Cycling is entering a clean chapter, says Phil Liggett

[red_flanders]

Unbelievable!!! He just changed from a guy with zero credibility to a cartoon character! That quote is..... wow.

And don't forget what else he was spewing:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-responds-to-liggetts-claims-of-bribery-in-armstrong-case

"Now I can tell you one thing," Liggett said. "And I could prove it in SA [South Africa] but I ... I met a chap who worked with Armstrong on Saturday in Boulder Colorado. And he told me that he had a visit, two years ago, to tell, and the question was, they were agents from a particular agency and they said: ‘Will you tell us that Lance Armstrong took EPO? And we could assure that you will never want for money again'. That was his quote on Thursday and he told them in words I can't put on radio what to do with that and they said "I think we're talking to the wrong man" and they walked away.

USADA response:

"It is blatantly false information from someone who has never had the courtesy to contact USADA for truthful and accurate information," said USADA media relations manager, Annie Skinner.

Ashenden's scathing response, full text on NY Velocity article:

...

Let me just clarify a legal point for you, Phil. When you confided to the interviewer that your chum from Colorado had told you that he had been offered money to say that Armstrong doped, that is called ‘hearsay’. Its called hearsay because you didn’t hear or see what happened, your friend did. Courts don’t like hearsay evidence Phil – in fact even a newbie defense lawyer would have hearsay booted out of court in an instant. In contrast, USADA pointed out that their evidence was derived from eyewitness statements containing firsthand knowledge of the conduct. That kind of evidence is legally robust and has indeed, as you colloquially put it, been used to “hang a man for murder”. Armstrong chose not to oppose that eyewitness evidence, and I’m darned sure he could have gotten a half decent lawyer to sift out the hearsay from the eyewitness evidence…

Interestingly, Armstrong suggests that his teammates know who won those seven Tours. Well, if they could remember that, wouldn’t they also be coherent enough to know what they had seen firsthand during those races? Don’t you think the mental image of the race leader with a plastic tube hanging out of his arm and a bag of blood hanging above his head from a picture hook on the hotel room wall would stick in your memory?

Your muddled interpretation of out of competition testing being a foolproof method to catch cheats is so flimsy and threadbare as to hardly warrant comment. But the same line is being spun so relentlessly by Armstrong sympathizers that I feel compelled to address it. I also worry that you will be skeptical of what I say, so here is what I propose. At the end of your interview, you got a plug in for an upcoming conference that you will attend with your fellow Briton, professional road cyclist David Millar whom you referred to as “one of the biggest bike riders we've currently got” in cycling. While you’re having a tea break, ask him two questions. “Did you ever use EPO?”. “Did you ever get caught during out of competition tests?”. Just in case you don’t get a chance to chat with David, the answers are “Yes” and “No”. You’d have to believe in the tooth fairy to suggest it is not possible for a professional road cyclist to use EPO without being caught.

...

It goes on. The full text linked above is well worth a read.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

How does somebody like that sleep at night?


http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/2010489/cycling-is-entering-a-clean-chapter-says-phil-liggett

..on a mattress and pillows stuffed with the loot he made during the 99-05 period.

 

[Benotti69]

..on a mattress and pillows stuffed with the loot he made during the 99-05 period.

I guess he made the loot all the way till the USADA investigation ended.

 

[Boeing]

He is talking like a man possessed.

 

[The Hitch]

I made a edit to Liggetts wikipedia page that merely mentioned some of the ridiculous things he had said, fully cited.

It was removed by a Ligget apologist with the words "this article is not about Lance Armstrong".

Anyone know how to fight it. Only someone who is totally braindead could be of the opinion that Ligget's defense of Armstrong which took up about 80% of his commentary time over the last 2 decdades, is not relevant to an article about Phil Liggett.

If Ligget didn't want Armstrong coming back to bite him he should not have accused USADA of fabricating the evidence against Armstrong among other things. People not involved in cycling have a right to know if they type his name into google, what the man was about. The clinic didn't put those words in his mouth. The clinic didn't bully Landis and Hamilton. Ligget did, and now he should pay for that.

 

[GuyIncognito]

I made a edit to Liggetts wikipedia page that merely mentioned some of the ridiculous things he had said, fully cited.

It was removed by a Ligget apologist with the words "this article is not about Lance Armstrong".

Anyone know how to fight it. Only someone who is totally braindead could be of the opinion that Ligget's defense of Armstrong which took up about 80% of his commentary time over the last 2 decdades, is not relevant to an
article about Phil Liggett.

Put them here

http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Phil_Liggett&action=edit&redlink=1

Google treats wikiquote as part of wikipedia (which it is). It shows up high on searches

 

[martinvickers]

I made a edit to Liggetts wikipedia page that merely mentioned some of the ridiculous things he had said, fully cited.

It was removed by a Ligget apologist with the words "this article is not about Lance Armstrong".

Anyone know how to fight it. Only someone who is totally braindead could be of the opinion that Ligget's defense of Armstrong which took up about 80% of his commentary time over the last 2 decdades, is not relevant to an article about Phil Liggett.

If Ligget didn't want Armstrong coming back to bite him he should not have accused USADA of fabricating the evidence against Armstrong among other things. People not involved in cycling have a right to know if they type his name into google, what the man was about. The clinic didn't put those words in his mouth. The clinic didn't bully Landis and Hamilton. Ligget did, and now he should pay for that.

You can 'ask' for a 'consensus', and there's a few other things, but re-editing what has been removed without further discussion could quite likely be considered edit warring and get both it deleted, the article protected and you banned

And to be honest - genuinely, no snide - i suspect you'd probably lose the argument on consensus - Liggett's views and speeches on armstrong matter to you, and certainly merit mention - but it's not, frankly, a big part of his public notability - not enough to take up half the article, really.

And wikipedia is not really a place where people are supposed to 'pay' for something. Maybe that's your problem, here.

Edit : I see you put your entry back. Fair enough ;-)
We'll see how she goes. Good luck, anyway.

 

[The Hitch]

Im surprised you dont agree with Ligget's crimes being mentioned on his wikipedia page, considering for the most part you claim to be ferociously anti doping (far more so than me after all my scale had doping as a 1 where murder was a 10. Your one had doping as a 5). If that is the case I would expect you to be calling for Ligget's head side by side with me, considering the lengths he went to practice Omerta, bully people who were telling the truth and defend frauds from justice. Or do you only consider the doping itself to be a crime? the people who defend it and facilitate it not so much?

The article was not removed by someone who knows what they are doing but by someone who was seeking to like Liggets employers, keep under the carpet the evidence that shows he is more Mr Burns then Grandpa Simpson.

And I have no idea what the issue with length is. The section I added was 2 paragraphs, not a LS post. It took 2 paragraphs because that's how long it took to mention the most memorable instances of Ligget lying on the behalf of dopers.
The fact that PL's page is not very long elsewhere a reason to shorten the section which describes his lies.

 

[thehog]

Im surprised you dont agree with Ligget's crimes being mentioned on his wikipedia page, considering for the most part you claim to be ferociously anti doping (far more so than me after all my scale had doping as a 1 where murder was a 10. Your one had doping as a 5). If that is the case I would expect you to be calling for Ligget's head side by side with me, considering the lenghts he went to practice Omerta, bully people who were telling the truth and defend frauds from justice. Or do you only consider the doping itself to be a crime? the people who defend it and fascilitate it not so much?

The article was not removed by someone who knows what they are doing but by someone who was seeking to like Liggets employers, keep under the carpet the evidence that shows he is more Mr Burns then Grandpa Simpson.

And I have no idea what the issue with length is. The section I added was 2 paragraphs, not a LS post. It took 2 paragraphs because thats how long it took to mention the most memorable instances of Ligget lying on the behalf of dopers.
The fact that PL's page is not very long elsewhere a reason to shorten the section which describes his lies.

Impressive!

Liggett was a long-time supporter of Lance Armstrong and was a regular speaker at "Livestrong" functions along with his Tour De France co-presenter Paul Sherwen. During the Texan's dominance over the Tour de France, Ligget promised he would resign from commentary if it ever turned out Armstrong had doped and famously claimed that he knew Armstrong was clean because of a private incident in a hotel room on one of their many trips together, where he had looked into Armstrong's eyes and asked him about it. [8] He repeatedly defended Armstrong against his accusers challenging the investigations into Armstrong, which he called "a waste of money".[9]

In 2006 after Floyd Landis tested positive at the 2006 Tour de France, Ligget suggested it may have been a set up "The fact that the lab knew whose sample it was testing is just one of the anomalies". [10] When Floyd Landis admitted to doping in 2010 and implicated Armstrong, Liggett dismissed it as a case of "sour grapes", called the accusations "ridiculous" and testified on the integrity of former UCI President Pat Mcquaid who Liggett said was "vehemently anti doping".[11]

In 2012 after USADA had stripped Lance Armstrong of his Tour de France titles, Liggett, on South African Radio, claimed to have proof that unnamed politicians motivated by jealousy had fabricated the evidence against Armstrong by bribing witnesses.[12] This provoked an angry response from USADA who dismissed his theories.[13] Liggett was also attacked by one of cycling's leading anti-doping experts, Mike Ashenden.[14] In October 2012 Liggett maintained his defense of Armstrong, calling the investigation a "witch hunt"[15] and adding that there was "no evidence" against him. However later in the month Liggett stated that he now found it difficult to believe that Armstrong had never doped. He also said that he was disappointed that Armstrong had lied to him in 2003 when asked about doping.[16] He was interviewed in a documentary by ABC's Four Corners, entitled "The World According to Lance".[17]

 

[martinvickers]

Im surprised you dont agree with Ligget's crimes being mentioned on his wikipedia page, considering for the most part you claim to be ferociously anti doping (far more so than me after all my scale had doping as a 1 where murder was a 10. Your one had doping as a 5). If that is the case I would expect you to be calling for Ligget's head side by side with me, considering the lenghts he went to practice Omerta, bully people who were telling the truth and defend frauds from justice. Or do you only consider the doping itself to be a crime? the people who defend it and fascilitate it not so much?

1. Your surprise is noted, but not notable.

2. 'Crimes'? A bizarrely hyperbolic way to describe what Liggitt, even at it's high, could be considered to have done.

3. I have ZERO problem with the Liggitt/Armstrong relationship being mentioned - indeed, I think it ought to be, absolutely. But Armstrong's entire career was built on a massive endless fraud to which Liggitt was, frankly, but a stupid spectator and cheerleader.

4.I am surprised you seem to care so little about doping itself (1 out of 10), and yet get so wound up about the Omerta you want to punish the 'crimes' of someone who, whatever an ignorant and naive tw*t he was (ad I'm no fan)' actually had nothing to do with the actual doping. Rather like thinking, ah I don't mind the murder, but i can't stand the alibi.

The article was not removed by someone who knows what they are doing but by someone who was seeking to like Liggets employers, keep under the carpet the evidence that shows he is more Mr Burns then Grandpa Simpson.

This is just...well, balderdash. IF you had much experience with Wikipedia, you'd know that these kind of edits are absolutely commonplace - they happen all the time, especially on articles with 'contentious' or 'controversial' passages.

IT just seems you have a real issue with accepting the bona fides who doesn't share your attitudes. How about accepting rational people can disagree, and that maybe you aren't exactly neutral on this?

And I have no idea what the issue with length is. The section I added was 2 paragraphs, not a LS post. It took 2 paragraphs because thats how long it took to mention the most memorable instances of Ligget lying on the behalf of dopers.
The fact that PL's page is not very long elsewhere a reason to shorten the section which describes his lies.

The 'issue' is just weight and relevance.

I'm Irish. I could write page after outraged, well sourced page, on the abomination to humanity that is Oliver Cromwell, his genocidal rage through Drogheda and much of Ireland, the "to hell or to Connacht" phase, and his general awfuness to Catholics in Ireland. His very name is a curse on this island.

But the truth is while it absolutely deserves to be noted, it shouldn't, in an encyclopedia article, outweigh the reference to the basic facts that he was a puritan general who got rid of the king of england and scotland, founded the commonwealth, became it's lord protector and died in office having turned down the crown. That's the main claim to fame.

And Cromwell in Ireland was a far larger part of his story than Liggitt's Armstrong support was to his, however that support might stick in your throat.

I just don't understand why you are surprised that another wikipedia editor might think it's inappropriate for you to edit an entry in Wikipedia to further what is basically a campaign against someone who don't like.

I find it hard to accept you are so blinded by your distaste for that stupid old tw^t that you can't see you lack a neutral point of view on the issue.

 

[MarkvW]

Liggett a criminal?
I don't think so.
He's just a human parrot.
Deserving ridicule.

 

[blackcat]

irritating to the utmost and can't believe he still can blather this with a straight face.

I need to ignore him

he did sleep with one of the australian female pros in the last decade. rochelle gilmore? funny stuff.

like going to bed with your granddad

or creepy

 

[ralphbert]

he did sleep with one of the australian female pros in the last decade. rochelle gilmore? funny stuff.

like going to bed with your granddad

or creepy

I call bs, no way someone that hot would entertain that old weasel.

Anyho, anybody who takes Liggetts opinion seriously get what they deserve imo.

 

[Oldman]

Don't have time to read whole thread. Did Phil quit drinking?

 

[42x16ss]

Don't have time to read whole thread. Did Phil quit drinking?

Quit? I think he's found something new...

 

[Clausfarre]

I made a edit to Liggetts wikipedia page that merely mentioned some of the ridiculous things he had said, fully cited.

It was removed by a Ligget apologist with the words "this article is not about Lance Armstrong".

Anyone know how to fight it. Only someone who is totally braindead could be of the opinion that Ligget's defense of Armstrong which took up about 80% of his commentary time over the last 2 decdades, is not relevant to an article about Phil Liggett.

If Ligget didn't want Armstrong coming back to bite him he should not have accused USADA of fabricating the evidence against Armstrong among other things. People not involved in cycling have a right to know if they type his name into google, what the man was about. The clinic didn't put those words in his mouth. The clinic didn't bully Landis and Hamilton. Ligget did, and now he should pay for that.

I was surprised myself to find that wikipedia is ripe with censorship. A Danish political party along with other political organisations were not allowed to get a page because their opponents were in charge of editing the entries even though the party took part in the national elections last fall! I was genuinely stunned and also glad I never got duped into funding them through their constant e-begging. Apparently they found it to be "irrelevant" and that was it.

So if Liggett fanboys have say in what is allowed and what is not, you are screwed. I have stopped going to wikipedia.org since I now see them as active enemies of free speech. It's a forum for certain people to silence those they disagree with and apparently wiki-chiefs allow this. They can go suck a big one.

 

[rainman]

I'm surprised the Wiki page still insists Ligget received a pro contract in 1967. I can say for certain PL was a hopeless rider as an amateur. For example he was lanterne rouge in the 1967 8 day Tour of Ireland. Admittedly he did well to finish in the atrocious weather conditions that year, but it was not a high profile race. There were some decent first cat riders present, like overall winner Nigel Dean, but most of the field had full time jobs and were on their annual vacation. I'd be amazed if PL was offered a pro contract that same year.

 

[blackcat]

I call bs, no way someone that hot would entertain that old weasel.

Anyho, anybody who takes Liggetts opinion seriously get what they deserve imo.

yeah well, i dont believe it neither, but it would be funny.

 

[mewmewmew13]

yeah well, i dont believe it neither, but it would be funny.

It makes me ill to think about it…
stop mentioning it

 

[VeloFidelis]

I made a edit to Liggetts wikipedia page that merely mentioned some of the ridiculous things he had said...

The clinic didn't bully Landis and Hamilton.

You can't possibly be serious with a comment like this. Is that selective memory... or actual amnesia?

By the way, I edited your Wikipedia page to include your milestone 20,000 post on a cycling website... It was deleted... Hmmmm

 

[oldcrank]

By the way, I edited your Wikipedia page to include your milestone 20,000 post on a cycling website... It was deleted... Hmmmm

Same thing happened when I added a quote to his page from a
Sept/2012 CN forum post stating he "liked JTL's character"

 

[Benotti69]

You can't possibly be serious with a comment like this. Is that selective memory... or actual amnesia?

By the way, I edited your Wikipedia page to include your milestone 20,000 post on a cycling website... It was deleted... Hmmmm

how does a forum that no one reads bully people? Only an echo chamber in here! barely 12 lone voices........


By the way your weekipage doesn't exist........

 

[Briant_Gumble]

how does a forum that no one reads bully people? Only an echo chamber in here! barely 12 lone voices........


By the way your weekipage doesn't exist........

Wasn't there a suicide attempt from an athlete a couple of weeks ago citing on line trolls?

 

[dwightyorke]

he did sleep with one of the australian female pros in the last decade. rochelle gilmore? funny stuff.

like going to bed with your granddad

or creepy

I can't imagine the "lady" copped to it publicly. Maybe I need to start watching Bert and Ernie again?

 

[Benotti69]

Wasn't there a suicide attempt from an athlete a couple of weeks ago citing on line trolls?

Am people believe he attempted suicide because he read something from a bunch of anonymous posters?

Well i suppose people believe the sports doping culture has disappeared without proper anti doping testing................