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 preston » Thu Oct 11, 2012 4:23 pm

I think they know that if they rescind the statute of limitations to get Armstrong that they will open a can of worms that may change Olympic results all the way back to the 60's and possibly the 50's.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/ol ... -armstrong
-“It has been the policy in the past wherever there was enough information to proceed we would proceed,” IOC executive board member Denis Oswald of Switzerland told the AP in a telephone interview. “All cases which have been now established will be reviewed.

“Where we have jurisdiction, I guess the attitude will be to disqualify the relevant athletes and to possibly see whether it’s appropriate to reallocate medals.”

The IOC has an eight-year statute of limitations for changing Olympic results, which could affect any moves to take Armstrong’s medal from 2000.

“For Armstrong, I’m not sure,” Oswald said. “Sydney might be too late.”
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

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

Postby Pego » Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:11 pm

Thank you, management for removing personal jousting instead of killing the entire thread.
Pego
 
Posts: 10196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

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

Postby Dutra5 » Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:05 pm

Could there be a potential issue if Livestrong was directly or indirectly used for payment of all the people involved in any doping efforts?
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

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

Postby Conor Dary » Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:22 pm

Pego wrote:Thank you, management for removing personal jousting instead of killing the entire thread.

WTF?
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 Gabriella » Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:50 am

Ladies and gents, let's stop the name calling. Take a step back and relax; life is too short!

From what I have read thus far, it appears Armstrong was not just another rider, but was part of the orchestration of the whole thing and a bully. Perhpas that is what distinguishes him from others, and of course the fact that he won the Tour more times than anyone else.

I don't really care whether every team is taking drugs as long we're doing our best to catch them all. And for those that preach and protest, despite being obviously guilty like Armstrong, then I am very much for them to be hung, drawn and quartered in public (metaphorically speaking of course) I will always respect those that 'fess up once convicted much more than those that continue to lie and not tell the whole truth. Angella Isajenko and Tyler Hamilton I applaud you; Marion Jones & Lance Armstrong I do not.
Gabriella
 
Posts: 1680
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:59 am

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:35 am

Gabriella wrote:From what I have read thus far, it appears Armstrong was not just another rider, but was part of the orchestration of the whole thing and a bully. Perhpas that is what distinguishes him from others, and of course the fact that he won the Tour more times than anyone else..

He may have been a jerk but he was not any sort of mastermind, though that's what USADA wants you to believe. Even Tyler Hamilton admitted in his 60 Minutes interview that U.S. Postal already had a full-blown doping program going before Armstrong ever joined the team. I believe Armstrong was just a little more careful than the folks who got caught - careful about how much he doped and careful about who he got dope from. Other cyclists like George Hincapie, Levi Leipheimer and Christian Van Velde were similarly careful since they never got caught during their cycling careers either. As someone said earlier in this thread, drug tests are really de facto IQ tests.
Gabriella wrote:I don't really care whether every team is taking drugs as long we're doing our best to catch them all. And for those that preach and protest, despite being obviously guilty like Armstrong, then I am very much for them to be hung, drawn and quartered in public (metaphorically speaking of course) I will always respect those that 'fess up once convicted much more than those that continue to lie and not tell the whole truth. Angella Isajenko and Tyler Hamilton I applaud you; Marion Jones & Lance Armstrong I do not.

I don't know why you would put Isajenko ir Hamilton on a pedestal. It doesn't take much courage and/or character to confess your PED sins once your career is over or after you've been subpoenaed and you're simply trying to avoid going to prison for perjury. Hamillton himself said that he would have taken his secrets to his grave if he hadn't gotten subpoenaed. What would impress me is if an active athlete who is at the peak of his/her career, and who is under no duress to speak out due to a subpoena or a failed drug test, all of a sudden got PED religion. For example, if Michael Phelps or Usain Bolt came out today and admitted to being a doper, that would really impress me as an act of honesty.
Last edited by jazzcyclist on Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:29 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 Pego » Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:45 am

Jazzcyclist's above post is a voice of reason. It is the way things are, not some utopia how some people would like it to be.
Pego
 
Posts: 10196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

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

Postby j-a-m » Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:00 am

jazzcyclist wrote:He may have been a jerk but he was not any sort of mastermind, though that's what USADA wants you to believe.

And that also gives a convenient excuse to others, who can now claim that it wasn't their own fault that they were doping, but rather a response to Armstrong:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oc ... ich-doping
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:27 am

j-a-m wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:He may have been a jerk but he was not any sort of mastermind, though that's what USADA wants you to believe.

And that also gives a convenient excuse to others, who can now claim that it wasn't their own fault that they were doping, but rather a response to Armstrong:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oc ... ich-doping

And I guess Armstrong can say that I only doped because Bjarne Riis (1996 Tour winner), Jan Ullrich (1997 Tour winner) and Marco Pantani (1998 Tour winner) were doping.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby Conor Dary » Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:42 am

Gabriella wrote:Ladies and gents, let's stop the name calling. Take a step back and relax; life is too short!


Name calling? I identify 7sided by his old name and he comes back with his disgusting accusations to me and others.

And no one gives a shit....
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 preston » Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:51 am

Conor Dary wrote:
Gabriella wrote:Ladies and gents, let's stop the name calling. Take a step back and relax; life is too short!


Name calling? I identify 7sided by his old name and he comes back with his disgusting accusations to me and others.

And no one gives a shit....

Gabriella didn't name you, but he was probably talking about you (and others) when you make comments like, I don't know, "****head" or your partner in crime referring to anyone besides himself as "sick".

Everyone else has moved on, but you continue to regurgitate this nonsense to kill the thread - all because when people don't agree with you you feel compelled to lash out and then declare that it's of no consequence and then continue to come back. :lol: If you don't give a shit why don't you move along to another thread?
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

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

Postby Conor Dary » Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:13 am

7sided just go to hell where you belong.
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 preston » Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:22 am

Conor Dary wrote:7sided just go to hell where you belong.

Conor Dary, you really are not a nice person. You need joy in your life. Here's a smile. ==> :D
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

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

Postby odelltrclan » Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:35 am

To say that Lance Armstrong was just the same as others I think is a little misleading. While it may be correct that he learned his trade from others, with Postal, he took it to another level. But, assuming that he did nothing more than any other team leader, what sets him apart from any others I have read about?

1. Slander and threaten others reputations and livelihoods. Multiple instances with dozens of people.
2. Rat others out if he thought they were getting a doping advantage approaching his performance level as he did to Hamilton [allegedly of course], calling the UCI to check him out in 2004.
3. Ensured that he got better help [access to treatment and products] than others and even his own teammates.
4. Once he had fame and money, he used it to circumvent investigations and outright bullying of others. Getting the grand jury investigation to be dropped is one example. Having congressmen trying to introduce legislation to stop USADA is another.

Just like bringing another level of "professionalism" in the pursuit of Tour de France wins, as he is so often credited with in the cycling community, I suspect he did the same to the doping programs. And he brought mafioso thuggery along to help him out.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:08 am

odelltrclan wrote:2. Rat others out if he thought they were getting a doping advantage approaching his performance level as he did to Hamilton [allegedly of course], calling the UCI to check him out in 2004.

Come on man. Hamilton won an Olympic Gold Medal in 2004. Medal winners are automatically tested. Hamilton flunked the test that he took at the Olympics after winning the gold medal. Hamilton blamed the Operation Puerto doctor for giving him someone else's blood. Obviously, Armstrong had nothing to do this. You're reaching.
odelltrclan wrote:3. Ensured that he got better help [access to treatment and products] than others and even his own teammates.

I can see why one might resent Armstring for doping, but it seems that you also resent him for doping smartly. It's like hating the competent bank robber who never gets caught more than you hate the incompetent bank robber. :?
odelltrclan wrote:4. Once he had fame and money, he used it to circumvent investigations and outright bullying of others. Getting the grand jury investigation to be dropped is one example. Having congressmen trying to introduce legislation to stop USADA is another.

Surely you jest. I doubt very seriously that Jeff Novitzky or any of the other G-men felt that they needed to drop the case against Amrstrong because they felt intimidated by him and his lawyers. The folks who brought Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Marion Jones to trial, not to mention the Blind Sheik, John Gotti and many other really, really bad guys, are not afraid of a cyclist.

As for Congress, I can't believe you would be surprised that such a craven, superfical and self-serving group of people would try to bask in Armstrong's celebrity. Didn't you see them asking Clemens for his autograph when he went to testify on Capitol Hill? A couple of years ago, Michelle Bachmann gave a scathing rebuttal to Barack Obama's State of the Union address right after she had just gone up to him and asked him to autograph her program like some bobby-soxer at a Beatles concert. That should tell you all you need to know about the typical Congressman.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby odelltrclan » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:48 am

Jazz, you obviously are limited in some of the reading you have done, so maybe you should do so before making some of your comments. Try reading Hamilton's book. Some of the things I mentioned were elaborated in his book. You can choose to believe whether they are true or not, but can not insinuate that I am making this up.

Hamilton was clear in his book that Armstrong called the UCI and ratted him out about his blood doping because he had been told so by Armstrong's teammates. He was called in to discuss tests that had occurred by the UCI and was told they were watching him. This had nothing to do with the Fuentas screw-up that ultimately resulted in his being caught.

Hamilton also was clear about how after he started to surpass Armstrong in some of the tests they used to evaluate the doping / fitness combo that their relationship changed and Armstrong tried to procure more help from Ferrari for himself than he was giving others on his own team. After setting a record on their test climb, he was mocked by LA, Kristin Armstrong and others. He was starting to see success as evidenced by the Dauphine /Mt. Ventoux win in 2000. The change in their relationships stemming in part from Hamilton's newfound successes led to his decision to go to another team.

Novitzky told Hamilton he was deeply disappointed the federal case was dropped and was unsure why. Again, read the book. There is a good chance it was motivated by higher ups. If you believe that Armstrong has not tried to use his power and fame to come after USADA after this all started to go down you are grossly naive. The actions of those who tried to introduce legislation certainly was related to this case. They may not have been approached by LA Inc, but no doubt were influenced by they propoganda machine.

I also find it incredulous that people are deriding USADA so harshly. The rumors about Lance have been going on for over a decade and yet USADA was not actively pursuing him during any of this time. It was not until evidence was given to them after the federal investigation was closed that this happened with them. With the mountain of evidence they had, it would have been a dereliction of their duty NOT to follow through with this. All part of the LA propoganda machine to make it look like "poor old me".
Last edited by odelltrclan on Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

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

Postby Pego » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:53 am

jazzcyclist wrote: Michelle Bachmann gave a scathing rebuttal to Barack Obama's State of the Union address right after she had just gone up to him and asked him to autograph her program


No shit? Now, that's funny :lol: .
Pego
 
Posts: 10196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:09 am

Odelltrclan, I haven't read Hamilton's book yet, but you haven't presented any new facts from it that I didn't already know. Bambam presented some new facts that I wasn't aware of last week but you haven't. Nor have you refuted my assertion that Hamilton was banned from cycling for flunking a mandatory test at the 2004 Olympics, not because he was ratted out to the UCI. All this other stuff about jealousy, pettiness, vindictiveness, alledgedly getting ratted out to the UCI, etc. may further fuel your contempt for Armstrong, but it's all idle specualtion, conjecture and gossip that has nothing to do with USADA's case against Amrstrong.

Furthermore, I find it amazing that as a sports fan, you seem surprised that Amrstrong, an alpha male, might feel threatened and not be such a gracious team leader when another alpha male appeared capable of challenging him for team leadership. I'm not saying that I take Hamilton's claims on this matter at face value, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if they were true. Sports in general, and cycling in particular, have a history of personality conflicts like this (eg. Hinault-LeMond, Riis-Ullrich, Montana-Young, Favre-Rogers, Bledsoe-Brady, O'Neal-Bryant, etc.) and the Armstrong-Hamilton situation predictably resolved itself when Hamilton left U.S. Postal to lead his own team, which is the way these situations always get resolved. Why do you think Mark Cavendish told Team Sky that he wants to leave the team? Why do you think Peyton Manning wanted off of the Colts once he found out they were drafting Andrew Luck? Do you think Mark Sanchez and Tim Tebow get along like best buddies?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby odelltrclan » Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:41 am

I never said Hamilton was banned for anything other than his failed tests. It is hardly an "assertion" when it is a statement of fact. What isn't a fact was that the UCI called and had a meeting with Hamilton earlier in the year before this to discuss blood issues and that they were going to keep an eye on him, and that they (his assertion) was that were notified by Armstrong. Show me where Bambam discusses this?

Secondly, I am not surprised by anything Armstrong did. I discussed it because, if it were true, it reveals more about his character than the public persona has been led to believe, some of which people here have been arguing for. Among those things are that he was doing nothing more than anyone else, when in fact, he was probably doing more, which his wealth and power enabled him to do. One of those things was getting Ferrari almost exclusively for himself, and secondly, if he felt threatened, was willing to try and stop other riders, even if it meant anonymously ratting them out.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

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

Postby odelltrclan » Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:45 am

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/tour-vacat ... --spt.html

This is what I said I believe should happen. No winners.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:36 pm

odelltrclan wrote:I never said Hamilton was banned for anything other than his failed tests. It is hardly an "assertion" when it is a statement of fact. What isn't a fact was that the UCI called and had a meeting with Hamilton earlier in the year before this to discuss blood issues and that they were going to keep an eye on him, and that they (his assertion) was that were notified by Armstrong. Show me where Bambam discusses this?

Bambam didn't discuss this, but as I said earlier, it's not a fact that Amrstrong ratted him out, it's just idle speculation on Hamilton's part.

odelltrclan wrote:Secondly, I am not surprised by anything Armstrong did. I discussed it because, if it were true, it reveals more about his character than the public persona has been led to believe, some of which people here have been arguing for. Among those things are that he was doing nothing more than anyone else, when in fact, he was probably doing more, which his wealth and power enabled him to do. One of those things was getting Ferrari almost exclusively for himself, and secondly, if he felt threatened, was willing to try and stop other riders, even if it meant anonymously ratting them out.

You talk about his wealth and power as though they were things that were just bestowed upon him, rather than something he acquired over time due to making smart decisions, such as using a doctor with a limited clientele rather one than like Fuentas who might as well have had a neon sign outside his office saying "Over One Thousand Cyclists Served". When Armstrong rolled into the start house for the prologue of 1999 Tour, he wasn't even one of the top 25 most powerful and wealthy cyclists in the peleton, and was considered damaged goods and a long shot to even finsish on the podium, much less win the race. At that time, the biggest star in the sport was probably Jan Ullrich, who was the leader of the Telekom team, and whose roster and budget dwarfed that of U.S. Postal, which was one of the weakest and poorest teams in the race. Why couldn't Ullrich manage his talent, wealth and power as judiciously as Armstrong would later do? At that time he would have been in a much better position to acquire the best dope and the most discreet doctors than Armstrong? His decision to use Fuentas was the equivalent of him flunking the IQ test that was mentioned earlier. What about Marco Pantani, why couldn't he have done what Armstrong did? What about Abraham Olano, Laurent Jalabert, Alex Zulle and Richard Virenque, they were all wealthier and more powerful than Armstrong at the time?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby DG » Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:00 am

For those interested:the complete report can be found here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/109637096/Lan ... ADA-report
DG
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby odelltrclan » Sat Oct 13, 2012 3:42 pm

As LA apologists still abound, this lady deserves accolades because she was never swayed about speaking the truth to help clean up the sport, even at personal cost, which almost no one else in this whole sordid affair were willing to do.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/bet ... wilderness
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Oct 13, 2012 8:39 pm

I am very much aware of Frankie and Betsy Andreu's testimony against Armstrong when SCA Promotions sued him to withhold his $5 million bonus for winning the Tour. I remember thinking at the time that it would lead to Armstrong being sanctioned by the UCI, since based on his relationship with Armstrong, Frankie was an unimpeachable witness, and I was surprsied that it never went anywhere.

As for Betsy, I wouldn't pat her on the back too hard, since like Tyler Hamilton, she admitted that she never would have out ratted Armstrong if she hadn't been subpoenaed, and I can't blame her since her own husband was doping also, and it would have been hypocritical of her to rat out Armstrong and not Frankie. I guess I'm not easily impressed. What would have impressed me is if Betsy had gone to the UCI back in 2000 and ratted out the whole team when she first found out they were doping on the stage to Sestriere. That would be noble. Telling the truth because you're afraid of going to prison for committing perjury isn't so noble IMO.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby odelltrclan » Sat Oct 13, 2012 10:45 pm

jazzcyclist wrote: As for Betsy, I wouldn't pat her on the back too hard, since like Tyler Hamilton, she admitted that she never would have out ratted Armstrong if she hadn't been subpoenaed, and I can't blame her since her own husband was doping also, and it would have been hypocritical of her to rat out Armstrong and not Frankie. I guess I'm not easily impressed. What would have impressed me is if Betsy had gone to the UCI back in 2000 and ratted out the whole team when she first found out they were doping on the stage to Sestriere. That would be noble. Telling the truth because you're afraid of going to prison for committing perjury isn't so noble IMO.


Comparing Besty to Tyler Hamilton is pretty lame. Betsy has done a lot more than you give her credit for. Others had been subpoenad and lied. She refused to lie. She stood up in the face of Lance Inc and his posse who were trying to intimidate others into submission, or, as she puts it, sign affidavits when they weren't in the room [like Dr. Craig Miller]. While she may not have come forth in such a perfect fashion as you think she should have, she was also not hiding the truth so much as you let on. And, this whole story began long before the SCA lawsuit.

Betsy told her story to David Walsh in 2003 though asked that it be kept confidential. And yes while she may have been protecting her interests, she also wanted the truth to come out so was willing to talk to Walsh. Lance found out what Walsh was going to write in his book about the hospital room visit in 2004 and tried to get Betsy to sign an affidavit that it was a lie and to support him and discredit Walsh. She refused to do so. This is NOT the same as Hamilton. This is where she started developing the courage to stand up to Lance. And it is where things started to go south with the LA / Andreu relationships, to her and Frankie's financial detriment. Lance, in accordance with his usual tactics, started the public disparaging of her. The SCA lawsuit came later and in part because of what she told Walsh, because they had hear of the hospital room incident.

Lance is going to have his hands full now with SCA, and hopefully with some of the plethora of people he slandered along the way. This is only the beginning for him.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

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

Postby Pego » Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:24 am

odelltrclan wrote:As LA apologists still abound,


This designation is truly infuriating. Nobody is "apologizing" for LA. Some of us simply feel that he did what all (vast majority) of his competitors/teammates did and was particularly demonized. So far I have not seen one testimony of any rider that could say he was clean. Is LA a jerk? Probably, but that is not the point.
Pego
 
Posts: 10196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 14, 2012 6:17 am

odelltrclan wrote:Comparing Besty to Tyler Hamilton is pretty lame.

I don't think so. What's lame is putting Betsy on a pedestal despite the fact that she honored the omerta until she was put on the witness stand just like Hamilton. I don't give people brownie points for telling the truth under oath.
odelltrclan wrote:Betsy has done a lot more than you give her credit for.
Others had been subpoenad and lied. She refused to lie.

The only people who I can think of that lied under oath are Lance, Bruyneel and Lance's doctor. All of Lance's teammate's did the same thing Betsy did, which is honor the omerta until they were subpoenaed.
odelltrclan wrote:Betsy told her story to David Walsh in 2003 though asked that it be kept confidential. And yes while she may have been protecting her interests,

That's the whole point. She's not the only one in this saga with a conscience. Like everyone else, she was looking out for her own interests, and once her husband was retired, she got PED religion just like retired cyclists Jonathan Vaughters, Johan Museeuw and Bjarne Riis who all broke the omerta without being subpoenaed. And once she divorced Frankie she got even more PED religion. Why did she want Walsh to keep these secrets to himself? Why did anyone have to prod her at all? Couldn't she have come forward and spilled the beans voluntarily? The way I see it, everyone in the Lance's saga willingness to get PED religion and rat him out is inversely proportional what they have to lose by ratting him out. Banned cyclists with books to sell have more religion than ex-wives and ex-girlfriends (Sheryl Crow also testified). Ex-wives and ex-girlfriends have more religion than retired cyclists. Retired cyclists have more religion than active cyclists, and so forth and so on.
odelltrclan wrote:This is NOT the same as Hamilton.

In what way? Hamilton wasn't in that hospital room and had no prior testimony to refute.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 14, 2012 6:50 am

Pego wrote:
odelltrclan wrote:As LA apologists still abound,


This designation is truly infuriating. Nobody is "apologizing" for LA. Some of us simply feel that he did what all (vast majority) of his competitors/teammates did and was particularly demonized. So far I have not seen one testimony of any rider that could say he was clean. Is LA a jerk? Probably, but that is not the point.

Amen Pego! I couldn't have said it better myself.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby kuha » Sun Oct 14, 2012 7:04 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Pego wrote:
odelltrclan wrote:As LA apologists still abound,


This designation is truly infuriating. Nobody is "apologizing" for LA. Some of us simply feel that he did what all (vast majority) of his competitors/teammates did and was particularly demonized. So far I have not seen one testimony of any rider that could say he was clean. Is LA a jerk? Probably, but that is not the point.

Amen Pego! I couldn't have said it better myself.


Yes, of course.

The problem here is that there are at least two "Lance Armstrongs" in people's minds. There is the cyclist who EVERYONE (with a brain) has either accepted or assumed was doing the same thing as nearly everyone else in the top rank of the TdF. To even pretend that there is any significant number of folks outside of Armstrong and his lawyer that "believe" that he never did PEDS is just ridiculous.

Then, there is the cultural icon Lance Armstrong: cancer survivor, organizer of a big charity to do good things and to give people hope, etc. THAT Lance Armstrong clearly DOES have some real and lasting support--which doesn't surprise me one bit and, in many respects, may be entirely justified. His charitable work has its own life and its own impact--and will survive or fall on its own merits.

But it is a very foolish notion that Armstrong the cyclist has significant "defenders" at this point.
kuha
 
Posts: 9015
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 odelltrclan » Sun Oct 14, 2012 7:32 am

Pego wrote:
odelltrclan wrote:As LA apologists still abound,


This designation is truly infuriating. Nobody is "apologizing" for LA. Some of us simply feel that he did what all (vast majority) of his competitors/teammates did and was particularly demonized. So far I have not seen one testimony of any rider that could say he was clean. Is LA a jerk? Probably, but that is not the point.


Whether you like the term or not it is appropriate and my use of it is proper. If you don't like the term, take it up with Webster. It does not mean anyone is apologizing for him. It only means people are standing in defense of him, for whatever reason, of which many on this board are doing. Whether the argument is "he was no different than other cyclists" or, that it "happened long ago", or that "PED use should be legal anyway", whatever the case may be, these are still arguments on his behalf. This is by its very definition what an "apologist" does.
Last edited by odelltrclan on Sun Oct 14, 2012 7:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

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

Postby odelltrclan » Sun Oct 14, 2012 7:39 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
odelltrclan wrote:This is NOT the same as Hamilton.

In what way? Hamilton wasn't in that hospital room and had no prior testimony to refute.


Are you kidding me? You can't see a difference? Hmmm, Hamilton, busted for drugs. Nothing else to lose.

Betsy Andreu, not under subpoena, under no threats willingly tells Lance to shove it when he tries to buy her off to discredit someone and lie for him. And given her experience of seeing people go up against Armstrong and his posse, this was probably not an easy decision.

How easy is it for you to play Monday morning quarterback and judge others about finding "religion". Walk a moment in their shoes.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 14, 2012 7:53 am

odelltrclan wrote:Whether you like the term or not it is appropriate and my use of it is proper. If you don't like the term, take it up with Webster. It does not mean anyone is apologizing for him. It only means people are standing in defense of him, for whatever reason, of which many on this board are doing. Whether the argument is "he was no different than other cyclists" or, thaion".t it happened long ago, or that PED use should be legal anyway. Whatever the case may be, these are still arguments on his behalf. This is by its very definition what an "apologist" is.

There is another more appropriate term that I think fits this discussion and that is "distortion".

Distortion - A statement that twists fact; a misrepresentation.

The folks who lay all of cycling's doping problems at the feet of Amrstrong and portray him as the godfather/mastermind of cycling's PED problems while simultaneously creating false heroes and saints, are no doubt guilty of gross distortion.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby Conor Dary » Sun Oct 14, 2012 7:55 am

jazzcyclist wrote:

The folks who lay all of cycling's doping problems at the feet of Amrstrong and portray him as the godfather/mastermind of cycling's PED problems while simultaneously creating false heroes and saints, are no doubt guilty of gross distortion.


Right.
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 » Sun Oct 14, 2012 7:57 am

jazzcyclist wrote: And once she divorced Frankie she got even more PED religion.


Please do tell more about this. When did this happen and what evidence of this additional "religion" are you referring to?
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

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

Postby odelltrclan » Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:04 am

jazzcyclist wrote:The folks who lay all of cycling's doping problems at the feet of Amrstrong and portray him as the godfather/mastermind of cycling's PED problems


You clearly are trying to lay such a term on me (in response to having properly used the English language) so please, do tell, anywhere where I have remotely come close to to laying "all of cycling's doping problems, etc. at the feet of Lance Armstrong. Your arguments are now starting to approach a level of ridiculousness.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

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

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:20 am

I do have one question that 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?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby kuha » Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:24 am

odelltrclan wrote:Whether the argument is "he was no different than other cyclists" or, that it "happened long ago", or that "PED use should be legal anyway", whatever the case may be, these are still arguments on his behalf. This is by its very definition what an "apologist" does.


This is just logically wrong. These are NOT "arguments on his behalf"--they are arguments about the real, actual, and larger problem--of which he is but one part. The meaningful point is this: if one is genuinely serious about the real, larger issue, then one needs to look beyond the big, fat, juicy, seductive, and primarily symbolic target of Lance Armstrong.
kuha
 
Posts: 9015
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 jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:26 am

odelltrclan wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:The folks who lay all of cycling's doping problems at the feet of Amrstrong and portray him as the godfather/mastermind of cycling's PED problems


You clearly are trying to lay such a term on me (in response to having properly used the English language) so please, do tell, anywhere where I have remotely come close to to laying "all of cycling's doping problems, etc. at the feet of Lance Armstrong. Your arguments are now starting to approach a level of ridiculousness.

I thinks it's pretty clear to everyone on this thread where you're coming from. Your words speak for themselves.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Previous

Who is online

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