A Very Bad Morning For Lance


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

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

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


Doesn't exactly make it the "right" thing.
KevinM
 
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

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

Are you suggesting that Nike should not have dropped Armstrong?
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

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

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


I'm saying the idea that any part of NIke dropping Armstrong was done in an attempt to do the "right" thing is absurd.
KevinM
 
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

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

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

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

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

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

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

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

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

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


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

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

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

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

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

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

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

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

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

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

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

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


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

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

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

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

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

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

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

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

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

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

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

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

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

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

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

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

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

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

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


Do I sense that you are beginning to see the point some of us have made that LA is being singled out :wink: ?
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

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

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


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

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

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

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

And here comes some more . .

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

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

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

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

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

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

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

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

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

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

I assume you mean Chapter 7.

That wouldn't surprise me at all.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby gh » Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:06 pm

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


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


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

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

Indeed, perhaps even have a chilling effect on other sports and abuse, now that they know there's a proverbial new sherrif in town?
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

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

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


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

For GH: Why are you not pushing for the official testing of those 1984 samples and the publication of the results? And the re-testing of any other significant holding of "old" championship samples? Isn't more truth-telling better than less here, if we want to scare individual sports "straight"?
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

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

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


Perhaps, I don't know. What I find personally repulsive is a cop that pulls a red sports car out of a speeding convoy of numerous cars and trucks.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

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

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


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


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

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

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

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


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


So is that what you drive? :wink:


A Buick Enclave. Love it :D .
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

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

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

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

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby DrJay » Mon Oct 22, 2012 5:34 pm

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

I somewhat agree with your analogy, but I don't view Armstrong as one of the mastermind criminals like Conte was. In cycling I view guys like Eufemiano Fuentes and Michele Ferrari as the criminal masterminds. Armstrong was just a good customer, and going after him is like the DEA going after a drug addict, not a drug pusher.


But who had the power? In the Mexican drug wars, aren't the masterminds and the guys with all the power one and the same? In this story, it sounds like Armstrong had a lot more power than the Ferraris, and taking down the powerful guys may be what it's about.
DrJay
 
Posts: 5485
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Woodland Park, CO

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby DrJay » Mon Oct 22, 2012 5:38 pm

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


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


The application of justice here is incredibly uneven, but since Armstrong probably won't go to prison, it doesn't bother me as much as in cases where some that are guilty go to the big house while others do not. Lance will never want for food, shelter, a nice car, a plasma TV, friends, women, and groupies.
DrJay
 
Posts: 5485
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Woodland Park, CO

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Mon Oct 22, 2012 9:05 pm

Armstrong made a lot of money for a large number of people in cycling, including the UCI.

I do have some reservations on the USADA. One of the points that they repeatedly claim is that he failed a drug test in 2001 and again in 2002. The guy who was in charge of that is absolutely beyond reproach and he said that he will never testify that it was a positive test, just one that drew attention going into the grey area. This very point is one where I had major doubts about what they really had, because if they kept trotting out that as one of their main points then it was possible that they did not have much.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16333
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby tandfman » Tue Oct 23, 2012 3:21 am

guru wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Remember, it was the FBI that did the heavy lifting in this investigation and then just handed over their files, which included all the sworn testimony, to USADA.

Simply not true. Everything in the USADA report was collected by USADA

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/! ... cision.pdf

From Section I: Summary Of Reasoned Decision

USADA wrote:None of the evidence USADA summarizes in this Reasoned Decision was obtained from the United States federal law enforcement investigation involving Mr. Armstrong. After the announcement by U.S. District Attorney Andre Birotte on February 3, 2012, that he was discontinuing the criminal investigation of Armstrong’s conduct, USADA formally requested copies of non-grand jury evidence from the case. However, no documents have been received to date. As a result, none of the evidence assembled by USADA has come from federal law enforcement.

That may be but . . .
Despite his findings not being used in the federal court case against the American, who has always vehemently denied doping, the evidence gleaned did not go to waste.

It found its way to the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), whose president Travis Tygart launched a similar, single-minded quest for the truth that would lead to the downfall of the world's most celebrated cyclist.. . . .Although the USADA will take much of the credit, UCI president Pat McQuaid believes Novitzky and the threat of criminal proceedings against many of those who testified against Armstrong was key.

http://www.supersport.com/cycling/inter ... strong_UCI
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 am

tandfman wrote:That may be but . . .
Despite his findings not being used in the federal court case against the American, who has always vehemently denied doping, the evidence gleaned did not go to waste.

It found its way to the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), whose president Travis Tygart launched a similar, single-minded quest for the truth that would lead to the downfall of the world's most celebrated cyclist.. . . .Although the USADA will take much of the credit, UCI president Pat McQuaid believes Novitzky and the threat of criminal proceedings against many of those who testified against Armstrong was key.

http://www.supersport.com/cycling/inter ... strong_UCI

That's kind of what I suspected. Here are the key quotes from McQuaid:
"We tested Armstrong over 200 times and he was always negative, we tested the other riders many times and they were negative. Not only the UCI, but also USADA," McQuaid told AFP.

"Bear in mind that this report has not emerged thanks to a UCI or USADA investigation. It's Jeff Novitzky, a federal investigator, who collected all that information for the file.

I am grateful to USADA for what they have achieved. But they haven't achieved any more than the UCI could have achieved on their own," he said.

"They needed the support of the federal agents to do it, and that's evident."

As I said earlier, the FBI did all the heavy lifting. Here's David Millar's take on the importance of law enforcement in cleaning up the sport.
The downfall of Lance Armstrong has opened the world’s eyes up to what most of us within the sport knew, if not in the detail that the USADA file has revealed, that to win the Tour de France and many other big races was impossible without doping for a certain period of time. Of course races were won by clean riders, and many clean riders achieved remarkable careers, especially in hindsight, without doping, but the bottom line is that doping was rife and necessary to be the best.

Who is responsible for this? Most of us involved in professional cycling were in some way or another, it became a way of life. I’d hoped the Festina Affair would force change but the problem was too deeply embedded to be changed by one event.

It took several changes to take place. First came the anti-doping controls, they became more advanced, the drugs that had been previously undetectable became detectable.

Doping became a criminal offence in many European countries allowing for criminal investigations to delve deeper than any anti-doping agency or cycling governing body ever could; it was a criminal investigation that discovered my history of doping.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/open-le ... 0&ns_fee=0
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby tandfman » Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:21 am

Meanwhile, Jason Gay of the Wall Street Journal has interviewed the new winner of those 7 Tours de France.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 56816.html

:)
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:24 am

Here is the top 15 of the final GC classification of the 2000 Tour de France:

1.Lance Armstrong (US Postal): 92hr 33min 8sec USADA Report
2.Jan Ullrich (Telekom) @ 6min 2sec Operacion Puerto
3.Joseba Beloki (Festina) @ 10min 4sec Operacion Puerto
4.Christophe Moreau (Festina) @ 10min 34sec Festina Affair
5.Roberto Heras (Kelme) @ 11min 50sec Tested positive & suspended
6.Richard Virenque (Polti)@ 13min 26sec Festina Affair
7.Santiago Botero (Kelme)@ 14min 18sec Kelme Scandal
8.Fernando Escartin (Kelme)@ 17min 21sec Kelme Scandal
9.Francisco Mancebo (Banesto)@ 18min 9sec Tested positive & suspended
10.Daniele Nardello (Mapei)@ 18min 25sec T-Mobile Scandal
11.Manuel Beltrán (Mapei)@ 21min 11sec Tested positive & suspended
12.Pascal Hervé (Polti)@ 23min 13sec Tested positive, Festina Affair
13.Javier Ochoa (Kelme)@ 25min Kelme Scandal
14.Felix Garcia-Casas (Festina)@ 32min 4sec Festina Affair
15.Alexandre Vinokourov (Telekom) @ 32min 26sec Tested positive & suspended, T-Mobile scandal
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Conor Dary » Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:26 am

Exactly. By the way, I suspect the Tour on tv is dead very soon. I can't believe NBC wants to get involved with that anymore. And American cycling will soon be a thing of the past. I am sure LeMond is happy.
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: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby kuha » Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:46 am

Conor Dary wrote:I suspect the Tour on tv is dead very soon. I can't believe NBC wants to get involved with that anymore.


You'd really have to think so. The real story here isn't or at least shouldn't be Armstrong--it's what looks to be a total meltdown of credibility in the event itself. Which WAS the key issue all along.

Maybe we'll now see the Tour of Nebraska on TV.
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby gh » Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:54 am

I've probably related this bit before, but i stopped in Paris on the way to Barcelona in '92. Wandered over from my hotel to the Champs d'Elysses to find a nice little sidewalk cafe for a morning beverage and was most distressed to find everywhere cordoned off and having to take very long walk around. oh, it was tour de france finish day!

At any rate, after the race and the guys were parading up and down the road I was fairly close to them and the first thing that struck me was that I hadn't seen faces that drawn, with eyeballs that sunken in the head since the Bataan Death March. I was stunned at how wasted they all looked.

I was even more stunned when the next weekend I picked up a copy of L'Équipe in Barcelona and noticed that everybody was up and hammering again at the tour-de-something-else.

I decided then and there that either these guys were all supermen, or......
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:24 pm

Conor Dary wrote:And American cycling will soon be a thing of the past. I am sure LeMond is happy.


Sorry, but that is pretty lame!
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:28 am

Now the Boston and New York Marathons are jumping in on the fun.
Lance Armstrong’s name is likely to be expunged from the results of the New York City and Boston marathons, in addition to the Tour de France.

Officials from both NYC and Boston races said they expect to follow decisions by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency and the International Cycling Union to ban Amstrong from competition and strip him of his seven Tour de France titles. However, both marathons are likely to wait until any appeals have taken place. Armstrong had been banned in late summer from running in the Chicago Marathon as well as the NYC race; those and the Boston race are governed by USA Track and Field rules.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ear ... sults-too/
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:14 pm

Conor Dary wrote:Exactly. By the way, I suspect the Tour on tv is dead very soon. I can't believe NBC wants to get involved with that anymore. And American cycling will soon be a thing of the past. I am sure LeMond is happy.


I doubt it, although the amount that they will have to pay will likely drop. Jazz, what is your opinion as the closest observer of the sport on this board?
26mi235
 
Posts: 16333
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:31 pm

How long before Pat McQuaid is gone. Many calling for his withdrawal. This from Mr. Lemond tonight.

https://www.facebook.com/greglemond?ref=ts&fref=ts
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby DrJay » Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:44 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Now the Boston and New York Marathons are jumping in on the fun.
Lance Armstrong’s name is likely to be expunged from the results of the New York City and Boston marathons, in addition to the Tour de France.
/


Now that's getting a little absurd. Maybe next they'll expunge his name from all print and digital media for the last 20 years, like in Orwell's 1984.
DrJay
 
Posts: 5485
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Woodland Park, CO

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Rye Catcher and 12 guests