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:

06 Oct 2017 13:57

deviant wrote:why should a convicted doper like Floyd profit from the conviction of a convicted doper like Armstrong?!...its a bizarre situation
It's not all that bizarre if you look at the law: it's about encouraging whistle-blowers. People who, themselves, will probably have broken the law. Heroes like Grigory Rodchenkov, Yuliya Stepanova. What it is, for cyclists, is personal: when it's people outside of this sport profiting from the qui tam legislation, no one cares.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,022
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

06 Oct 2017 13:58

Straw poll re the Guardian article: how many people think the author is arguing the government should get off Lance Armstrong's back and let him go free?
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,022
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re:

22 Oct 2017 08:31

fmk_RoI wrote:Straw poll re the Guardian article: how many people think the author is arguing the government should get off Lance Armstrong's back and let him go free?

How much did Lance pay Beau Dure for the article, is what I want to know :lol:
Rød pølse - Breakfast of Champions!
"The president is one large S.T.D., and if you’re in close proximity you’re going to get tainted by it.”
User avatar Robert5091
Member
 
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 29 Mar 2016 08:56
Location: stockholm, sweden

Re: Re:

22 Oct 2017 22:30

fmk_RoI wrote:
deviant wrote:why should a convicted doper like Floyd profit from the conviction of a convicted doper like Armstrong?!...its a bizarre situation
It's not all that bizarre if you look at the law: it's about encouraging whistle-blowers. People who, themselves, will probably have broken the law. Heroes like Grigory Rodchenkov, Yuliya Stepanova. What it is, for cyclists, is personal: when it's people outside of this sport profiting from the qui tam legislation, no one cares.

I quite agree with deviant. Better Pharmstrong should die a rich man, still the sport's senior statesman with an unblemished reputation and seven Tdf Titles to his credit, with Liggett and Sherwin's lips still pressed firmly against his toches, rather than FLandis should profit even a single centime for his role in the Uniballer's downfall. Furthermore, no one other than nuns and monks should be allowed to give witness in any criminal or legal proceeding and only then after successfully passing urine analysis, polygraph testing, and water boarding.
User avatar StyrbjornSterki
Member
 
Posts: 848
Joined: 18 Jul 2010 22:00

Re: Re:

23 Oct 2017 12:04

StyrbjornSterki wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
deviant wrote:why should a convicted doper like Floyd profit from the conviction of a convicted doper like Armstrong?!...its a bizarre situation
It's not all that bizarre if you look at the law: it's about encouraging whistle-blowers. People who, themselves, will probably have broken the law. Heroes like Grigory Rodchenkov, Yuliya Stepanova. What it is, for cyclists, is personal: when it's people outside of this sport profiting from the qui tam legislation, no one cares.

I quite agree with deviant. Better Pharmstrong should die a rich man, still the sport's senior statesman with an unblemished reputation and seven Tdf Titles to his credit, with Liggett and Sherwin's lips still pressed firmly against his toches, rather than FLandis should profit even a single centime for his role in the Uniballer's downfall. Furthermore, no one other than nuns and monks should be allowed to give witness in any criminal or legal proceeding and only then after successfully passing urine analysis, polygraph testing, and water boarding.


Isn't part of the reason for his demise is that he did his deeds while riding for a team sponsored by the U.S. Postal service, making government involvement in his prosecution necessary? Floyd may have been a cheater just like Lance but to the U.S. government he is just a witness for their case.
User avatar Angliru
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,993
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 13:30

Re: Re:

08 Nov 2017 00:44

Angliru wrote:
StyrbjornSterki wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
deviant wrote:why should a convicted doper like Floyd profit from the conviction of a convicted doper like Armstrong?!...its a bizarre situation
It's not all that bizarre if you look at the law: it's about encouraging whistle-blowers. People who, themselves, will probably have broken the law. Heroes like Grigory Rodchenkov, Yuliya Stepanova. What it is, for cyclists, is personal: when it's people outside of this sport profiting from the qui tam legislation, no one cares.

I quite agree with deviant. Better Pharmstrong should die a rich man, still the sport's senior statesman with an unblemished reputation and seven Tdf Titles to his credit, with Liggett and Sherwin's lips still pressed firmly against his toches, rather than FLandis should profit even a single centime for his role in the Uniballer's downfall. Furthermore, no one other than nuns and monks should be allowed to give witness in any criminal or legal proceeding and only then after successfully passing urine analysis, polygraph testing, and water boarding.


Isn't part of the reason for his demise is that he did his deeds while riding for a team sponsored by the U.S. Postal service, making government involvement in his prosecution necessary? Floyd may have been a cheater just like Lance but to the U.S. government he is just a witness for their case.

Floyd may have been a cheater, but he was no "cheater just like Lance". Nobody cheated "just like Lance".
User avatar Ninety5rpm
Member
 
Posts: 1,890
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 01:08
Location: The World

Re: Re:

08 Nov 2017 01:00

fmk_RoI wrote:
deviant wrote:why should a convicted doper like Floyd profit from the conviction of a convicted doper like Armstrong?!...its a bizarre situation
It's not all that bizarre if you look at the law: it's about encouraging whistle-blowers. People who, themselves, will probably have broken the law. Heroes like Grigory Rodchenkov, Yuliya Stepanova. What it is, for cyclists, is personal: when it's people outside of this sport profiting from the qui tam legislation, no one cares.


You're kidding, right? Heroes? Good golly. Stepanova got caught doping, and when she didn't get her ban erased and lost money, she started talking. That individual is not 'anti-doping,' at all. Rodchenkov spent time in a mental institution, tried to commit suicide, and blamed his wife. Then he moved to the US, established an address there, and came back to Russia to manipulate tests of athletes that had nothing do with him. The guy is more creepy than Grigory Rasputin. These people should not go in the same sentence with 'anti-doping.' I am sorry that you think they should.
BullsFan22
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,880
Joined: 22 Jun 2010 21:19

Re: Re:

08 Nov 2017 03:21

BullsFan22 wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
deviant wrote:why should a convicted doper like Floyd profit from the conviction of a convicted doper like Armstrong?!...its a bizarre situation
It's not all that bizarre if you look at the law: it's about encouraging whistle-blowers. People who, themselves, will probably have broken the law. Heroes like Grigory Rodchenkov, Yuliya Stepanova. What it is, for cyclists, is personal: when it's people outside of this sport profiting from the qui tam legislation, no one cares.


You're kidding, right? Heroes? Good golly. Stepanova got caught doping, and when she didn't get her ban erased and lost money, she started talking. That individual is not 'anti-doping,' at all. Rodchenkov spent time in a mental institution, tried to commit suicide, and blamed his wife. Then he moved to the US, established an address there, and came back to Russia to manipulate tests of athletes that had nothing do with him. The guy is more creepy than Grigory Rasputin. These people should not go in the same sentence with 'anti-doping.' I am sorry that you think they should.


Then you’ll be pleased to know that David Walsh is writing a book with both of them :eek:
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,412
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

08 Nov 2017 11:22

thehog wrote:
BullsFan22 wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
deviant wrote:why should a convicted doper like Floyd profit from the conviction of a convicted doper like Armstrong?!...its a bizarre situation
It's not all that bizarre if you look at the law: it's about encouraging whistle-blowers. People who, themselves, will probably have broken the law. Heroes like Grigory Rodchenkov, Yuliya Stepanova. What it is, for cyclists, is personal: when it's people outside of this sport profiting from the qui tam legislation, no one cares.


You're kidding, right? Heroes? Good golly. Stepanova got caught doping, and when she didn't get her ban erased and lost money, she started talking. That individual is not 'anti-doping,' at all. Rodchenkov spent time in a mental institution, tried to commit suicide, and blamed his wife. Then he moved to the US, established an address there, and came back to Russia to manipulate tests of athletes that had nothing do with him. The guy is more creepy than Grigory Rasputin. These people should not go in the same sentence with 'anti-doping.' I am sorry that you think they should.


Then you’ll be pleased to know that David Walsh is writing a book with both of them :eek:



Well I am not surprised, David Walsh is a hypocrite, so it fits quite nicely. Protects Sky and British sports stars in general, goes after Joe Foreigner. Professional sport just keeps getting more smelly and corrupt.
BullsFan22
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,880
Joined: 22 Jun 2010 21:19

Re: Re:

08 Nov 2017 12:53

BullsFan22 wrote:You're kidding, right?
I love it when people instinctively recognise a joke but still go off on one.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,022
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

08 Nov 2017 23:54

Ninety5rpm wrote:
Angliru wrote:Isn't part of the reason for his demise is that he did his deeds while riding for a team sponsored by the U.S. Postal service, making government involvement in his prosecution necessary? Floyd may have been a cheater just like Lance but to the U.S. government he is just a witness for their case.

Floyd may have been a cheater, but he was no "cheater just like Lance". Nobody cheated "just like Lance".

What some would prefer to ignore is that no one apart a fellow cheater ever was going to bring Pharmstrong down.

The powers that be (UCI, WADA, ASO, etc), who by rights should have been leading the charge, either couldn't or wouldn't. They were at best feckless and at worst possibly complicit.

And the press who made the effort either were cowed by threats of litigation or ridiculed and harassed into submission by Pharmstrong's sycophantic media lapdogs (who greatly outnumbered the 'objective' press). If David Walsh's 2004 book L.A. Confidentiel: Les Secrets de Lance Armstrong -- which at the time no one even dared publish in English -- wasn't the handwriting on the wall, then L'Équipe's 2005 exposé should have been.

Instead, Pharmstrong's libel suit against the Sunday Times for publishing a preview of Walsh's book served as a warning shot over the bow to anyone in the press who might dare to cross him. And the public pillorying that Pharmstrong's nattering media nabobs gave to L'Équipe effectively served as a campaign of disinformation, a preemptive strike challenging the factualness of any and all future reporting in the English-speaking press that dared to trod the same ground (that Pharmstrong's stored TdF urine samples from as far back as 1999 had been tested and found to contain EPO). And creating (or reinforcing) the impression that the French sport press, far from being objective journos, were nothing but a bunch of sore loser crybabies.

Two of Pharmstrong's former minions, one a soigneur and the other a bike mechanic, tried to use the power of the press to expose him, but he included the soigneur in the libel suit against Walsh and the Times, and he hounded the mechanic -- an American -- to the ends of the earth ... literally (New Zealand). Hell hath no fury.

Even the American government conducted its own criminal investigation which, for reasons that remain a mystery to all but the conspiracy anoraks, was scuppered before releasing any details or issuing any indictments (despite what one must presume was a mountain of actionable evidence).

Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail.

No one with clean hands ever was likely to have all three, (1) the motive, (2) the method (in form of first-hand information) and (3) the opportunity to bring down Pharmstrong. The ugly truth is, it probably only ever was going to be done by a former confidant who both knew where all the bodies were buried [goes to method] and was willing to use that knowledge to stab Pharmstrong in the back [goes to opportunity].

According to the Wikipedia article, more than 70% of actions under America's False Claims Act are brought by "whistleblowers" such as FLandis. So I rather doubt that the Americans are much distraught over the fact that the case against Pharmstrong was brought by a fellow cheater, ... so long as his testimony holds up in court.
User avatar StyrbjornSterki
Member
 
Posts: 848
Joined: 18 Jul 2010 22:00

Re: Re:

09 Nov 2017 03:03

StyrbjornSterki wrote:
Ninety5rpm wrote:
Angliru wrote:Isn't part of the reason for his demise is that he did his deeds while riding for a team sponsored by the U.S. Postal service, making government involvement in his prosecution necessary? Floyd may have been a cheater just like Lance but to the U.S. government he is just a witness for their case.

Floyd may have been a cheater, but he was no "cheater just like Lance". Nobody cheated "just like Lance".

What some would prefer to ignore is that no one apart a fellow cheater ever was going to bring Pharmstrong down.

The powers that be (UCI, WADA, ASO, etc), who by rights should have been leading the charge, either couldn't or wouldn't. They were at best feckless and at worst possibly complicit.

And the press who made the effort either were cowed by threats of litigation or ridiculed and harassed into submission by Pharmstrong's sycophantic media lapdogs (who greatly outnumbered the 'objective' press). If David Walsh's 2004 book L.A. Confidentiel: Les Secrets de Lance Armstrong -- which at the time no one even dared publish in English -- wasn't the handwriting on the wall, then L'Équipe's 2005 exposé should have been.

Instead, Pharmstrong's libel suit against the Sunday Times for publishing a preview of Walsh's book served as a warning shot over the bow to anyone in the press who might dare to cross him. And the public pillorying that Pharmstrong's nattering media nabobs gave to L'Équipe effectively served as a campaign of disinformation, a preemptive strike challenging the factualness of any and all future reporting in the English-speaking press that dared to trod the same ground (that Pharmstrong's stored TdF urine samples from as far back as 1999 had been tested and found to contain EPO). And creating (or reinforcing) the impression that the French sport press, far from being objective journos, were nothing but a bunch of sore loser crybabies.

Two of Pharmstrong's former minions, one a soigneur and the other a bike mechanic, tried to use the power of the press to expose him, but he included the soigneur in the libel suit against Walsh and the Times, and he hounded the mechanic -- an American -- to the ends of the earth ... literally (New Zealand). Hell hath no fury.

Even the American government conducted its own criminal investigation which, for reasons that remain a mystery to all but the conspiracy anoraks, was scuppered before releasing any details or issuing any indictments (despite what one must presume was a mountain of actionable evidence).

Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail.

No one with clean hands ever was likely to have all three, (1) the motive, (2) the method (in form of first-hand information) and (3) the opportunity to bring down Pharmstrong. The ugly truth is, it probably only ever was going to be done by a former confidant who both knew where all the bodies were buried [goes to method] and was willing to use that knowledge to stab Pharmstrong in the back [goes to opportunity].

According to the Wikipedia article, more than 70% of actions under America's False Claims Act are brought by "whistleblowers" such as FLandis. So I rather doubt that the Americans are much distraught over the fact that the case against Pharmstrong was brought by a fellow cheater, ... so long as his testimony holds up in court.


100 percent agree. You are not going to find virgin witnesses in a whorehouse.
User avatar MarkvW
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,151
Joined: 10 Aug 2010 20:13

Re: Re:

10 Nov 2017 01:50

MarkvW wrote:
StyrbjornSterki wrote:
Ninety5rpm wrote:
Angliru wrote:Isn't part of the reason for his demise is that he did his deeds while riding for a team sponsored by the U.S. Postal service, making government involvement in his prosecution necessary? Floyd may have been a cheater just like Lance but to the U.S. government he is just a witness for their case.

Floyd may have been a cheater, but he was no "cheater just like Lance". Nobody cheated "just like Lance".

What some would prefer to ignore is that no one apart a fellow cheater ever was going to bring Pharmstrong down.

The powers that be (UCI, WADA, ASO, etc), who by rights should have been leading the charge, either couldn't or wouldn't. They were at best feckless and at worst possibly complicit.

And the press who made the effort either were cowed by threats of litigation or ridiculed and harassed into submission by Pharmstrong's sycophantic media lapdogs (who greatly outnumbered the 'objective' press). If David Walsh's 2004 book L.A. Confidentiel: Les Secrets de Lance Armstrong -- which at the time no one even dared publish in English -- wasn't the handwriting on the wall, then L'Équipe's 2005 exposé should have been.

Instead, Pharmstrong's libel suit against the Sunday Times for publishing a preview of Walsh's book served as a warning shot over the bow to anyone in the press who might dare to cross him. And the public pillorying that Pharmstrong's nattering media nabobs gave to L'Équipe effectively served as a campaign of disinformation, a preemptive strike challenging the factualness of any and all future reporting in the English-speaking press that dared to trod the same ground (that Pharmstrong's stored TdF urine samples from as far back as 1999 had been tested and found to contain EPO). And creating (or reinforcing) the impression that the French sport press, far from being objective journos, were nothing but a bunch of sore loser crybabies.

Two of Pharmstrong's former minions, one a soigneur and the other a bike mechanic, tried to use the power of the press to expose him, but he included the soigneur in the libel suit against Walsh and the Times, and he hounded the mechanic -- an American -- to the ends of the earth ... literally (New Zealand). Hell hath no fury.

Even the American government conducted its own criminal investigation which, for reasons that remain a mystery to all but the conspiracy anoraks, was scuppered before releasing any details or issuing any indictments (despite what one must presume was a mountain of actionable evidence).

Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail.

No one with clean hands ever was likely to have all three, (1) the motive, (2) the method (in form of first-hand information) and (3) the opportunity to bring down Pharmstrong. The ugly truth is, it probably only ever was going to be done by a former confidant who both knew where all the bodies were buried [goes to method] and was willing to use that knowledge to stab Pharmstrong in the back [goes to opportunity].

According to the Wikipedia article, more than 70% of actions under America's False Claims Act are brought by "whistleblowers" such as FLandis. So I rather doubt that the Americans are much distraught over the fact that the case against Pharmstrong was brought by a fellow cheater, ... so long as his testimony holds up in court.


100 percent agree. You are not going to find virgin witnesses in a whorehouse.


Some of us can cozy up to a hit man if the hit was done upon an unsavory person. Others shy away from hit men who previously aided and abetted the hit's unsavory deeds, proliferated his own unsavory deeds and who now wants all of the hit's unsavory money. It is supposed, in popular culture, that the hit(v) was carried out because the hit(n) would not hire the hitman to continue to aid and abet the hit in his unsavory deeds.

What's really more interesting than the hit and the hitman, at this point in the drama, is speculating upon the credilbility of certain personality types in their ability to measure and articulate 'just' reactions to the myriad of fibres within this thread.
User avatar Alpe73
Junior Member
 
Posts: 184
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

Re: Re:

10 Nov 2017 06:34

Alpe73 wrote:
MarkvW wrote:
StyrbjornSterki wrote:
Ninety5rpm wrote:
Angliru wrote:Isn't part of the reason for his demise is that he did his deeds while riding for a team sponsored by the U.S. Postal service, making government involvement in his prosecution necessary? Floyd may have been a cheater just like Lance but to the U.S. government he is just a witness for their case.

Floyd may have been a cheater, but he was no "cheater just like Lance". Nobody cheated "just like Lance".

What some would prefer to ignore is that no one apart a fellow cheater ever was going to bring Pharmstrong down.

The powers that be (UCI, WADA, ASO, etc), who by rights should have been leading the charge, either couldn't or wouldn't. They were at best feckless and at worst possibly complicit.

And the press who made the effort either were cowed by threats of litigation or ridiculed and harassed into submission by Pharmstrong's sycophantic media lapdogs (who greatly outnumbered the 'objective' press). If David Walsh's 2004 book L.A. Confidentiel: Les Secrets de Lance Armstrong -- which at the time no one even dared publish in English -- wasn't the handwriting on the wall, then L'Équipe's 2005 exposé should have been.

Instead, Pharmstrong's libel suit against the Sunday Times for publishing a preview of Walsh's book served as a warning shot over the bow to anyone in the press who might dare to cross him. And the public pillorying that Pharmstrong's nattering media nabobs gave to L'Équipe effectively served as a campaign of disinformation, a preemptive strike challenging the factualness of any and all future reporting in the English-speaking press that dared to trod the same ground (that Pharmstrong's stored TdF urine samples from as far back as 1999 had been tested and found to contain EPO). And creating (or reinforcing) the impression that the French sport press, far from being objective journos, were nothing but a bunch of sore loser crybabies.

Two of Pharmstrong's former minions, one a soigneur and the other a bike mechanic, tried to use the power of the press to expose him, but he included the soigneur in the libel suit against Walsh and the Times, and he hounded the mechanic -- an American -- to the ends of the earth ... literally (New Zealand). Hell hath no fury.

Even the American government conducted its own criminal investigation which, for reasons that remain a mystery to all but the conspiracy anoraks, was scuppered before releasing any details or issuing any indictments (despite what one must presume was a mountain of actionable evidence).

Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail.

No one with clean hands ever was likely to have all three, (1) the motive, (2) the method (in form of first-hand information) and (3) the opportunity to bring down Pharmstrong. The ugly truth is, it probably only ever was going to be done by a former confidant who both knew where all the bodies were buried [goes to method] and was willing to use that knowledge to stab Pharmstrong in the back [goes to opportunity].

According to the Wikipedia article, more than 70% of actions under America's False Claims Act are brought by "whistleblowers" such as FLandis. So I rather doubt that the Americans are much distraught over the fact that the case against Pharmstrong was brought by a fellow cheater, ... so long as his testimony holds up in court.


100 percent agree. You are not going to find virgin witnesses in a whorehouse.


Some of us can cozy up to a hit man if the hit was done upon an unsavory person. Others shy away from hit men who previously aided and abetted the hit's unsavory deeds, proliferated his own unsavory deeds and who now wants all of the hit's unsavory money. It is supposed, in popular culture, that the hit(v) was carried out because the hit(n) would not hire the hitman to continue to aid and abet the hit in his unsavory deeds.

What's really more interesting than the hit and the hitman, at this point in the drama, is speculating upon the credilbility of certain personality types in their ability to measure and articulate 'just' reactions to the myriad of fibres within this thread.


Bunch of anorexic guys riding around on mopeds isn't exactly murder.
User avatar MarkvW
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,151
Joined: 10 Aug 2010 20:13

Re: Re:

10 Nov 2017 10:52

MarkvW wrote:
Alpe73 wrote:
MarkvW wrote:
StyrbjornSterki wrote:
Ninety5rpm wrote:[quote="
Floyd may have been a cheater, but he was no "cheater just like Lance". Nobody cheated "just like Lance".

What some would prefer to ignore is that no one apart a fellow cheater ever was going to bring Pharmstrong down.

The powers that be (UCI, WADA, ASO, etc), who by rights should have been leading the charge, either couldn't or wouldn't. They were at best feckless and at worst possibly complicit.

And the press who made the effort either were cowed by threats of litigation or ridiculed and harassed into submission by Pharmstrong's sycophantic media lapdogs (who greatly outnumbered the 'objective' press). If David Walsh's 2004 book L.A. Confidentiel: Les Secrets de Lance Armstrong -- which at the time no one even dared publish in English -- wasn't the handwriting on the wall, then L'Équipe's 2005 exposé should have been.

Instead, Pharmstrong's libel suit against the Sunday Times for publishing a preview of Walsh's book served as a warning shot over the bow to anyone in the press who might dare to cross him. And the public pillorying that Pharmstrong's nattering media nabobs gave to L'Équipe effectively served as a campaign of disinformation, a preemptive strike challenging the factualness of any and all future reporting in the English-speaking press that dared to trod the same ground (that Pharmstrong's stored TdF urine samples from as far back as 1999 had been tested and found to contain EPO). And creating (or reinforcing) the impression that the French sport press, far from being objective journos, were nothing but a bunch of sore loser crybabies.

Two of Pharmstrong's former minions, one a soigneur and the other a bike mechanic, tried to use the power of the press to expose him, but he included the soigneur in the libel suit against Walsh and the Times, and he hounded the mechanic -- an American -- to the ends of the earth ... literally (New Zealand). Hell hath no fury.

Even the American government conducted its own criminal investigation which, for reasons that remain a mystery to all but the conspiracy anoraks, was scuppered before releasing any details or issuing any indictments (despite what one must presume was a mountain of actionable evidence).

Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail.

No one with clean hands ever was likely to have all three, (1) the motive, (2) the method (in form of first-hand information) and (3) the opportunity to bring down Pharmstrong. The ugly truth is, it probably only ever was going to be done by a former confidant who both knew where all the bodies were buried [goes to method] and was willing to use that knowledge to stab Pharmstrong in the back [goes to opportunity].

According to the Wikipedia article, more than 70% of actions under America's False Claims Act are brought by "whistleblowers" such as FLandis. So I rather doubt that the Americans are much distraught over the fact that the case against Pharmstrong was brought by a fellow cheater, ... so long as his testimony holds up in court.


100 percent agree. You are not going to find virgin witnesses in a whorehouse.


Some of us can cozy up to a hit man if the hit was done upon an unsavory person. Others shy away from hit men who previously aided and abetted the hit's unsavory deeds, proliferated his own unsavory deeds and who now wants all of the hit's unsavory money. It is supposed, in popular culture, that the hit(v) was carried out because the hit(n) would not hire the hitman to continue to aid and abet the hit in his unsavory deeds.

What's really more interesting than the hit and the hitman, at this point in the drama, is speculating upon the credilbility of certain personality types in their ability to measure and articulate 'just' reactions to the myriad of fibres within this thread.


Bunch of anorexic guys riding around on mopeds isn't exactly murder.


Far worse ... judging by 1.5 million look-ins and 14.5K comments.
User avatar Alpe73
Junior Member
 
Posts: 184
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

Re: Re:

10 Nov 2017 12:39

Alpe73 wrote:Far worse ... judging by 1.5 million look-ins and 14.5K comments.
Ten people hitting refresh ten times after each making a less than one post a day over five years...
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,022
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

10 Nov 2017 12:53

fmk_RoI wrote:
Alpe73 wrote:Far worse ... judging by 1.5 million look-ins and 14.5K comments.
Ten people hitting refresh ten times after each making a less than one post a day over five years...


Well, yeah! Ten times worse!
User avatar Alpe73
Junior Member
 
Posts: 184
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

Re: Re:

11 Nov 2017 19:46

Alpe73 wrote:Some of us can cozy up to a hit man if the hit was done upon an unsavory person. Others shy away from hit men who previously aided and abetted the hit's unsavory deeds, proliferated his own unsavory deeds and who now wants all of the hit's unsavory money. It is supposed, in popular culture, that the hit(v) was carried out because the hit(n) would not hire the hitman to continue to aid and abet the hit in his unsavory deeds.

What's really more interesting than the hit and the hitman, at this point in the drama, is speculating upon the credilbility of certain personality types in their ability to measure and articulate 'just' reactions to the myriad of fibres within this thread.

I make no effort to rehabilitate FLandis' reputation. It is what it is. And at this late date I doubt anyone who is inclined to have an opinion on the matter is likely to be dissuaded of the one they already hold.

Nor do I infer there was any altruism in his motive for the Qui Tam. But the crux of the biscuit is that absent FLandis doing what he has done, 20 years from now Pharmstrong likely would have parlayed his false palmares and his Cancer Jesus façade into becoming head of a multi-billion dollar faux-charity. And a century from now, Pharmstrong still would be being revered as the greatest cycling champion of all time.

To draw a Godwinian analogy (and with no intention of linking Mr. Armstrong to these other two villains), if Himmler had killed Hitler, that act would not have atoned for the crimes against humanity Himmler was guilty of, but Hitler would have been dead nonetheless.
User avatar StyrbjornSterki
Member
 
Posts: 848
Joined: 18 Jul 2010 22:00

Re: Re:

12 Nov 2017 01:39

StyrbjornSterki wrote:
Alpe73 wrote:Some of us can cozy up to a hit man if the hit was done upon an unsavory person. Others shy away from hit men who previously aided and abetted the hit's unsavory deeds, proliferated his own unsavory deeds and who now wants all of the hit's unsavory money. It is supposed, in popular culture, that the hit(v) was carried out because the hit(n) would not hire the hitman to continue to aid and abet the hit in his unsavory deeds.

What's really more interesting than the hit and the hitman, at this point in the drama, is speculating upon the credilbility of certain personality types in their ability to measure and articulate 'just' reactions to the myriad of fibres within this thread.

I make no effort to rehabilitate FLandis' reputation. It is what it is. And at this late date I doubt anyone who is inclined to have an opinion on the matter is likely to be dissuaded of the one they already hold.

Nor do I infer there was any altruism in his motive for the Qui Tam. But the crux of the biscuit is that absent FLandis doing what he has done, 20 years from now Pharmstrong likely would have parlayed his false palmares and his Cancer Jesus façade into becoming head of a multi-billion dollar faux-charity. And a century from now, Pharmstrong still would be being revered as the greatest cycling champion of all time.

To draw a Godwinian analogy (and with no intention of linking Mr. Armstrong to these other two villains), if Himmler had killed Hitler, that act would not have atoned for the crimes against humanity Himmler was guilty of, but Hitler would have been dead nonetheless.


Case in point.
User avatar Alpe73
Junior Member
 
Posts: 184
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

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

12 Nov 2017 03:15

Have to say the similarities between “there was no collusion” and “never tested positive” is eerily playing out the same way...
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,412
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 70kmph, Dazed and Confused, yaco and 25 guests

Back to top