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

02 Sep 2017 05:06

thehog wrote:
86TDFWinner wrote:This made me LOL! Of course he wants BOTH LeMond and Betsy "excluded", he/they know they have the goods on him and he and his merry band of dolts, don't want either to leave tire marks on Wonderboy!

This is the person SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many here worshipped and thought he was the GOAT? :rolleyes: :lol:

http://olympics.nbcsports.com/2017/06/24/lance-armstrong-trial-greg-lemond/ :rolleyes: :redface:


What goods do they have? Apart from pent up frustrations and anxiety? :cool:


Andreu has his admission about doping. I don't think Lance can keep that out if the feds want it in.

It's unclear what LeMond has.

The USADA report isn't coming in, but that's not to say that the feds couldn't call each and every source in the report, and then top it off with a pro cycling expert (LeMond?) to explain it all to the jury.
User avatar MarkvW
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,154
Joined: 10 Aug 2010 20:13

03 Sep 2017 19:05

Regarding when Pharmstrong began doping (which was kicked around a few pages back), he stated in the Orca interview that it was in the mid-90s. GQ Georgie (Hincappie) said it was in '95-'96. Steve Swart pegs it at 1995, but they all were referring primarily to EPO.

Two of Pharmstrong's teammates from the USCF junior squad, Greg Strock and Erich Kaiter, later sued (renamed USA Cycling) claiming their immune systems had been permanently damaged by PEDs administered by Chris Carmichael, René Wenzel and Angus Fraser on behalf of the team. Gerrik Latta also made the same accusations but IIRC was not part of the law suit. The suit was settled out of court for a reported quarter million US dollars.

So the question becomes, in light of the proclivities Pharmstrong has demonstrated post-cancer, does it not seem a bit far-fetched to suggest that he would have refused PEDs when offered by junior squad coaches? And does it not also seem in keeping with his character that he would not want attention drawn to his doping as a junior for fear that it would lend credibility to the argument that his doping was the cause of his cancer? As if that would further tarnish his "aura" (such as it is/was) as an innocent victim of the disease, when it in fact might be the case that he was as much as inviting it? So if he had been doping before cancer, would you expect him to be forthcoming about it?
User avatar StyrbjornSterki
Member
 
Posts: 848
Joined: 18 Jul 2010 22:00

Re:

04 Sep 2017 13:51

StyrbjornSterki wrote:Regarding when Pharmstrong began doping (which was kicked around a few pages back), he stated in the Orca interview that it was in the mid-90s. GQ Georgie (Hincappie) said it was in '95-'96. Steve Swart pegs it at 1995, but they all were referring primarily to EPO.

Two of Pharmstrong's teammates from the USCF junior squad, Greg Strock and Erich Kaiter, later sued (renamed USA Cycling) claiming their immune systems had been permanently damaged by PEDs administered by Chris Carmichael, René Wenzel and Angus Fraser on behalf of the team. Gerrik Latta also made the same accusations but IIRC was not part of the law suit. The suit was settled out of court for a reported quarter million US dollars.

So the question becomes, in light of the proclivities Pharmstrong has demonstrated post-cancer, does it not seem a bit far-fetched to suggest that he would have refused PEDs when offered by junior squad coaches? And does it not also seem in keeping with his character that he would not want attention drawn to his doping as a junior for fear that it would lend credibility to the argument that his doping was the cause of his cancer? As if that would further tarnish his "aura" (such as it is/was) as an innocent victim of the disease, when it in fact might be the case that he was as much as inviting it? So if he had been doping before cancer, would you expect him to be forthcoming about it?


Can you please direct me to some scientific studies that show a link between testicular cancer and (various) PEDs use? Thanks.
User avatar Alpe73
Junior Member
 
Posts: 188
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

Re:

04 Sep 2017 14:25

veganrob wrote:I would imagine all the info from Greg and Betsy would be on the record already, but then what reason would Armstrong have for not wanting them there?


Because jury's are emotive. You don't won't anyone appearing who could sway them in an emotional context. It's not what they will say but how they will say it. Simple really.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,445
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

04 Sep 2017 16:02

thehog wrote:
veganrob wrote:I would imagine all the info from Greg and Betsy would be on the record already, but then what reason would Armstrong have for not wanting them there?


Because jury's are emotive. You don't won't anyone appearing who could sway them in an emotional context. It's not what they will say but how they will say it. Simple really.

That's kinda what I was getting at.
User avatar veganrob
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,329
Joined: 29 Aug 2010 23:15
Location: The D

Re: Re:

04 Sep 2017 16:07

veganrob wrote:
thehog wrote:
veganrob wrote:I would imagine all the info from Greg and Betsy would be on the record already, but then what reason would Armstrong have for not wanting them there?


Because jury's are emotive. You don't won't anyone appearing who could sway them in an emotional context. It's not what they will say but how they will say it. Simple really.

That's kinda what I was getting at.


In saying that, a jibbering LeMond wouldn't be good for either side. No counsel would be able to keep him on track.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,445
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

07 Sep 2017 05:15

thehog wrote:
veganrob wrote:
thehog wrote:
veganrob wrote:I would imagine all the info from Greg and Betsy would be on the record already, but then what reason would Armstrong have for not wanting them there?


Because jury's are emotive. You don't won't anyone appearing who could sway them in an emotional context. It's not what they will say but how they will say it. Simple really.

That's kinda what I was getting at.


In saying that, a jibbering LeMond wouldn't be good for either side. No counsel would be able to keep him on track.


If you say so.

Didn't seem to stop anyone at Floyd's fairness hearing in exposing Will Geogahan.

But, YMMV

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

Re: Re:

08 Sep 2017 01:36

D-Queued wrote:
thehog wrote:
veganrob wrote:
thehog wrote:
veganrob wrote:I would imagine all the info from Greg and Betsy would be on the record already, but then what reason would Armstrong have for not wanting them there?


Because jury's are emotive. You don't won't anyone appearing who could sway them in an emotional context. It's not what they will say but how they will say it. Simple really.

That's kinda what I was getting at.


In saying that, a jibbering LeMond wouldn't be good for either side. No counsel would be able to keep him on track.


If you say so.

Didn't seem to stop anyone at Floyd's fairness hearing in exposing Will Geogahan.

But, YMMV

Dave.


LeMond actually refused to answers questions at the so called Tygart roadshow hearing into Landis. Probably the only time LeMond wasn't jibbering, stuttering and repeating himself over an over like Rainman.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,445
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

08 Sep 2017 15:34

thehog wrote:
veganrob wrote:I would imagine all the info from Greg and Betsy would be on the record already, but then what reason would Armstrong have for not wanting them there?


Because jury's are emotive. You don't won't anyone appearing who could sway them in an emotional context. It's not what they will say but how they will say it. Simple really.


There is another component. Armstrong wants to say "I doped. I admit it. It's not a disputed issue at trial." But Armstrong also wants to argue "cycling is a filthy circus, and everybody knew it."

The feds are going to want to show secrecy, concealment, intimidation, etc., and you can't prove that stuff without proof of the doping acts and doping cover-up.
User avatar MarkvW
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,154
Joined: 10 Aug 2010 20:13

Re: Re:

08 Sep 2017 16:04

MarkvW wrote:
thehog wrote:
veganrob wrote:I would imagine all the info from Greg and Betsy would be on the record already, but then what reason would Armstrong have for not wanting them there?


Because jury's are emotive. You don't won't anyone appearing who could sway them in an emotional context. It's not what they will say but how they will say it. Simple really.


There is another component. Armstrong wants to say "I doped. I admit it. It's not a disputed issue at trial." But Armstrong also wants to argue "cycling is a filthy circus, and everybody knew it."

The feds are going to want to show secrecy, concealment, intimidation, etc., and you can't prove that stuff without proof of the doping acts and doping cover-up.


And after Armstrong's lawyers spray all that BS around the courtroom, the government lawyers will, without saying a word, play that Nike commercial with Lance saying "What am I on"? Immediately afterwards will be short clips of him telling Paul Kimmage about not being worth the chair he's sitting on, and security footage from Cache Cache. Hahaha! You could probably do a decent montage complete with the "zip the lips" maneuver.

John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,502
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

Re: Re:

08 Sep 2017 16:24

MarkvW wrote:
thehog wrote:
veganrob wrote:I would imagine all the info from Greg and Betsy would be on the record already, but then what reason would Armstrong have for not wanting them there?


Because jury's are emotive. You don't won't anyone appearing who could sway them in an emotional context. It's not what they will say but how they will say it. Simple really.


There is another component. Armstrong wants to say "I doped. I admit it. It's not a disputed issue at trial." But Armstrong also wants to argue "cycling is a filthy circus, and everybody knew it."

The feds are going to want to show secrecy, concealment, intimidation, etc., and you can't prove that stuff without proof of the doping acts and doping cover-up.



True, they will also need to demostrate some form of loss and harm to the USPS brand, which is going to be hard. A lot of people already have a low opinion of the postal service. Long queues, wasted money on trying to compete with FedEx In Europe etc.

Let us see, hopefully Lance ponies up and talks to the collusion with WADA et al.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,445
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

08 Sep 2017 16:33

thehog wrote:True, they will also need to demostrate some form of loss and harm to the USPS brand, which is going to be hard.
A lot of people seem to forget that is is the crux of the case, and after all the Good Wife / Judge Judy playing-to-the-audience on both sides that'll look good come the next straight-to-cable biopic, come the moment before the jury retire to decide their verdict - assuming this circus plays out that far - everyone's going to be reminded of this fact, that's the thought the jury will carry into their room with them.

(Speaking of straight-to-cable biopics and tangentially related given The Program: Frears seems to be continuing his run of okay films, crap films, okay films.)
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,031
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

08 Sep 2017 19:49

And LA punts the ball another six months down the road: trial won't start until May 2018 now.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,031
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

08 Sep 2017 19:50

fmk_RoI wrote:
thehog wrote:True, they will also need to demostrate some form of loss and harm to the USPS brand, which is going to be hard.
A lot of people seem to forget that is is the crux of the case, and after all the Good Wife / Judge Judy playing-to-the-audience on both sides that'll look good come the next straight-to-cable biopic, come the moment before the jury retire to decide their verdict - assuming this circus plays out that far - everyone's going to be reminded of this fact, that's the thought the jury will carry into their room with them.

(Speaking of straight-to-cable biopics and tangentially related given The Program: Frears seems to be continuing his run of okay films, crap films, okay films.)


This MIGHT be the crux of the case. The trial judge's allowance of this defence is debatable and might not be finally resolved until an appeal.
User avatar MarkvW
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,154
Joined: 10 Aug 2010 20:13

Re:

09 Sep 2017 12:16

fmk_RoI wrote:And LA punts the ball another six months down the road: trial won't start until May 2018 now.

Wonderboy still needs more time to funnel $$ overseas into various "secret"accounts. :D
User avatar 86TDFWinner
Member
 
Posts: 1,668
Joined: 11 Aug 2012 21:10
Location: Southern California

20 Sep 2017 10:17

https://www.outsideonline.com/2237386/road-goes-forever-and-story-never-ends

Sorry if repost. Hard to tell when these things are first posted online.

With distance and time, I'm less and less interested in his case. On the one hand, he's blithely enjoying his ill gotten gains. On the other, most cyclists' gains are ill-gotten, especially in the "60 percent era" and after.

Look at Virenque, who has been blathering on for years on French TV as an "expert commentator."

So...? I guess where I come down is that being an American, LA had outsize sponsorship opportunities, cashed in on them to amass a huge fortune. And it's the American legal system that may bring him all the way down. Bringing in his particularly nasty personality is neither here nor there, at least for me. A nicer guy, after all, might have been able to win over some hearts and minds.
Bolder
Junior Member
 
Posts: 278
Joined: 25 Jun 2015 07:29

Re:

22 Sep 2017 15:57

Bolder wrote:https://www.outsideonline.com/2237386/road-goes-forever-and-story-never-ends

...So...? I guess where I come down is that being an American, LA had outsize sponsorship opportunities, cashed in on them to amass a huge fortune. And it's the American legal system that may bring him all the way down. Bringing in his particularly nasty personality is neither here nor there, at least for me. A nicer guy, after all, might have been able to win over some hearts and minds.

I've always thought that the reason$ the cycling e$tablishment were $o willing to turn the blind eye to Pharmstrong'$ mi$deed$ was their eagerness to exploit the penetration into the US market he offered, post-cancer. Even Lemond's story of near-tragedy-to-triumph and three GC wins in the TdF failed to put a dent in it, and pro roadracing remained a fringe sport in the America. But Cancer Jesus presented far greater prospect because he made his triumphal post-cancer return to Le Tour with a ready-made congregation of tens of millions in tow.

From the linked article, ...
...Through all these exercises in atonement, all these expressions of regret, [Pharmstrong] maintains that he was treated unfairly. He will never change his mind on this....

That others who were equally guilty did not receive equal punishment does not mean it was Pharmstrong who was treated unfairly. He was owed everything he got, and more. Actions have consequences, ...or at least they should. His were the foreseeable consequences to the actions he took with premeditation and malice of forethought.

The victim in this case is none of the competitors but the sport itself, and the world-wide body cycling fans, who saw cycling's officialdom resorting to regicide to rid itself of its corrupt and abusive monarch, but failing to follow through and also remove the equally corrupt court without whom his ascendancy and reign would not have been possible.

The linked article makes it clear that even if he draws the short straw in the Qui Tam, Pharmstrong still will be a millionaire, and still will be surrounded by a retinue of rich and powerful sycophants, all yearning to wash his feet and dry them with their own hair.

What he fails to realize is that this is precisely why so many will forever resent him, resent his continued success. Because they know that absent the doping and the criminality, he today would be hawking men's virility products on late-nite TV to make ends meet rather than living the lifestyle of the rich and famous. Pharmstrong, to the contrary, still harbors the besotted notion that he is to be commended for having risen to the position of doping's capo di tutti capi. And the twain shall never meet.
User avatar StyrbjornSterki
Member
 
Posts: 848
Joined: 18 Jul 2010 22:00

23 Sep 2017 14:33

Styrbjon good post +1

Pharmstrong remains a k n o b who is surrounded by a bunch of ars**ickers who are obviously just as bad as him. All that rubbish name-dropping about who he is hanging out with. Hilarious.

I loved this bit in the article
" He believes that, .........—the lost titles and the lifetime ban—is beyond anything reasonable."

He really does not have a clue what he did to the clean riders does he.

Pharmstrong showing that he might, provided it is not used as legal lever for recompense say sorry, but like the true crook he is, if it means parting voluntarily with some of the money he stole, pulls up the drawbridge and reverts to type. Yay Lance - words are cheap.

“Betsy and Frankie didn’t have money to spare and spent money defending themselves,” says Kathy LeMond. “I asked Lance if he would please make financial amends to them. He owes them hard cash. When I said that, that is the most he raised his voice, and said: ‘Never.’ When I asked Armstrong about the Andreus and LeMonds, he shook his head slowly from side to side. “Making amends, apologizing, making it right with those affected is all I can do,” Armstrong says. ............. When I asked if he would consider writing checks to make amends, he said, “That is not going to happen.

Sure shows how limited Pharmstrong's idea of contrition extends.


Then when talking about Floyd "There are very few things that p i s s me off anymore, but this is one of them,” he says. “My family is at risk, and he doesn’t care. Believe me, I care.” Hey Lance, there were a lot of clean riders who had their dreams and years of effort totally screwed over by you, their lives permanently changed for the worse and it p i s s e d me off that you didn't care but not half as much as knowing right now, after you have been exposed you still have no idea of the pain you caused with your legal cases that ensured the omerta was enforced.

Then this is a great anecdote and the best bit of the article "Not long ago, Hansen was talking to her and Armstrong’s son Max, then seven, about his father’s career. She was telling him that his father was one of the greatest cyclists, when Max interrupted and said, “Yeah, but he cheated.” " Let me translate that for the slow learners. Mum, you are a moron; you hooked up with one of the biggest k n o b s on the planet and still can't accept it. Self denial is not a good personal attribute.

The article is the prostitution of journalism. The guy spent more space in the article spouting bile about Floyd than ever he did even in his soft-touch critique of Lance. I don't carry a torch for Floyd, he doesn't deserve anything other than all the pain he has had since 2006 but this is biased and unbalanced writing. A shockingly bad piece - but very interesting to see just how idiots are still in the thrall of crook pharmstrong.
Freddythefrog
Member
 
Posts: 668
Joined: 10 Jul 2010 06:50

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

23 Sep 2017 14:54

From a legal point of view, I don’t think it would be possible for him to to write checks. It would be an admission of guilt and he can’t do that. I don’t think he would do it anyway but it would be a little stupid pre-trial to do so. I also think he doesn’t trust the Andreu’s, they are still raging the campaign on social media to have Armstrong destitute. I care a little less each day about this farce but some still burn the candle like it’s a flame.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,445
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

23 Sep 2017 15:55

I think if he was sorry that would mean there was some wrong action of his for which he wished to make good. Saying sorry but not making good, ain't being sorry. Of course there are legal consequences. That was the point I was making. He wants the love, not of the Andreau's or Lemonds - he doesn't give a d**n about them, it is so that his fans can worship him again as "good guy - who did some wrong stuff but has made it all right again - ain't Lance just the best !"

But his personal greed is again sc r e wing him over - he wants to only do that bit that lets him keep the stolen goods. He is just mad that he isn't winning it all on the way down.

Unreformed.

But like you, I have virtually lost all interest in what happens. As far as I can see it is the classic lose-lose for the fan.

If Pharmstrong gets away with his defence it makes a mockery of how he used the legal system suing anyone who dared hint that he doped and he gets to remain fabulously wealthy from executing the biggest sporting fraud ever. Yay - justice works ! If USPostal win then the k n o b who had no compunction setting up the Floyd Fairness Fund gets to run off with a serious share of Pharmstrongs stolen stuff - one thief having to hand over stolen stuff to another thief. How the hell is that justice ?

As far as I can see the message is "dopers win - you might not get to keep everything but you keep most - riding clean is for suckers !" and of course it is the system that let's these guys win in this way. Cookson - you had an opportunity like no-one else on the planet ever has to try and clean up this sport and you did nothing of any value. Just selfies with your heroes.

Where's Eddy ?
Freddythefrog
Member
 
Posts: 668
Joined: 10 Jul 2010 06:50

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: buckle, MarkvW, ontheroad, red zone, sittingbison and 52 guests

Back to top