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)

Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby gh » Wed Jul 07, 2010 6:48 am

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 Conor Dary » Wed Jul 07, 2010 2:01 pm

'The Landis-Contador combination, however, drew a bigger picture. Armstrong has a growing list of adversaries, or as he has colorfully referred to them in the past, "trolls." They may never be able to prove wrongdoing on his part, but it's remarkable how a man, beloved by the general public for proving that there is life after cancer, could cultivate so many enemies and so much suspicion. After years of testing negative and building a fan base resolutely determined to hear no evil about him, the list continues to grow...

Already, the anti-Armstrong camp includes both of the other Americans who crossed the Tour finish line first - LeMond and Landis. They have been accused of profound jealousy, speaking without evidence and, in Landis' case, a thorough lack of credibility. Armstrong has verbally assailed them both, which calls to mind his response to Contador last year: "A champion is also measured on how much he respects his teammates and opponents."

Yet in the last year, Contador and Landis - both teammates and opponents of Armstrong - earned his distain. How do we measure that?''


Yes, there are some people, LeMond, Landis and Contador, who don't like Armstrong. Big Deal. "The List continues to grow..." Without bothering to mention who else is on this growing list.

If Armstrong is such an ogre, how come he didn't have any trouble bringing most of Astana with him?

Another piece of junk writing.
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 » Wed Jul 07, 2010 2:36 pm

Conor Dary wrote:If Armstrong is such an ogre, how come he didn't have any trouble bringing most of Astana with him?

Another piece of junk writing.

I don't see what his former Astana teammates have to do with anything, but I agree with this being junk writing. For one thing, Contador only accuses Armstrong of being an asshole, not a drug user. I don't doubt that Armstrong is an asshole, but what does that prove? I remember reading a Sporting News article a few years ago about a survey conducted among college football coaches. One of the questions was which head coach was the most difficult to work for (high turnover). Guess who won this category going away. Hint: He's the only coach to hoist the Crystal Football at two different schools.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby meninblack » Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:59 pm

Where is the news value in this piece? It is just a regurgitation of old news which is something the SF Chronicle does a lot nowadays. I know this paper is short on editorial staff (and money) but this story doesn't even come close to being newsworthy.
meninblack
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 11:09 am

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

Postby lovetorun » Thu Jul 08, 2010 9:02 am

I enjoyed Armstrong's book, admire him as an amazing athlete/competitor...but, have to admit, I do wonder if he has done some of those cheating things that Landis is saying he did. My innocence is about gone...never thought Marion Jones cheated either, so nothing surprises me (but always disappoints me) anymore.
lovetorun
 
Posts: 1206
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:48 am

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

Postby Conor Dary » Thu Jul 08, 2010 9:18 am

Landis has all of the credibility of a bent 2x4. It is one thing to deny taking drugs, but to go to the extent he did to exonerate himself and then turn around and say it was all a big joke, makes me think the guy is a delusional psychotic.

At this point it appears Landis will pretty much say anything that pops into his head. Especially that part about selling bikes to pay for this drug regimen. And Trek 'confirms' the story according to our 'ace' reporter. All Trek supported was the tale of bike parts being sold on-line. Nothing about who was doing this selling, for all anyone knows it was Landis selling the bikes, since money seems to be his big concern.

But I am sure we will hear from Landis again. Even though he has no credibility or evidence, the guy tells a good tale, which the gullible press love, whether or not the story is true.
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 » Thu Jul 08, 2010 10:05 am

Conor Dary wrote:Landis has all of the credibility of a bent 2x4. It is one thing to deny taking drugs, but to go to the extent he did to exonerate himself and then turn around and say it was all a big joke, makes me think the guy is a delusional psychotic.

At this point it appears Landis will pretty much say anything that pops into his head. Especially that part about selling bikes to pay for this drug regimen. And Trek 'confirms' the story according to our 'ace' reporter. All Trek supported was the tale of bike parts being sold on-line. Nothing about who was doing this selling, for all anyone knows it was Landis selling the bikes, since money seems to be his big concern.

But I am sure we will hear from Landis again. Even though he has no credibility or evidence, the guy tells a good tale, which the gullible press love, whether or not the story is true.


Don't forget, conor dary that your quotes above could be word-for-word what was said about Jose Canseco and then almost everything he said was confirmed to be true. May not be, but letsrun noted that he would believe almost anything anymore on drug use in sports and I would too.

My own suspicion is that Armstrong is dirty as can be, but probably not much dirtier than the rest of the peloton.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

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

Postby Conor Dary » Thu Jul 08, 2010 1:41 pm

bambam wrote:
Don't forget, conor dary that your quotes above could be word-for-word what was said about Jose Canseco and then almost everything he said was confirmed to be true. May not be, but letsrun noted that he would believe almost anything anymore on drug use in sports and I would too.

My own suspicion is that Armstrong is dirty as can be, but probably not much dirtier than the rest of the peloton.


As for Canseco, I suspected most of the big stars---and a lot of small-fry, especially pitchers---in baseball during that time were doing something. And why not? There was no testing, they weren't even banned and with the amount of money involved who wouldn't. If track and fielders will risk getting caught, with stakes so much smaller, what would you expect when tens of Millions are involved.

As for Armstrong being dirty. Sure I can accept that. Especially while zero or minimal testing was going on. But as you mentioned I doubt he was any dirtier than the rest of the field. But as testing improved immensely I believe it helped Armstrong. The guy was WChamp in 1992 and very talented. So a level playing field could only help someone like Armstrong. And remember the guy won some of those Tours when a lot of people, with the testing to do it, would have loved to nail Armstrong.
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 » Thu Jul 08, 2010 2:21 pm

The difference between Canseco and Landis is that Canseco was always up front about his drug use from the beginning, even before baseball had drug testing. At times, Canseco seemed to wear his PED use as a badge of honor and even said that he doesn't think he would have made it into the big leagues without PED's. One admirable character trait that I would use to describe Canseco is candid. I can't say that about Landis whose holier-than-thou attitude was sickening.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby Conor Dary » Thu Jul 08, 2010 5:54 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:The difference between Canseco and Landis is that Canseco was always up front about his drug use from the beginning, even before baseball had drug testing. At times, Canseco seemed to wear his PED use as a badge of honor and even said that he doesn't think he would have made it into the big leagues without PED's. One admirable character trait that I would use to describe Canseco is candid. I can't say that about Landis whose holier-than-thou attitude was sickening.


Good analysis. I agree.
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 » Thu Jul 08, 2010 8:55 pm

At Postal Landis was good, a very handy support rider. However, he could not produce at a higher level. In one key instance Armstrong let Landis get in to position to attack and take the lead (of four, two of each). Landis, supposedly a great descender with his mountain bike background, could not do it. One of the opponents then made a big jump and looked like he would win, but Armstrong ran him down.

This is not the same Landis that won the Tour a little later. He seems to me like he was using much more (zero to much, some to some more, I do not know) at Phonak than at Postal.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16317
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

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

Postby Chris McCarthy » Fri Jul 09, 2010 3:13 am

Armstrong won his World title in 1993 in Oslo.
Chris McCarthy
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:26 am

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Jul 09, 2010 5:40 am

26mi235 wrote:In one key instance Armstrong let Landis get in to position to attack and take the lead (of four, two of each). Landis, supposedly a great descender with his mountain bike background, could not do it. One of the opponents then made a big jump and looked like he would win, but Armstrong ran him down.

I remember that stage well, and I disagree with your assessment of what happened that day. First of all, Landis had been out front all day protecting Lance's yellow jersey, so it's not like he had fresh legs at the end of that stage. If Lance had really wanted him to win that stage, he would have told Landis not to do any work that day, rather than expect him to be able to take on someone like Jan Ullrich, who had been resting in the peleton all day, after doing six hours of heavy lifting.

Second, that descent was very non-technical, which means that the biggest factor was Newton's laws, not descending skills, and as Armstrong pointed out at the end of the stage, Ullrich had a 10 kg advantage on Landis. If it had been a technical descent, the advantage would have gone to Landis since Ullrich is probably the worst descending Tour winner of all times.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby 502CD » Fri Jul 09, 2010 6:24 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Ullrich is probably the worst descending Tour winner of all times.


No kidding on that one.

I can't descend to save my life. Any time I do a climb I'm like - oh crap now I have to go down.
502CD
 
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:45 am

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

Postby 26mi235 » Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:46 am

502CD wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Ullrich is probably the worst descending Tour winner of all times.


No kidding on that one.

I can't descend to save my life. Any time I do a climb I'm like - oh crap now I have to go down.


I will acknowledge Jazz's summary.

I could only really descend well the several years that I climbed a lot (used to come down Mt. Baldy after the first switch backs without ever reaching for the brakes, although I would not tuck the entire way). I learned to do a variant of the deep tuck that you see some guys do (e.g., Danilo Hondo on Saturday). Even then I might not have been that much better than Ullrich, because those guys are on the bike six hours a day and so much rests on riding skill.

Thereafter, I became too cautious because my skills were not good enough since I was not going hard downhill twice a week for much of the year. I no longer want to get close to 50, much less close to 60 on descents.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16317
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

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

Postby guru » Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:41 pm

Well, here we go...

Grand Jury subpoenas issued in Armstrong investigation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/sport ... ref=sports
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 lonewolf » Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:47 pm

26mi235 wrote: I no longer want to get close to 50, much less close to 60 on descents.

I was never more than a recreational biker who strained to reach 25 mph on a level straight with a tail wind. I cannot imagine going 50-60 mph on a bike...there ain't no roll bars on those suckers.. I took one header at 18-20 mph onto a nice grassy lawn and was stove up for a week.. I don't know how took anyone survives a high speed crash on pavement.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:45 am

lonewolf wrote:I was never more than a recreational biker who strained to reach 25 mph on a level straight with a tail wind. I cannot imagine going 50-60 mph on a bike...there ain't no roll bars on those suckers.. I took one header at 18-20 mph onto a nice grassy lawn and was stove up for a week.. I don't know how took anyone survives a high speed crash on pavement.

Watch this video of the great Paulo Savoldelli in action.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-VrcNqQ ... re=related

Also, here's another great descent video from the Tour.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kZSzB4k ... re=related
Last edited by jazzcyclist on Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby dukehjsteve » Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:47 am

As a recreational touring cyclist, I used to delight in descending at 40 + mph. I'm older now, and if I get much over 30 mph I'm petrified ! The idea of cranking hard and descending at 60+ mph boggles the mind.
dukehjsteve
 
Posts: 6056
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fishers, IN

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:57 am

40 m.p.h. didn't really scare me since I would occasionally reach those speeds on flat roads, and often exceeded 40 in the velodrome. However, once the speeds approached 50 on descents, my tendency was to reach for the brakes no matter how straight the road was.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby lonewolf » Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:47 am

Geezzzz! That is scary just to watch. That "road" is no more than 8 feet wide in places, no shoulders, no place to go except over the edge or up a 60 degree slope. If someone falls the support van would run over them..(does that ever happen?).. and these guy are pedaling downhill on the brief "straights"
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

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

Postby Conor Dary » Wed Jul 14, 2010 9:32 am

A friend of mine who was a good cyclist years ago, was training on, I believe, Hwy. 101 in California, going about 60+ downhill when he came around a bend and saw 2 cars coming straight at him, one passing another, on a 2 lane road. Needless to say, with few options, a steep drop to the right, nowhere to go on the left, stopping impossible, he did the only sensible thing....he went right between them.
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 » Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:26 pm

Armstrong getting sloppy.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/n ... id=5380225

Sure looks like Novitzky is going by the Marion Jones playbook, and why wouldn't he?
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 » Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:20 pm

guru wrote:Armstrong getting sloppy.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/n ... id=5380225

Sure looks like Novitzky is going by the Marion Jones playbook, and why wouldn't he?

If the feds had pursued Armstrong as aggressively they've pursued Barry Bonds, he would probably have gone to prison already. By the way, for whatever it's worth, Red Sox GM Dan Duquette thinks that the feds have the goods on Armstrong's fellow Texan Roger Clemens and that he's going down. I wonder what he knows.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby guru » Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:02 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
guru wrote:Armstrong getting sloppy.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/n ... id=5380225

Sure looks like Novitzky is going by the Marion Jones playbook, and why wouldn't he?

If the feds had pursued Armstrong as aggressively they've pursued Barry Bonds, he would probably have gone to prison already.



Except they didn't have someone like Landis to open the door. Now they do, and much like Tim Montgomery led to the money laundering that caught Jones, Landis(and at least three other teammates who have come clean) may lead to the US Postal-connected federal charges that bring down Armstrong. Novitzky truly is a modern-day Eliot Ness.

It almost makes you wonder if Armstrong hasn't melted back into the obscurity of the peloton on purpose.
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 » Fri Jul 16, 2010 3:05 am

guru wrote:Except they didn't have someone like Landis to open the door. Now they do, and much like Tim Montgomery led to the money laundering that caught Jones, Landis(and at least three other teammates who have come clean) may lead to the US Postal-connected federal charges that bring down Armstrong. Novitzky truly is a modern-day Eliot Ness.

It almost makes you wonder if Armstrong hasn't melted back into the obscurity of the peloton on purpose.

They had somebody better than Landis, Frankie Andreu whose testimony is 100 times more credible than Landis'. Andreu is to Armstrong what Pettitte is to Clemens.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby guru » Fri Jul 16, 2010 4:49 am

jazzcyclist wrote:They had somebody better than Landis, Frankie Andreu whose testimony is 100 times more credible than Landis'. Andreu is to Armstrong what Pettitte is to Clemens.


Except Andreu didn't know about the smoking gun - the sale of the US Postal bikes(and the attendant paper trail) ostensibly to fund the doping.

As with Jones, and Capone before her, it's not what you know. It's what you can prove.
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 Dutra » Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:23 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
guru wrote:Armstrong getting sloppy.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/n ... id=5380225

Sure looks like Novitzky is going by the Marion Jones playbook, and why wouldn't he?

If the feds had pursued Armstrong as aggressively they've pursued Barry Bonds, he would probably have gone to prison already. By the way, for whatever it's worth, Red Sox GM Dan Duquette thinks that the feds have the goods on Armstrong's fellow Texan Roger Clemens and that he's going down. I wonder what he knows.


jazz....do you have a link to Duquette's comments? I'd like to read them if they've been published. I'm not doubting you, I'm just interested.
Dutra
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:38 am

Dutra wrote:jazz....do you have a link to Duquette's comments? I'd like to read them if they've been published. I'm not doubting you, I'm just interested.

http://espn.go.com/blog/sportscenter/po ... t-want-him
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby Conor Dary » Fri Jul 16, 2010 1:11 pm

guru wrote: Novitzky truly is a modern-day Eliot Ness.


I know there are people here that don't like Armstrong, but, if it isn't a joke, isn't this a slightly stupid comment. For crying out loud, Eliot Ness went after Al Capone and other mobsters. And Novitsky is going after a cyclist who---at worse--might have been doing the same every other cyclist in the peloton was doing.

A complete waste of time.
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 » Fri Jul 16, 2010 2:29 pm

Conor Dary wrote: And Novitsky is going after a cyclist who---at worse--might have been doing the same every other cyclist in the peloton was doing.



Not quite.

Just like with Jones, this is about much more than personal PED use, and as we saw with his new tune regarding his involvement with Tailwind, Armstrong knows it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 512_2.html

"A couple of guys have confirmed components of what [Landis] said, but what Novitzky is really interested in is not whether Lance Armstrong used EPO to win the Tour de France -- that's not his mandate -- but whether there was tax evasion, contract fraud, importing drugs, using money to buy pharmaceuticals," said an individual with knowledge of the investigation. "That's why the investigation has gone global."

Indeed, World Anti-Doping Agency Director General David Howman recently said the international police organization, Interpol, had agreed to assist with the probe. WADA and Interpol signed a joint agreement to fight sports doping last year.

Federal officials have discussed whether any crimes they might uncover would fit within the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), according to several sources. The statute allows prosecutors to effectively sidestep the five-year statute of limitations on federal crimes because it allows illegal activity to be grouped, with the five-year count beginning after the last illegal act, according to G. Robert Blakey, a law professor at Notre Dame who helped draft the RICO legislation.
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 kuha » Fri Jul 16, 2010 2:43 pm

Conor Dary wrote:For crying out loud, Eliot Ness went after Al Capone and other mobsters. And Novitsky is going after a cyclist who---at worse--might have been doing the same every other cyclist in the peloton was doing.


My sentiments exactly. As I see it, there are two scenarios for Armstrong's historical reputation:

a) he is never found guilty of anything, and was thus clearly TREMENDOUSLY better than all the rest of his (sometimes/often doped) competition

b) he is found guilty of doing what "everyone" else was doing and was thus "only" MUCH better than all the rest of his competition

In terms of his overall athletic achievement, how much difference is there--really--between "a" and "b"?

Actually, at this point, Armstrong is, to some folks, Moby Dick. The pursuit really doesn't make much practical sense, but the mission can't be called off.
kuha
 
Posts: 9016
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

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

Postby Conor Dary » Fri Jul 16, 2010 5:12 pm

guru wrote:
"A couple of guys have confirmed components of what [Landis] said, but what Novitzky is really interested in is not whether Lance Armstrong used EPO to win the Tour de France -- that's not his mandate -- but whether there was tax evasion, contract fraud, importing drugs, using money to buy pharmaceuticals," said an individual with knowledge of the investigation. "That's why the investigation has gone global."


Why not add murder, genocide, WMDs...

I suspect the reason they aren't going after whether Armstrong used EPO is because they can't. So they come up with all this other nonsense.

As the story states this latest nonsense only started when one of the biggest dickheads in sport, Landis, was on the outs and broke, and decided to take down anyone he could find with him. Before that, they really had nothing.
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 Dutra » Fri Jul 16, 2010 5:52 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Dutra wrote:jazz....do you have a link to Duquette's comments? I'd like to read them if they've been published. I'm not doubting you, I'm just interested.

http://espn.go.com/blog/sportscenter/po ... t-want-him


graci
Dutra
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby Dutra » Fri Jul 16, 2010 5:54 pm

kuha wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:For crying out loud, Eliot Ness went after Al Capone and other mobsters. And Novitsky is going after a cyclist who---at worse--might have been doing the same every other cyclist in the peloton was doing.


My sentiments exactly. As I see it, there are two scenarios for Armstrong's historical reputation:

a) he is never found guilty of anything, and was thus clearly TREMENDOUSLY better than all the rest of his (sometimes/often doped) competition

b) he is found guilty of doing what "everyone" else was doing and was thus "only" MUCH better than all the rest of his competition

In terms of his overall athletic achievement, how much difference is there--really--between "a" and "b"?

Actually, at this point, Armstrong is, to some folks, Moby Dick. The pursuit really doesn't make much practical sense, but the mission can't be called off.



I'm not the biggest "drugs are evil" guy nor am I sure Novitsky should be putting the heat on Armstrong but there is an enormous amount of justification in this.
Dutra
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Jul 16, 2010 6:35 pm

Conor Dary wrote:
guru wrote:
"A couple of guys have confirmed components of what [Landis] said, but what Novitzky is really interested in is not whether Lance Armstrong used EPO to win the Tour de France -- that's not his mandate -- but whether there was tax evasion, contract fraud, importing drugs, using money to buy pharmaceuticals," said an individual with knowledge of the investigation. "That's why the investigation has gone global."


Why not add murder, genocide, WMDs...

I suspect the reason they aren't going after whether Armstrong used EPO is because they can't. So they come up with all this other nonsense.

As the story states this latest nonsense only started when one of the biggest dickheads in sport, Landis, was on the outs and broke, and decided to take down anyone he could find with him. Before that, they really had nothing.

What these witch hunts are usually about is some G-man catching a big fish in order to further his/her career. That's what it was all about with Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Martha Stewart. Think about it. In the case of Bonds and Clemens, they've already caught the PED pushers who've done their time in federal prisons. Neither Bonds nor Clemens have been accused of mail fraud, racketeering, check fraud, tax evasion, drug dealing or any other federal crimes. Their only crimes were lying about taking PED's. In Martha Stewart's case, the insider trading charge was so chicken-shit that a federal judge threw it out. So then the G-men got her on another chicken-shit charge of lying to an FBI agent. The bottom line:

Has Lance ever taken illegal PED's? Yes.

Technically speaking, has Lance broken federal laws that were meant to target big time drug dealers and Mafiosos? Probably.

Do the G-men really think that folks like Lance, Bonds, Clemens and Martha are a menace to society? Hell no.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby guru » Fri Jul 16, 2010 7:04 pm

Conor Dary wrote:As the story states this latest nonsense only started when one of the biggest dickheads in sport, Landis, was on the outs and broke, and decided to take down anyone he could find with him. Before that, they really had nothing.



So by that line of reasoning I suppose we should have given Marion Jones a pass too?

I don't care if it's Sammy The Bull "taking him down". If he broke federal laws related to drug trafficking, illegal use of sponsor funds, and tax evasion he needs to face the repercussions.
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 » Fri Jul 16, 2010 7:33 pm

guru wrote:
I don't care if it's Sammy The Bull "taking him down". If he broke federal laws related to drug trafficking, illegal use of sponsor funds, and tax evasion he needs to face the repercussions.


Yes, a little Noriega we have here....Illegal use of sponsor funds...Yes, instead of doing what he was suppose to do, ie racing the Tour, he was in Vegas gambling...Tax Evasion! Zowie maybe there is even a Swiss bank account! The Horrors!

And selling their bikes! For drugs! That makes a lot of sense. After what do they need bicycles for in a bike race?

There are lots of people who don't like Armstrong for one reason or another and as Jazz noted going after high profile athletes is an easy way to make a name.
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 Conor Dary » Fri Jul 16, 2010 7:42 pm

guru wrote:
So by that line of reasoning I suppose we should have given Marion Jones a pass too?


The moral to MJ story was not that drugs work, but don't leave a paper trail and watch who you hang out with. And as we also know she wasn't alone in doing PEDs then, but, hey, she was well known and a great target.
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 » Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:03 pm

Conor Dary wrote:
guru wrote:
I don't care if it's Sammy The Bull "taking him down". If he broke federal laws related to drug trafficking, illegal use of sponsor funds, and tax evasion he needs to face the repercussions.


Yes, a little Noriega we have here....Illegal use of sponsor funds...


It's called contract fraud



And selling their bikes! For drugs! That makes a lot of sense. After what do they need bicycles for in a bike race?


Trek has acknowledged it knows of bikes being sold.

And considering that fact, there's this little nugget.

The Trek story is particularly noteworthy in light of a bitter contract dispute the Minnesota-based company had last year with cycling great Greg LeMond. In court papers, Trek accused LeMond of inappropriately profiting from the company by re-selling high-end bikes it had given LeMond at low cost when Trek still had a distribution agreement with LeMond's signature cycling line.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_ ... z0tuNcEbvs


And today, this -

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_ ... probe.html
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests