Armstrong and Landis and Doping, Oh My!

[Race Radio]

It sounds like random, possibly wishful thinking to me. True or false, it wasn't an old story reposted.

-dB

remember I was the guy that told you that Floyd was telling select people the truth over a year ago. Also said that he was going to spill the beans.

I remember you ridiculed me then too.....funny how I turned out to be 100% right, must have just been wishful thinking.

 

[miloman]

remember I was the guy that told you that Floyd was telling select people the truth over a year ago. Also said that he was going to spill the beans.

I remember you ridiculed me then too.....funny how I turned out to be 100% right, must have just been wishful thinking.

I won't ridicule you, I just want to know if you are serious and where you come by your information; or is it conjecture. It may be proved right, but do you really know something? I think that is what everyone wants to know.

 

[Oldman]

I won't ridicule you, I just want to know if you are serious and where you come by your information; or is it conjecture. It may be proved right, but do you really know something? I think that is what everyone wants to know.

Anyone that's raced in the US for awhile knows much of this but can't provide frontline testimony. Because someone I trust told me an event occurred and I can't say they will be testifying doesn't mean it didn't happen. I'd listen to RR. He may know but cannot betray a confidence. As long as justice gets served; that's OK, don't you agree? Either way there is a difference between twisting known published events (lying/politics) and learned conjecture.

 

[MacRoadie]

Anyone that's raced in the US for awhile knows much of this but can't provide frontline testimony. Because someone I trust told me an event occurred and I can't say they will be testifying doesn't mean it didn't happen. I'd listen to RR. He may know but cannot betray a confidence. As long as justice gets served; that's OK, don't you agree? Either way there is a difference between twisting known published events (lying/politics) and learned conjecture.

It's a situation that, unfortunately, many of us can relate to.

 

[miloman]

Anyone that's raced in the US for awhile knows much of this but can't provide frontline testimony. Because someone I trust told me an event occurred and I can't say they will be testifying doesn't mean it didn't happen. I'd listen to RR. He may know but cannot betray a confidence. As long as justice gets served; that's OK, don't you agree? Either way there is a difference between twisting known published events (lying/politics) and learned conjecture.

So are you asking us to embrace the machiavellian philosophy that the “ends justify the means?” We can say or do whatever we want, just so the end result is noble or deemed good. In this case the dopers get punished. Sounds like the logic that started cyclists down the doping road in the first place. Basic behavioral psychology demonstrates that unless you are a sociopath, you won’t commit an action without either rationalizing or believing in what you are doing. I think most of us would agree that winning the Tour De France is a noble endeavor; winning it 7 times is amazing! How one does it, well that is a different story. The end doesn’t justify the means. Not there and not here! We should do better than Armstrong and his cronies. Keep it on the up and up! If he has information to share, do it in a way that is credible. Like I said, a broken clock is right twice a day. Let’s not leave it up to chance!

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Hey, Miloman!

Machiavelli was talking about 'princes' (ie: those leading a state). Not those riding bikes...

 

[SpartacusRox]

So are you asking us to embrace the machiavellian philosophy that the “ends justify the means?” We can say or do whatever we want, just so the end result is noble or deemed good. In this case the dopers get punished. Sounds like the logic that started cyclists down the doping road in the first place. Basic behavioral psychology demonstrates that unless you are a sociopath, you won’t commit an action without either rationalizing or believing in what you are doing. I think most of us would agree that winning the Tour De France is a noble endeavor; winning it 7 times is amazing! How one does it, well that is a different story. The end doesn’t justify the means. Not there and not here! We should do better than Armstrong and his cronies. Keep it on the up and up! If he has information to share, do it in a way that is credible. Like I said, a broken clock is right twice a day. Let’s not leave it up to chance!

At the end of the day, the credibility of his (Floyd's) and anyone elses evidence will be tested and and deliberated upon, at least as it pertains to the current federal investigation. I don't think anyone would deny much of what Floyd has said is true in a general sense as it pertains to pro cycling and recent events would seem to support that. How it applies to Armstrong and others in a legal sense is a different story. I have my own views on this and have posted on the mattter in the past. not so much recently because much of what is posted in these forums is baseless speculation, tainted by ones own personal biases. and it becomes an endless cycle, punctuated by unsubstantiated 'Hog' titbits and RR prophesies. Hopefully the 'defense' will have more credible witnesses than the Andreau's, GL and FL who have proved to be unreliable in the past and will be fodder for LA's lawyers. I would hate the game to be too one sided.

Given the Festina turmoil immediately prior to the Armstrong era and the Landis and now possibly Contador scandals post Armstrong era, we may look back in years to come and view the LA years as a settled, 'golden age' for the TdF.

 

[Oldman]

So are you asking us to embrace the machiavellian philosophy that the “ends justify the means?” We can say or do whatever we want, just so the end result is noble or deemed good. In this case the dopers get punished. Sounds like the logic that started cyclists down the doping road in the first place. Basic behavioral psychology demonstrates that unless you are a sociopath, you won’t commit an action without either rationalizing or believing in what you are doing. I think most of us would agree that winning the Tour De France is a noble endeavor; winning it 7 times is amazing! How one does it, well that is a different story. The end doesn’t justify the means. Not there and not here! We should do better than Armstrong and his cronies. Keep it on the up and up! If he has information to share, do it in a way that is credible. Like I said, a broken clock is right twice a day. Let’s not leave it up to chance!

Not asking you to embrace anything other than the forum is an appropriate place for conjecture. Outright twisting of known truths to serve some pre-supposed logic is Machiavellian. I don't need a basic psychology lesson when discussing what RR offers up as a possibility.
You are witnessing a history that was fortold some time ago. Save some wind and open your eyes.

 

[Boeing]

I remember my first history class

kinda

 

[miloman]

At the end of the day, the credibility of his (Floyd's) and anyone elses evidence will be tested and and deliberated upon, at least as it pertains to the current federal investigation. I don't think anyone would deny much of what Floyd has said is true in a general sense as it pertains to pro cycling and recent events would seem to support that. How it applies to Armstrong and others in a legal sense is a different story. I have my own views on this and have posted on the mattter in the past. not so much recently because much of what is posted in these forums is baseless speculation, tainted by ones own personal biases. and it becomes an endless cycle, punctuated by unsubstantiated 'Hog' titbits and RR prophesies. Hopefully the 'defense' will have more credible witnesses than the Andreau's, GL and FL who have proved to be unreliable in the past and will be fodder for LA's lawyers. I would hate the game to be too one sided.

Given the Festina turmoil immediately prior to the Armstrong era and the Landis and now possibly Contador scandals post Armstrong era, we may look back in years to come and view the LA years as a settled, 'golden age' for the TdF.

Great post! If we stick to the facts, it would be a more interesting and informative forum! There is a place for RR's conjecture. RR, just let us know when you have facts and when you are just throwing out something for us to bite on!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

At the end of the day, the credibility of his (Floyd's) and anyone elses evidence will be tested and and deliberated upon, at least as it pertains to the current federal investigation. I don't think anyone would deny much of what Floyd has said is true in a general sense as it pertains to pro cycling and recent events would seem to support that. How it applies to Armstrong and others in a legal sense is a different story. I have my own views on this and have posted on the mattter in the past. not so much recently because much of what is posted in these forums is baseless speculation, tainted by ones own personal biases. and it becomes an endless cycle, punctuated by unsubstantiated 'Hog' titbits and RR prophesies. Hopefully the 'defense' will have more credible witnesses than the Andreau's, GL and FL who have proved to be unreliable in the past and will be fodder for LA's lawyers. I would hate the game to be too one sided.

Given the Festina turmoil immediately prior to the Armstrong era and the Landis and now possibly Contador scandals post Armstrong era, we may look back in years to come and view the LA years as a settled, 'golden age' for the TdF.

And your bias is as subtle as a brick.

Floyd's admissions appear to be good enough for the FDA to start a case.
The Andreus and GL, well if - as you suggest - their recollection is so "unreliable" then why is it what they said is being brought back up now?

 

[miloman]

And your bias is as subbtle as a brick.

Floyd's admissions appear to be good enough for the FDA to start a case.
The Andreus and GL, well if - as you suggest - their recollection is so "unreliable" then why is it what they said is being brought back up now?

Correct me if I'm wrong, I thought it was established in this thread that the FDA case started when drugs were found by the landlord in the vacated apartment of Kayle Leogrande -- not with Floyd Landis. Your slipping.

 

[miloman]

The FDA have already got the full transripts from the SCA case.

Lance 'won' because of Texas contract law - not because he had not used PED's. Do you think Stephanie will risk going to jail for perjury? Can you name the Doctor that was in the room - or are you confusing the Doctor who (correctly) said he was not there? The hospital room incident was in 1996 - the SCA case was in 2005, don't confuse the two.


Yes, it is common practise to sell stock - but it is also common practice of the team to record that - especially when it will run in to millions of dollars.

I guess she is taking the risk of going to jail -- assuming like you inferred she was lying. I guess you were wrong. It's OK to be wrong once in a while, we'll forgive you.

 

[SpartacusRox]

And your bias is as subbtle as a brick.

Floyd's admissions appear to be good enough for the FDA to start a case.
The Andreus and GL, well if - as you suggest - their recollection is so "unreliable" then why is it what they said is being brought back up now?

I have never claimed that my bias was subtle, in fact just the opposite, I have always been, or tried to be, consistent in my bias. As you have been I might add.

No argument that Floyd's admissions needed to be looked into, it would have been remiss of the authorities not to. The Andreu's and GL, well their past court testimony wouldn't fill me with confidence if I was calling them as witnesses, particularly Betsy. When you have publically stated that you hate someone it tends to put a question mark around your objectivity as a witness. Plus the Lemonds and the Andreu's have shown in the past that they cannot get their stories particularly well aligned.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I have never claimed that my bias was subtle, in fact just the opposite, I have always been, or tried to be, consistent in my bias. As you have been I might add.

No argument that Floyd's admissions needed to be looked into, it would have been remiss of the authorities not to. The Andreu's and GL, well their past court testimony wouldn't fill me with confidence if I was calling them as witnesses, particularly Betsy. When you have publicly stated that you hate someone it tends to put a question mark around your objectivity as a witness. Plus the Lemonds and the Andreu's have shown in the past that they cannot get their stories particularly well aligned.

So can you point out where Betsy has said "publicly" that she hates Lance?

The Andreu's story has been consistent throughout - which is unlike Mcilvain or indeed Lances legal team who suggested they misheard what the Doctors said, even though Lance said no Doctors entered the room.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Correct me if I'm wrong, I thought it was established in this thread that the FDA case started when drugs were found by the landlord in the vacated apartment of Kayle Leogrande -- not with Floyd Landis. Your slipping.

The case appears to have started with Leogrande - but took on increased imputus with Floyds statements, so his 'credibility' appears good enough for the Fed's.

Unless of course you believe bringing Stephanie McIlvain before a GJ was done to take down Leogrande.

 

[arrhythmia rules]

There appears to be truth and there appears to be truth. LA claims he has never used dope. If you like that is one truth. Various others claim he used dope, bullied, blackmailed, overtly and covertly used power and influence to damage people's livelihood, careers, was part of a systematic conspiracy to protect doping in cycling. Then to use this base to manipulate public charity for private gain, develop a public image to be used for major financial gain and plans political activity for further financial gain. That is another version of truth.

Which truth you want to believe is up to you. I suggest for anyone with any interest in reality the LA claims are less than just unlikely to be true. However you dress up your criticisms of the LA detractors they certainly have the balance of credibility on their side.

The alternative version of the truth story is in my opinion much more likely to be the real truth. To have it shown should fundamentally change cycling for the better - already there is real talk of removing doping from UCI control. That is one result of all this.

It should reclaim substantial funds for the US state. It may close down livestrong.com and might just leave the charity to work on. It should remove from the pursuit of power a significant bunch of fairly unsavoury folk who are pursuing power for personal ends and with no interest in the public good. Perhaps they will be replaced with equally unsuitable folk but that is a separate issue.

I might be naive to want justice, to have the arrogant bullying liar shown to be what considerable evidence shows him to be. It may even give a little bit of satisfaction to some of the folk he duffed on the way - Simeoni might just be allowing himself a smile. He and many others deserve it.

It benefits all of us when a corrupt damaging power is removed. Lancing a boil needs care and is always messy. The body is always healthier after. This little bit of social puss needs Lanced.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I guess she is taking the risk of going to jail -- assuming like you inferred she was lying. I guess you were wrong. It's OK to be wrong once in a while, we'll forgive you.

Yes, she is taking the risk of going to jail - if she continued to lie in front of the GJ.

May I ask why you brought up a post that was posted back on the 9th of September - which has already been discussed?

 

[miloman]

Yes, she is taking the risk of going to jail - if she continued to lie in front of the GJ.

May I ask why you brought up a post that was posted back on the 9th of September - which has already been discussed?

Time to "man-up" and admit you were wrong, and you can be wrong! You don't know it all. Others have valid opinions and shouldn't be stiffled by you and your bully tactics. It is a forum of ideas, not your personal domain. You can be as biased as you want, but don't pretend otherwise. Maybe consider starting a sentence with "In my opinion," sometime. It's obvious you have an agenda just like everyone else. Physician, heal thyself, take an Aspirin and post me in the morning.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Time to "man-up" and admit you were wrong, and you can be wrong! You don't know it all. Others have valid opinions and shouldn't be stiffled by you and your bully tactics. It is a forum of ideas, not your personal domain. You can be as biased as you want, but don't pretend otherwise. Maybe consider starting a sentence with "In my opinion," sometime. It's obvious you have an agenda just like everyone else. Physician, heal thyself, take an Aspirin and post me in the morning.

I have no problem admitting I am wrong and have done so in the past - and i certainly do not know it all nor have I ever said so.

But I have yet to see anything that you have posted that makes anything i said wrong.

Also - you didn't answer the question i asked - so we will try again.
May I ask why you brought up a post that was posted back on the 9th of September - which has already been discussed?

 

[SpartacusRox]

So can you point out where Betsy has said "publicly" that she hates Lance?

The Andreu's story has been consistent throughout - which is unlike Mcilvain or indeed Lances legal team who suggested they misheard what the Doctors said, even though Lance said no Doctors entered the room.

"Armstrong's lawyers recovered a note she brought to Dallas which read "why do I hate Lance Armstrong?" She was so obsessive that even the insurance company employee responsible for attempting to gather evidence of drug use by Lance (the employee had gone so far as to steal a piece of used chewing gum Armstrong had placed in a trash can in a Dallas Courtroom and sent it for DNA testing at a Dallas laboratory, the results of which were of course negative)"

In relation to the consistency argument. Although she may have been consistent in her allegations regarding the doping conversation there are several inconsistencies between her version of events in several areas and the Lemonds as per her evidential transcript:

In relation to Lemonds evidence and under cross examination:

Under oath, they both claimed that Ms. Andreu had given them first-hand accounts of a variety of Armstrong misconducts. For example, the Lemonds said Ms. Andreu had related that Armstrong had called her home frantically looking for EPO and that her husband had witnessed Armstrong injecting himself with drugs. Andreu's trial testimony on the Lemonds' depositions is as follows:

Q. Now, you're aware that both Greg and Kathy LeMond testified that you told them that Mr. Armstrong had called your house in a panic because he was out of EPO, and he wanted some from Frank?
A. No, that's not right.
Q. It was a lie by both LeMonds?
A. That was incorrect.
Q. Well, it was a lie?
A. That was incorrect by the LeMonds. I don't know - how they got that.
Q. Are you aware that both LeMonds testified that you told them that you had witnessed Mr. Armstrong inject himself with performance-enhancing drugs?
A. No. That Lance told Frankie that.
Q. Well, are you aware that both of the LeMonds testified that you told them that?
A. No.
Q. If they did so testify, that would be a lie, wouldn't it?
A. That would be incorrect, yes.
Q. So it's your testimony that you never told either the - either of the LeMonds the two stories that I just mentioned; right?
A. Correct.
Q. And you didn't tell them that because that never happened?
A. Correct.

Inspiring stuff. All of this of course will be used by Armstrongs team to show that either Betst or lemond or both are lying.

 

[Race Radio]

"Armstrong's lawyers recovered a note she brought to Dallas which read "why do I hate Lance Armstrong?"
babble.

That sure sounds good, too bad it is not true. Another invention of the Armstrong media machine.

The fact is at the trial Armstrong was asked why Betsy would invent such a story, his response was "because she hates me". This surprised Betsy as this was not her motivation for telling the truth under oath. Confused she wrote a note to her lawyer that said "Why do I hate Lance Armstrong?"

It was a good question to ask as until Armstrong launched his jihad on her and Frankie she had no reason to dislike him, in fact they had been close friends for over a decade.

 

[SpartacusRox]

That sure sounds good, too bad it is not true. Another invention of the Armstrong media machine.

The fact is at the trial Armstrong was asked why Betsy would invent such a story, his response was "because she hates me". This surprised Betsy as this was not her motivation for telling the truth under oath. Confused she wrote a note to her lawyer that said "Why do I hate Lance Armstrong?"

It was a good question to ask as until Armstrong launched his jihad on her and Frankie she had no reason to dislike him, in fact they had been close friends for over a decade.

Well thats your slant on it. Care to comment on her testimony that clearly contradicted the Lemond testimony?

 

[miloman]

"Armstrong's lawyers recovered a note she brought to Dallas which read "why do I hate Lance Armstrong?" She was so obsessive that even the insurance company employee responsible for attempting to gather evidence of drug use by Lance (the employee had gone so far as to steal a piece of used chewing gum Armstrong had placed in a trash can in a Dallas Courtroom and sent it for DNA testing at a Dallas laboratory, the results of which were of course negative)"

In relation to the consistency argument. Although she may have been consistent in her allegations regarding the doping conversation there are several inconsistencies between her version of events in several areas and the Lemonds as per her evidential transcript:

In relation to Lemonds evidence and under cross examination:

Under oath, they both claimed that Ms. Andreu had given them first-hand accounts of a variety of Armstrong misconducts. For example, the Lemonds said Ms. Andreu had related that Armstrong had called her home frantically looking for EPO and that her husband had witnessed Armstrong injecting himself with drugs. Andreu's trial testimony on the Lemonds' depositions is as follows:

Q. Now, you're aware that both Greg and Kathy LeMond testified that you told them that Mr. Armstrong had called your house in a panic because he was out of EPO, and he wanted some from Frank?
A. No, that's not right.
Q. It was a lie by both LeMonds?
A. That was incorrect.
Q. Well, it was a lie?
A. That was incorrect by the LeMonds. I don't know - how they got that.
Q. Are you aware that both LeMonds testified that you told them that you had witnessed Mr. Armstrong inject himself with performance-enhancing drugs?
A. No. That Lance told Frankie that.
Q. Well, are you aware that both of the LeMonds testified that you told them that?
A. No.
Q. If they did so testify, that would be a lie, wouldn't it?
A. That would be incorrect, yes.
Q. So it's your testimony that you never told either the - either of the LeMonds the two stories that I just mentioned; right?
A. Correct.
Q. And you didn't tell them that because that never happened?
A. Correct.

Inspiring stuff. All of this of course will be used by Armstrongs team to show that either Betst or lemond or both are lying.

NICE! In "my opinion" pretty strong stuff!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

"Armstrong's lawyers recovered a note she brought to Dallas which read "why do I hate Lance Armstrong?" She was so obsessive that even the insurance company employee responsible for attempting to gather evidence of drug use by Lance (the employee had gone so far as to steal a piece of used chewing gum Armstrong had placed in a trash can in a Dallas Courtroom and sent it for DNA testing at a Dallas laboratory, the results of which were of course negative)"

In relation to the consistency argument. Although she may have been consistent in her allegations regarding the doping conversation there are several inconsistencies between her version of events in several areas and the Lemonds as per her evidential transcript:

In relation to Lemonds evidence and under cross examination:

Under oath, they both claimed that Ms. Andreu had given them first-hand accounts of a variety of Armstrong misconducts. For example, the Lemonds said Ms. Andreu had related that Armstrong had called her home frantically looking for EPO and that her husband had witnessed Armstrong injecting himself with drugs. Andreu's trial testimony on the Lemonds' depositions is as follows:

Q. Now, you're aware that both Greg and Kathy LeMond testified that you told them that Mr. Armstrong had called your house in a panic because he was out of EPO, and he wanted some from Frank?
A. No, that's not right.
Q. It was a lie by both LeMonds?
A. That was incorrect.
Q. Well, it was a lie?
A. That was incorrect by the LeMonds. I don't know - how they got that.
Q. Are you aware that both LeMonds testified that you told them that you had witnessed Mr. Armstrong inject himself with performance-enhancing drugs?
A. No. That Lance told Frankie that.
Q. Well, are you aware that both of the LeMonds testified that you told them that?
A. No.
Q. If they did so testify, that would be a lie, wouldn't it?
A. That would be incorrect, yes.
Q. So it's your testimony that you never told either the - either of the LeMonds the two stories that I just mentioned; right?
A. Correct.
Q. And you didn't tell them that because that never happened?
A. Correct.

Inspiring stuff. All of this of course will be used by Armstrongs team to show that either Betst or lemond or both are lying.

Inspiring? Please tell me you just didn't quote a "Statement from Lance Armstrong regarding axe grinders"?

which if you read right at the end says : (All rights reserved/Copyright Knapp Communications Pty Limited 2006)

So - again, where has Betsy 'publicly' said she hate's Lance?