheating willfully while using ill-gained celebrity to garner fame and fortune.

Armstrong' net worth in 2010 was equivalent to ALL other American professional cyclists combined and estimated at 125 million dollars.

I have no reason to believe Lance didn't work his tail off nor am I suggesting he was racing against alter boys. But the bullying and blackballing he did to former teammates who came clean is absolutely horrid. Add to it the willingness to look into cameras and bold face lie to all of America?

If Lance simply stated he used at a time when it was considered mandatory and didn't set out to cheat but to play by the unwritten rules of cycling I would have supported him wholeheartedly. But the attacks on former teammates and their wives, the emo-denials? That is trash.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Originally Posted by jterrell

ROFL. Armstrong tested positive which laughs at the major cry he had made at every turn. And the same lame one you are making now.

The only thing lame here is this comment, made by you. You act smug in your post suggesting that you can simply go to google and look up that he has tested positive numerous times but when I tell you that there are also pieces of info that can dispute all of this, you come off juvenile. Hey, it's cool with me, be who you wanna be.

He flat out failed multiple tests. He had tests overturned, had tests that weren't considered illegal "at the time" but he tested positive for the drugs in question. He had doctor's excuses provided after the fact for other positive tests.

If he were proven guilty, then he would have been found to be guilty and he was not. I don't make the rules in the sport. Guess what, neither do you. Deal with it.

If you want to continue to insult your own intelligence with this lazy and inaccurate line of reasoning feel free. Not even Lance is bothering with that defense anymore. There are tons of evidence including financial trails for paid off testing officials and doping doctors.
There is email and text evidence sent from Lance's account admitting he doped.

You be careful here with your next words. You are on line with me and I consider this a bit personal. The point I am making, and have made throughout this thread, is that I believe he was dirty but he was never caught and that is a true statement. He was never caught and no test was ever established as positive and legal against him. They are not my rules. The cycling world could have fixed this problem easily years ago but they had no desire to do so. Instead, they encouraged cheating. Now, you come a day late and a dollar short whining about the testing policy? Sorry, you don't get that. This could have been resolved years ago but it would have cost the cycling world all of it's top athletes and they simply didn't want to do that. I have no need to defend Armstrong because what's done is done and what I have said is accurate. No drug test has ever been taken by Armstrong that has proven him to be dirty. If you want to say he fixed it by whatever means, it's your story, you tell it but the reality is that the sport has full control over that and if it is allowed, then it's not cheating. It's what the sport is allowing.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sport...d-decision.pdf

B. 1999 Tour de France Samples
In 2004, the French Anti-Doping Laboratory (LNDD) decided, on its own initiative, to
start a research project on stored urine samples from the 1999 Tour de France in order to
evaluate, among other things, the use of EPO during the 1999 Tour, as a valid test for EPO had
not been available until 2000.

LNDD decided. I guess that's one way of putting it. What actually happened was that they used samples freely given by riders that legally were not supposed to be made public, nor were they supposed to be used as evidence against any of the riders. They were given to develope a testing program that would accurately detect EPO usage. Now, on it's own "initiative" LNDD decided to go back and test in an attempt to what? Legally they were not supposed to be able to share the info or the samples and they were not supposed to be able to use any of the results against the riders. You wanna talk about what's right and wrong? Why don't you clean up your own back yard on this issue. This should never have happened because legally, it is against the law to do so. What's more, EPO was not illegal, nor was it banned in 1999. The board who regulates these matters didn't even know what EPO was then. How can it be cheating if it was not against the rules as yet? The testing and the samples you refer to from 1999 were given to devise a testing program designed to screen for EPO.

I am certain that you are also aware of the fact that it is widely believed that the use of PEDs, with regards to Armstrong and many other American cyclists, was introduced by our own Olympic Training program. B19 is linked to the use of PEDs. B19 is linked to an 85% cause of Testicular Cancer. Our own Olympic training program was giving this to our own riders. Reference lawsuits by both Greg Strock and Eric Kaiter, both Cyclists in the U.S. program at the same time as Armstrong, both sued U.S. Cycling and won because of this practice. Heck, our own SFs use blood doping now, today. They have for almost 20 years.

For the record, and as I have said previously, I believe that Armstrong did use but there is, repeat, is no legal test administered by the Governing Body of International Cycling that shows Armstrong to be dirty. You want to claim that he got out of it using dubious methods? Well, I don't know if that's true or not but I know this. He is not the only one who has used these methods to overturn test. This has been going on for years in cycling and cycling has known about it. So the question, why have they not corrected the problem? Answer, because they don't want to. They want to get Armstrong but they have no real interest in cleaning up their own sport or they would take the steps necessary to do so.


This is a witch hunt, plain and simple

At the time it conducted this research project, LNDD did not have
any way to know or determine the source of any urine samples it tested. The results of this
research were sent to WADA by LNDD in August 2005.
On August 23, 2005, L’Equipe published an article headlined, “The Armstrong Lie.” The
article published six doping control forms pertaining to Armstrong’s urine samples from the
1999 Tour, and a summary of findings from LNDD concerning its research on these samples.
The newspaper reported that, on six occasions during the 1999 Tour, Armstrong’s samples
showed the presence of EPO. L’Equipe had been able to connect these samples to Armstrong by
obtaining Armstrong’s 1999 doping control forms from UCI with Armstrong’s consent.
Following this publication linking Armstrong to samples containing EPO, WADA asked
[View Full Quote]UCI to look into the matter. In October 2005, in response to calls by the IOC and WADA for an
independent investigation, the UCI appointed Dutch lawyer Emile Vrijman to investigate
LNDD’s handling of the urine samples. In May 2006, Vrijman published his report, concluding
LNDD had not followed proper anti-doping protocol (e.g., failing to confirm a positive A
Sample with analysis of a B Sample) in its testing of the samples and therefore the samples could
not constitute proof of anti-doping rule violations by Armstrong.
In the course of the investigation, LNDD confirmed to WADA that the samples in
question had been stored in a controlled access zone of the laboratory at -20ºC the entire time
and there was no scientific basis to believe the samples could have undergone any process of
Page | 143
deterioration that would explain the presence of EPO other than it was present in the samples
when originally provided in 1999. As WADA pointed out in its official response to Vrijman’s
report, his report inappropriately focused solely on whether LNDD had followed established
protocol applicable to the analysis of samples for the purpose of making “adverse analytical
findings.”798 As the Code makes clear, however, analytical information which does not
otherwise satisfy all requirements to establish “Presence” of a prohibited substance under Article
2.1 may nevertheless constitute “reliable means” to corroborate other evidence establishing an
anti-doping rule violation.799
Even accepting that LNDD’s analysis of Armstrong’s 1999 samples would not have met
the requirements for establishing the “Presence” of a prohibited substance under Article 2.1 of
the Code, this does not take away from the fact that LNDD’s findings may be used to corroborate
other evidence to support a finding of “Use” of a prohibited substance or other anti-doping rule
violation.
USADA recently obtained the chart of LNDD’s testing results relating to the 1999
samples. This information was provided to USADA by the French Anti-Doping Agency in
accordance with its authority under the French Code of Sport. The chart shows the results for all
of the 1999 Tour de France samples tested for EPO by LNDD in 2004 and 2005, including the
six samples subsequently identified in the L’Equipe article as Armstrong’s. According to the
chart, each of Armstrong’s six samples from the 1999 Tour de France tested positive for the
presence of EPO on each of three positivity criteria, including the current EPO positivity criteria.

As I mentioned before, the samples that LNDD used for testing were samples given by riders in an attempt to help develop a way of testing for PEDs.

Why is this significant? The samples, as is stated in your piece, were provided by the riders with the express agreement that the tests would be a blind study and that the results would not be shared. In addition, the agreement made was that no results could be used against the riders derived from these samples. The results that the U.S. Doping Commission has used to strip him with were obtained illegally to begin with.

In addition, the results were obtained through the use of Urine testing. Why is this significant? It is significant because of what Armstrong is accused of using. The methods he is accused of using in the failed 1999 tests are EPO. What is EPO? EPO is basically a method that is artificially introduced into the body to create synthetic RBC or a Hormone that creates more Red Blood Cells in the body. The idea is to get more oxygen to the body, which in turn, allows for more stamina, more strength and endurance. Testing for EPO is done by using both Urine and Blood testing or an A and B sample test. Why is this? Urine testing, developed by the LNDD through the use of the samples by riders I mentioned earlier, is not considered accurate. In fact, in a study done by the WADA, urine samples alone were sent to two different labs to conduct a false/positive EPO test, which is the method used by Urine testing. The tests showed completely opposite results. One lab tested all samples as positive for usage of EPO and the other showed negative results. Why is this? It is because of bacteria growth in urine samples. This skew the results of the Urine based test. The excess bacteria creates a protein that is indistinguishable from synthetic proteins that are created by using EPO. Keep in mind that the kidneys introduce certain proteins when RBC is produced that show up in Urine samples. The Urine test developed to find EPO is designed to identify these synthetic proteins and when a body has too high a count of these synthetic proteins, the test shows as positive. The problem is that the older the Urine sample, the more likely it is to grow bacterias that produce the protein that is indistinguishable from the synthetic proteins produced by EPO usage. This is why both blood tests and Urine tests are used to confirm the usage. You can not just go off of Urine tests, especially dated samples. The Blood test must also show positive because that confirms the results. Since there were no blood samples for the tests run by LNDD, the positive usage of EPO can not be confirmed and what's more, the samples are likely to be skewed because of the age of the Urine. This is why you can not just accept the results as proof positive that Armstrong was using.

The World Cycling Body knows this, USADA knows this and WADA knows this, which is why, in 2005, they disallowed Urine Testing Only and instead, changed the rules of detection to demand both A/B or Urine and Blood testing for confirmation. This is also why Armstrong could not be banned to begin with.

I understand that LNDD claims that the Urine samples were in a controlled environment and were not tampered with but honestly, they can not prove or disprove the bacterial integrity of the samples. If the Urine tests were credible, then they would be allowed by WADA as confirmation but they are not. Specifically because the ruling have been overturned and they are considered unreliable by themselves.

Find out what else LNDD does and also find out how many of the 11 who testified against Armstrong did so with the agreement that they would receive leniency with their own involvement in illegal usage.

[jterrell]

Originally Posted by ABQCOWBOY

The only thing lame here is this comment, made by you. You act smug in your post suggesting that you can simply go to google and look up that he has tested positive numerous times but when I tell you that there are also pieces of info that can dispute all of this, you come off juvenile. Hey, it's cool with me, be who you wanna be.



If he were proven guilty, then he would have been found to be guilty and he was not. I don't make the rules in the sport. Guess what, neither do you. Deal with it.



[View Full Quote]You be careful here with your next words. You are on line with me and I consider this a bit personal. The point I am making, and have made throughout this thread, is that I believe he was dirty but he was never caught and that is a true statement. He was never caught and no test was ever established as positive and legal against him. They are not my rules. The cycling world could have fixed this problem easily years ago but they had no desire to do so. Instead, they encouraged cheating. Now, you come a day late and a dollar short whining about the testing policy? Sorry, you don't get that. This could have been resolved years ago but it would have cost the cycling world all of it's top athletes and they simply didn't want to do that. I have no need to defend Armstrong because what's done is done and what I have said is accurate. No drug test has ever been taken by Armstrong that has proven him to be dirty. If you want to say he fixed it by whatever means, it's your story, you tell it but the reality is that the sport has full control over that and if it is allowed, then it's not cheating. It's what the sport is allowing.




LNDD decided. I guess that's one way of putting it. What actually happened was that they used samples freely given by riders that legally were not supposed to be made public, nor were they supposed to be used as evidence against any of the riders. They were given to develope a testing program that would accurately detect EPO usage. Now, on it's own "initiative" LNDD decided to go back and test in an attempt to what? Legally they were not supposed to be able to share the info or the samples and they were not supposed to be able to use any of the results against the riders. You wanna talk about what's right and wrong? Why don't you clean up your own back yard on this issue. This should never have happened because legally, it is against the law to do so. What's more, EPO was not illegal, nor was it banned in 1999. The board who regulates these matters didn't even know what EPO was then. How can it be cheating if it was not against the rules as yet? The testing and the samples you refer to from 1999 were given to devise a testing program designed to screen for EPO.

I am certain that you are also aware of the fact that it is widely believed that the use of PEDs, with regards to Armstrong and many other American cyclists, was introduced by our own Olympic Training program. B19 is linked to the use of PEDs. B19 is linked to an 85% cause of Testicular Cancer. Our own Olympic training program was giving this to our own riders. Reference lawsuits by both Greg Strock and Eric Kaiter, both Cyclists in the U.S. program at the same time as Armstrong, both sued U.S. Cycling and won because of this practice. Heck, our own SFs use blood doping now, today. They have for almost 20 years.

For the record, and as I have said previously, I believe that Armstrong did use but there is, repeat, is no legal test administered by the Governing Body of International Cycling that shows Armstrong to be dirty. You want to claim that he got out of it using dubious methods? Well, I don't know if that's true or not but I know this. He is not the only one who has used these methods to overturn test. This has been going on for years in cycling and cycling has known about it. So the question, why have they not corrected the problem? Answer, because they don't want to. They want to get Armstrong but they have no real interest in cleaning up their own sport or they would take the steps necessary to do so.


This is a witch hunt, plain and simple



As I mentioned before, the samples that LNDD used for testing were samples given by riders in an attempt to help develop a way of testing for PEDs.

Why is this significant? The samples, as is stated in your piece, were provided by the riders with the express agreement that the tests would be a blind study and that the results would not be shared. In addition, the agreement made was that no results could be used against the riders derived from these samples. The results that the U.S. Doping Commission has used to strip him with were obtained illegally to begin with.

In addition, the results were obtained through the use of Urine testing. Why is this significant? It is significant because of what Armstrong is accused of using. The methods he is accused of using in the failed 1999 tests are EPO. What is EPO? EPO is basically a method that is artificially introduced into the body to create synthetic RBC or a Hormone that creates more Red Blood Cells in the body. The idea is to get more oxygen to the body, which in turn, allows for more stamina, more strength and endurance. Testing for EPO is done by using both Urine and Blood testing or an A and B sample test. Why is this? Urine testing, developed by the LNDD through the use of the samples by riders I mentioned earlier, is not considered accurate. In fact, in a study done by the WADA, urine samples alone were sent to two different labs to conduct a false/positive EPO test, which is the method used by Urine testing. The tests showed completely opposite results. One lab tested all samples as positive for usage of EPO and the other showed negative results. Why is this? It is because of bacteria growth in urine samples. This skew the results of the Urine based test. The excess bacteria creates a protein that is indistinguishable from synthetic proteins that are created by using EPO. Keep in mind that the kidneys introduce certain proteins when RBC is produced that show up in Urine samples. The Urine test developed to find EPO is designed to identify these synthetic proteins and when a body has too high a count of these synthetic proteins, the test shows as positive. The problem is that the older the Urine sample, the more likely it is to grow bacterias that produce the protein that is indistinguishable from the synthetic proteins produced by EPO usage. This is why both blood tests and Urine tests are used to confirm the usage. You can not just go off of Urine tests, especially dated samples. The Blood test must also show positive because that confirms the results. Since there were no blood samples for the tests run by LNDD, the positive usage of EPO can not be confirmed and what's more, the samples are likely to be skewed because of the age of the Urine. This is why you can not just accept the results as proof positive that Armstrong was using.

The World Cycling Body knows this, USADA knows this and WADA knows this, which is why, in 2005, they disallowed Urine Testing Only and instead, changed the rules of detection to demand both A/B or Urine and Blood testing for confirmation. This is also why Armstrong could not be banned to begin with.

I understand that LNDD claims that the Urine samples were in a controlled environment and were not tampered with but honestly, they can not prove or disprove the bacterial integrity of the samples. If the Urine tests were credible, then they would be allowed by WADA as confirmation but they are not. Specifically because the ruling have been overturned and they are considered unreliable by themselves.

Find out what else LNDD does and also find out how many of the 11 who testified against Armstrong did so with the agreement that they would receive leniency with their own involvement in illegal usage.

To sum up all you said, yes, Lance tested positive but he had excuses.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Originally Posted by jterrell

To sum up all you said, yes, Lance tested positive but he had excuses.

Or, if Lance had tested positive, WADA would have kicked him off the planet so fast, his back tire would still be spinning. But they couldn't because he never legally failed a test.

That's the funny thing about doors JT, they tend to swing on hinges.

Agree to disagree then.

[jterrell]

Originally Posted by ABQCOWBOY

Or, if Lance had tested positive, WADA would have kicked him off the planet so fast, his back tire would still be spinning. But they couldn't because he never legally failed a test.

That's the funny thing about doors JT, they tend to swing on hinges.

Agree to disagree then.

He either passed or failed. Not just once, but always. Saying he didn't fail in a manner and time that resulted in an immediate suspension wasn't the question.

The urine/blood is either clean or dirty. It was clearly dirty. And STILL is. They still have the samples.

I have no problem agreeing to disagree about perception or opinion but he did fail tests. Those are simple facts and we are not entitled to make up new facts.

Hobbyist cyclists are struggling with this of course so I'll leave it here and allow everyone time to come to terms with reality.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Originally Posted by jterrell

He either passed or failed. Not just once, but always. Saying he didn't fail in a manner and time that resulted in an immediate suspension wasn't the question.

The urine/blood is either clean or dirty. It was clearly dirty. And STILL is. They still have the samples.

I have no problem agreeing to disagree about perception or opinion but he did fail tests. Those are simple facts and we are not entitled to make up new facts.

Hobbyist cyclists are struggling with this of course so I'll leave it here and allow everyone time to come to terms with reality.

No, he did not. If he had failed, he would have been banned. You know this and I know this JT. So you see, your statement about facts and what is made up and what is not is very apropos. Had he tested positive, he would have been out of cycling.

The Urine can not be defined as clean or dirty because the test is not capable of detecting what is Bacterial and what is synthetic. The Lab can not certify the Urine because of the age of the sample and the blood is not available so it can not be tested.

Lastly, EPO was not illegal at the time those samples were given. You can't go back 13 years and test for something that was legal then but is not now, or so I thought. The fact that he has been stripped would seem to indicate that you can, in fact, nail somebody to the cross for things that were not illegal then but are now. Even a Hobbyist cyclist can understand that.

[Verdict]

Originally Posted by joseephuss

I say get bent.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/19/us/lan...ong/index.html

Armstrong appeals to cancer supporters as some donors ask for their money back

Austin, Texas (CNN) -- For years, Connie and Daniel Roddy did all they could to support Livestrong, raising tens of thousands of dollars for the cancer charity founded by cyclist Lance Armstrong.

"It all started when Lance's first book came out," Connie Roddy said, referring to the 2001 publication of "It's Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life," which details Armstrong's bout with testicular cancer. "I read it cover to cover. I was just so taken by who he said he was."

[View Full Quote]The Roddys, who live in Santa Monica, California, say they initially gave $50,000 to the foundation. In 2003, Connie Roddy said, she helped organize an event for the foundation at a health club that raised an additional $150,000.

Now they want their money back.

"I feel we were really fooled. We were really hoodwinked," she said.

It sounds like the givers were typical flakes. LOL. What does the issue of LA cheating have to do with his charity and cancer research? Its not like he lied and said, hey contribute to my cancer foundation and then spent all the money on strippers and booze. LOL

[WPBCowboysFan]

Originally Posted by casmith07

People actually care about this!?

Come on guys...it's cycling!