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

20 Feb 2017 02:58

DamianoMachiavelli wrote:
86TDFWinner wrote:Curious, What exactly are you talking about here in regards to claiming Betsy is supposedly "lying", what is she supposedly "lying" about, explain?


Have you been living in a cave for the last year while Betsy, Kathy, and Greg ran a smear campaign based on lies about Lance using motors?


Enlighten us, show us these "lies" you claim Betsy is guilty of? Simple question that requires a simple answer really.
User avatar 86TDFWinner
Member
 
Posts: 1,664
Joined: 11 Aug 2012 21:10
Location: Southern California

Re: Re:

20 Feb 2017 06:30

DamianoMachiavelli wrote:...

Yup. Aphro is right.

Guys like you have not learned anything for at least ten years. It is just sad, and maybe even pathetic. You are so focused on your hatred of Armstrong you cannot see the big picture. It is like staring at something three inches from your face, unable to focus on anything beyond that.

The rationalization for your myopia is truly extraordinary. Goebbels could not have done it better.


Sad!?!?

Ha!

I've just been Trumped!

Oh, and Nazified in the same post.

Now that is a first.

Surprised you didn't suggest I was promoting fake news.

Yup, you got me with your compelling logic and well-reasoned arguments. Lots of data to back you up, I'm sure.

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

Re: Re:

20 Feb 2017 19:49

D-Queued wrote:
aphronesis wrote:
D-Queued 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?

(Maybe as Sfi noted someone can hook you up with that dead pony humping gif.)


Pray tell, how do you fix a structural problem?

By subverting prosecution of those that perpetuate it and derive the greatest personal benefit from it?

Dave.


By, um, going after the structure and not its image symptoms. You seem about the last of clinic posters to get this.

Hence why I take issue with your assessment. Anyone rating your opinion could check back 6 years. No update. Mark threw expletives at me, actually, I had nothing to do with him. If this is touchy for you, breathe before posting and keep the fanboys in your pants.


Shallow, stupid and another set of ad hominems.

Going after the structure?

Feel free to enlighten us on what part of the structure you are talking about and how you would fix it.

Structure? Let's see:

- The Face of cycling?
- Team owners?
- Those that put the fix in on races?
- Those that construct schemes to go beyond simple performance enhancement but construct schemes for additional monetary benefit?
- Those that take advantage of sponsors?
- Those that work with sponsors to eliminate the business of other cyclists?
- Those that get sponsor reps to lie for them under oath?
- Those who work hand-in-hand with the UCI?
- In cahoots with Verdruggen/UCI and furthering corruption?
- Wanna-be race owner of the ASO/TdF?
- Plan to run for government office?

What part of the structure did Lance not belong to?

Dave.


There are no ad homines in the post you quote that didn't originate with you.. Of course someone who throws out the fanboy tag might be unclear on this (or shallow and stupid). In fact clinic posting is mostly more sophisticated now than throwing out "ad hominem" and "fanboy" as markers of educated discussion.

So what's changed since then? And what do any of your personal grievances above have to do with the USPS other than the one that mentions sponsor. None of those other things are really structure as you describe them.
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,379
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

Re: Re:

21 Feb 2017 00:24

aphronesis wrote:...

There are no ad homines in the post you quote that didn't originate with you.. Of course someone who throws out the fanboy tag might be unclear on this (or shallow and stupid). In fact clinic posting is mostly more sophisticated now than throwing out "ad hominem" and "fanboy" as markers of educated discussion.

So what's changed since then? And what do any of your personal grievances above have to do with the USPS other than the one that mentions sponsor. None of those other things are really structure as you describe them.


"None of those other things are really structure"?

Then please feel free to educate me on the structure of the sport and what you meant by doping being a problem of the structure.

As you cogitate on that, please allow me to offer one view of that 'structure'. Your view may differ, but doesn't the sports structure directly involve four main groups: The UCI, The Race Owners (ASO in particular), The Teams and their Owners, and The Sponsors?

Cyclists themselves are not part of the actual structure, but require a UCI license to participate in it.

The IOC, WADA, WADA Labs and ADAs are outside the direct structure of the sport, albeit strong influencers.

Please allow me further to further illustrate how Lance has differed from all other participants in his dealings with, and being part of, the sport structure.

The UCI:

According to the uci.ch website, the UCI is "The world governing body for the sport of cycling recognised by the International Olympic Committee (IOC)."

1. Lance, unlike any other cyclist, donated money (on multiple occasions) to the UCI that was denied by the UCI
2. Claimed the donations to have been for a purpose that was not only comical in the assertion of aiding doping control, but had a strong appearance of trying to hide his own doping. In hindsight, it is relevant that Lance's doping now accepted as fact including by his own admission. It has also been suggested, and never adequately refuted, that this money (and possibly other money) may have somehow purposefully enriched UCI leadership directly or indirectly.
3. The UCI has never been able to 'square accounts' on the donations and articulate the use-of-proceeds
4. Appeared to be, and was documented to be, in cahoots with UCI management on a number of items including the attempted purchase of the ASO/TdF
5. Apparently received special treatment from the UCI wrt a doping positive at the TdS.
6. Allegedly received forewarning of 'surprise' doping tests
7. Had a complete work of fiction (The Vrijman report) sponsored and touted by the UCI to exonerate him from the Ressiot L'Equipe article "The Armstrong Lie". for grins and giggles please consider a refresher read from the "WADA OFFICIAL STATEMENT ON INACCURACIES OF VRIJMAN REPORT": https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/legal/wada-official-statement-on-inaccuracies-of-vrijman-report.

An extract:

"...a distinct lack of impartiality in conducting a full review of all the facts ... Mr. Vrijman’s report is fallacious in many aspects and misleading..."

Please name another cyclist for whom the UCI protected and sponsored such a whitewash for.

The Race Owners

1. See above point on the attempted purchase of the ASO/TdF

Teams and Team Owners:

1. Lance was a part owner of Tailwind. As such, this made him part of the structure as opposed to a participant. Not only that, this ownership was something he tried to hide in the original SCA case. No doubt his status as an owner may well be considered by the jury (i.e. the degree of his control) in the current Floyd Landis/USPS Qui Tam case.

Again, this is unique. How many other cyclists, current and past, have been owners/part owners of their team while they were still racing?

Sponsors:

1. Lance's relationship with Trek and Oakley, and arguably Nike as well, differs considerably from those of other athletes. Among other things, as noted above, his influence on Trek led to the Trek v. LeMond legal case that was ultimately settled in favor of LeMond.

It was your assertion that it was the structure that needed to be addressed, was it not?

I actually agree with you that we should be more concerned with a corrupt structure if we want to fix the sport.

My contention is that this is one of, if not the biggest reasons why Lance should not be forgiven nor forgotten. Unlike others, he was a player in the sport's structure and he used that power towards his corruption.

Of course, Lance is still one of many in his own doping story. Perhaps we can agree on that point.

This story won't be complete until justice is served for Verdruggen, The Hog, and the many other direct contributors.

YMMV

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

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

21 Feb 2017 02:47

86TDFWinner wrote:
DamianoMachiavelli wrote:
86TDFWinner wrote:Curious, What exactly are you talking about here in regards to claiming Betsy is supposedly "lying", what is she supposedly "lying" about, explain?


Have you been living in a cave for the last year while Betsy, Kathy, and Greg ran a smear campaign based on lies about Lance using motors?


Enlighten us, show us these "lies" you claim Betsy is guilty of? Simple question that requires a simple answer really.


Is it just me or isn't it weird that a lot of you guys get so hung up about a middle aged mother who never actually rose a bike let alone participate in a race.

I find it very strange. Sure get infatuated by Justin Bieber but a middled aged Mom?
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,324
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

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

21 Feb 2017 05:21

thehog wrote:
86TDFWinner wrote:
DamianoMachiavelli wrote:
86TDFWinner wrote:Curious, What exactly are you talking about here in regards to claiming Betsy is supposedly "lying", what is she supposedly "lying" about, explain?


Have you been living in a cave for the last year while Betsy, Kathy, and Greg ran a smear campaign based on lies about Lance using motors?


Enlighten us, show us these "lies" you claim Betsy is guilty of? Simple question that requires a simple answer really.


Is it just me or isn't it weird that a lot of you guys get so hung up about a middle aged mother who never actually rose a bike let alone participate in a race.

I find it very strange. Sure get infatuated by Justin Bieber but a middled aged Mom?


The Biebs is all yours, thanks.

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

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

21 Feb 2017 17:26

thehog wrote:
86TDFWinner wrote:
DamianoMachiavelli wrote:
86TDFWinner wrote:Curious, What exactly are you talking about here in regards to claiming Betsy is supposedly "lying", what is she supposedly "lying" about, explain?


Have you been living in a cave for the last year while Betsy, Kathy, and Greg ran a smear campaign based on lies about Lance using motors?


Enlighten us, show us these "lies" you claim Betsy is guilty of? Simple question that requires a simple answer really.


Is it just me or isn't it weird that a lot of you guys get so hung up about a middle aged mother who never actually rose a bike let alone participate in a race.

I find it very strange. Sure get infatuated by Justin Bieber but a middled aged Mom?

Lmao Hoggy. I'm just asking a question of this person & hope to receive an answer(which I doubt I will). But you're right.
User avatar 86TDFWinner
Member
 
Posts: 1,664
Joined: 11 Aug 2012 21:10
Location: Southern California

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

22 Feb 2017 20:30

DamianoMachiavelli wrote:
86TDFWinner wrote:Curious, What exactly are you talking about here in regards to claiming Betsy is supposedly "lying", what is she supposedly "lying" about, explain?


Have you been living in a cave for the last year while Betsy, Kathy, and Greg ran a smear campaign based on lies about Lance using motors?


So you're basically making this up about what Betsy and Greg supposedly "lied about", and when further asked to provide any sort of links or proof of such "lies", You then deflect and refuse to answer? Got it.
User avatar 86TDFWinner
Member
 
Posts: 1,664
Joined: 11 Aug 2012 21:10
Location: Southern California

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

23 Feb 2017 10:13

[quote="[url=http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=2065593#p2065593]thehog

Is it just me or isn't it weird that a lot of you guys get so hung up about a middle aged mother who never actually rose a bike let alone participate in a race.

I find it very strange. Sure get infatuated by Justin Bieber but a middled aged Mom?[/quote]

Let's be careful with comments on "middle-aged Moms"........ :D
User avatar Susan Westemeyer
Administrator
 
Posts: 8,354
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 14:18
Location: Germany

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

23 Feb 2017 13:29

Susan Westemeyer wrote:
thehog wrote:
Is it just me or isn't it weird that a lot of you guys get so hung up about a middle aged mother who never actually rose a bike let alone participate in a race.

I find it very strange. Sure get infatuated by Justin Bieber but a middled aged Mom?


Let's be careful with comments on "middle-aged Moms"........ :D


thehog sailing too close to the wind with Susan again. Just like old times :D
Beech Mtn
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,544
Joined: 06 Oct 2009 16:50

Re: Re:

25 Feb 2017 15:05

D-Queued wrote:
aphronesis wrote:...

There are no ad homines in the post you quote that didn't originate with you.. Of course someone who throws out the fanboy tag might be unclear on this (or shallow and stupid). In fact clinic posting is mostly more sophisticated now than throwing out "ad hominem" and "fanboy" as markers of educated discussion.

So what's changed since then? And what do any of your personal grievances above have to do with the USPS other than the one that mentions sponsor. None of those other things are really structure as you describe them.


"None of those other things are really structure"?

Then please feel free to educate me on the structure of the sport and what you meant by doping being a problem of the structure.

As you cogitate on that, please allow me to offer one view of that 'structure'. Your view may differ, but doesn't the sports structure directly involve four main groups: The UCI, The Race Owners (ASO in particular), The Teams and their Owners, and The Sponsors?

Cyclists themselves are not part of the actual structure, but require a UCI license to participate in it.

The IOC, WADA, WADA Labs and ADAs are outside the direct structure of the sport, albeit strong influencers.

Please allow me further to further illustrate how Lance has differed from all other participants in his dealings with, and being part of, the sport structure.

The UCI:

According to the uci.ch website, the UCI is "The world governing body for the sport of cycling recognised by the International Olympic Committee (IOC)."

1. Lance, unlike any other cyclist, donated money (on multiple occasions) to the UCI that was denied by the UCI
2. Claimed the donations to have been for a purpose that was not only comical in the assertion of aiding doping control, but had a strong appearance of trying to hide his own doping. In hindsight, it is relevant that Lance's doping now accepted as fact including by his own admission. It has also been suggested, and never adequately refuted, that this money (and possibly other money) may have somehow purposefully enriched UCI leadership directly or indirectly.
3. The UCI has never been able to 'square accounts' on the donations and articulate the use-of-proceeds
4. Appeared to be, and was documented to be, in cahoots with UCI management on a number of items including the attempted purchase of the ASO/TdF
5. Apparently received special treatment from the UCI wrt a doping positive at the TdS.
6. Allegedly received forewarning of 'surprise' doping tests
7. Had a complete work of fiction (The Vrijman report) sponsored and touted by the UCI to exonerate him from the Ressiot L'Equipe article "The Armstrong Lie". for grins and giggles please consider a refresher read from the "WADA OFFICIAL STATEMENT ON INACCURACIES OF VRIJMAN REPORT": https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/legal/wada-official-statement-on-inaccuracies-of-vrijman-report.

An extract:

"...a distinct lack of impartiality in conducting a full review of all the facts ... Mr. Vrijman’s report is fallacious in many aspects and misleading..."

Please name another cyclist for whom the UCI protected and sponsored such a whitewash for.

The Race Owners

1. See above point on the attempted purchase of the ASO/TdF

Teams and Team Owners:

1. Lance was a part owner of Tailwind. As such, this made him part of the structure as opposed to a participant. Not only that, this ownership was something he tried to hide in the original SCA case. No doubt his status as an owner may well be considered by the jury (i.e. the degree of his control) in the current Floyd Landis/USPS Qui Tam case.

Again, this is unique. How many other cyclists, current and past, have been owners/part owners of their team while they were still racing?

Sponsors:

1. Lance's relationship with Trek and Oakley, and arguably Nike as well, differs considerably from those of other athletes. Among other things, as noted above, his influence on Trek led to the Trek v. LeMond legal case that was ultimately settled in favor of LeMond.

It was your assertion that it was the structure that needed to be addressed, was it not?

I actually agree with you that we should be more concerned with a corrupt structure if we want to fix the sport.

My contention is that this is one of, if not the biggest reasons why Lance should not be forgiven nor forgotten. Unlike others, he was a player in the sport's structure and he used that power towards his corruption.

Of course, Lance is still one of many in his own doping story. Perhaps we can agree on that point.

This story won't be complete until justice is served for Verdruggen, The Hog, and the many other direct contributors.

YMMV

Dave.


Most of your post has nothing to do with USPS. Forgiven or forgotten? Get real. Key phrase in your rehearsal of the known litanies is "his corruption", as opposed to the sport's. You want to grind your axe, fine but leave the homilies and "justice" in your basement. That's not ad hominem: the rhetoric you push is not viable and no negligible schadenfreude of lance in a plano trailer park will change that.
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,379
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

Re: Re:

25 Feb 2017 20:10

aphronesis wrote:
D-Queued wrote:
aphronesis wrote:...

There are no ad homines in the post you quote that didn't originate with you.. Of course someone who throws out the fanboy tag might be unclear on this (or shallow and stupid). In fact clinic posting is mostly more sophisticated now than throwing out "ad hominem" and "fanboy" as markers of educated discussion.

So what's changed since then? And what do any of your personal grievances above have to do with the USPS other than the one that mentions sponsor. None of those other things are really structure as you describe them.


"None of those other things are really structure"?

Then please feel free to educate me on the structure of the sport and what you meant by doping being a problem of the structure.

As you cogitate on that, please allow me to offer one view of that 'structure'. Your view may differ, but doesn't the sports structure directly involve four main groups: The UCI, The Race Owners (ASO in particular), The Teams and their Owners, and The Sponsors?

Cyclists themselves are not part of the actual structure, but require a UCI license to participate in it.

The IOC, WADA, WADA Labs and ADAs are outside the direct structure of the sport, albeit strong influencers.

Please allow me further to further illustrate how Lance has differed from all other participants in his dealings with, and being part of, the sport structure.

The UCI:

According to the uci.ch website, the UCI is "The world governing body for the sport of cycling recognised by the International Olympic Committee (IOC)."

1. Lance, unlike any other cyclist, donated money (on multiple occasions) to the UCI that was denied by the UCI
2. Claimed the donations to have been for a purpose that was not only comical in the assertion of aiding doping control, but had a strong appearance of trying to hide his own doping. In hindsight, it is relevant that Lance's doping now accepted as fact including by his own admission. It has also been suggested, and never adequately refuted, that this money (and possibly other money) may have somehow purposefully enriched UCI leadership directly or indirectly.
3. The UCI has never been able to 'square accounts' on the donations and articulate the use-of-proceeds
4. Appeared to be, and was documented to be, in cahoots with UCI management on a number of items including the attempted purchase of the ASO/TdF
5. Apparently received special treatment from the UCI wrt a doping positive at the TdS.
6. Allegedly received forewarning of 'surprise' doping tests
7. Had a complete work of fiction (The Vrijman report) sponsored and touted by the UCI to exonerate him from the Ressiot L'Equipe article "The Armstrong Lie". for grins and giggles please consider a refresher read from the "WADA OFFICIAL STATEMENT ON INACCURACIES OF VRIJMAN REPORT": https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/legal/wada-official-statement-on-inaccuracies-of-vrijman-report.

An extract:

"...a distinct lack of impartiality in conducting a full review of all the facts ... Mr. Vrijman’s report is fallacious in many aspects and misleading..."

Please name another cyclist for whom the UCI protected and sponsored such a whitewash for.

The Race Owners

1. See above point on the attempted purchase of the ASO/TdF

Teams and Team Owners:

1. Lance was a part owner of Tailwind. As such, this made him part of the structure as opposed to a participant. Not only that, this ownership was something he tried to hide in the original SCA case. No doubt his status as an owner may well be considered by the jury (i.e. the degree of his control) in the current Floyd Landis/USPS Qui Tam case.

Again, this is unique. How many other cyclists, current and past, have been owners/part owners of their team while they were still racing?

Sponsors:

1. Lance's relationship with Trek and Oakley, and arguably Nike as well, differs considerably from those of other athletes. Among other things, as noted above, his influence on Trek led to the Trek v. LeMond legal case that was ultimately settled in favor of LeMond.

It was your assertion that it was the structure that needed to be addressed, was it not?

I actually agree with you that we should be more concerned with a corrupt structure if we want to fix the sport.

My contention is that this is one of, if not the biggest reasons why Lance should not be forgiven nor forgotten. Unlike others, he was a player in the sport's structure and he used that power towards his corruption.

Of course, Lance is still one of many in his own doping story. Perhaps we can agree on that point.

This story won't be complete until justice is served for Verdruggen, The Hog, and the many other direct contributors.

YMMV

Dave.


Most of your post has nothing to do with USPS. Forgiven or forgotten? Get real. Key phrase in your rehearsal of the known litanies is "his corruption", as opposed to the sport's. You want to grind your axe, fine but leave the homilies and "justice" in your basement. That's not ad hominem: the rhetoric you push is not viable and no negligible schadenfreude of lance in a plano trailer park will change that.


I guess you got all the livewrong gear, including the jimmyjams :rolleyes:
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,039
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

25 Feb 2017 21:02

Look at you little flower. Like a doorbell (knob) you're to be counted on. Mom still paying for you wifi account Benotti? People were almost taking you seriously.

Jimmy jams from the masochistic spectator nun ne plus ultra.
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,379
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

Re:

25 Feb 2017 21:50

aphronesis wrote:Look at you little flower. Like a doorbell (knob) you're to be counted on. Mom still paying for you wifi account Benotti? People were almost taking you seriously.

Jimmy jams from the masochistic spectator nun ne plus ultra.


Mommy says time for my jimjams and bed. Laters :lol:
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,039
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

25 Feb 2017 22:21

Salazar even boasted to Lance Armstrong, the world’s most notorious drugs cheat, about the “incredible” performance-boosting effects of the substance.

“Lance call me asap! We have tested it and it’s amazing,” Salazar emailed Armstrong before the cycling star’s downfall.
link
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,892
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

26 Feb 2017 01:44

aphronesis wrote:...

Most of your post has nothing to do with USPS. Forgiven or forgotten? Get real. Key phrase in your rehearsal of the known litanies is "his corruption", as opposed to the sport's. You want to grind your axe, fine but leave the homilies and "justice" in your basement. That's not ad hominem: the rhetoric you push is not viable and no negligible schadenfreude of lance in a plano trailer park will change that.


:lol:

Oh, and try and follow the plot here. You commented about structure. I responded on structure.

Ok, the attempted purchase of ASO/TdF was post Posties (2006-8). Pretty much everything else was Postal related or connected. The attempted purchase of ASO/TdF, however, is relevant on a discussion of Lance's impact on the sport's structure, however, as noted by The Sydney Morning Herald:

Rumours are circulating that behind Armstrong's decision, which will allow him to race in next year's Tour de France, is an audacious plan that will change the face of cycling. http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/once-he-dominated--now-lance-could-own-the-tour/2008/09/19/1221331205913.html

Now, you want to switch the subject - one that you introduced - again. :rolleyes:

Your arguments are vapid.

Oh, and FMK just did us all a favor by posting a like that illustrates how Lance is and was the acknowledge king of dope.

'His corruption' refers to more than just Lance himself. He corrupted the sport, not the reverse. Knowing just how bad cycling was way back when he began tilting the scale, that is quite a feat.

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

Re: Re:

27 Feb 2017 15:17

Lance corrupted pro cycling like Richard Nixon corrupted politics. Ridiculous.
User avatar MarkvW
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,138
Joined: 10 Aug 2010 20:13

Re: Re:

27 Feb 2017 18:46

D-Queued wrote:Oh, and FMK just did us all a favor by posting a like that illustrates how Lance is and was the acknowledge king of dope.
Uh, reality check: I did no such thing. At best the Sunset Times quote suggests that Nike kept things in-house, so to speak, which is actually kinda artisanal.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,892
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

28 Feb 2017 03:02

fmk_RoI wrote:
D-Queued wrote:Oh, and FMK just did us all a favor by posting a like that illustrates how Lance is and was the acknowledge king of dope.
Uh, reality check: I did no such thing. At best the Sunset Times quote suggests that Nike kept things in-house, so to speak, which is actually kinda artisanal.


Thanks for the clarification.

Not sure it makes me feel any better, though, about sponsor involvement.

And, yes, I heartily agree that Lance could only further pervert what was a perverted sport (point taken above ^ MarkvW) and could not possibly, in and of himself, be blamed for doping in cycling. Further, whether they were enablers or primary facilitators, wouldn't it be nice to have the involvement of the conspiring sponsors out in the open?

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

Re: Re:

28 Feb 2017 10:49

D-Queued wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
D-Queued wrote:Oh, and FMK just did us all a favor by posting a like that illustrates how Lance is and was the acknowledge king of dope.
Uh, reality check: I did no such thing. At best the Sunset Times quote suggests that Nike kept things in-house, so to speak, which is actually kinda artisanal.


Thanks for the clarification.

Not sure it makes me feel any better, though, about sponsor involvement.

And, yes, I heartily agree that Lance could only further pervert what was a perverted sport (point taken above ^ MarkvW) and could not possibly, in and of himself, be blamed for doping in cycling. Further, whether they were enablers or primary facilitators, wouldn't it be nice to have the involvement of the conspiring sponsors out in the open?

Dave.


Dave .... where are you (and several others on the Clinic) going with all this, man?

You gotta know that outside these sweaty walls, your angsts don't get much play time. Not that shey shouldn't or should ... they don't. Most people have moved on.

That you're seemingly bothered by what sponsors have done ... I mean .... what do you do, what can you do with that? And the "wouldn't it be nice" song about "conspiring sponsors." You'll get numbers to follow you "on here" if the sponsors are outed ... but who else would listen? Again, not that they shouldn't or should listen to you ... they wouldn't.

The moral relativists are right (but wrong from your moral judgement point). Maybe you are waiting for some big nail in the coffin that will give you some relief. If he took your woman, you gotta punch him out. If he won dirty, while you lost clean ... whatya gonna do about it? Commiserate with Binotti? If that's not who you are ... give yourself a break, man.

Ironically, the fan boys conceded a long time ago. It's the evangelicals who soldier on ... confident that there's a stake ... that well delivered, ... will square 'their' moral reckoning with this one guy.

For what?
User avatar Alpe73
Junior Member
 
Posts: 165
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], Libertine Seguros and 19 guests

Back to top