Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby guru » Tue Nov 16, 2010 4:16 pm

Conor Dary wrote:
guru wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:That sure sounds swell. Good to hear they are going after the important stuff.



You do understand the FBI and CIA have nothing to do with the Armstrong investigation?


I am just quoting from your thread. Frankly the whole thing bores me.

'I've come to the conclusion that USADA, WADA and all the other drug enforcement agencies of the various sports governing bodies are totally useless compared to what the FBI and its European counterparts do. Without the American and European government law enforcement agencies, hardly any of the illegal gamblers and dopers in baseball, basketball, football, soccer, track and field or cycling would have never been exposed. Even in college football, if Cam Newton is found out to have been bought and paid for by Auburn, we'll have the FBI to thank for it, since as we speak, they are conducting interviews of the various Mississippi State alumni, boosters and coaches who are involved in the allegations."



That's not mine.

Back to the question, in reference to you dragging 9/11 into the conversation. Do you or do you not know the FBI and CIA are not involved in the Armstrong investigation?
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Nov 16, 2010 4:44 pm

For the record, I'm ambivalent on whether the G-Men should be involved in insuring fair play in professional and big-time college sports. My main point is that the governing bodies of these various sports lack the competency, and in some cases, lack the will, to catch and punish the rule breakers in their sports. The G-Men are much better at it than they are.

For example, Mississippi State reported Cecil Newton's pay-for-play shakedown to the SEC back in January, but now we find out that the SEC just sat on it. Two weeks ago when Cam's dirty laundry started leaking to the media (probably from a miffed Mississippi State booster), and questions started being asked about where the investigation was going, the SEC honchos said that they don't consider it their job to enforce NCAA rules. Of course the media attention forced the NCAA to get involved, but the investigation was still moving at a snail's pace until the FBI started conducting interviews today, and now folks are singing like canaries.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby guru » Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:00 pm

Since the FDA is handling the PED investigations, I'm fine with it. That's their job.

As for Newton, you couldn't be more right about FBI involvement getting the moss off the stone. I was stunned Auburn played Newton against Georgia after his father admitted to NCAA investigators last week that he did indeed seek financial compensation from Miss State for Cam's services(while saying Cam didn't know a thing LOL!). If that's true it doesn't matter if Cam "knew" or not, and his days are numbered.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:01 pm

guru wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:That sure sounds swell. Good to hear they are going after the important stuff.



You do understand the FBI and CIA have nothing to do with the Armstrong investigation?


Look fool, obviously the CIA is not involved. And who cares about the FBI. It wouldn't surprise me that they were involved. After all going after low hanging fruit is their specialty.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby guru » Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:06 pm

Conor Dary wrote:
Look fool...



You lose.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:09 pm

guru wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:
Look fool...



You lose.

Can't we all get along?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby guru » Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:09 pm

Conor Dary wrote:
guru wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:That sure sounds swell. Good to hear they are going after the important stuff.



You do understand the FBI and CIA have nothing to do with the Armstrong investigation?
...obviously the CIA is not involved. And who cares about the FBI. .



So, what's your point?

And what would you have the FDA investigate, if not illegal drug use/trafficking?
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:15 pm

Conor Dary wrote:After all going after low hanging fruit is their specialty.

So true! However, I think their real specialty is "shiny", low-hanging fruit. I doubt that the FBI would be involved if Cam Newton was the third-string tight end for Indiana.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby guru » Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:28 pm

jazzcyclist wrote: I doubt that the FBI would be involved if Cam Newton was the third-string tight end for Indiana.



Of course, neither would six-figure pay to play demands.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Nov 16, 2010 6:12 pm

guru wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote: I doubt that the FBI would be involved if Cam Newton was the third-string tight end for Indiana.



Of course, neither would six-figure pay to play demands.

That's true, but it's Newton's fame and Auburn's success got the G-Men's attention, not his six-figure price tag. If Newton hadn't panned out at Auburn, but instead was sitting on the bench as a third-string quarterback on a 5-6 Auburn team, instead of an 11-0 team, I don't think the G-Men would be interested, despite the shakedown attempt by his father.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby guru » Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:50 pm

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/m ... ?eref=sihp


Perhaps the most disturbing, and disappointing, revelation - Dr. Don Catlin "lost" five questionable test results, and somehow confirmation on two other positives was "unsuccessful".


In 1999, USA Cycling sent a formal request to Catlin for past test results -- specifically, testosterone-epitestosterone ratios -- for a cyclist identified only by his drug-testing code numbers. A source with knowledge of the request says that the cyclist was Armstrong. In a letter responding to those requests, Catlin informed USA Cycling that his lab could not recover five of the cyclist's test results. Of the results that could be found, "three stand out," SI reports: "a 9.0-to-1 ratio from a sample collected on June 23, 1993; a 7.6-to-1 from July 7, 1994; and a 6.5-to-1 from June 4, 1996. Most people have a ratio of 1-to-1. Prior to 2005, any ratio above 6.0-to-1 was considered abnormally high and evidence of doping; in 2005 that ratio was lowered to 4.0-to-1."

While he didn't address the 6.5-to-1 result, Catlin wrote that he had attempted confirmation (a required step) on the 9.0-to-1 and 7.6-to-1 samples, and "in both cases the confirmation was unsuccessful and the samples were reported negative." (Armstrong says he has never taken performance-enhancing drugs and has never been informed that he tested positive.)
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby tandfman » Thu May 19, 2011 4:49 pm

The latest Armstrong news is in a story linked in the headline section of the home page. Ex-Olympic champ admits doping and says he saw Armstrong doing it.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby PCSExponent » Fri May 20, 2011 3:16 am

Armstrong posted this to his FB wall yesterday night:
20+ year career. 500 drug controls worldwide, in and out of competition. Never a failed test. I rest my case.


Quite interesting to see the ignorant masses (who are 99.9% his fans, of course) gulping it up. Marion Jones never failed a drug test - and my guess her number was in the four digits. Ditto Zhanna Block, Stephanie Graf and countless others.
PCSExponent
 
Posts: 352
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:31 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Ref » Fri May 20, 2011 5:06 am

PCSExponent wrote:Armstrong posted this to his FB wall yesterday night:
20+ year career. 500 drug controls worldwide, in and out of competition. Never a failed test. I rest my case.


Quite interesting to see the ignorant masses (who are 99.9% his fans, of course) gulping it up. Marion Jones never failed a drug test - and my guess her number was in the four digits. Ditto Zhanna Block, Stephanie Graf and countless others.

I thought the same thing. LA's statement doesn't address anything that has been levelled against him and is clearly intended to win the public/media (i.e. ignorant of the non-link between passing tests and not doping) battle.

Amongst those who know the sports of cycling or athletics this argument holds absolutely no water. We are well used to big dopers passing tests over an extended period of time.

To me, the questions of Armstrong's usage and Contador's usage are not even slightly debatable.

To make it crystal clear, that's without saying whether or not I believe them to be dopers - just that I personally have no doubt on the matter.
Ref
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 11:53 pm

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Fri May 20, 2011 9:32 am

PCSExponent wrote:Armstrong posted this to his FB wall yesterday night:
20+ year career. 500 drug controls worldwide, in and out of competition. Never a failed test. I rest my case.


Quite interesting to see the ignorant masses (who are 99.9% his fans, of course) gulping it up. Marion Jones never failed a drug test - and my guess her number was in the four digits. Ditto Zhanna Block, [name excised] and countless others.


It is not ignorance, but rather nobody cares. And rightfully so.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby bambam » Fri May 20, 2011 4:00 pm

George Hincapie coming forward now and saying he and Armstrong both used PEDs. Interesting since he is still competing - rode in the Tour of California individual time trial today - excuse me, the Amgen Tour of California.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Pego » Fri May 20, 2011 4:42 pm

Without hematocrit enhancers they are non-competitive, so they all must do it. It's as simple as that. Legalize autotransfusion and the need for EPO would be essentially eliminated.
Pego
 
Posts: 10197
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby jhc68 » Fri May 20, 2011 4:50 pm

Well, it is easy to fault the ignorant masses who assume that clean tests mean clean athletes. Of course the alternative is to believe that we spend millions of dollars and countless hours of effort to enforce testing protocols that are absolutely worthless.

If the highest profile athletes in the world pass every test but are shown by credilble eye-witness testimony to have used been juiced, then we must hold the jaundiced view that every dominant athlete - the ones who achieve mind-boggling results - in almost every sport for the past couple of generations has likely used PEDs. It is simply the reality of sport, and outrage over it is not going to change a thing.
jhc68
 
Posts: 3290
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri May 20, 2011 6:33 pm

It looks like Hincapie confessed under the same circumstances under which Andreu confessed - that is he was put under oath by federal investigators. The list of Lance's lieutenants who have either come out or been caught, continues to grow - George Hincapie, Tyler Hamilton, Floyd Landis, Frankie Andreu, Roberto Heras, Manuel Beltran. Who's next?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby TrainerPhil » Sat May 21, 2011 6:38 am

jazzcyclist wrote:It looks like Hincapie confessed under the same circumstances under which Andreu confessed - that is he was put under oath by federal investigators. The list of Lance's lieutenants who have either come out or been caught, continues to grow - George Hincapie, Tyler Hamilton, Floyd Landis, Frankie Andreu, Roberto Heras, Manuel Beltran. Who's next?


Lance maybe? Hopefully?

Lance supporters have used 2 arguments to defend the 7-time tour winner 1) He was one of the most tested athletes in history and never tested positive, and 2) The people accusing him are not credible therefor they cannot be trusted.

The first argument demonstrates ignorance. As some of you have already said, Marion Jones never tested positive. Neither did Steffi Graf. Both admitted to drug use. Drug cheats are always 10 steps ahead of the drug tests and drug testers. Truth be told, those who get caught are those who get careless.

The second argument makes sense when you have 1 or 2 guys accusing someone of wrong doing. But now that number is well into the double digits and guess what? The latest report has a guy Lance considered "his brother," long-time teammate George Hincapie, who I believe never tested positive either, testified that he and Lance both did PEDs together.

I tell you why I care. I still see young athletes who I work with wear the Livestrong wrist band. I work at a school where the director actually purchased a signed lance armstrong cyclying uniform, framed it and has it hanging in the main office. He still uses it as "motivation" for the kids. "See what you can accomplish when you work hard" stuff. Armstrong is a man who has built his life and career on a lie.
TrainerPhil
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:41 am
Location: A step ahead of you !

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Sat May 21, 2011 9:03 am

TrainerPhil wrote:
Lance maybe? Hopefully?

Lance supporters have used 2 arguments to defend the 7-time tour winner...


Repeat Lance supporters don't care.

When it comes to drugs and professional sports I am a 100% Libertarian. Keep the Government out!

I believe in testing which means that there is a certain level that you can't get away with. But the sport has changed and testing is far more rigorous than before.

But it is amazing how there is zero context in all this nonsense.

Anyone who has followed cycling like I have knew that for decades the sport was a cesspool of drugs. So I would be surprised if all these guys including Armstrong were not on something long ago. But who cares? That was up to the cyclists involved and if you notice all these confessions come from cyclists who admit they were on dope. If creeps like Hamilton and Floyd thought it was so awful why didn't they say something then? But they got caught and tough shit. No one wanted them anymore and they are bitter.
Last edited by Conor Dary on Sat May 21, 2011 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat May 21, 2011 9:46 am

Conor Dary wrote:If creeps like Hamilton and Floyd thought it was so awful why didn't they say something then? But they got caught and tough shit. No one wanted them anymore and they are bitter.

I wouldn't put Hamilton in the same boat with Landis. Like Hincapie and Andreu, Hamilton was put under oath by the Feds. The only difference is that Hamilton is went on 60 Minutes to repeat what he told the Feds, while Hincapie and Andreu have said "no comment" to any reporter who asked them about the matter. Landis, on the other hand, is a slimy rat who started singing like a canary long before the Feds approached him.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Sat May 21, 2011 10:36 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
I wouldn't put Hamilton in the same boat with Landis. Like Hincapie and Andreu, Hamilton was put under oath by the Feds. The only difference is that Hamilton is went on 60 Minutes to repeat what he told the Feds, while Hincapie and Andreu have said "no comment" to any reporter who asked them about the matter. Landis, on the other hand, is a slimy rat who started singing like a canary long before the Feds approached him.


Yea, jazz I think you are right. Landis is at a whole different level of sliminess.

Hamilton going on the Hour Show, didn't win any friends with the Feds.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby 26mi235 » Sat May 21, 2011 12:17 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:If creeps like Hamilton and Floyd thought it was so awful why didn't they say something then? But they got caught and tough shit. No one wanted them anymore and they are bitter.

I wouldn't put Hamilton in the same boat with Landis. Like Hincapie and Andreu, Hamilton was put under oath by the Feds. The only difference is that Hamilton is went on 60 Minutes to repeat what he told the Feds, while Hincapie and Andreu have said "no comment" to any reporter who asked them about the matter. Landis, on the other hand, is a slimy rat who started singing like a canary long before the Feds approached him.


Hamilton was in an entirely different boat, and one that he sunk in terms of credibility; he only kept the Gold on a technicality and when they nabbed him it was a new method used for the first time on several riders from the team.

Hincapie is a different kettle of fish even compared to Andreu, who had some issues (driven by his wife). I have increased the likelihood of LA being nabbed from moderate to high.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16318
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat May 21, 2011 2:46 pm

26mi235 wrote:Hincapie is a different kettle of fish even compared to Andreu, who had some issues (driven by his wife). I have increased the likelihood of LA being nabbed from moderate to high.

I don't see how Andreu and Hincapie are any different. Both of them vehemently defended Armstrong until they were put under oath and both of them have refused to discuss their testimony with reporters. The fact that Betsy Andreu and Lance didn't get along on a personal level is immaterial IMO. Andreu never flunked a drug test, and he and Armstrong never had a falling out.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Brian » Sat May 21, 2011 8:18 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:For the record, I'm ambivalent on whether the G-Men should be involved in insuring fair play in professional and big-time college sports. My main point is that the governing bodies of these various sports lack the competency, and in some cases, lack the will, to catch and punish the rule breakers in their sports. The G-Men are much better at it than they are.

For example, Mississippi State reported Cecil Newton's pay-for-play shakedown to the SEC back in January, but now we find out that the SEC just sat on it. Two weeks ago when Cam's dirty laundry started leaking to the media (probably from a miffed Mississippi State booster), and questions started being asked about where the investigation was going, the SEC honchos said that they don't consider it their job to enforce NCAA rules. Of course the media attention forced the NCAA to get involved, but the investigation was still moving at a snail's pace until the FBI started conducting interviews today, and now folks are singing like canaries.


On a side note, whenever drug trafficking occurs, money changes hands. The bigger the case, the bigger the money. Most of this money isn't/can't be (unless laundered; risky) reported as income for whomever.

Still wondering why the feds get involved in these things--?

I guarantee the FBI as an entity couldn't care less about fairness in sport.
.
Brian
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby 26mi235 » Sun May 22, 2011 7:29 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
26mi235 wrote:Hincapie is a different kettle of fish even compared to Andreu, who had some issues (driven by his wife). I have increased the likelihood of LA being nabbed from moderate to high.

I don't see how Andreu and Hincapie are any different. Both of them vehemently defended Armstrong until they were put under oath and both of them have refused to discuss their testimony with reporters. The fact that Betsy Andreu and Lance didn't get along on a personal level is immaterial IMO. Andreu never flunked a drug test, and he and Armstrong never had a falling out.


Not completely true; when Andreu was not retained by Postal (Discovery?, but I think still Postal), I got some not-so-great vibes. However, I concur that they are much more alike than with Landis and even Hamilton.

I understand that Hincapie is denying that he said things attributed to him (maybe on the late-night video of the Mt Baldy race.

Also, I watched that race with interest as I did grad school at Claremont and that is where I raced and did a lot of training. Those roads are tough and I almost always had to train alone because you need someone going your speed and it is hard enough that it separates rides quickly. Those switchbacks are so steep that you really have to avoid the mistake of taking the short rout through the corner as the 10+% average gradient can be twice that on the inside. One time in the time trial race to the top I caught a guy who tried to stay with me and over-extended himself; when he got to the corner he could not maintain and the pace and slowed enough that he simply fell over.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16318
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun May 22, 2011 7:51 am

26mi235 wrote:I understand that Hincapie is denying that he said things attributed to him (maybe on the late-night video of the Mt Baldy race.

Hincapie was probably caught off guard that his testimony was leaked to the media. The lawyer responsible for leaking the Bonds/Giambi testimony to the public went to prison. Perhaps tha's what needs to happen here.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Dutra » Sun May 22, 2011 8:35 am

26mi235 wrote:I understand that Hincapie is denying that he said things attributed to him (maybe on the late-night video of the Mt Baldy race.


He tweeted that he never spoke to 60 minutes. He didn't deny saying or testifying what 60 mins has. Supposedly that came from the testimony to the grand jury.
Dutra
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun May 22, 2011 10:59 am

Dutra wrote:
26mi235 wrote:I understand that Hincapie is denying that he said things attributed to him (maybe on the late-night video of the Mt Baldy race.


He tweeted that he never spoke to 60 minutes. He didn't deny saying or testifying what 60 mins has. Supposedly that came from the testimony to the grand jury.

Exactly! The reason Betsy Andreu and Lance fell out is because her testimony was leaked, and when a reporter asked her about it, she confirmed the veracity of the leak, and Lance feels she should have given the same "no comment" response that her husband gave, if not outright lie.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby odelltrclan » Sun May 22, 2011 2:20 pm

It is interesting to see some of the comments from some people that seem to not care at all that Lance may have been doing PED. Maybe all cyclists of a generation (or more) were doing drugs and he was part of that era. That is no excuse for the collective group to have led the sport to where it is, all for the sake of their own personal glory and wealth.

Lance Armstrong going down may be one of the biggest things to happen for the sporting community in a very positive way. It may finally open the eyes to a deceived and naive public many people about the doping problem in sports and the fact that athletes (even heroes) often get away with it. Perhaps that will lead to some changes that will help clean up sports in the future.

I believe Lance will go down in shame and also believe it is deservedly so. He has trampled on countless people who have stated what they did in the belief it would help the sport and has done so to maintain his personal glory and fame. It is a shame there are so many that have been complicit in this deception on the public.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun May 22, 2011 5:40 pm

There were three things that I thought were notable from Hamilton's 60 Minutes interview.
1) Hamilton said that U.S. Postal already had a doping program before Armstrong joined the team.

2) He also said that Armstrong never tried to encourage or pressure him into doping, and that it was only after he asked Armstrong for dope that Armstrong put him in contact with his doping contacts.

2) He said that Armstrong flunked a drug test in the 2001 Tour of Switzerland that got swept under the rug. I find this interesting because having been to the 2000 and 2001 Tours de France, the one thing that amazed me is the strong American presence at Tour during the Armstrong era. It was common to walk into restaurants and bars in which half the patrons were American cycling fans and I remember thinking that Armstrong's dominance was probably a cash cow for the French tourism industry. In 2004, the year Armstrong broke the record for Tour victories, I remember Phil Liggett reporting that there were a half million Americans on the Champs Elysees when the peleton road into Paris. Is it plausible that the powers-that-be decided that there was simply too much money to be lost by too many people to let Lance's positive drug test stand? Would that have been any different than how the NCAA handled Cam Newton and "the Ohio State 5" during last year's bowl season?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby odelltrclan » Sun May 22, 2011 5:52 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Is it plausible that the powers-that-be decided that there was simply too much money to be lost by too many people to let Lance's positive drug test stand? Would that have been any different than how the NCAA handled Cam Newton and "the Ohio State 5" during last year's bowl season?


Of course!! This is part of our corrupt culture in the world, he who has the gold makes the rules. (And those who get the crumbs keep trying to make sure those crumbs benefit them!)

Interesting in that interview where the Swiss lab who handled the 2001 Tour produced a document where they informed anti-doping agencies about irregularities, and also mentioned somehow a meeting was arranged between the lab and Lance's group. Wonder how much green backs traded hands over that whole fiasco. Not just the "donations" to UCI but to "others" involved
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Marlow » Sun May 22, 2011 7:18 pm

Just watched 60 Minutes on the DVR and yup, Lance is toast. The General Public is indeed pretty blasé about this sort of stuff, but once the perp gets fingered, they throw him immediately under the bus. This ain't gonna be pretty.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21081
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby gh » Mon May 23, 2011 1:22 am

You can catch the video here. Hamilton lays it on the line, to be sure. Interesting use of Marion Jones.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7366972n
gh
 
Posts: 46321
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby no one » Mon May 23, 2011 7:56 am

different game now ... same rules as then ... "follow the money"

hopefully this won't get strung out like that 'other' game

well "I am not a crook"

not a surprise but

sad
no one
 
Posts: 1611
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby gh » Wed May 25, 2011 10:15 am

at this point the topic diverged widely enough (into the NBA) that it warranted splitting, so hoops is now found elsewhere. (Amstrong is found hiding under a rock somewhere)
gh
 
Posts: 46321
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby DrJay » Fri May 27, 2011 3:39 am

A FB friend found this on letsrun:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read. ... z1NCYeBPo3


"I am a former professional cyclist. I competed briefly in Europe for a pro-continental team. I wasn't very good but I did see a lot of clean athletes trying to break through and I just want to put to rest this idea that lance doped in a culture of doping so it was a level playing field.

YES it was a culture of doping and YES if all his TDF results were nullified his successor would almost certainly also be doped.

1) However, there are hundreds of clean pro cyclists who, skipped college to pursue a dream, also biked 4-6 hours day, and earned 15-25k a year for a relatively short period.

I have friends who train like mad men and are unemployed or drawing a meager wage because doped riders jump past them and suck up money.

If lance et al. had not doped there would have been CLEAN athletes who would have extended their careers and increased their wages. They wouldnt have won the tour de France but they would have been more competitive in races. Velonews has a report on a rider right now who quit postal because he decided he did not want to do drugs and felt he had no other choice.

2) Dopers suck money out of the sport. Teams fold and clean cyclists, team managers, mechanics, and soigneurs lose their jobs when these scandals come out. For every doping scandal there is a financial fall out that hurts people that are just trying to make a decent living working in a sport they are passionate about. When Floyd Landis's scandal broke, I was actively seeking a pro contract, and saw first hand how the scandal had a ripple effect that went all the way down to the grass roots of the sport. MOney that would have been there for young developing cyclists disappeared.

3) Lance has not just denied doping he has vindictively destroyed careers, smeared people in the name of extending lies. He does not deserve a break in any way. He seems to have a Godfather morality where anyone who breaks away from the "family" deserves to be destroyed.

Take the example of Simeoni, when Lance chased down that breakaway. I cannot even begin to express how crucial those early breaks are in the TDF for a riders career. Getting in the early break, something that is never shown on TV, is incredibly difficult on so many levels. When a rider gets in a break, on a TDF stage where the GC teams are trying to let a break go, that is their BIG shot. Their Eminem lose yourself moment. When Lance chased down Simeoni he was essentially destroying a man's once a year opportunity and directly harming his ability to put food on his kids table all because he decided to start telling the truth. He also directly affected everyone else in that breakaway who wasn't even involved. When Simeoni dropped out of the breakaway so Telekom would stop chasing it was an incredibly honorable thing to do where he sacrificed this career changing opportunity so that his breakaway companions could have a shot at a life changing TDF stage win.

He has dragged Betsy Andreu's name through the mud all because she decided not to be a wife who accepts immorality. She decided not to silently accept a culture of doping. She's not even a cyclist but Lance has publicly trashed her name and drug her through the mud because she told the truth.

He has trashed journalists, former employees, newspapers et al. who have only told the truth.

He lied in order to get a multi million dollar bonus from a company that had insured his bonus for winning the the TDF. He cost that company millions of dollars in legal fees and the pay out and don't think that didn't cost honest people jobs.

Lance Armstrong is an amazing athlete, yes. But the man has done things that are reprehensible to continue lying. Lets not make excuses for him because he's a great athlete."
DrJay
 
Posts: 5483
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Woodland Park, CO

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby 26mi235 » Fri May 27, 2011 8:05 pm

There is yet another conundrum with Lance which is that a lot of people made a lot more money in the sport because he brought in a ton of new money. The money there is not a zero-sum game.

I must say, I never really liked him as an individual, however. I liked Greg LeMond better but he has certainly rubbed me the wrong way a bunch as well.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16318
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat May 28, 2011 8:41 am

I think it's unfair to lay cycling's PED problem at the feet of Amrstrong. Lance won his first Tour in 1999 and Alex Zulle, an admitted doper, was second that year. In 1996, the year Lance was diagnosed with cancer, Bjarne Riis, an admitted doper, won the Tour, Jan Ullrich, a convicted doper, was second and Richard Virenque, an admitted doper was third. In 1997, the year Lance was recuperating from cancer, Ullrich won the Tour, Virenque was second and Marco Pantani, a convicted doper, was third. In 1998, Pantani won and Ullrich was second.

My main problem I have with him is that he went after folks like Betsy Andreu, who wasn't a rat, but was subpoenaed. She had no intention of ever spilling the beans prior to being dragged into the courtroom. At least Barry Bonds and Mark McGuire have never carried out these types of vendettas. Also, I think Floyd Landis is a rat who was only out to save his own ass and didn't care who he had to bring down in order to do it. There is no honor among dopers like Landis and Jose Canseco.

As for the Simeoni affair in 2004 (or was it 2005?), that's when I became convinced that the entire peleton was dirty. Before Lance pulled that stunt, he could be seen dropping back into the peleton to consult with his "assistant patrons", especially a few of the top Italian cyclists to see if they were okay with what he was about to do. After Simeoni was forced to drop back, into the peleton, you could see riders going up to Lance and patting him on the back.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests