Armstrong Lies

[Poursuivant]

This is Armstrongs statement from April 2009:


Contrast it with this [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/columns/story?columnist=ford_bonnie_d&id=3672174']interview[/url] with ESPN 10th November 2008.

What would LA have done in the half hour to get rid of any PED's in his system?

 

[Race Radio]

What would LA have done in the half hour to get rid of any PED's in his system?

Bring his Hct down 5 points with a bag of saline

 

[patricknd]

When you want to but can't dispute the substance and thrust of the post you resort to nit picking around the fringes.

sorry, but i don't agree that silence is honesty. i admire the likes of anquetil and coppi and the statements they made. different time, and i understand that, but i don't find "next question" to be any more admirable or honest than a denial that is a lie. ymmv

 

[Poursuivant]

Bring his Hct down 5 points with a bag of saline

Thanks mate.

 

[Polish]

How many of them payed off the UCI? How many of them harassed their mechanic until they had a seizure and moved to NZ?

Did Coppi ever do this?

At what point is it OK to question the myth?

If Coppi HAD done that he probably would have won a few more Tours.
When Fausto got mad he quit the race iirc.

And at what point is it ok to question the so-called "myth"?
Seriously?
How about 10 years ago and ever since lol.

At what point are you finally going to be able to accept the answer to the question?

 

[Velodude]

sorry, but i don't agree that silence is honesty. i admire the likes of anquetil and coppi and the statements they made. different time, and i understand that, but i don't find "next question" to be any more admirable or honest than a denial that is a lie. ymmv

And it is not dishonesty. It is non committal. Equivalent to the witness answer avoidance of "I have no recollection of those events".

If Armstrong had used that ploy instead of being belligerent, throwing down the gauntlet to journalists and creating a black list of journalists who did not comply and put their tails between their legs the current investigation and these forums would not exist.

What does Lance Armstrong know about transparency? His team, after all, reportedly snapped photos of journalists to build a digital "blacklist" as part of an ongoing war with anyone sniffing out evidence of doping on the team.......Bruyneel also told Coyle that the team had informants in the press rooms to tattle on which writers were hostile. While that was certainly within Armstrong's rights, picking up the transparency banner afterwards might not be......Lance Armstrong said he'd be open with the media his second time around

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2008-09-27/sports/17907032_1_michele-ferrari-doping-transparency

 

[thehog]

And it is not dishonesty. It is non committal. Equivalent to the witness answer avoidance of "I have no recollection of those events".

If Armstrong had used that ploy instead of being belligerent, throwing down the gauntlet to journalists and creating a black list of journalists who did not comply and put their tails between their legs the current investigation and these forums would not exist.

Enron deployed the same tactic. Analysis who didn't mark the stock up or at a buy weren't given any IB work. Journalists who said bad things were't flown to exotic locations for interviews or press announcements. They were shut out.

Its a great tactic whilst it lasts. Then all of those you shut out turn against you when the going gets tough.

 

[Ulle Relaxes]

How many of them payed off the UCI? How many of them harassed their mechanic until they had a seizure and moved to NZ?

Did Coppi ever do this?

At what point is it OK to question the myth?

Please. What you are attempting to do is to obfuscate the issue from 'champions of the past were honest' that the hog and velodude put forward to 'Lance Armstrong is the devil incarnate'.

The only reason you didn't address any other points of my post is because I'm totally correct. Also it is interesting you highlighted Coppi rather than Merckx probably for the reasons Billy and I put forward.

At what point is it OK to question your own delusion?

I mean thehog at least seems to be on a moral crusade, velodude frankly suffers from weak *** thinking but what is your delusion? You seem rational but whenever the words Lance Armstrong show up on your screen you try and hit the guy with everything you've got- be it hookers and blow, infidelity and the Yellow Rose. Seriously what business of it is yours?

I mean if I wanted to obfuscate the issue like you just to prove a 'roundabout' point always I could prove that Anquetil and Coppi were just as immoral in their personal lives as in their professional lives just like Lance Armstrong. But no I stick to doping in cycling and related areas.

Again at what point is it OK to question your own delusion?

 

[Race Radio]

Please. What you are attempting to do is to obfuscate the issue from 'champions of the past were honest' that the hog and velodude put forward to 'Lance Armstrong is the devil incarnate'.

The only reason you didn't address any other points of my post is because I'm totally correct. Also it is interesting you highlighted Coppi rather than Merckx probably for the reasons Billy and I put forward.

At what point is it OK to question your own delusion?

I mean thehog at least seems to be on a moral crusade, velodude frankly suffers from weak *** thinking but what is your delusion? You seem rational but whenever the words Lance Armstrong show up on your screen you try and hit the guy with everything you've got- be it hookers and blow, infidelity and the Yellow Rose. Seriously what business of it is yours?

I mean if I wanted to obfuscate the issue like you just to prove a 'roundabout' point always I could prove that Anquetil and Coppi were just as immoral in their personal lives as in their professional lives just like Lance Armstrong. But no I stick to doping in cycling and related areas.

Again at what point is it OK to question your own delusion?

Calm down with the insults.

I am not holding anyone up as a paragon of virtue. I have asked a simple question that you, and your buddies, refuse to answer. You want people to stop questioning Armstrong's actions, to focus on riders who are dead or have nor raced for 30 years. Good luck with that.

When does it become OK to question Armstrong's actions? Is he above all questioning?

 

[Benotti69]

<snip>

You seem rational but whenever the words Lance Armstrong show up on your screen you try and hit the guy with everything you've got- be it hookers and blow, infidelity and the Yellow Rose. Seriously what business of it is yours?

He's a public persona, cultivates celebrity and tries to portray himself as a paragon of virtue who lives a life of virtue due to surving cancer. He said he would never put any dodgy substance in his body again after suffering cancer. But he is smoking blow? never mind his doping! Athletes have been thrown out of the Olympics for testing positive for soft drugs.

 

[palmerq]

this thread seems to have turned into the lance thread, so it's closed if anyone doesnt know where, here it is http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=12137