Log in:  

Register

Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen

Re: Re:

16 Feb 2017 06:44

fmk_RoI wrote:
yaco wrote:I find it interesting that no other sponsor ( none that I know of ) have sued Armstrong - Could this be another case of the US Government living up to their reputation as bullyboys.
Could you explain why you find it interesting? To me, from a pure marketing perspective, not going after him to pull back money makes perfect sense (for many of his sponsors it probably also makes commercial sense, the size of their potential clawback being dwarfed by prospective legal fees, especially if the case were lost, and his victory in the FRS case - initiated by FRS customers, not FRS itself - suggests winning would not be simple).

I mean, take Nike: what's the upside? There is none, all they do is remind people that they were steadfast in their support of him. And - let's be realists here - Nike going after him also serves to push the next generation of sporting stars into the arms of their rivals (Under Armour, Adidas, Puma etc), who wants to be backed by a sponsor who's going to litigate the hell out of you should you do anything - anything - to upset them (and this isn't just doping, look at the likes of Ryan Lochte or Tiger Woods)? That doesn't make sense. The best thing a sponsor can do with a toxic star is walk away and hope the world quickly forgets their association. Reminding them of it? That's stupid.

(Now you could, if you tried really, really hard, make a case that some of the penny-ante sponsors could gain by initiating a lawsuit and running away before too much time racked up on the clock, that some penny-ante sponsor could surf a wave of publicity around the threat of such a suit, but in the wake of the failed class action suits I'm not sure a penny-ante sponsor would actually get to ride that wave for very long, so I'm not sure there's all that much to gain by doing it at this stage of the game.)


That this has even been a question speaks to the people asking it, and not (their grasp of) the circumstances.
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,202
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

Re: Re:

16 Feb 2017 19:03

fmk_RoI wrote:
yaco wrote:I find it interesting that no other sponsor ( none that I know of ) have sued Armstrong - Could this be another case of the US Government living up to their reputation as bullyboys.
Could you explain why you find it interesting? To me, from a pure marketing perspective, not going after him to pull back money makes perfect sense (for many of his sponsors it probably also makes commercial sense, the size of their potential clawback being dwarfed by prospective legal fees, especially if the case were lost, and his victory in the FRS case - initiated by FRS customers, not FRS itself - suggests winning would not be simple).

I mean, take Nike: what's the upside? There is none, all they do is remind people that they were steadfast in their support of him. And - let's be realists here - Nike going after him also serves to push the next generation of sporting stars into the arms of their rivals (Under Armour, Adidas, Puma etc), who wants to be backed by a sponsor who's going to litigate the hell out of you should you do anything - anything - to upset them (and this isn't just doping, look at the likes of Ryan Lochte or Tiger Woods)? That doesn't make sense. The best thing a sponsor can do with a toxic star is walk away and hope the world quickly forgets their association. Reminding them of it? That's stupid.

(Now you could, if you tried really, really hard, make a case that some of the penny-ante sponsors could gain by initiating a lawsuit and running away before too much time racked up on the clock, that some penny-ante sponsor could surf a wave of publicity around the threat of such a suit, but in the wake of the failed class action suits I'm not sure a penny-ante sponsor would actually get to ride that wave for very long, so I'm not sure there's all that much to gain by doing it at this stage of the game.)


Your response to my post fairly much validates my opinion the US Government are bully boys - I agree with your assertion that it would be tricky for sponsors to claw back money, though possibly a group of sponsors could start a class action - At the end of the day who can argue the US Postal service has been hurt by their association with Armstrong ? As if people will stop sending letters/packages etc - And it's even stranger that one of the US Government departments funds it's own program on TV.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,906
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

Re: Re:

16 Feb 2017 19:18

yaco wrote:Your response to my post fairly much validates my opinion the US Government are bully boys
Now that you will really have to explain as your ludicrous claim that the US Government are bully boys I completely ignored, it being up there with the notion that judges are the enemies of the people. Instead, I addressed the obvious holes in your very, very silly notion that his sponsors not going after him is in any way "interesting." So please, do not claim that I am in any way "validating" you. That's just insulting.
yaco wrote:I agree with your assertion that it would be tricky for sponsors to claw back money, though possibly a group of sponsors could start a class action
Your notion that his sponsors could jointly launch a class action suit suggests you want to portray more than a passing acquaintance with the law, that you possess knowledge not just gleaned from watching Boston Legal. So go for it, m'lud, explain how LA's sponsors meet the necessary criteria to launch a class action suit. I'm especially looking forward to your explanation of how such a suit wouldn't fall over at the very first hurdle. Don't keep me waiting too long, please.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,713
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re:

17 Feb 2017 05:18

aphronesis wrote:So you think fraud is more prone to sport than all other organizations on the planet and that LA single handedly galvanized the evil? That's what I tell the kids at night. Sometimes I mumble the resolution/redemption. I'm sure you have a more polished ending.


What happened is Armstrong is "holding the bag" for Wiesel and the rest of Tailwind as well as Verbruggen. Make no mistake, this was Thom Wiesel's project and he's off, Scot Free. Thom seems a very smart guy, so, I don't doubt for a minute this was the plan all along.

I don't want to get into measuring fraud. Basically, everything was tilted in USPS's favor. That's not a sport. That's entertainment wrestling.
User avatar DirtyWorks
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,059
Joined: 10 Feb 2010 17:01

17 Feb 2017 07:35

Oh, so you're agreeing with me and the govt. wants to reallocate some change?
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,202
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

Re: Re:

17 Feb 2017 11:18

DirtyWorks wrote:I don't doubt for a minute this was the plan all along.
The plan all along was for the whole thing to be uncovered and LA to take the fall? Wow!
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,713
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

17 Feb 2017 12:48

D-Queued wrote:
Semper Fidelis wrote:
D-Queued wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:Seth is a lawyer and has a pretty good piece on it

https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/02/13/lances-date-with-destiny/


Excellent overview and well-stated irony.

Too bad we would bend forum rules to either quote sections directly or make similar statements ourselves.

That is not a dig at the forum rules, moderators or fellow posters. Just an acknowledgement of how strongly supportive this member feels about some of Seth's observations.

Dave.

You got your email to get over here and post? I know a few did but thought you might be off the list, because you have not been around for a while.


Thanks for noticing!

Still around. And, still hoping for a conclusion to the Dopestrong mess as well as Operacion Puerto.

Even if O.P. is now past statue of limitations, releasing the names of the 36 athletes is important for closure.

But, at the glacial pace of those two big doping cases, with modest news, there hasn't been that much to discuss.

Yes, a gal got caught with a motor in her bicycle. Yes, cyclists are still doping. And, yes, Russia is corrupt.

And, yes, lots of folks still defend Armstrong the indefensible and still troll LeMond.

Did I miss anything?

Dave.

I spoke with a friend in France yesterday. He summed up nicely on why Lance is different than all the rest.

The thing for me is - cycling has moved along. Some have not. In life sometimes people will do you wrong. Does that make it right to then try and hump a corpse? It is fine to hold a grudge four a lifetime. But to continue with the cause makes one and other look foolish.

Troll Lemond. LMAO That my man is funny. Lemond is cycling's greatest at that exercise you call troll.
User avatar Semper Fidelis
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,211
Joined: 07 Dec 2010 15:53
Location: New Orleans

Re: Re:

17 Feb 2017 14:09

fmk_RoI wrote:
DirtyWorks wrote:I don't doubt for a minute this was the plan all along.
The plan all along was for the whole thing to be uncovered and LA to take the fall? Wow!


No, what you are misrepresenting, is that Weasel knew the chances of being busted were high, it is cycling after all and that he was not going to let it lead to him. So therefore Armstrong is the guy taking the fall ( if the jury favours USPS)and Weasel have got off scot free with a few bob in his pocket.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,953
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

17 Feb 2017 16:54

There is a tendency to look on all this in terms of masterminds and conspiracies. The Posties were not masterminds.

In the McDruggen Era, nobody got caught unless they were both stupid and unlucky. The omertá was strong, and all was as it had been for years. Then along comes Floyd the Fraud, who saw the potential of a real score. THAT cracked USPS.

Lance is a dummy. Weasel is not. Weasel had no need to know the details of USPS doping. A smart person leaves the conspiring to the dummy underlings. Weasel is out of this lawsuit because Floyd had insufficient evidence. Floyd likely lacked that evidence because Weasel stayed out of the doping loop. Seems to me unreasonable that smart Weasel put his vitals in dummy Lance's hands. He simply didn't need to.
User avatar MarkvW
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,130
Joined: 10 Aug 2010 20:13

Re: Re:

17 Feb 2017 18:27

fmk_RoI wrote:
yaco wrote:Your response to my post fairly much validates my opinion the US Government are bully boys
Now that you will really have to explain as your ludicrous claim that the US Government are bully boys I completely ignored, it being up there with the notion that judges are the enemies of the people. Instead, I addressed the obvious holes in your very, very silly notion that his sponsors not going after him is in any way "interesting." So please, do not claim that I am in any way "validating" you. That's just insulting.
yaco wrote:I agree with your assertion that it would be tricky for sponsors to claw back money, though possibly a group of sponsors could start a class action
Your notion that his sponsors could jointly launch a class action suit suggests you want to portray more than a passing acquaintance with the law, that you possess knowledge not just gleaned from watching Boston Legal. So go for it, m'lud, explain how LA's sponsors meet the necessary criteria to launch a class action suit. I'm especially looking forward to your explanation of how such a suit wouldn't fall over at the very first hurdle. Don't keep me waiting too long, please.


What reason does the USA Government have for going after Armstrong ? It's not like the US Postal Service has been damaged by cycling - Yes a 'normal' sponsor may wish for it to go away and cut their losses - Even if its debateable if it will have much impact on sales - After all the actual quality of the merchandise plays a part in purchasing decisions - Sharapova still has the support of many of her sponsors which suggests their sales are fine - People in the USA are still using postal services despite the failings of Armstrong - It's a case of the USA being bully boys which they practice in all aspects of life - You have a different opinion - That's your entitlement - And don't forget this claim was brought by Landis as a whistleblower - Now if the US Government is happy to reward Landis agai,n who was a willing accompolice in allegedly obtaining money under false pretences, then it says lots about the USA institutions.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,906
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

Re: Re:

17 Feb 2017 19:06

yaco wrote:What reason does the USA Government have for going after Armstrong ?
So you're just going to ignore the request for clarification of your daft class action comment, same as you ignored the request for clarification on what was interesting about his sponsors not suing him?
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,713
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re:

17 Feb 2017 19:11

MarkvW wrote:There is a tendency to look on all this in terms of masterminds and conspiracies. The Posties were not masterminds.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. The default thought process of several around here.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,713
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

17 Feb 2017 19:58

Semper Fidelis wrote:... snipped...
I spoke with a friend in France yesterday. He summed up nicely on why Lance is different than all the rest.

The thing for me is - cycling has moved along. Some have not. In life sometimes people will do you wrong. Does that make it right to then try and hump a corpse? It is fine to hold a grudge four a lifetime. But to continue with the cause makes one and other look foolish.

Troll Lemond. LMAO That my man is funny. Lemond is cycling's greatest at that exercise you call troll.


What was your friend's summary?

IMO, Lance perpetrated a major fraud. He allied himself with like-minded folks (e.g. Wiesel, Bruyneel, Verdruggen), but he was the ringleader. Not them. He corrupted his team and the sport, all the while convincing himself that he was a victim and was doing nothing wrong.

If Lance's misdeeds don't meet justice then we should simply throw out any chance of cycling being legitimate.

But we won't be the first to lament the snail's pace that is the slow arm of justice.

Lance, the worm. has been given every opportunity to squirm off the hook but he impaled himself.

In some ways it is refreshing and revealing to observe an even more notorious narcissist at work. The two of them are incapable of honesty. Sad!

As for LeMond, we have participants on this forum who think that there is at least one motor in every downtube, and another in every seat tube in the peloton. Yet these same folks get bent out of shape when LeMond actually does them a favor and champions that we are watching scooters and not cycles. They would have us believe that LeMond is the hoaxster where they are the paragons of truthfulness.

Perhaps I am a foolish outlier, but I can't get worked up about the motorization craze - not even if Greg says so. It remains possible, and even demonstrated, but IMO a widespread improbability.

If there is a widespread conspiracy IMO is that it is more likely that the conspiracy is with the institutions and their commitment to an exercise in much ado about nothing with the perverted goal of being seen to be doing something about cheating while actual cheating goes on more or less unchallenged.

Kind of like of saying you are going to build a big wall. Highly visible, but unneeded and ineffectual. It didn't work the last time and we haven't seen Mongol hordes in centuries. Just nonsensical. Maybe it will make a nice film set and tourist attraction and there will be some kind of economic benefit after all.

Now, I don't have to be a narcissist to be wrong and if I can be wrong - as some here would have it - so can Greg and that is ok with me. Sometimes I am wrong. Sometimes Greg is wrong. No big deal.

Dave.
D-Queued
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,181
Joined: 26 May 2010 23:41

Re:

17 Feb 2017 20:18

MarkvW wrote:There is a tendency to look on all this in terms of masterminds and conspiracies. The Posties were not masterminds.

In the McDruggen Era, nobody got caught unless they were both stupid and unlucky. The omertá was strong, and all was as it had been for years. Then along comes Floyd the Fraud, who saw the potential of a real score. THAT cracked USPS.

Lance is a dummy. Weasel is not. Weasel had no need to know the details of USPS doping. A smart person leaves the conspiring to the dummy underlings. Weasel is out of this lawsuit because Floyd had insufficient evidence. Floyd likely lacked that evidence because Weasel stayed out of the doping loop. Seems to me unreasonable that smart Weasel put his vitals in dummy Lance's hands. He simply didn't need to.


Good story. Weasel saved the good stuff for the NoCal masters riders and let the underlings figure out the rest of the scam for the pro team. :confused:
User avatar spetsa
Member
 
Posts: 549
Joined: 03 Aug 2010 13:45
Location: between a bar stool and a bike saddle

Re: Re:

17 Feb 2017 21:35

D-Queued wrote:
Semper Fidelis wrote:... snipped...
I spoke with a friend in France yesterday. He summed up nicely on why Lance is different than all the rest.

The thing for me is - cycling has moved along. Some have not. In life sometimes people will do you wrong. Does that make it right to then try and hump a corpse? It is fine to hold a grudge four a lifetime. But to continue with the cause makes one and other look foolish.

Troll Lemond. LMAO That my man is funny. Lemond is cycling's greatest at that exercise you call troll.


What was your friend's summary?

IMO, Lance perpetrated a major fraud. He allied himself with like-minded folks (e.g. Wiesel, Bruyneel, Verdruggen), but he was the ringleader. Not them. He corrupted his team and the sport, all the while convincing himself that he was a victim and was doing nothing wrong.

If Lance's misdeeds don't meet justice then we should simply throw out any chance of cycling being legitimate.

But we won't be the first to lament the snail's pace that is the slow arm of justice.



Dave.


Comical. Is that an editorial "we"? Did you hold a bible close while writing the "IMO" paragraph? what if he'd never existed: would the sport still have been pure and noble with just European peasants conducting solitary clandestine doping? Would Floyd not have doped if Lance didn't exist, but the peloton still were?

Oh, I see my love in the tower window, must ford the moat and rescue her.
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,202
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

Re: Re:

18 Feb 2017 02:01

aphronesis wrote:
D-Queued wrote:
Semper Fidelis wrote:... snipped...
I spoke with a friend in France yesterday. He summed up nicely on why Lance is different than all the rest.

The thing for me is - cycling has moved along. Some have not. In life sometimes people will do you wrong. Does that make it right to then try and hump a corpse? It is fine to hold a grudge four a lifetime. But to continue with the cause makes one and other look foolish.

Troll Lemond. LMAO That my man is funny. Lemond is cycling's greatest at that exercise you call troll.


What was your friend's summary?

IMO, Lance perpetrated a major fraud. He allied himself with like-minded folks (e.g. Wiesel, Bruyneel, Verdruggen), but he was the ringleader. Not them. He corrupted his team and the sport, all the while convincing himself that he was a victim and was doing nothing wrong.

If Lance's misdeeds don't meet justice then we should simply throw out any chance of cycling being legitimate.

But we won't be the first to lament the snail's pace that is the slow arm of justice.



Dave.


Comical. Is that an editorial "we"? Did you hold a bible close while writing the "IMO" paragraph? what if he'd never existed: would the sport still have been pure and noble with just European peasants conducting solitary clandestine doping? Would Floyd not have doped if Lance didn't exist, but the peloton still were?

Oh, I see my love in the tower window, must ford the moat and rescue her.

Thanks for pointing out a great point. I Tried in real talk be he will not even acknowledge my POV. You make it well. Thank you again.

Greg is right to point at the motors. But he fails at being objective when it comes to cycling without Lance Armstrong.

It would have and is a shat show with or without him. The difference is Lance was a **** head to others. He was not the ringleader asking others to dope or else Tyler himself would be just taking us for a spin. Remember the team themselves spoke together about doing the dope to compete or not. Meanwhile **** was undergoing cancer treatment.
User avatar Semper Fidelis
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,211
Joined: 07 Dec 2010 15:53
Location: New Orleans

Re: Re:

18 Feb 2017 02:49

Semper Fidelis wrote:...
Thanks for pointing out a great point. I Tried in real talk be he will not even acknowledge my POV. You make it well. Thank you again.

Greg is right to point at the motors. But he fails at being objective when it comes to cycling without Lance Armstrong.

It would have and is a shat show with or without him. The difference is Lance was a **** head to others. He was not the ringleader asking others to dope or else Tyler himself would be just taking us for a spin. Remember the team themselves spoke together about doing the dope to compete or not. Meanwhile **** was undergoing cancer treatment.


Hi Semper,

If I understand this, you are saying that I didn't acknowledge your POV. Is that right?

I quoted you, responded to you and don't believe that I argued against what you said. I was actually mostly in agreement and merely offered some further context. Thus, I am at a bit of a loss on how I didn't acknowledge what you stated. Can you help me out?

Do I support Tyler's doping or his vanishing twin defense? No.

Do I support Floyd's doping or his beer and bourbon excuse? No.

Was there doping before Lance? Yes.

Is there doping after Lance? Yes.

Would there have been doping without Lance?

Do I think that Tyler, Floyd, and others could or would have doped without Lance. Yes.

Do/did other cyclists talk about doping with each other? Yes. Just ask the Chicken about getting Ryder up to speed, for example.

Does LeMond say dumb stuff from time-to-time? Yes.

Do I wish he wouldn't do that? Yes.

All that said, I would still like to hear your friend's thoughts on Lance, but to summarize why Lance is bad (sorry, 'cuz its already been said thousands of time):

Cycling created WADA.
In an environment where cycling could have gone in a positive direction, Lance showed up and took advantage of the vacuum.

He then took it to a level of organization and explicit fraud that had heretofore not been seen in cycling or any other sport.

There have been wider doping scandals like the E. Germans and more recently the Russians, but the direct pursuit of monetary gain through knowing and explicit fraudulent means - like removing the doping clause from his professional contract when he was explicitly doping - is something that neither the E. Germans or Russians even pursued. Amazing that.

Did I miss anything?

Dave.
D-Queued
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,181
Joined: 26 May 2010 23:41

18 Feb 2017 02:52

Yep, because you still feel the need to blame him for a structural problem. What will your life be like if the Feds walk him out? What will you do for pro cycling then?

(Maybe as Sfi noted someone can hook you up with that dead pony humping gif.)
Last edited by aphronesis on 18 Feb 2017 03:03, edited 1 time in total.
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,202
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

Re:

18 Feb 2017 03:03

aphronesis wrote:Yep, because you still feel the need to blame him for a structural problem. What will your life be like if the Feds walk him out? What will you do for pro cycling then?


"Walk him out?" WTF does that even mean?

The criminal exposure is OVER. Even the most convinced Armstrongophobe accepts this.
Last edited by MarkvW on 18 Feb 2017 03:06, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar MarkvW
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,130
Joined: 10 Aug 2010 20:13

Re: Re:

18 Feb 2017 03:04

MarkvW wrote:
aphronesis wrote:Yep, because you still feel the need to blame him for a structural problem. What will your life be like if the Feds walk him out? What will you do for pro cycling then?


I watch it and concern myself with other things. Got some text of your own Mark?
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,202
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Robert5091 and 15 guests

Back to top