A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
jazzcyclist wrote:I think that Tygart is engaging in hyperbole when he accuses US Postal of running the most sophisticated doping program in the history of cycling, because I don't think they had anything on Festina and Telekom back in their heyday.
It is likely that the Postal system WAS more sophisticated; the Festina and Telekom systems were simpler because there was less testing to avoid. I also think that part of the sophistication was how to set up the levels so that they did not get detected given the testing regime. This led to more frequent and more constrained doping.
jazzcyclist wrote:I think that Tygart is engaging in hyperbole when he accuses US Postal of running the most sophisticated doping program in the history of cycling, because I don't think they had anything on Festina and Telekom back in their heyday.
It is likely that the Postal system WAS more sophisticated; the Festina and Telekom systems were simpler because there was less testing to avoid. I also think that part of the sophistication was how to set up the levels so that they did not get detected given the testing regime. This led to more frequent and more constrained doping.
I guess you have a point about Festina since they preceded Armstrong's reign, but Telekom's dominance preceded and coincided with Armstrong's reign, and they won many stages, two Yellow jersey, multiple Green jerseys and consistently put people on the podium without getting their riders busted. If not for Armstrong, they probably would have won four or five more yellow jerseys, and remember, the only reason we know that Bjarne Riis and Erik Zabel were doping is because they admitted to it, not because they were caught.
Didn't he write a book titled It's Not About the Bike? If I'm remembering that correctly, he at least was truthful in that title. It wasn't about the bike at all...
How many folks here remember the Armstrong-Simeoni confrontation on the 18th stage of the 2004 Tour de France?
What does it mean to be a patron of the Tour de France?
Is a patron simply the strongest rider of his era, or is there something more? In the true sense of the word, there is. A patron is not just a champion, but a godfather of sorts, a man who can dictate the moods and mores of the peloton, who can turn even a seemingly meaningless stage to his end. Typically, it is also a benefactor of sorts, a man whose magnanimity can elevate the dignity of the sport through observation of its most time-honored precepts, key among them sportsmanship.
We saw a patron on Tour today, but it was not a benevolent one.
Instead, the ugliest side broke out of the race's grandest champion today when Lance Armstrong bolted out of the pack to join Filippo Simeoni, who had just before broken free himself in an attempt to bridge up to the break.
On reaching the six-rider move, Simeoni said Armstrong looked over at him and smirked, "Bravo. Nice move." When Jose Vicente Garcia Acosta pleaded with Armstrong to drop back and let the break have an honest chance to continue, Armstrong reportedly told them he would gladly do that, under one condition: Simeoni was not to continue in the break, either. Faced with the choice of sinking the chances of six riders or his own, Simeoni drifted back to the pack, accompanied by Armstrong.
In between, the two riders talked, with Armstrong even briefly placing his hand on Simeoni's shoulder. "Armstrong and I spoke as the peloton was catching us but I prefer not to say what he said," Simeoni told BICYCLING's European Correspondent, James Startt, at the finish of stage 18. "It was too serious." Once back in the field, Armstrong spoke and laughed with numerous riders and at one point made the sign of zipping lips.
Simeoni is one of cycling's most anonymous riders. In an 11-year career he has had just one significant win, a stage of the 2000 Regio Tour, and as a career gregario, or helper, he has done little to distinguish himself good or bad. But two years ago Simeoni hurled himself into a most unwelcome and glaring spotlight when he became a key witness in the ongoing trial of Doctor Michele Ferrari, a by-turns acclaimed and notorious physician, who was being tried in the Italian province of Bologna for sporting fraud. Armstrong had publicly disclosed only months earlier that he was one of Ferrari's clients.
The other thing that I remember about this stage is how all the other riders in the peleton were patting Armstrong on the back for a job well done after he and Simeoni dropped back to the peleton, and even Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwin seemed to be pleased with what transpired.
<<The exact value of Armstrong's deals with the two companies isn't known, but Nike is the biggest spender on athlete endorsement deals in the world. Its annual report shows it has signed commitments for $3.2 billion worth of endorsement deals over the next five years.>>
I've never heard of a sponsor asking for money back after it drops one of its athletes for misconduct. Normally they just void the rest of the contract. Is there any precedent for this?
The cyclist, who has been stripped of his seven Tour de France titles, is in negotiations to return some portion of the agency's sponsorship money, the source said.
USPS was one of Armstrong's biggest financial supporters during the most successful period of his career, and millions of dollars were paid to finance the team's operations.
While total figures are not available, USPS paid more than $30 million to sponsor the cycling team between 2001 and 2004, according to documents reviewed by ESPN and the Wall Street Journal.
go to the front page, and you can now vote for greatest liar of all time
(speaking of which, local talking head on the radio, not normally a rabble-rouser, says that if it turns out that Lance made the whole cancer thing up, he'd believe it) (that seems a tad harsh)
ESPN an hour-long Outside The Lines today on Armstrong. 3:00 PM ET(now)
Program leads off with the entirety of a Bob Ley / Armstrong OTL interview from 2006 regarding rumors/accusations. Armstrong's comments, in light of current circumstances, leads to no other conclusion than the man is a psychopath.
"Psychopath"? Isn't that word reserved for folks like Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy?
For whatever it's worth, here's Oprah's characterization of the interview:
Oprah Winfrey says Lance Armstrong was "forthcoming" in their 2.5 hour interview, a session during which the disgraced cyclist admitted using performance enhancing drugs to win the Tour de France, NBC News has confirmed.
"I think the entire interview was difficult" for Armstrong, Winfrey said. “He was pretty forthcoming.”
“It was surprising to me," she said of his approach to the interview, adding that "we were mesmerized and riveted by some of his answers.”
Winfrey appeared on CBS Tuesday morning to discuss her sit-down with the disgraced cyclist. When asked if Armstrong was contrite, she demurred.
Advertise | AdChoices"I feel that he answered the questions in a way that he was ready," Winfrey said. "I choose not to characterize. I would rather people make their own decisions about whether he was contrite or not."
No sooner is the word out of someone’s mouth than images of [serial killers] like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer come to mind. It doesn’t automatically mean that you’re a criminal or serial killer. When psychologists talk about psychopaths, what we refer to are people with a distinct set of personality characteristics including ruthlessness, fearlessness, mental toughness, a charismatic personality and lack of conscience and empathy.
(Psychiatry) a person afflicted with a personality disorder characterized by a tendency to commit antisocial and sometimes violent acts and a failure to feel guilt for such acts Also called sociopath psychopathic adj psychopathically adv
and (subset from Wikipedia:
Psychopathy Checklist-Revised: Factors, Facets, and Items[3] Factor 1 Factor 2 Other items
While some call him a pathological liar, I do not think that is particularly the case. You could say that he told one continuing lie, rather than he lied a lot (about many different things).
Facet 1 Interpersonal
Glibness/superficial charm Grandiose sense of self-worth [was his sense way out of line with what others thought?] Pathological lying Cunning/manipulative
Facet 2 Affective
Lack of remorse or guilt Emotionally shallow Callous/lack of empathy Failure to accept responsibility for own actions [Other than one huge instance, all the stuff around doping, where is the indication here?]
Facet 3 Lifestyle
Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom Parasitic lifestyle [No] Lack of realistic, long-term goals [NO] Impulsiveness [No] Irresponsibility
Facet 4 Antisocial
Poor behavioral controls [No, usually very good control] Early behavioral problems [not unusual as far as I know, especially for a male raised without a father] Juvenile delinquency [none to speak of] Revocation of conditional release [no] Criminal versatility. [no]
Parasitic lifestyle [no] Many short-term marital relationships [yes] Promiscuous sexual behavior [? with celebrities that situations are very different, did not get the playboy type of image in the 1989-1995 time frame]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/ja ... -statement Nicole Cooke, the 2008 women's World and Olympic road race champion, retired yesterday. If you haven't read the statement she gave yesterday, you really should. This single handedly demolishes any defence Lance can possibly give.
No sooner is the word out of someone’s mouth than images of [serial killers] like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer come to mind. It doesn’t automatically mean that you’re a criminal or serial killer. When psychologists talk about psychopaths, what we refer to are people with a distinct set of personality characteristics including ruthlessness, fearlessness, mental toughness, a charismatic personality and lack of conscience and empathy.
I'm not familiar with the Kevin Dutton dictionary, but according to Merriam-Webster:
Despite all the revelations, I'm sticking with my gut feel that Armstrong wins in the court of public opinion.
I was going to say this earlier in the dialogue, and cite two things: 1. the number of people I know who had said to me something along the lines of "I don't care what he did; I'm gonna keep wearing my bracelet"; 2. 6 weeks or so ago we put a post on or Facebook that was a link to a "comedy site" that had a fake bracelet that said "Livewrong" or some such pun. Not only did it draw some disapproval, it also generated multiple cancel-my-subscription notices.
And now, tonite, a former national-class trackster whom I know well and consider to be a straight-arrow kind of guy, posted, "If YOU somehow finally decided today to chastise Lance Armstrong, or to cut off your LIVEstrong bracelet in some ceremonious fashion, you're an idiot. Vive le Lance!"
No sooner is the word out of someone’s mouth than images of [serial killers] like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer come to mind. It doesn’t automatically mean that you’re a criminal or serial killer. When psychologists talk about psychopaths, what we refer to are people with a distinct set of personality characteristics including ruthlessness, fearlessness, mental toughness, a charismatic personality and lack of conscience and empathy.
I'm not familiar with the Kevin Dutton dictionary, but according to Merriam-Webster:
Psychopath - a mentally ill or unstable person
Merriam-Webster wrote:: a mentally ill or unstable person; especially : a person affected with antisocial personality disorder
gh wrote:Despite all the revelations, I'm sticking with my gut feel that Armstrong wins in the court of public opinion.
Dude's a folk hero.
Six months ago I would have agreed with you. Now, no way. Back then, Armstrong controlled the dialogue, and most of the "general public"(as well as the general media) truly felt he was a put-upon, unfairly attacked legend. After all, he never failed a test, dontcha know.
Then, that USADA report hit, and everything changed. After his major sponsors - particularly Nike - bailed, the once-adoring media turned on him, and the paradigm shift of public opinion was on. Now, reading the online comment sections of Armstrong stories in the local newspaper, the general consensus is he's a pathetic cheater who is desperate to maintain his position in the spotlight, and they really just want him to go away.
az2004 wrote:spin this to track, lance got the bigwigs to coverup for his failed drug tests..
so would the lance of track do the same thing..
without him track is dead...
dealing with the devil can lead to strange bedfellows
Meanwhile the U.S. Government has turned down Lance's offer of $5 million to make amends with the U.S. Postas Service.
Back home, the U.S. government rejected Armstrong's offer of more than $5 million to make amends for fraud allegedly committed against the U.S. Postal Service, according to CBS.
IMO, Lance's biggest crime is not that he doped since the sport of cycling was infested with a culture of doping before he ever joined the peleton, it's not that he lied about doping which all athletes do until they get caught, it's that he was a tyranical, mean-spirited patron who crossed the line in enforcing the omerta, including going after people who only spilled the beans after being subpoenaed, but had otherwise kept their mouths shut. Now it may be true that none of the previous patrons (Indurain, Hinault, Merckx, etc.) were ever accused of being dopers, but I still doubt they would have been as mean-spirited and vindictive as Armstrong was if they were. The only person I have no sympathy for is Floyd Landis who started ratting out Armstrong and his teammates long before he was ever put on a witness stand to sell books. But there's no justification for going after people like Emma O'Reilly.
So it's starting to look like Uncle Sam will join Landis in his whistleblower suit(and why wouldnt they?). A win means treble damages - $90 million. And you can bet with a supposed Armstrong personal fortune of $100 million, the government isn't going to be in a dealmaking mood.
My Facebook friend has responded to the comments on his post
<<You guys are all supporting my statement! I'm talking about people's sudden dismay that Lance was a doper! If you've all hated him for years, then congratulations to you all...you're truly prophets! ....
Lance never fooled me or took anything from me like Hesch....
I'm not defending Lance's doping or anything of the sort! I just personally enjoy his F You attitude, and always enjoyed watching him beat other athletes who were doing the same exact thing. So, for all of those who are so quick to jump on the typical American train of condemnation, I believe they are the ones who should face reality and punish themselves for being so naive. Lance is exactly who I always thought he was.>>
Isn't that word reserved for folks like Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy?
