A Very Bad Morning For Lance


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: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:14 pm

marknhj wrote: (While I'm at it odelltrclan, I came to support your posts on the other thread but it was closed just as I did so. You were pretty much alone in making informed and real posts, against the small minority of drug apologists who can be so vocal here).

So now you want to come to this thread, start the same shit all over and get it locked too? I would really appreciate it if you would take this sanctimonious, self-righteous crap somewhere else. FYI, that's what the "pm" button is for. :(
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Pego » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:11 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Here's a question I asked on the thread that got locked which perhaps pego or bambam can answer. How could Armstrong's doctor get subpoenaed to testify against him? Isn't any discussion between a doctor and his patient supposed to be protected by physician–patient privilege?


Not sure. I would say that the key is the judge's interpretation if a physician-patient relationship had been established. That, of course, applies to the testimony, they can subpoena anybody they want.
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby spinoza » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:20 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Here's a question I asked on the thread that got locked which perhaps pego or bambam can answer. How could Armstrong's doctor get subpoenaed to testify against him? Isn't any discussion between a doctor and his patient supposed to be protected by physician–patient privilege?


There is no straight forward answer; in common law jurisdictions the existence of privilege - and where it exists it is a right of the patient, not the doctor - will depend on how the courts in that jurisdiction have applied the common law tests, and also whether on whether a statute has been enacted creating, or modifying, the scope of the privilege. If it is simply the common law, the existence of the privilege will depend on the facts of the case in which it is asserted; it isn't an absolute privilege. For example, a doctor who assisted in the doping efforts in any way might well be a party to a fraud, and a become a compellable witness, assuming he was granted appropriate immunity, even if in normal circumstances he would not be. FWIW, I was called to the bar in Canada, not the U.S., and my grasp of U.S. law may well be other than accurate.
spinoza
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby marknhj » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:52 pm

odelltrclan wrote:Thanks MarknHJ. Feel like a minority here quite often. I won't comment on or go in the direction of that other thread as I would hate to see this one go down as well.


My pleasure and agreed!
marknhj
 
Posts: 5070
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby DrJay » Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:06 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Here's a question I asked on the thread that got locked which perhaps pego or bambam can answer. How could Armstrong's doctor get subpoenaed to testify against him? Isn't any discussion between a doctor and his patient supposed to be protected by physician–patient privilege?


I have no idea about the answer to your question, but James Holmes killed 12 people and wounded 58 others in the Aurora CO movie theater shooting and HIS medical records with his psychiatrist apparently are not available to the prosecution. Go figure.....
DrJay
 
Posts: 5485
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Woodland Park, CO

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby guru » Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:16 pm

Assuming jazzcyclist is talking about Armstrong's oncologist, would privilege be negated if other parties hear the conversation?
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby DrJay » Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:23 pm

Think Lance will get himself another Sports Illustrated cover next week?

How about he writes another book, called "It's Not About Me." :)
DrJay
 
Posts: 5485
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Woodland Park, CO

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby kevinsdad » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:32 pm

DrJay wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Here's a question I asked on the thread that got locked which perhaps pego or bambam can answer. How could Armstrong's doctor get subpoenaed to testify against him? Isn't any discussion between a doctor and his patient supposed to be protected by physician–patient privilege?


I have no idea about the answer to your question, but James Holmes killed 12 people and wounded 58 others in the Aurora CO movie theater shooting and HIS medical records with his psychiatrist apparently are not available to the prosecution. Go figure.....


Under the Federal code of evidence, also used by many states, there are many ways to lose the privilege. For example, Armstrong may simply have chosen not to invoke it because he thought the physician could help him. Or perhaps he waived it by voluntarily disclosing communications with his physician prior to the subpoena. Also, it doesn't apply to all communications between doctor and patient; only to those pertaining to diagnosis or treatment of a medical condition, and communications about performance enhancement might arguably not be considered as such. It is doubtful that communications in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy are privileged either, and perhaps the prosecutor was proceeding on that theory.
kevinsdad
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:08 am

guru wrote:Assuming jazzcyclist is talking about Armstrong's oncologist, would privilege be negated if other parties hear the conversation?

Yes, that's the conversation that I'm talking about. His testimony contradicted the testimony of the Andreus. I wonder if he might face any repercussions for commiting perjury. I also wonder how Lance got him to go out on the limb for him like that.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:27 am

Where is the evidence of perjury - he already stated a different version than she did; there is no new 'evidence' that says who is right about that conversation. External events (to that conversation) do not bear on the statement, just on the overall use of PEDs.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Pego » Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:53 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
guru wrote:Assuming jazzcyclist is talking about Armstrong's oncologist, would privilege be negated if other parties hear the conversation?

Yes, that's the conversation that I'm talking about. His testimony contradicted the testimony of the Andreus. I wonder if he might face any repercussions for commiting perjury. I also wonder how Lance got him to go out on the limb for him like that.


I don't know what he said, but both EPO and anabolic steroids could be a legitimate treatment post-chemo.
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:17 am

Pego wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
guru wrote:Assuming jazzcyclist is talking about Armstrong's oncologist, would privilege be negated if other parties hear the conversation?

Yes, that's the conversation that I'm talking about. His testimony contradicted the testimony of the Andreus. I wonder if he might face any repercussions for commiting perjury. I also wonder how Lance got him to go out on the limb for him like that.


I don't know what he said, but both EPO and anabolic steroids could be a legitimate treatment post-chemo.


Just to inform you of the facts of the alleged event, this was a meeting that took place at the beginning of his treatments. Dr. Miller said that he did not hear Lance admit to past drug use. The Andreus state that he did confess and listed all of the PED's he admitted to. Betsy is adamant that the said doctor was not even present at the meeting in question and could not have offered testimony.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby j-a-m » Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:42 am

According to WADA, there are gaps in the NBA's anti-doping program; who would've thought:

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/85213 ... ng-program
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby DrJay » Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:03 am

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/19/us/lance- ... ?hpt=hp_c1

"The latest bad news came Friday when Dutch bank Rabobank announced it would no longer sponsor professional cycling teams after the controversy that has engulfed Armstrong and the cycling profession.

The bank, which has sponsored teams for the past 17 years, made it clear that its decision to end its sponsorships by the end of the year was to distance itself from the doping allegations."

"It is with pain in our heart, but for the bank this is an inevitable decision," said Bert Bruggink, of Rabobank's managing board. "We are no longer convinced that the international professional world of cycling can make this a clean and fair sport. We are not confident that this will change for the better in the foreseeable future."
DrJay
 
Posts: 5485
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Woodland Park, CO

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby bambam » Fri Oct 19, 2012 3:47 pm

j-a-m wrote:According to WADA, there are gaps in the NBA's anti-doping program; who would've thought:

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/85213 ... ng-program


I don't think there's ever been a positive PED test in the NBA. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby KevinM » Sat Oct 20, 2012 8:55 pm

tandfman wrote:At least they did the right thing here. It's pretty clear that they had to.


Doesn't exactly make it the "right" thing.
KevinM
 
Posts: 2647
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby tandfman » Sun Oct 21, 2012 4:46 am

Are you suggesting that Nike should not have dropped Armstrong?
tandfman
 
Posts: 15042
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby KevinM » Sun Oct 21, 2012 6:48 am

tandfman wrote:Are you suggesting that Nike should not have dropped Armstrong?


I'm saying the idea that any part of NIke dropping Armstrong was done in an attempt to do the "right" thing is absurd.
KevinM
 
Posts: 2647
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Cooter Brown » Sun Oct 21, 2012 4:06 pm

Phil Knight was in town this week. I wonder if he dropped the news to Lance personally.
Cooter Brown
 
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Austin

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 21, 2012 4:10 pm

I just heard on CNN that USADA's actions will cost Lance $200 million in endorsement income. :shock: I had assumed that his monetary losses would at least be in the eight-figure range, but I had no idea that it would get into nine figures. That's a lot of incentive to dig in and refuse to do a mea culpa like all his former teammates are doing. I wonder how much cooperation the Feds and USADA wonder have gotten if all their potential witnesses had that much money riding on the line.

Also, I'm amazed at the distinguished list of dead-enders out their who seem to be defending Lance to the bitter end. Is it plausible in 2012 that folks as close to the sport as Bob Roll, Phil Liggett and Miguel Indurain sincerely believe Armstrong when he says that he never used illegal PED's during his cycling career?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby bambam » Sun Oct 21, 2012 4:59 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:I just heard on CNN that USADA's actions will cost Lance $200 million in endorsement income. :shock: I had assumed that his monetary losses would at least be in the eight-figure range, but I had no idea that it would get into nine figures.


Also, I would bet that his legal fees over the last few years, and now with this, have to be approaching $100 million as well. He has teams of lawyers, and they are high-rent lawyers too. They don't come cheap.

I see bankruptcy in his future. Legal fees like that with no further income coming in??? He better have invested well.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 21, 2012 7:07 pm

And now WADA is considering changing its statute of limitations specifically to get Armstrong.
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has received suggestions to extend its eight-year limitation to 14 years in order to have more time collecting evidence to catch drug cheats in sport.

The suggestion is likely a result of controversies over the recent Lance Armstrong case where the US Anti-Doping Agency stripped the famous American cyclist of all his competition results, including seven Tour de France titles, dated back to 1998.

WADA's eight-year statute of limitations, however, threw doubts over USADA's action.

WADA president John Fahey thought changes must be made to adapt the World Anti-Doping Code to new situations.

"We constantly adapt and have our code to be effective with changing circumstances. You need to change the rules," said Fahey on Wednesday when he attended WADA's Asian Anti-Doping Education Symposium here.

"One of the suggestions is the current statute of limitations to be extended from eight years to 14 yeras," he said. "Some case showed that it takes a long time to get the evidence to catch up with cheats."

"You don't want a technical woe to say 'oh it's too late. Eight years has gone.' So more time is needed to catch more cheats," he added.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/739071.shtml

The last quote is comical. They say they don't want technicalities to prevent them from pursuing past drug cheats, but technicalities is precisely the reason given when it came to the East Germans. "No can do. It's too late. We can violate the sacred statue of limitations." :twisted:

USADA and WADA are about as credible as the NCAA IMO.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby j-a-m » Mon Oct 22, 2012 1:22 am

Statute of limitations is NOT a technicality.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 22, 2012 5:41 am

j-a-m wrote:Statute of limitations is NOT a technicality.

I used the word technicality because that's the word the WADA president used to describe statute of limitations, or to be more precise he used the phrase "technical woes". Semantic aside, do you get my point?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Cooter Brown » Mon Oct 22, 2012 6:46 am

bambam wrote:I see bankruptcy in his future. Legal fees like that with no further income coming in??? He better have invested well.


He sold his ranch house for $12M last year...

http://www.luxist.com/2009/01/11/lance- ... f-the-day/

and his other house in town is no longer listed under his name.

Looks like he was holding out until he got his money sheltered away from potential judgments.
Cooter Brown
 
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Austin

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby j-a-m » Mon Oct 22, 2012 7:34 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
j-a-m wrote:Statute of limitations is NOT a technicality.

I used the word technicality because that's the word the WADA president used to describe statute of limitations, or to be more precise he used the phrase "technical woes". Semantic aside, do you get my point?

Yeah, I'm fine with your point; I meant that as a criticism of the WADA president.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Mon Oct 22, 2012 7:40 am

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/prudhom ... ut-winners

Someone wants their prize money back. First in a long line of people who are likely to stand in line waiting for payment.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Mon Oct 22, 2012 7:51 am

Is UCI shooting itself in the foot with the decision on Lance today? Demanding back prize money from all his tour wins. The first in 1999. They made no mention of Bjarn Riis, who admitted doping during his victory in 1997. This news was known well more than 2 years ago I believe. Or are they going to state the Statute of Limitations expired on him, but does not count for Lance due to fraud? Cycling entering a state of disarray.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Pego » Mon Oct 22, 2012 8:15 am

odelltrclan wrote:Is UCI shooting itself in the foot with the decision on Lance today? Demanding back prize money from all his tour wins. The first in 1999. They made no mention of Bjarn Riis, who admitted doping during his victory in 1997. This news was known well more than 2 years ago I believe. Or are they going to state the Statute of Limitations expired on him, but does not count for Lance due to fraud? Cycling entering a state of disarray.


Do I sense that you are beginning to see the point some of us have made that LA is being singled out :wink: ?
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Mon Oct 22, 2012 9:32 am

Pego wrote:Do I sense that you are beginning to see the point some of us have made that LA is being singled out :wink: ?


Believe it or not, I've always gotten your point, and I do believe a little bit of it. But, I think people are overstating him being singled out. But, I think it is also simply part of the circumstances. Some created by Lance himself as part of his methodology for fighting all the charges over the years. He successfully created a belief amongst many sports fans that he was being singled out. Maybe it is simply the territory for having the biggest success on the biggest stage of likely the dirtiest sport around.

Maybe it is also because he has gone to greater lengths than any others who have been caught. My biggest beef with Lance Armstrong is not that he doped, but that he went to great lengths to try and destroy others lives, careers, and credibility along the way. There are also rumors now that he may have been involved in fixing a race for bonus money [YES I SAID RUMOR - MAY NOT BE TRUE]. Most cyclists have never gone to these levels to perpetuate a lie. But, on the flip side, maybe none have ever been quite in a position like this to have to do so.

I simply wanted the truth to come out. If in 20 years, cycling decides that, "screw it, we had a bad era and we want to list the champions who actually won the race, doping or not, I am fine with that. I am fine with him keeping his titles if the UCI agreed to do so. But, put Landis back as champion, and Contador's 2010 as well.

I do find it a bit comical how the powers that be are advertising "the most sophisticated doping regimen in history". There is no way they can possibly know this. So, in a sense, when I see statements like this, or when I see Bjarn Riis get off while Lance is made to pay, I definitely see some hypocrisy. But I still think Lance has earned everything he has coming to him in a big way. But, haven't they all. A sad time for cycling.

And here comes some more . .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20029617
Last edited by odelltrclan on Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby bambam » Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:19 am

Everyone will be asking for their money back, and to keep it he will end up having to fork it over to the lawyers instead. Why I think he will be headed for a new Chapter in his life, so to speak.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby DrJay » Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:32 am

What a shitstorm for Lance. Has it reached maybe a Category 3 (on the shitstorm scale, not the cycling hill-climb scale)? Will it reach Category 5?
DrJay
 
Posts: 5485
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Woodland Park, CO

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby tandfman » Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:05 am

bambam wrote:Everyone will be asking for their money back, and to keep it he will end up having to fork it over to the lawyers instead. Why I think he will be headed for a new Chapter in his life, so to speak.

I assume you mean Chapter 7.

That wouldn't surprise me at all.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15042
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:25 pm

Phil Liggett says he's devasted.
"I was inclined (to think) surely he doesn’t dope, but now I look a fool, to be quite frank," Liggett told The Daily Telegraph from London.

"Quite clearly he has had a program going, with all the other guys."

"I am like everybody else. I had no idea such an in-depth drug scheme was taking place.

"I spent many hours with Armstrong over the years, but only at functions, doing things for him like MC-ing his cancer events.

"I wouldn’t call Lance a friend because you can’t get that close to him. But I really thought he was clean, and in 2003, he actually told me to my face, in his own room. So obviously I am devastated."

http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/vete ... 6500728116
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby gh » Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:06 pm

Pego wrote:
odelltrclan wrote:Is UCI shooting itself in the foot with the decision on Lance today? Demanding back prize money from all his tour wins. The first in 1999. They made no mention of Bjarn Riis, who admitted doping during his victory in 1997. This news was known well more than 2 years ago I believe. Or are they going to state the Statute of Limitations expired on him, but does not count for Lance due to fraud? Cycling entering a state of disarray.


Do I sense that you are beginning to see the point some of us have made that LA is being singled out :wink: ?


Of course he was singled out, much in the same way that Victor Conte was. I'm happy to see that unlike regular drug-war law enforcement, where the mastermind criminals are allowed to plea-bargain their way out of things while their minions on the street draw harsh sentences, that USADA is actually making a habit out of going straight for the head, rather than just picking off low-hanging fruit.

Wouldn't you say that nailing Armstrong will do more to clean up cycling than any 10 (100?) other busts combined?

Indeed, perhaps even have a chilling effect on other sports and abuse, now that they know there's a proverbial new sherrif in town?
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby kuha » Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:21 pm

gh wrote:Wouldn't you say that nailing Armstrong will do more to clean up cycling than any 10 (100?) other busts combined?


For me, the answer is no. Why should it? However, I AM impressed that they're not "reassigning" the medals, but simply leaving first place empty. THAT is every bit as important as dismembering Armstrong, since it clearly acknowledges that the problem permeated the entire upper layer of the sport. It is the systemic nature of the issue that has always been my real concern.

For GH: Why are you not pushing for the official testing of those 1984 samples and the publication of the results? And the re-testing of any other significant holding of "old" championship samples? Isn't more truth-telling better than less here, if we want to scare individual sports "straight"?
kuha
 
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Pego » Mon Oct 22, 2012 3:09 pm

gh wrote:Wouldn't you say that nailing Armstrong will do more to clean up cycling than any 10 (100?) other busts combined?


Perhaps, I don't know. What I find personally repulsive is a cop that pulls a red sports car out of a speeding convoy of numerous cars and trucks.
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Mon Oct 22, 2012 3:17 pm

Pego wrote:
gh wrote:Wouldn't you say that nailing Armstrong will do more to clean up cycling than any 10 (100?) other busts combined?


Perhaps, I don't know. What I find personally repulsive is a cop that pulls a red sports car out of a speeding convoy of numerous cars and trucks.


So is that what you drive? :wink:
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Pego » Mon Oct 22, 2012 3:36 pm

odelltrclan wrote:
Pego wrote:
gh wrote:Wouldn't you say that nailing Armstrong will do more to clean up cycling than any 10 (100?) other busts combined?


Perhaps, I don't know. What I find personally repulsive is a cop that pulls a red sports car out of a speeding convoy of numerous cars and trucks.


So is that what you drive? :wink:


A Buick Enclave. Love it :D .
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 22, 2012 3:50 pm

gh wrote:Of course he was singled out, much in the same way that Victor Conte was. I'm happy to see that unlike regular drug-war law enforcement, where the mastermind criminals are allowed to plea-bargain their way out of things while their minions on the street draw harsh sentences, that USADA is actually making a habit out of going straight for the head, rather than just picking off low-hanging fruit.

I somewhat agree with your analogy, but I don't view Armstrong as one of the mastermind criminals like Conte was. In cycling I view guys like Eufemiano Fuentes and Michele Ferrari as the criminal masterminds. Armstrong was just a good customer, and going after him is like the DEA going after a drug addict, not a drug pusher.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 7 guests