If Armstrong, Contador, etc. are clean, where is the outrage?

[Sheltowee]

I didn't say they should express outrage. I just don't understand why a clean rider would express outrage about those who expose doping, or even just talk about it, and no outrage about those who dope. Does that make sense to you?{QUOTE]

Of course you are right, the rule of ometra rules the peloton, how can you speak out, if you yourself have doped. Easy to understand why the lesser lights say nothing in public as they would face the wrath of the bigger names (a la Simeoni) and until someboby is caught, nobody has the hardcopy, unquestionable proof of doping.

I have posed the question in numerous posts about the Simeoni v Armstrong affair and for any Lance fan to justify what he done. Only one LA fan has ever repsonded and that was to say "they heard about it but considered it a minor incident"???


I would feel a big reason Lance is hated more than other riders is down to this incident, what other rider in the modern era has ever done anything similar? To be honest, if this is the only reason to dislike Lance, its more than justifiable.

The reason Armstrong whipped Simeoni back to the peleton was that Simeoni had sued him after Armstrong called him a liar. A wimp. Why he didn't he just ask Armstrong to meet him somewhere and whip his ***. No he punked out and went to court. Armstrong did what he should have done. Made the coward eat **** in front of the whole world.

 

[Anonymous]

The reason Armstrong whipped Simeoni back to the peleton was that Simeoni had sued him after Armstrong called him a liar. A wimp. Why he didn't he just ask Armstrong to meet him somewhere and whip his ***. No he punked out and went to court. Armstrong did what he should have done. Made the coward eat **** in front of the whole world.

....well that's one way to look at it. I can see where an internet tough guy would get his jollies watching it and interpreting through that filter. Hey, the world needs guys who can lift heavy things, scratch their balls and sniff their fingers afterward. So you have a valid opinion in light of that.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No he punked out and went to court.

Sorry to point this out but Mr. Armstrong is rather fond of bringing people to court himself.

 

[gjdavis60]

Are there accounts of this kind of "collective outrage" emanating from within the ranks of other sports when cheating has been uncovered? What sport can we hold up before cycling as a shining example worthy of emulation?

I can't recall any.

Is omerta universal? And if so, what is the underlying motivation? Why do athletes refrain from throwing teammates and fellow competitors "under the bus" so to speak, when cheating is alleged?

Or do we just expect more from our beloved sport?

Just wondering.

 

[elapid]

Sorry to point this out but Mr. Armstrong is rather fond of bringing people to court himself.

Actually, since the SCA case, Armstrong has not be legally active at all. He knows the SCA case hurt his image because of all the dirt that was made public. For instance, no law suits were ever filed against l'Equipe for the '99 EPO samples or Walsh's most recent books. It would serve no purpose and would be counterproductive for his public image.

 

[ckfrancis]

doping

is part of cycling. has been and will be. so for all off u $#@@&'s out there, i have some special sauce for you.

 

[Snake8]

Are there accounts of this kind of "collective outrage" emanating from within the ranks of other sports when cheating has been uncovered? What sport can we hold up before cycling as a shining example worthy of emulation?

I can't recall any.

Why do athletes refrain from throwing teammates and fellow competitors "under the bus" so to speak, when cheating is alleged?

Or do we just expect more from our beloved sport?

I recently read something interesting about cheating. The article, which I will endeavor to find, I think made the argument that a cheater's advantage diminishes when there are too many cheaters and therefore it becomes one's advantage to expose cheaters. Maybe this is the "outrage" one should expect. If so, maybe the cheating is not as bad as some feel, or it could be omerta, BUT, the shrill cries of the whistleblower will never stop cheating however noble their courage and efforts.

 

[Anonymous]

I recently read something interesting about cheating. The article, which I will endeavor to find, I think made the argument that a cheater's advantage diminishes when there are too many cheaters and therefore it becomes one's advantage to expose cheaters. Maybe this is the "outrage" one should expect. If so, maybe the cheating is not as bad as some feel, or it could be omerta, BUT, the shrill cries of the whistleblower will never stop cheating however noble their courage and efforts.

But the marked indifference of the fanboy will lead to nothing.

 

[Angliru]

I posted this a couple of days ago. I'm not at all bothered by the topic.

-------------

There was no tactial reason for
simeoni to go off the front at the time. He was trying to get attention.
my recollection is that when simeoni was absorbed back you could see several riders having words for him.

you don't get to re write history.

quoting the cyclingnews recap of the race.

"Once back in the bunch, Simeoni got some verbal abuse from Italian riders and went to hide at the back of the peloton, while Armstrong was applauded by many riders and made the cryptic sign of a zipper across his lips".

No tactical reason? In your eyes of course. Could it be that he was simply bridging across to the break in hopes of gaining a better chance of a stage win? Exposure for his sponsor? The fact that the race leader deemed it his responsibility to chase down someone that was absolutely no threat to his race leadership was simply a further sign of his overwhelming image control issues. Simeoni by bridging across to the break was putting Armstrong and his association with Ferari on front street. A relationship that even Armstrong relinquished later on once the iron got a bit too hot for him to be linked to someone on trial for unethical practices.

You curiously seem to justify Armstrong's actions with the support he received from riders in peloton. Were the rest of these Italian riders also clients of Dr. Ferari? Simeoni's crime is that he cheated, got caught and told what he knew. Your statement that his intention was to destroy the sport that actually puts the food on his table is ludicrous and simply shows that you are so blinded by the Armstrong bs that you can't find it within yourself to accept that what he did was wrong.

 

[Angliru]

Exactly my point. Why are you arguing with me then? If they fail a test, they are guilty. All the other arguments such as the one starting this thread are entirely circumstantial. I do not deny you your facts: the endless list of positives should be enough to make anyone skeptical.

But a healthy skepticism and outrage are not the same thing. You dopeheads seem to feel if we are not all outraged we are "fanboys" or LA worshippers.

Sorry but you guys s u ck the way you ruin every thread with your vitriol.

...and yet I have yet to hear any reasonable explanation that supports Armstrong's actions versus Bassons and Simeoni.

 

[Animal]

It's the passive-aggressive, victimhood-seeking whining of those who decide that anyone who thinks that Armstrong (along with 95% of the peloton) dopes is a "hater" that really winds me up.

It's like schoolkids fighting over football teams. Just tiresome.

 

[Snake8]

But the marked indifference of the fanboy will lead to nothing.

Maybe i was not very clear. I was making the point that no matter how many whistleblowers there are there will still be cheating. People who come out of the closet so to speak are rarely heralded as hero's for long. Sad but true.

As to me, there's no indifference. I am all for the testing and busting of cheaters.

And Angliru, you seem like a smart enough person, you should read what i wrote. My point was that all the arguments that are, X rider must be doping because he had a good ride - which are inductively reasoned arguments - can never "prove" doping. E.g., If LA is doping the other riders should be outraged, they are not therefore they are all doping.

Oh wait, my bad, i actually tried to use logic on this forum. Sorry.

 

[Angliru]

Maybe i was not very clear. I was making the point that no matter how many whistleblowers there are there will still be cheating. People who come out of the closet so to speak are rarely heralded as hero's for long. Sad but true.

As to me, there's no indifference. I am all for the testing and busting of cheaters.

And Angliru, you seem like a smart enough person, you should read what i wrote. My point was that all the arguments that are, X rider must be doping because he had a good ride - which are inductively reasoned arguments - can never "prove" doping. E.g., If LA is doping the other riders should be outraged, they are not therefore they are all doping.

Oh wait, my bad, i actually tried to use logic on this forum. Sorry.

Snake my comprehensive skills are not what they once were.

(Not directed at you) I still haven't heard any reasonable defense of Armstrong's actions.

 

[Anonymous]

Maybe i was not very clear. I was making the point that no matter how many whistleblowers there are there will still be cheating. People who come out of the closet so to speak are rarely heralded as hero's for long. Sad but true.

As to me, there's no indifference. I am all for the testing and busting of cheaters.

And Angliru, you seem like a smart enough person, you should read what i wrote. My point was that all the arguments that are, X rider must be doping because he had a good ride - which are inductively reasoned arguments - can never "prove" doping. E.g., If LA is doping the other riders should be outraged, they are not therefore they are all doping.

Oh wait, my bad, i actually tried to use logic on this forum. Sorry.

Yes I agree with you on the point that there will always be dopers. I just don't think shutting up about the subject does anything but keep all of the dirt under the rug, and that being the case, testing and busting will continue to be the joke that it already is.

 

[pmcg76]

The reason Armstrong whipped Simeoni back to the peleton was that Simeoni had sued him after Armstrong called him a liar. A wimp. Why he didn't he just ask Armstrong to meet him somewhere and whip his ***. No he punked out and went to court. Armstrong did what he should have done. Made the coward eat **** in front of the whole world.

Did Lance say Simeoni was a liar to his face, no he said it in a newspaper article. I dont think Lance even knew Simeoni personally, so Lance calling a fellow pro a liar through a newspaper interview aint exactly big and brave either, especially when it is obvious the person wasnt lying. Works both ways, still doesnt justify what Lance done cos I am sure he could have sorted it out in the start village as well, instead he acted like a complete muppet in front of the world.

 

[Anonymous]

No tactical reason? In your eyes of course. Could it be that he was simply bridging across to the break in hopes of gaining a better chance of a stage win? Exposure for his sponsor? The fact that the race leader deemed it his responsibility to chase down someone that was absolutely no threat to his race leadership was simply a further sign of his overwhelming image control issues. Simeoni by bridging across to the break was putting Armstrong and his association with Ferari on front street. A relationship that even Armstrong relinquished later on once the iron got a bit too hot for him to be linked to someone on trial for unethical practices.

You curiously seem to justify Armstrong's actions with the support he received from riders in peloton. Were the rest of these Italian riders also clients of Dr. Ferari? Simeoni's crime is that he cheated, got caught and told what he knew. Your statement that his intention was to destroy the sport that actually puts the food on his table is ludicrous and simply shows that you are so blinded by the Armstrong bs that you can't find it within yourself to accept that what he did was wrong.

Again, no tactical reason.

And hell no, the rest of them had nothing to do with ferrari. In the end, pretty much the peloton aplladed Lance. It was universal.

The quote was Lances post race comment. Here let me do it again.

"and lance is quoted post race:

" "The story of Simeoni is not a fair story...there's a long history there. All (journalists) want to write about is parts of the story. It's a long history...a guy like (Simeoni), all he wants to do is to destroy cycling...and for me, that's not correct. And I when I went back to the group they said 'chapeau'...thank you very much. Because they understand that (cycling) is their job and that they absolutely love it and they're committed to it and don't want somebody within their sport destroying it. So...for me it's no problem to go on the wheel, to follow the wheel."

Oh,and on Dr Ferrari?

"On 27 May 2006, CyclingNews.com reported that the Italian appeals court was forced to absolve Ferrari of guilt."

"substantive evidence was not produced within the allotted time after being charged with the crime."

 

[Anonymous]

Simoni or Simeoni?

Either way, Simeoni didn't disclose anything about the whole peloton, it was his comments on Dr Ferrari that raised the ire of Mr Armstrong. I also don't recall that Mr Armstrong had any help (well, except for PED's) to help him bridge the gap to Simeoni's group. It was he alone. To suggest that every other rider in the race approved is baseless.

It is also interesting that he and you consider those who expose doping to be the ones destroying cycling. Actually, "interesting" is a gracious term for what it really is.

you claim to read my post and then act as if you didn't.
The reaction of the other riders was in the cyclingnews quote and lances words, and evident in that there was zero reporting on any riders that may have disagreed.

""The story of Simeoni is not a fair story...there's a long history there. All (journalists) want to write about is parts of the story. It's a long history...a guy like (Simeoni), all he wants to do is to destroy cycling."

What do you think he means by that?

It was a popular move. I saw it as it happened. It was talked about as it happened. He went to the rear of the field like good little boy who'd been spanked. He had no allies. No one stood up for him.

And again, all charges dismissed against Ferrari.

 

[Johnny Colnago]

Oh,and on Dr Ferrari?

"On 27 May 2006, CyclingNews.com reported that the Italian appeals court was forced to absolve Ferrari of guilt."

"substantive evidence was not produced within the allotted time after being charged with the crime."

He got off on a legal technicality. I will be sure to send you a fresh box of kleenex and a copy of hooked on phonics for your birthday.

Question:

Let's say someone injects you with r-EPO. You go on to win the 100km crybaby enduro challenge. Afterward testing finds that you have been doped. You rat out your doctor, Dr. Lamborghini, and point fingers across the board claiming their is systematic doping going on in the world of pro-crybabying.

The police raid the good doctor's labs and find several files on his computer tat corroborate that you were a frequent user of r-EPO throughout your career as a professional crybaby.

The evidence is then used against you to convict you and have you banned from the sport. However, the evidence is not brought to bear on the doctor. By the times the charges of assisted doping are brought up against Dr. Lamborghini the statute of limitations has run out.

He is a free man. Later, another legislative body decides to bring charges against the doctor. However the evidence which was locked away in an evidence locker in Milan is not brought to Switzerland in time for the trial. The court is forced to absolve Dr. Lamborghini of guilt.

Does this mean that the good doctor did not inject you with r-EPO?

Please show all work on the paper, this will count for 50% of your final grade.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

He got off on a legal technicality. I will be sure to send you a fresh box of kleenex and a copy of hooked on phonics for your birthday.

Question:

Let's say someone injects you with r-EPO. You go on to win the 100km crybaby enduro challenge. Afterward testing finds that you have been doped. You rat out your doctor, Dr. Lamborghini, and point fingers across the board claiming their is systematic doping going on in the world of pro-crybabying.

The police raid the good doctor's labs and find several files on his computer tat corroborate that you were a frequent user of r-EPO throughout your career as a professional crybaby.

The evidence is then used against you to convict you and have you banned from the sport. However, the evidence is not brought to bear on the doctor. By the times the charges of assisted doping are brought up against Dr. Lamborghini the statute of limitations has run out.

He is a free man. Later, another legislative body decides to bring charges against the doctor. However the evidence which was locked away in an evidence locker in Milan is not brought to Switzerland in time for the trial. The court is forced to absolve Dr. Lamborghini of guilt.

Does this mean that the good doctor did not inject you with r-EPO?

Please show all work on the paper, this will count for 50% of your final grade.

Brilliant.

 

[rhubroma]

Oh,and on Dr Ferrari?

"On 27 May 2006, CyclingNews.com reported that the Italian appeals court was forced to absolve Ferrari of guilt."

"substantive evidence was not produced within the allotted time after being charged with the crime."

You obviously know nothing about the Italian court system, because substantial evidence is is never "produced within the allotted time after being charged with the crime." Or, if it is about to be, then, let's see: the Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, has his government pass a law ad personem to reduce the statute of limitations to make sure that such evidence won't be legally valid anymore in cases against him for his crimes.

Please, Ferrari was the greatest doping medic before Fuentes. Anybody that doesn't know that is just waisting everone's time.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

Jackhammer,

Your comments are genuinely offensive to anyone with any serious knowledge of this sport.

Omerta extends to the "fans" too it seems, although maybe a new word is required such as "stupidity" or "blind faith".

There is a cancer within the sport, and a cancer outside the sport of greedy sponsors, ignorant and partisan journalists and "fans" (unfortunately mainly in North America) who have an almost religious faith in the lies and filth that the boss and the hog spout out on a regular basis.

 

[rhubroma]

I posted this a couple of days ago. I'm not at all bothered by the topic.

-------------

There was no tactial reason for
simeoni to go off the front at the time. He was trying to get attention.
my recollection is that when simeoni was absorbed back you could see several riders having words for him.

Man, you really don't know anything about cycling tactics do you? Simeoni had every "tactical reason" to try and get into a late Tour stage break, both for the exposure to himself and his sponsors, and to have the only shot at winning a stage as a third rank pro.

Duhhh, it's exactly what a rider of his calliber is supposed to do dimwhit. Whereas, to the contrary, Armstrong's classless display of mafioso bullying went contrary to all tactical logic of one such as His Royal Majesty in his position as leader of the race in yellow.

It was a show of ruthlessness to purely humiliate the Italian for his "blathering" about Ferrari, which, in effect, broke the omertà and for which Lance was diabolically acting as the Godfather Padrone alla Marlin Brando of the group.

 

[Anonymous]

Dang jack, seems that you are fighting a lonely battle here.....

But of course you are still right because you are willing to let someone come to Ohio and fight you about it.

Your interpretation of events is quite interesting, that I will give you. You contort so much that I am pretty sure you will need someone to untie you once you finish.