Armstrong Lies

[Hugh Januss]

Not really sure why you ratcheted it up on RR in reply to his recent post; I didn't find it alarmist. At no point should the "everybody is doing it" be a defense IMO, and if it can be proven in court or if he pleas to them then I think he is probably in a pretty small group. As Bum Phillips once said when describing Earl Campbell "If he's not in a class by himself, it doesn't take long to call roll".

Hater.......

 

[BillytheKid]

Willy, if we set up forum threads for each of the below presented multiple TdF winners (3 or more Tour wins) to detail their cycling related lies I doubt we could record a single revealing post for each rider.

Jacques Anquetil – 1957, 1961-1964
Eddy Merckx – 1969-72, 1974
Bernard Hinault – 1978-79, 1981-82, 1985
Miguel Indurain – 1991-1995
Philippe Thys – 1913-14, 1920
Louison Bobet – 1953-1955
Greg LeMond – 1986, 1989, 1990
Alberto Contador - 2007, 2009-10

You may want to think again.

The internet and forms like this allow for information and disinformation to reveal and also distort a persons flaws to a much greater magnitude.

Here's an article by Bill Strickland at Bicycling Magazine has something to say about Merckx, Anquetil, Zoetemelk and Coppi. (2nd to the last paragraph)

http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/lance-armstrongs-endgame?page=0,4

The link is to last page of the article, but I would suggest reading it all. Strickland admits he was once taken in by Armstrong. No more. I agree with Strickland's conclusion. We do live in a different age. The champions of the past were afforded protection. He quotes an Anquetil in an interview on French TV as saying "Leave me in peace-everybody takes dope." Yet Anquetil will be remember as a great champion. His warts won't be examined. Cyberspace will leave him in peace. A living target is much more attractive to some.

If Strickland has that quote right, and Anquetil was being truthful, it reveals a broad culture of doping in a sport that only amplifies character flaws of the champions it produces. I think doping found Armstrong not the other way around, not to mention poor Tommy Simpson.

Dying perhaps prompted Fignon to admission. Living and facing prison time might have sealed his lips. Perhaps. Fate takes strange turns. The fatherless Armstrong just has no moral compass to guide him home. That's far to common with many these days, but to me, there is really nothing new under the sun to be found here.

Take your best shot.

 

[thehog]

You may want to think again.

The internet and forms like this allow for information and disinformation to reveal and also distort a persons flaws to a much greater magnitude.

Here's an article by Bill Strickland at Bicycling Magazine has something to say about Merckx, Anquetil, Zoetemelk and Coppi. (2nd to the last paragraph)

http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/lance-armstrongs-endgame?page=0,4

The link is to last page of the article, but I would suggest reading it all. Strickland admits he was once taken in by Armstrong. No more. I agree with Strickland's conclusion. We do live in a different age. The champions of the past were afforded protection. He quotes an Anquetil in an interview on French TV as saying "Leave me in peace-everybody takes dope." Yet Anquetil will be remember as a great champion. His warts won't be examined. Cyberspace will leave him in peace. A living target is much more attractive to some.

If Strickland has that quote right, and Anquetil was being truthful, it reveals a broad culture of doping in a sport that only amplifies character flaws of the champions it produces. I think doping found Armstrong not the other way around, not to mention poor Tommy Simpson.

Dying perhaps prompted Fignon to admission. Living and facing prison time might have sealed his lips. Perhaps. Fate takes strange turns. The fatherless Armstrong just has no moral compass to guide him home. That's far to common with many these days, but to me, there is really nothing new under the sun to be found here.

Take your best shot.

Problem with this lovely story is Armstrong is still telling us he's clean.

At least Anquetil said he was doping.

Your boy is a little scared. I can't forgive him until he admits. Do you think he could do that?

 

[Race Radio]

You may want to think again.

I thought again.....and I am still waiting for your answer. Tell us, at what point does it become OK to question the myth?

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Earl Campbell!!! I loved watching that guy crash into people. Can you image him on a track bike with those thighs!

Sadly he's in a wheelchair now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJrDYQwwbuY

Check out 2:10 on this youtube.

 

[Velodude]

You may want to think again.

The internet and forms like this allow for information and disinformation to reveal and also distort a persons flaws to a much greater magnitude.

Here's an article by Bill Strickland at Bicycling Magazine has something to say about Merckx, Anquetil, Zoetemelk and Coppi. (2nd to the last paragraph)

http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/lance-armstrongs-endgame?page=0,4

The link is to last page of the article, but I would suggest reading it all. Strickland admits he was once taken in by Armstrong. No more. I agree with Strickland's conclusion. We do live in a different age. The champions of the past were afforded protection. He quotes an Anquetil in an interview on French TV as saying "Leave me in peace-everybody takes dope." Yet Anquetil will be remember as a great champion. His warts won't be examined. Cyberspace will leave him in peace. A living target is much more attractive to some.

If Strickland has that quote right, and Anquetil was being truthful, it reveals a broad culture of doping in a sport that only amplifies character flaws of the champions it produces. I think doping found Armstrong not the other way around, not to mention poor Tommy Simpson.

Dying perhaps prompted Fignon to admission. Living and facing prison time might have sealed his lips. Perhaps. Fate takes strange turns. The fatherless Armstrong just has no moral compass to guide him home. That's far to common with many these days, but to me, there is really nothing new under the sun to be found here.

Take your best shot.

Bill, you say your are a journalist. In journo speak the "second to last paragraph" is "penultimate paragraph"

Doping has been going on during the Tour since inception. In 1966 the riders went on strike when testing was introduced.

Difference between Armstrong and other Tour winners is that he lies to cover up his doping, hence this thread, other greats admit to doping (before 1966) or "next question please" for those after 1966 when interviewed.

Armstrong went through two phases.

He stuck to the Marion Jones chant "I have passed every doping test" to which he falsely added "I am the most tested athlete on the planet".

Then after many years when enquiries became more vigorous he added the codicil "I have not taken any performance enhancing drugs"

Armstrong lied about doping. Others tour greats were honest by statements or by silence.

 

[Benotti69]

Well doping is part of the sport, so that's ok then. Riders died from dope, but that must be ok then cause it is part of the sport. Lives have been ruined by doping, but as it is part of the sport that must be ok then.

What a load if bull.

It is not alright and it never was. Those who try to justify Armstrong's doping as it was part of the sport are not the brightest, it is against the rules. Rules introduced to make sport 'fair' according to natural talent, hard work, skill and intelligence. These rules are also there to protect riders from dodgy doctors, DSs and most importantly from themselves.

Keep perpetuating the myth Bill, you make yourself look smarter everyday.

 

[Ulle Relaxes]

What hypocrites you posters are. I can't believe people are giving Anquetil are giving the 'at least he's honest' pass when his excuse is basically 'everybody else is doing it'- which he can not prove (falsifiability). Also this notion of the 'quiet dignity' is delusional. On one hand you rage at omerta for not speaking out and on the other hand it is fine for cyclists to quietly endorse doping as long as they're not called Lance Armstrong. What in practise separates one from the other? In the end they all endorse the status quo if they boldly lie or keep stoney silent. I mean being honest because you are silent is total garbage.


As far as the 'good old days'. As far as Fausto Coppi is concerned he was a hypocrite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fausto_Coppi#Drugs

I mean what was he exactly arguing? There should be an age limit to drug taking? Or their should be a healthy way to take drugs? The way he took drugs was better? Now the rules should change because he already has his wins?

And Merckx sounds just like any modern cyclist with a string of doping convictions against him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_Merckx#Doping
I mean the line ' I was wrong to trust a doctor' is a classic piece of deflection. The guy is a mentor to Lance after all.

 

[patricknd]

Bill, you say your are a journalist. In journo speak the "second to last paragraph" is "penultimate paragraph"

Doping has been going on during the Tour since inception. In 1966 the riders went on strike when testing was introduced.

Difference between Armstrong and other Tour winners is that he lies to cover up his doping, hence this thread, other greats admit to doping (before 1966) or "next question please" for those after 1966 when interviewed.

Armstrong went through two phases.

He stuck to the Marion Jones chant "I have passed every doping test" to which he falsely added "I am the most tested athlete on the planet".

Then after many years when enquiries became more vigorous he added the codicil "I have not taken any performance enhancing drugs"

Armstrong lied about doping. Others tour greats were honest by statements or by silence.

honest by silence? that's a good one

 

[Race Radio]

What hypocrites you posters are. I can't believe people are giving Anquetil are giving the 'at least he's honest' pass when his excuse is basically 'everybody else is doing it'- which he can not prove (falsifiability). Also this notion of the 'quiet dignity' is delusional. On one hand you rage at omerta for not speaking out and on the other hand it is fine for cyclists to quietly endorse doping as long as they're not called Lance Armstrong. What in practise separates one from the other? In the end they all endorse the status quo if they boldly lie or keep stoney silent. I mean being honest because you are silent is total garbage.


As far as the 'good old days'. As far as Fausto Coppi is concerned he was a hypocrite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fausto_Coppi#Drugs

I mean what was he exactly arguing? There should be an age limit to drug taking? Or their should be a healthy way to take drugs? The way he took drugs was better? Now the rules should change because he already has his wins?

And Merckx sounds just like any modern cyclist with a string of doping convictions against him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_Merckx#Doping
I mean the line ' I was wrong to trust a doctor' is a classic piece of deflection. The guy is a mentor to Lance after all.

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?

 

[BillytheKid]

Bill, you say your are a journalist. In journo speak the "second to last paragraph" is "penultimate paragraph"

Doping has been going on during the Tour since inception. In 1966 the riders went on strike when testing was introduced.

Difference between Armstrong and other Tour winners is that he lies to cover up his doping, hence this thread, other greats admit to doping (before 1966) or "next question please" for those after 1966 when interviewed.

Armstrong went through two phases.

He stuck to the Marion Jones chant "I have passed every doping test" to which he falsely added "I am the most tested athlete on the planet".

Then after many years when enquiries became more vigorous he added the codicil "I have not taken any performance enhancing drugs"

Armstrong lied about doping. Others tour greats were honest by statements or by silence.

No doubt, but I think anyone facing prison-time might be compelled to silence
as I alluded to with Fignon. I just think it' sort of a mob mentality with Armstrong with his character flaws being amplified. I no longer race. I don't no if you do, but wether on a local, region or even national level I always found a lot of the top guys were a********, and I probably had few moments myself.

 

[BillytheKid]

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?

Hello race, so this guy's seizure has been medically linked to Armstrong? I have a more than few bosses that caused me stress. I don't doubt that he is not liked by many who work for him and his behavior made him enemies, but Merkx probably was the same with his pre-race fanatics about his bike. He was a mentor to Armstrong too. So back to my original point about the internet and forms like this amplifying the dark side of competition. I really don't think a lot of this is out of the norm. Although Armstrong had a very different public image. I can see were it angers some.....I am more disappointed, but not surprised.

 

[BillytheKid]

What hypocrites you posters are. I can't believe people are giving Anquetil are giving the 'at least he's honest' pass when his excuse is basically 'everybody else is doing it'- which he can not prove (falsifiability). Also this notion of the 'quiet dignity' is delusional. On one hand you rage at omerta for not speaking out and on the other hand it is fine for cyclists to quietly endorse doping as long as they're not called Lance Armstrong. What in practise separates one from the other? In the end they all endorse the status quo if they boldly lie or keep stoney silent. I mean being honest because you are silent is total garbage.


As far as the 'good old days'. As far as Fausto Coppi is concerned he was a hypocrite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fausto_Coppi#Drugs

I mean what was he exactly arguing? There should be an age limit to drug taking? Or their should be a healthy way to take drugs? The way he took drugs was better? Now the rules should change because he already has his wins?

And Merckx sounds just like any modern cyclist with a string of doping convictions against him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_Merckx#Doping
I mean the line ' I was wrong to trust a doctor' is a classic piece of deflection. The guy is a mentor to Lance after all.

Ulle, you say it well. The Hog acts like a a high priest of piety.

 

[Benotti69]

Ulle, you say it well. The Hog acts like a a high priest of piety.

Jeez the high priest of piety wears yellow?

 

[The Plediadian]

Hello race, so this guy's seizure has been medically linked to Armstrong? I have a more than few bosses that caused me stress. I don't doubt that he is not liked by many who work for him and his behavior made him enemies, but Merkx probably was the same with his pre-race fanatics about his bike. He was a mentor to Armstrong too. So back to my original point about the internet and forms like this amplifying the dark side of competition. I really don't think a lot of this is out of the norm. Although Armstrong had a very different public image. I can see were it angers some.....I am more disappointed, but not surprised.

Why was't the mechanic from New Zealand on meds, like valium, or Xanex?
Did Lance chase him to NZ in a cigarette boat or his G-6?

 

[Race Radio]

Hello race, so this guy's seizure has been medically linked to Armstrong? I have a more than few bosses that caused me stress. I don't doubt that he is not liked by many who work for him and his behavior made him enemies, but Merkx probably was the same with his pre-race fanatics about his bike. He was a mentor to Armstrong too. So back to my original point about the internet and forms like this amplifying the dark side of competition. I really don't think a lot of this is out of the norm. Although Armstrong had a very different public image. I can see were it angers some.....I am more disappointed, but not surprised.

At what point does it become OK to question the myth? When is it OK to question Armstrong's questionable actions?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I notice Billy bumped this thread and tries to spin that everyone lies -people sometimes lie about their height, their age or might fudge something on a tax return.

This is about Armstrong and his career of lying and fraud that built the myth. Just so that Armstrong lies are not lost in this discussion I will copy some of the earlier posts for his consideration.

A quick list of Armstrong lies

The Actovign was for the diabetic mechanic
The Cortisone was for a saddle sore
He does not know his Vo2
He stopped working with Ferrari when he was convicted
His climbing bike weighed 21 pounds
He could increase his Hct from 39 to 48.5 by sleeping in a tent
That he paid his teammates bonuses, in fact he withheld payment to many of them
That he would be tested "Any time, any where" by Catlin
His Marriage vows

Please add your favorites.

he would work for Contador if he proved the strongest

I only used Ferrari for a training program because Carmichael just wasn't cutting it even though I was promoting his training program to everyone. I just found it, well, substandard to Dr Ferrari's because everyone knows that Ferrari is known for developing training programs that only involve riding...

He said he did not chase down Simeoni

My comeback to the sport is to promote "Cancer Awareness".....

 

[MacRoadie]

I notice Billy bumped this thread and tries to spin that everyone lies -people sometimes lie about their height, their age or might fudge something on a tax return.

This is about Armstrong and his career of lying and fraud that built the myth. Just so that Armstrong lies are not lost in this discussion I will copy some of the earlier posts for his consideration.

After Armstrong announced his comeback, he told the Vanity Fair magazine that he didn’t plan on taking money from Astana. “Everybody in cycling has a team and takes a team salary,” he said in September 2008. “I am essentially racing for free. No salary. No bonus. Nothing on the line.… This one’s on the house.”

Eight months later, he reiterated this during the Giro d’Italia while commenting on the sponsors’ non-payment of salaries. He was asked if he would consider covering the wages. Armstrong said that he was racing for free and therefore already putting something into the team. “I'm already investing myself. Not taking a salary is some sort of investment,” he said.

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/7...-donated-to-his-foundation.aspx#ixzz1lFE6IFmm

"On the house"

 

[Race Radio]

just a rider for the team and had no knowledge of what went on within its management

 

[DirtyWorks]

Hello race, so this guy's seizure has been medically linked to Armstrong?

You know, smoking has never been medically linked to lung cancer. Same rules here then?

I have a more than few bosses that caused me stress. I don't doubt that he is not liked by many who work for him and his behavior made him enemies, but Merkx probably.... He was a mentor to Armstrong too. ....

What is this supposed to prove?

Was Merckx running a team-wide manditory doping program over the course of years? Was Merckx running a non-profit that has, at best, tenuous ties to an actual mission?

Does Armstrong's record compare to Merckx's accomplishments? No.

Inflating Armstrong's comparatively meager winnings does nothing to improve your claims.

 

[Velodude]

And don't forget his reason for the then recent close association with Ferrari - was only to attack the 1 hour record. after all Carmichael was his real coach.

Besieged by reporters, Armstrong emphasized the good Ferrari-the innovative trainer and number cruncher. The cyclist and his U.S. Postal team issued a statement saying that Armstrong's coach was Chris Carmichael, and that Ferrari was consulted on a limited basis only. In an interview with Italy's Gazzetta dello Sport Armstrong said, "Ferrari's been following my progress since 1999, but it's only recently-with my desire to break the world [hour] record-that I've had more contact with him."

http://www.2009tourdefrancenews.com/tourdefrance/article/0,6802,s-3-12-13773-8,00.html

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This is Armstrongs statement from April 2009:

"I returned home that day after a long training ride to find a man chasing me as I rode up to the house. He stopped me and told me he was from the French laboratory and was here to test me. I had never heard of labs or governments doing drug testing and I had no idea who this guy was or whether he was telling the truth.

"I've been tested in-competition and out-of-competition by USADA, by WADA, by the UCI, and by testing authorities at all the events in which I have competed, but I was unaware that in France the government tests athletes and takes the position it can test any athlete residing in or visiting France. I also had never heard of a laboratory (as opposed to an anti-doping organization) sending testers to collect samples.

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.

Q: And those test results are accessible in various ways. So -- and I'm not saying this is my view -- but one could put forward an argument that you're just doing this for the American audience because they know who Catlin is -- he's American, it's PR.

A: I think you're wrong there. If you ask any anti-doping lab in the world, believe me, they know Don Catlin. He's beyond reproach. They can test all they want. I've already had USADA come, WADA come, UCI come out of competition. Those will continue. You add in Damsgaard, you add in Catlin, you add in probably some surprise AFLD controls, whatever. It's a bit of a nuisance if it's the wrong time of the day, but no problem. I don't care. Just like I didn't care before.

 

[Velodude]

Hello race, so this guy's seizure has been medically linked to Armstrong? I have a more than few bosses that caused me stress. I don't doubt that he is not liked by many who work for him and his behavior made him enemies, but Merkx probably was the same with his pre-race fanatics about his bike. He was a mentor to Armstrong too. So back to my original point about the internet and forms like this amplifying the dark side of competition. I really don't think a lot of this is out of the norm. Although Armstrong had a very different public image. I can see were it angers some.....I am more disappointed, but not surprised.

"so this guy's seizure has been medically linked to Armstrong?"

Suggest you read Anderson's affidavit of the circumstances when he had a seizure relating to the termination of services dispute that gave rise to litigation.

As a journalist you should have access to that document at your fingertips.

Also check Armstrong's recent tweets where he attempts to belittle his former PA about this medical condition. Armstrong may have deleted the tweet as in character his conduct is deemed intimidation of Anderson who is a prospective witness in Feds v L.E. Armstrong.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

"so this guy's seizure has been medically linked to Armstrong?"

Suggest you read Anderson's affidavit of the circumstances when he had a seizure relating to the termination of services dispute that gave rise to litigation.

As a journalist you should have access to that document at your fingertips.

Also check Armstrong's recent tweets where he attempts to belittle his former PA about this medical condition. Armstrong may have deleted the tweet as in character his conduct is deemed intimidation of Anderson who is a prospective witness in Feds v L.E. Armstrong.

Some people just don't get it. Armstrong going to prison for these crimes may get the message through but I'm not all that confident of that. We must try though.

 

[Velodude]

honest by silence? that's a good one

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