Cycle of Lies

[thehog]

What did you make of Sheryl's recent comments about yourself?

There was out of order to me where she at the time seemed to do nothing while good people were attacked. This was happening while she had Lance's ear to influence him. What's even more galling is she is now trying to distance herself totally from that period in question by saying it was only a "nanosecond" of her life.

Good work Gooner. Plenty of bait on that hook!

Just point in relation to JV & these alleged meetings with USADA.

What strikes as odd; there was never sanction for him or the riders he spoke of at the time the alleged meetings took place.

Then there was a softened off season ban for the witnesses at the time of the RD.

Then using RH as a reference point, odd again, statue of limitations.

The relationship appear very cosy.

Now maybe USADA just wanted Lance & anything else prior was fact building.

 

[elizab]

Good work Gooner. Plenty of bait on that hook!

Just point in relation to JV & these alleged meetings with USADA.

What strikes as odd; there was never sanction for him or the riders he spoke of at the time the alleged meetings took place.

Then there was a softened off season ban for the witnesses at the time of the RD.

Then using RH as a reference point, odd again, statue of limitations.

The relationship appear very cosy.

Now maybe USADA just wanted Lance & anything else prior was fact building.

USADA wasn't even interested in lance at that time. When they came to us, it was all about Floyd. But neither of us knew anything.

 

[thehog]

Really, what did you expect? The woman who used her celebrity to propogate the myth and further the lie whilst accompanying him to his blood transfusions is going to whine about me calling her out? She was just another one of his weak women, another notch on his belt....

Crow in 2005:
“I don’t think the French people are on a mission to strip him of his integrity,” Crow said. “It’s just a handful of people pursuing that theory, and it’s tiresome and a nuisance, and it will eventually end, I hope.”

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/m...winning-teams-article-1.1149231#ixzz2qOnIPtnN

Crow in 2014:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...racted-people-who-are-very...-challenged.html

This time last year Crow was dragged into the controversy by comments from Betsy Andreu, wife of Armstrong’s ex-team-mate Frankie Andreu. In her opinion, Crow must have known something. The whistleblower who exposed the seven-times Tour de France winner said: “Sheryl was by his side when he was trying to destroy people and she said nothing. That’s unconscionable. It just astounds me.”

When I mention this, Crow replies coolly. “I think Betsy, just like everybody in this picture, has her own ulterior motivations. And Betsy doesn’t know me. I think grace goes a long way. I think going out into the press and talking about what people should and shouldn’t do when they don’t know anything about you or your story, is irresponsible and slightly on the weird tip, personally.”

A discreet silence is better? “I think people who go out and mouth off about people they don’t know, it makes them look bad. It certainly did not do her any great service.”

Better known as a 'Dorothy Dixer ', from Gonner.

Or a set play in some sports.

 

[Digger]

USADA wasn't even interested in lance at that time. When they came to us, it was all about Floyd. But neither of us knew anything.

What year roughly are you talking about here?

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Those familiar with ADR would be aware of the flowing matrix used to deduct factual conclusions.

by using statements only printed on this forum;

4) Pursuant to law C spoke to Federal investigators, C does not come under the jurisdiction of USADA.
5) A states C is a “co-conspirator” - i.e. a criminal and did not act appropriately.
6) C has neither been investigated, charged nor served punishment for criminal activity in relation to the matters specified or anything other crime on record.
7) Therefore C is not a “conspirator”, or criminal.

I am currently studying Cognitive Psychology and just finished reading a chapter in the text entitled "Reasoning" and I am in awe of the process you used here.

However I would point out two things regarding your assumptions.

Firstly, a person does not solely "come under the jurisdiction of the DOJ or USADA" simply because they spoke to an investigator from one or the other. A person who has evidence relevant to both a DOJ and USADA investigation does not become the "property" of one or the other. That person is merely a witness in both proceedings and does not "belong" to one or the other.

Secondly, a person can be a party to a conspiracy whether or not that person is investigated, charged or punished for their role in the conspiracy. Such a person is an unindicted co-conspirator. That person may or may not be named in the Indictment. That person can be a witness for or against any other conspirator in order to prove/disprove the conspiracy.

 

[thehog]

I am currently studying Cognitive Psychology and just finished reading a chapter in the text entitled "Reasoning" and I am in awe of the process you used here.

However I would point out two things regarding your assumptions.

Firstly, a person does not solely "come under the jurisdiction of the DOJ or USADA" simply because they spoke to an investigator from one or the other. A person who has evidence relevant to both a DOJ and USADA investigation does not become the "property" of one or the other. That person is merely a witness in both proceedings and does not "belong" to one or the other.

Secondly, a person can be a party to a conspiracy whether or not that person is investigated, charged or punished for their role in the conspiracy. Such a person is an unindicted co-conspirator. That person may or may not be named in the Indictment. That person can be a witness for or against any other conspirator in order to prove/disprove the conspiracy.

Thank-you. I've seen it to the length of establishing probability of statements made etc.

Per the method discussed we crudely call it "emotional filtering". You see it used in divorce and employee mediation sessions in utter abundance. By removing the actual names tended bring less heat to the issue. Very effective at delineating out the resolutions sans the crying, the name calling and the historical hurt.

In regards to the other points you make; perhaps I should have added "within their legal context". Also one should only go on facts alone and what is apparent as of now. Not what may or may not occur in the future.

But good discussion all the same.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

But good discussion all the same.

Agreed 100%. Good to see some constructive content.

 

[skidmark]

I'm mearly providing "balance" to a story and it's players who appear to have been caught up in an Internet race to be "right".

My comments with respect to Vaughers are based on his "insertion" into the process of which he was a witness. I have trouble with that position. We've moved out of one fire with Armstrong into another whereby "deals" are struck between USADA and Garmin riders.

I'm sure other teams in the peloton would like such protection and favouritism.

Nepotism it is. And it's just my opinion. Nothing else.

And I promise not to mention Sheryl Crow.

Okay, I don't drop by these threads often enough to keep up (eg. this reply to your reply a day ago), so I missed the context of other posters etc. If you're saying your post was deliberately misleading/oversimplified to provide 'balance', fine I can live with that, I guess.

I also have a problem with the supposed deal between USADA and Garmin riders, although I'd blame Tygart and not Vaughters for that, and call it favouritism rather than nepotism. I don't really like Jonathan Vaughters that much (nor do I really dislike him much), but I think he's taking an intelligent and effective approach to doping in cycling, walking the tightrope quite well, given his position. I don't think it was unethical of him to look for a deal for his riders, and I don't really see it as unfair to offer amnesty for full, voluntary cooperation. Six months seems more appropriate, and personally I'd like to see anyone that doped suspended for longer. But given the reality of how much disincentive there would be to confess, I can understand how that would come about and be the most effective, given all the interests.

I think I have more of a problem with the fact that, after Vaughters wrangled that deal, Tygart didn't approach other riders with that same deal. Not only is that not really fair, it's also a crack that camp Armstrong could have used against USADA if the case wasn't as overwhelming as it was. Stupid and unethical. But I see that on Tygart more than Vaughters, personally.

 

[thehog]

Okay, I don't drop by these threads often enough to keep up (eg. this reply to your reply a day ago), so I missed the context of other posters etc. If you're saying your post was deliberately misleading/oversimplified to provide 'balance', fine I can live with that, I guess.

I also have a problem with the supposed deal between USADA and Garmin riders, although I'd blame Tygart and not Vaughters for that, and call it favouritism rather than nepotism. I don't really like Jonathan Vaughters that much (nor do I really dislike him much), but I think he's taking an intelligent and effective approach to doping in cycling, walking the tightrope quite well, given his position. I don't think it was unethical of him to look for a deal for his riders, and I don't really see it as unfair to offer amnesty for full, voluntary cooperation. Six months seems more appropriate, and personally I'd like to see anyone that doped suspended for longer. But given the reality of how much disincentive there would be to confess, I can understand how that would come about and be the most effective, given all the interests.

I think I have more of a problem with the fact that, after Vaughters wrangled that deal, Tygart didn't approach other riders with that same deal. Not only is that not really fair, it's also a crack that camp Armstrong could have used against USADA if the case wasn't as overwhelming as it was. Stupid and unethical. But I see that on Tygart more than Vaughters, personally.

Thanks for replying.

I do get if Vaughters was a nominated lay person representing the Garmin riders and striking a deal on their behalf. I get that.

The problem becomes was Vaughters was a witness in what could have been a hearing but also had vested interest in his riders receiving limited bans. He had vested interesting because he was a team owner who profits from their inclusion in races. And has a vested interest in all his riders saying the same thing.

The unified "doping stopped in 2006" was the oddity that brought this point to the fore. Team owner arranged a statue or limitation gang bang to limit sanctions.

I'm with you. The means were worthy to get their man. Lance has slipped the net so many times they could only get him if all ducks were lined up.

Furthermore and using Hesjedal as a reference point it appeared the special relationship occurred again.

Vaughters in his MBA would probably be studying a subject on business ethics. Contained in that unit would be the importance on separation of duties. Whereby you should never have one person making decisions for all. That's how fraud occurs.

Here we have one man whom was a witness making the the decisions on what the other witnesses may say, whom also is a team owner. Doping and it's management needs to be separated from riders and team owners. Red flag.

Hesjedal was discovered due to Rasmussen. Are there more?

We may never know.

I don't bring this all up as defence of Armstrong. But for the reason that I seriously doubt any other team manager has such an arrangement with their local anti-doping agency.

 

[peloton]

USADA wasn't even interested in lance at that time. When they came to us, it was all about Floyd. But neither of us knew anything.

Thank you for posting here, I'm sure most of us here really appreciate that.

Haven't read JM's book yet, but what is kinda embarrassing, is that it took LA's comeback 2.0 for me to see how rotten person he is.

 

[elizab]

Thank you for posting here, I'm sure most of us here really appreciate that.

Haven't read JM's book yet, but what is kinda embarrassing, is that it took LA's comeback 2.0 for me to see how rotten person he is.

You're welcome (laughing at "most"). Well, at least you admit it, right? Better late than never.

Digger, the year was the fall of 2006.

Again, the garmin guys voluntarily talked to usada. George and Levi didn't. The refused to cooperate until they were threatened with a lifetime ban. Only then did they cooperate. Those two got too little. I'd make an argument if you cooperate voluntarily you get 6 months; you don't, you get 2 years if not a lifetime ban.

 

[Dr. Ferrari]

The Vaughter's question is interesting. He's a pragmatic guy that can see all sides of a problem and this often leaves people with the impression that he's really on their side. He fully embraced the USADA investigation after it came out, but in truth I know for a fact he was not in favour of the process at the beginning. That was understandable. It posed huge risks for himself and his team, who could easily have folded from the fallout, and he believed the sport was already changing anyway so there was no real need for all the heartache it would inevitably bring. He told friends the sport needed to move on and it was a waste of time. But once the investigation was underway, he was smart enough to understand that if they were to retain any credibility, they had to be proactive and cooperate, and to fully embrace the changes it could bring. That was a great move. In the end, it's turned out far better than his wildest dreams - they've all come through it with barely a scratch on their image and Lance has taken the rap for an entire era. Plus he can now go around pretending he was all in favour of it to begin with...he told the riders to volunteer, don't you know. The truth is a little bit more complicated.

 

[mewmewmew13]

This is problematic though as it becomes as the feelings amplify and behaviour will become more erratic without some kind of something to break the cycle. He's clearly got plenty of money, so no outside forces to inspire change either.

I don't wish that suffering on him either, but he apparently could never deal with it on his own, never got help, and still will not change despite the world telling him to go away.

I'm afraid Lance will turn into a delinquent Beiber character..

 

[Dr. Yugo]

The Vaughter's question is interesting. He's a pragmatic guy that can see all sides of a problem and this often leaves people with the impression that he's really on their side. He fully embraced the USADA investigation after it came out, but in truth I know for a fact he was not in favour of the process at the beginning. That was understandable. It posed huge risks for himself and his team, who could easily have folded from the fallout, and he believed the sport was already changing anyway so there was no real need for all the heartache it would inevitably bring. He told friends the sport needed to move on and it was a waste of time. But once the investigation was underway, he was smart enough to understand that if they were to retain any credibility, they had to be proactive and cooperate, and to fully embrace the changes it could bring. That was a great move. In the end, it's turned out far better than his wildest dreams - they've all come through it with barely a scratch on their image and Lance has taken the rap for an entire era. Plus he can now go around pretending he was all in favour of it to begin with...he told the riders to volunteer, don't you know. The truth is a little bit more complicated.

Now you have done it.

You have implied that Lance is not responsible for everyone doping during the last twenty years.

You have also said that those who opposed him are not candidates for beatification by the Pope.

Expect to be viciously attacked by the lemmings.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Now you have done it.

You have implied that Lance is not responsible for everyone doping during the last twenty years.

You have also said that those who opposed him are not candidates for beatification by the Pope.

Expect to be viciously attacked by the lemmings.

Lemmings are not known for viciousness. They are known for following each other off of a cliff, kind of like Armstrong apologists. That an Armstrong apologist is too...um.....uninformed to know that is not in the least surprising. Poor Trollkraft. D-

 

[Scott SoCal]

This really ****es me off. You could have used Dr Tesla.

 

[Digger]

You're welcome (laughing at "most"). Well, at least you admit it, right? Better late than never.

Digger, the year was the fall of 2006.

Again, the garmin guys voluntarily talked to usada. George and Levi didn't. The refused to cooperate until they were threatened with a lifetime ban. Only then did they cooperate. Those two got too little. I'd make an argument if you cooperate voluntarily you get 6 months; you don't, you get 2 years if not a lifetime ban.

Just That Floyd has said, which I believe, that all they wanted in 06 was info on lance when Floyd has been busted. 'Someone bigger than you.' Obviously lance was the only one bigger that year.
The issue of the 6mth bans. I won't argue on that one here. But they were initially for 0 months. That was so wrong. Then they negotiated the bans for after the tour. And I am not even having a pop at jv here. It's Travis. I feel that because he got lance that all failings before or after have been forgotten.

 

[Bosco10]

You're welcome (laughing at "most"). Well, at least you admit it, right? Better late than never.

Digger, the year was the fall of 2006.

Again, the garmin guys voluntarily talked to usada. George and Levi didn't. The refused to cooperate until they were threatened with a lifetime ban. Only then did they cooperate. Those two got too little. I'd make an argument if you cooperate voluntarily you get 6 months; you don't, you get 2 years if not a lifetime ban.

This brings me to something Armstrong has been complaining about. He claims he wasn't offered the 6-month deal that others got -- for him it was simply, "Come out with your hands up or else." USADA disputes this. Unfortunately, Juliet's book doesn't discuss the issue. Do you have any insight or opinion about this?

 

[RownhamHill]

This brings me to something Armstrong has been complaining about. He claims he wasn't offered the 6-month deal that others got -- for him it was simply, "Come out with your hands up or else." USADA disputes this. Unfortunately, Juliet's book doesn't discuss the issue. Do you have any insight or opinion about this?

Isn't Lance's complaint just indicative of both him trying to control the narrative, but also his ****ed up ideas of right and wrong.

Because those two things (come out with your hands up, here's a 6-month ban) aren't mutually exclusive at all. Quite the opposite - you can only get a reduced sentence for co-operating if you have actually co-operated. What's the key difference between Levi and George refusing to co-operate, being threatened with a life-time ban if they don't, co-operating and getting a reduced sentence, and Lance refusing to co-operate, getting threatened with a life-ban if he doesn't, continuing to refuse to co-operate, and then getting a life-time ban? Oh yeah, the difference is Lance's actions.

According to the book he did finally go in to see USADA for five hours after the reasoned decision had dropped, and was amazed that at that point he couldn't then negotiate the same deal as the others.

 

[Digger]

There are so many inaccuracies in the book, it's at times a joke. Lim just one case. That people are referencing it as some kind of gospel is funny.

 

[thehog]

There are so many inaccuracies in the book, it's at times a joke. Lim just one case. That people are referencing it as some kind of gospel is funny.

It's the new talking points bible

 

[Digger]

It's the new talking points bible

it's nuts - constant referencing of something with such wrong and non cross checked information - yet it's being held up as some kind of definitive book.

How Lim was allowed spew his rubbish like that amazes me.

 

[thehog]

it's nuts - constant referencing of something with such wrong and non cross checked information - yet it's being held up as some kind of definitive book.

How Lim was allowed spew his rubbish like that amazes me.

Allen Lim has made a career out of sliminess. He has bounced around the peloton selling his brand of good health whilst trying to save dopers. Oh please. Someone just lock him up.

Just goes to show people can make money from literally anything.

And Kids if you're watching. Don't stay in school. Join procycling and do whatever and say whatever you please

 

[Alpe73]

Isn't Lance's complaint just indicative of both him trying to control the narrative, but also his ****ed up ideas of right and wrong.

RDs, books, movies, interviews, scores of thousands of posts on The Clinic ... everyone is trying to control the narrative, man. It's a multi million dollar business.

You're shopping in a flea market of ****ed up ideas of right and wrong. That one on the card table over there .... "Floyd Landis, prolific cheat, doper, liar (to name a few of the mild ones) ... set to become a multi millionaire because he didn't get a ride with Lance and JB?" How ****ed up is that for right and wrong?
What will you pay for that?

Grey is the color.

 

[RownhamHill]

RDs, books, movies, interviews, scores of thousands of posts on The Clinic ... everyone is trying to control the narrative, man. It's a multi million dollar business.

You're shopping in a flea market of ****ed up ideas of right and wrong. That one on the card table over there .... "Floyd Landis, prolific cheat, doper, liar (to name a few of the mild ones) ... set to become a multi millionaire because he didn't get a ride with Lance and JB?" How ****ed up is that for right and wrong?
What will you pay for that?

Grey is the color.

You seem to have misunderstood, I'm not shopping for anything, least of all Floyd Landis. I'm just enjoying the show.