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 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: 10860
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: 21119
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: 46333
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: 46333
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: 5485
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: 16333
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: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby kuha » Sat May 28, 2011 9:10 am

jazzcyclist wrote:I think it's unfair to lay cycling's PED problem at the feet of Amrstrong.


I'd certainly agree with this and have consistently held the position that--among the top finishers--it's been a "level playing field" for a long time. It's just that Armstrong is the biggest fish in that pond.
kuha
 
Posts: 9029
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 26mi235 » Sat May 28, 2011 10:40 am

I agree with jazz's post, which was well done.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16333
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

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

Postby Conor Dary » Sat May 28, 2011 11:37 am

kuha wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:I think it's unfair to lay cycling's PED problem at the feet of Amrstrong.


I'd certainly agree with this and have consistently held the position that--among the top finishers--it's been a "level playing field" for a long time. It's just that Armstrong is the biggest fish in that pond.


Good grief yes. Whatever you think of LA it was a problem long before he showed up. There were a number of deaths of Dutch cyclists in the 80's from some form of blood boosting agent, when Armstrong was still a teenager. But I suppose it was still his fault.
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 odelltrclan » Sat May 28, 2011 2:32 pm

I don't know where I have read that stated that doping was all Lance's fault. But it almost sickening to me to see people say it does not matter, or look at all the other good things he is doing, just leave him alone. I like the post from Dr. Jay. There are plenty of people who have been hurt.

Almost all of his top competitor's have fallen and his deserves to fall as well.

No one forced a drug culture on cycling. Collectively one by one cyclists over time compromised their principles for the sake of personal gain until it consumed virtually the entire peleton. But I am willing to bet that there were cyclists who were clean that were possibly cheated out of the fame and fortune and due rewards because of those who were willing to compromise their integrity. Therefore, if the sponsorship money dries up for cycling as a whole for a while, so be it, they will have earned it.

Lance also appears to have had help that many others have not had, which is the willingness of people in high places to cover for him when things haven't gone right (i.e. TdS in 2001). His fame and fortune were able to help him dope in ways his competition were not able to duplicate.

Also, the people that Lance has turned against and tried to destroy aren't all the Landis and Hamilton's of the world. Some of these people simply wanted to clean up a dirty sport and many are now labled as "rats" because they simply wanted a level playing field and what is best for the sport. That is sad.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

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

Postby gh » Sat May 28, 2011 2:49 pm

Conor Dary wrote:
kuha wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:I think it's unfair to lay cycling's PED problem at the feet of Amrstrong.


I'd certainly agree with this and have consistently held the position that--among the top finishers--it's been a "level playing field" for a long time. It's just that Armstrong is the biggest fish in that pond.


Good grief yes. Whatever you think of LA it was a problem long before he showed up. There were a number of deaths of Dutch cyclists in the 80's from some form of blood boosting agent, when Armstrong was still a teenager. But I suppose it was still his fault.


And long before the Dutch, remember that the first Olympic death that was drug related was a Danish (?) cyclist on amphetamines in '60.

I have nothing to back this thought other than the logic of the whole thing, but I suspect that after the WWII experience of doping soldiers to the gills to keep them functioning that it wasn't long thereafater that somebody put two and two together and the peloton was changed forever.
gh
 
Posts: 46333
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

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

Postby kuha » Sat May 28, 2011 3:06 pm

A good bit of this DOES date back to the of performance enhancers in WWII, and not just in cycling. But, again, at the time all this was just seen as smart science.
kuha
 
Posts: 9029
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 Pego » Sat May 28, 2011 3:52 pm

kuha wrote:A good bit of this DOES date back to the of performance enhancers in WWII, and not just in cycling. But, again, at the time all this was just seen as smart science.


Didn't the Swedes take the fartlek interval training to higher altitude forests in the thirties already? They may or may not have known the exact physiology of hematocrit enhancement, but they clearly saw the results.
Pego
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

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

Postby kuha » Sat May 28, 2011 4:04 pm

I can't answer that offhand, but I've been the one saying that all this "really" dates from the 1870s/80s and the use of stimulants.

The bottom line is: there is no era of "modern" athletics in which one can say, absolutely, that NO ONE was doing anything we'd now call "illegal." This has nothing to do with illegality at the time (because these things weren't) and we're not talking about "everyone" doing anything. Nevertheless, by today's Puritan standards, there is no era that would obviously qualify as "pure" or "untainted."
kuha
 
Posts: 9029
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 Pego » Sat May 28, 2011 6:02 pm

That is clearly so. My focus was a lot more narrow since with the cycling "doping", we are primarily talking about manipulation of hematocrit/O2 transfer that progressively graduated from interval to altitude training to hyperbaric chambers to allotransfusion to autotransfusion to EPO. I might have omitted some others.

What I am saying is that this is a lot more physiological than, say, steroids or HGH (with EPO being an exception as it could be life-threatening). Not only are the suits not considering legalization of autotransfusion, but from what I read, they are considering banning hyperbaric and even some versions of altitude training. This is insane, IMHO.

All (or at least most) of those deaths attributable to high hematocrit could be avoided by transferring their administration from snake oil salesmen to professionals familiar with hematology and exercise physiology.
Pego
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

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

Postby bambam » Sat May 28, 2011 6:19 pm

gh wrote:I have nothing to back this thought other than the logic of the whole thing, but I suspect that after the WWII experience of doping soldiers to the gills to keep them functioning that it wasn't long thereafater that somebody put two and two together and the peloton was changed forever.


Backing up E Garry, remember that Eddy Merckx, who raced professionally from 1965-1976, was caught doping twice. This goes back in cycling to at least the 1920s, although back then it was mostly amphetamines.

Because of my Olympic interest I get asked to do some other stuff, and recently finished a book called Historical Dictionary of Cycling. Here are the opening paragraphs for the entry on doping, which gives an outline for how far back this goes:

The first implication of doping in cycling may go back to the 19th century, when trainer Choppy Warburton was banned from the sport for suspicions of drugging his riders. Warburton coached Arthur Linton, who won Bordeaux-Paris in 1896, but was suspected of being doped by Warburton during that race.
In 1924 Henri Pélissier and his brother, Charles, admitted to various doping methods, describing in an interview their use of strychnine, cocaine, chloroform, aspirin, and horse ointments, although they later noted that the writer had exaggerated their claims. By the 1940s Italian campionissimo Fausto Coppi freely admitted to doping, calling it “la bomba,” and said there was no alternative if one hoped to stay competitive.
In 1955 French rider Jean Malléjac collapsed in the Tour de France near the top of Mont Ventoux, and it was attributed to doping. He had been riding wildly and sporadically and fell off his bike with one foot still in his toe clip. He later stated he had been drugged against his will and proclaimed his innocence to his death in 2000. Roger Rivière, a star of the late 1950s, who was paralyzed after a crash in the 1960 Tour, later admitted to doping during his career, and even said his career-ending accident was possibly due to the use of painkilling drugs which had affected his reflexes and judgment.
At the 1960 Olympic Games, Danish rider Knud Enemark Jensen fell off his bike during the team time trial. His fall caused a fractured skull, but blood analysis in the hospital also showed that he had used Ronicol, a peripheral vasodilator, and amphetamines. Because of the fractured skull, however, the drugs were not implicated as the direct cause of death. But Jensen’s death would later lead the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to start an anti-doping campaign, which would begin with the 1968 Olympics.
In 1965 Tour superstar Jacques Anquetil admitted during a television interview that he used drugs, stating that it was common at the time, and that a man could not ride Bordeaux-Paris or the grand tours while riding only on water. On 1 June 1965, performance-enhancing drugs were made illegal in France and in July 1966 the Tour authorities began testing the riders for drugs, with Raymond Poulidor the first rider to be tested on 29 July.
During the 13th stage of the 1967 Tour de France Tom Simpson fell off his bike near the summit of Mont Ventoux. He could not be revived and died later that day. His autopsy would reveal that he had been on amphetamines and alcohol while riding, and his death was probably the major impetus to begin the fight against doping.
In 1969 and 1973, the greatest rider of all-time, Eddy Merckx, twice tested positive for banned substances and was disqualified from races. In that era, there were no long-term bans and he continued riding. At the 1972 Olympics Jaime Huélamo was disqualified after placing third in the men’s road race, having tested positive for coramine. Another rider, Aad van den Hoek, also tested positive for coramine and was disqualified, which eliminated the Dutch team from the team time trial, after they had placed third.
In 1979 the polka dot jersey, Giovanni Battaglin, tested positive for doping on stage 13. He was penalized 10 minutes in general classification, and lost the mountain points he won on stage 13, but continued to race and eventually won the mountains classification. Shortly thereafter, Freddy Maertens admitted to the French newspaper L’Équipe that he had used amphetamines during his career, and said that it was just like all other professional riders who did the same.
Just after the 1984 Olympics, the United States' cyclists were implicated in doping for the first time, when it was revealed that several members of the US cycling team had undergone blood doping to prepare for the Games. At the time this was not illegal and no penalties were assessed, though it was considered a doping practice. Blood doping became illegal in international sport in 1985.
In the late 1980s eryrthropoietin (EPO) became widely available as a way to increase a person’s hematocrit (Hct), a measure of blood count. Initially used by anemic patients, especially those on dialysis or undergoing chemotherapy, professional cyclists and runners soon found that using it could boost their Hct, allowing for more oxygen carrying capacity, without resorting to blood doping. Unfortunately overuse of EPO can raise a healthy person’s hematocrit to dangerous levels, causing the blood to sludge, possibly causing strokes or heart attacks. Between 1987 and 1991 18 different European professional cyclists, seemingly healthy young men, died suddenly, and EPO was suspected in many of the unusual deaths. One rider was Dutch cyclist Johannes Draaijer, whose wife stated that he became ill after using EPO.

It goes on, but I'll stop at the Festina Scandal of 1998.

As to Dr Jay's post, a few guys I know on the inside say that Armstrong is one of the most despicable people they have ever known. As to the mention of LeMond, I really like LeMond and think he has never gotten due credit for being the American to break through the European hegemony in pro cycling. I think some of the stuff he has done going after Armstrong has been a little weird. But if you ask me, I would suspect LeMond probably used some stuff in the 1980s as well - everybody was doing it, even then.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

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

Postby DrJay » Sun May 29, 2011 6:25 am

French climbers (and thus, probably others) were using amphetamines on big peaks in the 1950s. See "Aconcagua South Face" by Rene Ferlet. He was quite casual in his descriptions of taking them high on the 10,000' face, as casual as we'd describe taking a few Advil today.
DrJay
 
Posts: 5485
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Woodland Park, CO

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

Postby Dutra » Sun May 29, 2011 7:45 am

Apparently because we have an athlete we're supposed to like, we can come up with rationalizations. Had we had an athlete we're supposed to dislike, it would be hang em high.

While I'm not particularly against the use of PEDs, there are standards here which appear that there's a good chance were broken whether anyone received an advantage or not. If this were not the problem that some are trying to downplay then it would be no issue for the athletes and they could simply state that they took them and move on. Instead we have athletes denying usage despite all common sense analysis to the contrary and couching their words in a way to avoid being caught whether it be legally or public opinion.
Dutra
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby Pego » Sun May 29, 2011 11:21 am

DrJay wrote:French climbers (and thus, probably others) were using amphetamines on big peaks in the 1950s.


Swiss mountaineers (guides, rescuers) have traditionally used strychnine. They would start with a low dose, progressively increasing it beyond a standard lethal dose.
Pego
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

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

Postby kuha » Sun May 29, 2011 11:28 am

bambam wrote:Because of my Olympic interest I get asked to do some other stuff, and recently finished a book called Historical Dictionary of Cycling. Here are the opening paragraphs for the entry on doping, which gives an outline for how far back this goes:


Thanks. This is excellent and sobering stuff. Makes it a bit hard to pretend that nailing one guy to the wall now is going to solve much of anything. I'm all for guilt being punished, etc., but what we're really talking about here is not primarily a personal failing, but something much bigger.
kuha
 
Posts: 9029
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 DrJay » Sun May 29, 2011 9:39 pm

I hear Italian beef is pretty good right now, and in demand the last three weeks....
DrJay
 
Posts: 5485
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Woodland Park, CO

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:07 am

Armstrong wants an apology from "60 Minutes".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/0 ... 69597.html
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Jun 01, 2011 9:44 am

I think 60 Minutes is on the edge of losing its credibility on this one in a manner that was unnecessary:

[from link above]
""60 Minutes" also reported that the UCI officials brokered a meeting involving Armstrong and Saugy's World Anti-Doping Agency-accredited lab, which tested the Swiss race samples.

Saugy told the Swiss daily Neue Zurcher Zeitung last week that he met with Armstrong and then-U.S. Postal team manager Johan Bruyneel, but not in Lausanne as Hamilton claimed and unconnected to a suspicious test result."

Why [did 60 Minutes] put in something that they are not sure of and have everyone say 'what else is not right'. This situation presents itself in spades because the primary discussants are two individuals who have been 'loose with the truth' on this score for a long time. It lets Armstrong keep with his same strategy without having to dodge and weave at all. :( :x

Several have cited Canseco and how people did not believe him. There is a fundamental difference in that he did not deny for years having used PEDs even after having tested positive. Rather he stated his and implicated others initially.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16333
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

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

Postby Dutra » Wed Jun 01, 2011 10:55 am

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

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Jun 01, 2011 11:44 am

26mi235 wrote:Several have cited Canseco and how people did not believe him. There is a fundamental difference in that he did not deny for years having used PEDs even after having tested positive. Rather he stated his and implicated others initially.

What about Andreu and Hincapie?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Jun 01, 2011 2:15 pm

Hincapie did not say anything; they have you taking their word for it that he said some things and someone broke the law by passing it on. This is exactly the form of content that gets its credibility diminished by having one of their other pieces 'shown' to be wrong.

I think that they thought they had to many many things, and by reaching too far they may have taken a hit on the credibility, especially if they have to publicly retract something. I think it was an unfortunate choice of strategy. I am not sure have the typical person will view this, since I cannot put myself in that role because I know too much to be 'typical' in this sense.

Now 'everyone' will say -- I guess I will wait until the Feds do something and then if they do not have the smoking gun for real I am all for Lance... [I guess that I am saying that I have gone more and more to the Lance is guilty as well as a self-centered individual who can be a jerk. I have never wanted to 'go meet him', although there are various opportunities because Trek is just down the road. Jazz, you are probably one reason for my deepening skepticism.]
26mi235
 
Posts: 16333
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

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

Postby odelltrclan » Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:18 pm

It strikes me more of Saugy bowing to pressures being exerted on him from outside forces. He tells 60 minutes one thing (probably the truth) and is now facing problems of his own. Why would a lab director meet with Lance and his coach in an approximate time to when this was all supposed to have gone down? Still way too odd. My guess is the Saugy has felt some heat he did not expect and is trying to wiggle his way out of it the best he can.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

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

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:29 am

There are several relevant pieces on Cyclingnews.com, especially:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vroomen-on-doping-the-media-basso-and-schleck

"Gerard Vroomen has never shied away from the discussion on doping and in two recent blog posts on his personal website he raised issues over the media’s reporting of the issue. After a recent restructure at Cervelo, in which he stepped down from his position as CEO, the former manager of the Cervelo TestTeam was quick to point that the views posted on his blog were his alone but talked openly about his feelings on Ivan Basso, Fränk Shleck and the journalistic endeavour into doping."...

Vrooman is the co-founder of the team that then had Basso win the Giro and Shleck linked to Operation Puerto.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16333
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby MattMarriott » Sun Jul 01, 2012 5:15 am

Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" accused and stripped - first of six acts June 29 2012

Last Prophet predicted 2004 that the greatest cycling champion ever, Lance Armstrong would be executed the same way as Marion Jones:
- first: falsely accused of doping, as may others before, as oart of the agenda behind the illuminati doping conspiracy; (1)
- second: all major TITLES erased from the official medals table, which is also part of the "Rewrite History" agenda pushed to the utter limits.

In 2007 Last Prophet explained that Usain Bolt would be executed the same way as Lance Armstrong.
In 2008 after the Usain Bolt set his world records in Beijing Olympics, Last Prophet explained that Usain Bolt became the fastest man ever AND FOREVER.

Immediately after the illuminati were forced to use plan B for the 2008 elections and have "Obama" play counterfeit president and have him detonate as suicide bomber (like Nixon) later,

Last Prophet explained that illuminati actor "Obama" would be executed the same way (2) as the two greatest sports champions ever, Armstrong and Bolt:
- accused of all sort of crimes (forging birth certificazte; murdering his "granny", etc);
- stripped of his title, i.e. Hillary Clinton declared 44th president and successor of GW Bush.

All this part also of the supervised ethnic civil war script, to be launched together with the collapse of banks and anihilation of savings and pension funds of human cattle.

The first of these six acts (accusation, titles stripping of Armstrong. Bolt and "Obama") timely took place (3) on June 29, 2012, hours before the start of the Tour de France. The

Notes
(1) http://doping-conspiracy.blogspot.pt/20 ... ll-be.html
(2) http://rewrite-history.blogspot.pt/2009 ... nia-v.html
MattMarriott
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby MattMarriott » Sun Jul 01, 2012 5:17 am

Notes (continued)
The next five acts won't take as long as the first did. Actually they are all scheduled for 2012.
(3) Lance Armstrong to face charges from U.S. Anti-Doping Agency
June 29, 2012
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/o ... igs30.html
MattMarriott
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby Marlow » Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:31 am

Matt, you're the best.
You are the sunshine of my life.
You are the wind beneath my wings
You are the . . . well. you get the picture.

I love you, man! 8-)
Marlow
 
Posts: 21119
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby dukehjsteve » Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:44 am

Where are the Men In The White Suits when you need them ?!
dukehjsteve
 
Posts: 6057
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fishers, IN

Re: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby Conor Dary » Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:58 am

dukehjsteve wrote:Where are the Men In The White Suits when you need them ?!


Maybe they are watching him, with a computer in his rubber room. This could be part of the therapy. Post nonsense here, instead of going out and doing real damage.
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: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby SQUACKEE » Sun Jul 01, 2012 9:27 am

Yo Matt, if you think your Prophet is impressive for coming up with "Lance Armstrong to face charges from U.S. Anti-Doping Agency", then I think you should upgrade to a A standard guy!
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Re: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby Dutra5 » Sun Jul 01, 2012 9:52 am

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Awesome Matt!
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby uakari » Tue Jul 03, 2012 11:41 am

i never understood why the obamaphobes are so obsessed with the "hussein" part of his name, when "barack" is a perfectly good arab name as well...
uakari
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 12:21 pm

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests