Interesting piece on Livestrong

[Velodude]

Reading this screed won't help anyone get facts as the stuff posted here is seldom fact, mostly just opinion. What it is, is constitutionally protected hate speech, on both sides. There is no give and take, no reasoned discourse. Just a lot of people with preformed opinions talking past each other.

I am reminded of the definition of a zealot: Someone who can't change their mind and won't change the subject.

Additionally, the reason new people don't post here often is because when they do something curses at them in their first 6 posts and they leave.

I disagree. It is in the most part opinion drawn on cited facts that are usually linked.

For example. I read Gifford's Outside Magazine article on Livestrong and came across this paragraph:

The financial records appear to back up Armstrong’s assertion, and if there’s a more nefarious reality behind the curtain, it may take someone with subpoena power to bring it to light. In addition to Novitzky’s investigation, the IRS examined the foundation’s 2006 returns, although Livestrong officials say it was a routine review.

I was unaware that Novitzky had investigated the Foundation. As Gifford had written the article on the invitation and co-operation from Livestrong I can formulate an opinion based on that fact that Novitzky has investigated Livestrong with other known facts.

The Foundation's 2009 financial statements were signed off in June 2010. In the notes to those statements Livestrong informed the IRS were conducting an audit that commenced in the last quarter of 2009 (October - December) and was expected to be completed at end of 2010. Obviously at June 2010 the IRS audit was in progress.

The commencement of the IRS audit preceded the Landis emails of May 2010 by 6-8 months.

To enter onto IRS turf I am of the opinion that Novitzky received information from the IRS relating to Livestrong that may be of assistance in the indictments of persons of whom we should have no knowledge.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Reading this screed won't help anyone get facts as the stuff posted here is seldom fact, mostly just opinion.

What you are saying is you've already made up your mind to not bother sorting through the discussions to test your assumptions.

Aleajactaest has all the answers! Whew! High-fives all around. We're done. Wrap it up.

There is no give and take, no reasoned discourse.

Since you haven't bothered reading any of it you would never have found out that your claim isn't true.

I am reminded of the definition of a zealot: Someone who can't change their mind and won't change the subject.

So, it's personal attacks for the win? Because that's never been tried in this thread either. If you have something new or different to add, then go for it. But, Public Strategies has sent lots of people in to try to re-shape the story and it hasn't worked. The facts overwhelm their myth building nonsense. Kind of like what's happening now.

 

[Berzin]

Aleajactaest-this is the reason why there is no "reasoned" discussion on this forum about Armstrong-because Armstrong supporters want others to believe what is not true. When they don't get their way, they behave just as you are doing.

1) They interject crap into the discussion like "Well, Armstrong doped just like everyone else, so it was a level playing field and the more superior athlete (who in their minds always was and always will be Armstrong) won anyway.

2) It doesn't matter that he doped, because he gave millions to fund cancer research. Millions upon millions.

Newsflash for you-no one cares anymore about Armstrong's career or his alleged good deeds. What we are concerned with is his doping-not just what he took but the whole apparatus from A-to-Ferrari.

There is no more conjecture over his innocence or guilt. The only thing that is missing are the pertinent sordid details.

If that is a reality check you can't cash because of insufficient funds, that's not anyone's problem but yours.

 

[doolols]

I am reminded of the definition of a zealot: Someone who can't change their mind and won't change the subject.

Additionally, the reason new people don't post here often is because when they do something curses at them in their first 6 posts and they leave.

Two things wrong here. Well, actually, both things. I came here a fanboy. I've got his books, I've watched his races. My favourite clip of the TdF was the "Ullrich look".

That was until I was ill over Christmas, and did what you haven't done - spent hours reading the LA threads whilst I was laid up in bed. My mind has been changed by the overwhelming weight of evidence posted here by extremely knowledgeable people. And by the fact that no one offering an opposing viewpoint does it in a logical and reasoned way. Because they can't.


Oh, and the second thing? I haven't left yet. This is a great place to be.

 

[MarkvW]

Aleajactaest-this is the reason why there is no "reasoned" discussion on this forum about Armstrong-because Armstrong supporters want others to believe what is not true. When they don't get their way, they behave just as you are doing.

1) They interject crap into the discussion like "Well, Armstrong doped just like everyone else, so it was a level playing field and the more superior athlete (who in their minds always was and always will be Armstrong) won anyway.

2) It doesn't matter that he doped, because he gave millions to fund cancer research. Millions upon millions.

Newsflash for you-no one cares anymore about Armstrong's career or his alleged good deeds. What we are concerned with is his doping-not just what he took but the whole apparatus from A-to-Ferrari.

There is no more conjecture over his innocence or guilt. The only thing that is missing are the pertinent sordid details.

If that is a reality check you can't cash because of insufficient funds, that's not anyone's problem but yours.

Well of course Armstrong doped like everybody else. Just because everybody else does it, doesn't make it right!

 

[poupou]

Well of course Armstrong doped like everybody else. Just because everybody else does it, doesn't make it right!

No Lance Armstrong doped mucg more than most of his challengers.

For exemples:
More than half of his 1999 samples had EPO while others samples had a much lower ratio of EPO inside.
He paid big amount of money to Ferrari than few riders could do so.
Not everyone can bribe UCI to go awway with positive cases.
Not everyone can test samples at WADA lab to improve doping methods.

 

[Oldman]

I disagree. It is in the most part opinion drawn on cited facts that are usually linked.

For example. I read Gifford's Outside Magazine article on Livestrong and came across this paragraph:



I was unaware that Novitzky had investigated the Foundation. As Gifford had written the article on the invitation and co-operation from Livestrong I can formulate an opinion based on that fact that Novitzky has investigated Livestrong with other known facts.

The Foundation's 2009 financial statements were signed off in June 2010. In the notes to those statements Livestrong informed the IRS were conducting an audit that commenced in the last quarter of 2009 (October - December) and was expected to be completed at end of 2010. Obviously at June 2010 the IRS audit was in progress.

The commencement of the IRS audit preceded the Landis emails of May 2010 by 6-8 months.

To enter onto IRS turf I am of the opinion that Novitzky received information from the IRS relating to Livestrong that may be of assistance in the indictments of persons of whom we should have no knowledge.

You're close. Word is some accounting employees related to the regular business of Livestrong brought improprieties to the attention of the IRS...not wanting to do time for his Yellowness.

 

[MarkvW]

No Lance Armstrong doped mucg more than most of his challengers.

For exemples:
More than half of his 1999 samples had EPO while others samples had a much lower ratio of EPO inside.
He paid big amount of money to Ferrari than few riders could do so.
Not everyone can bribe UCI to go awway with positive cases.
Not everyone can test samples at WADA lab to improve doping methods.

While I wouldn't agree with the statement that Lance doped more than other riders (you can't support that statement). I would agree with the statement that Lance doped better than other riders.

Still: All his rivals doped. You can argue around that all you want, but it remains a fact. Now that Floyd and Tyler have confessed, the irrational haters want to minimize that fact. But before Floyd and Tyler, one of the main talking points of the haters was the fact that Lance couldn't win without doping because all his competitors doped.

 

[HL2037]

While I wouldn't agree with the statement that Lance doped more than other riders (you can't support that statement). I would agree with the statement that Lance doped better than other riders.

Still: All his rivals doped. You can argue around that all you want, but it remains a fact. Now that Floyd and Tyler have confessed, the irrational haters want to minimize that fact. But before Floyd and Tyler, one of the main talking points of the haters was the fact that Lance couldn't win without doping because all his competitors doped.

Nobody argues that most GC riders doped. Many of them were punished. Floyd and Tyler have been punished for doping. Why shouldn't Lance armstrong be punished?

 

[Cobblestoned]

Two things wrong here. Well, actually, both things. I came here a fanboy. I've got his books, I've watched his races. My favourite clip of the TdF was the "Ullrich look".

That was until I was ill over Christmas, and did what you haven't done - spent hours reading the LA threads whilst I was laid up in bed. My mind has been changed by the overwhelming weight of evidence posted here by extremely knowledgeable people. And by the fact that no one offering an opposing viewpoint does it in a logical and reasoned way. Because they can't.


Oh, and the second thing? I haven't left yet. This is a great place to be.

Wow, extremely knowledgeable posters, like me, changed your mind.
I always thought it were Floyd and Tyler. They must feel depressed now.
What mind, btw ? That Lance was clean, lol ?
Always sad for the true fanboys. They are so gullible, pure and simple structured, to then be reformed by clinicians.

Even feel more sad for them, than for Lance.
Reminds me of those of the true church of strong Ullists.

btw, "the look" was not the look. Lance made it clear. Sorry I have to change your mind again. Don't be fooled by blue eyes.
This is the look:

 

[thehog]

Nobody argues that most GC riders doped. Many of them were punished. Floyd and Tyler have been punished for doping. Why shouldn't Lance armstrong be punished?

Its an interesting point you raise. Landis and Hamilton lost their lives to doping. Just because everyone was doing it doesn't give anyone a free pass. If that was the case give Floyd his title back - you can't give an exception for anyone - even in a corrupt world.

 

[Velodude]

You're close. Word is some accounting employees related to the regular business of Livestrong brought improprieties to the attention of the IRS...not wanting to do time for his Yellowness.

Gifford and Livestrong are not privy to any findings by the IRS and Novitzky.

Gifford does allude to either his knowledge or suspicions that a bloodhound approach will reveal more than has been presented to him and to the foundation's auditors.

it may take someone with subpoena power to bring it to light.

By the length of the IRS investigation it would be expected that subpoenas were issued to third parties with, where applicable, follow up interviews to determine if Livestrong transactions were bona fide with parties at arms length.

IRS do not conduct routine audits on foundations as claimed by Livestrong. They act in response to complaints.

In light of these long term investigations, the fact that Armstrong & CEO Ulman contacted Gifford to:

it made Armstrong livid. “You need to come down here and see what we do,” he said sternly. “Ask us the hard questions.” It was more a command than a request. “I know you’re a hater and you’re gonna write what you write, but I just want you to see it.”

speculatively suggests this was a PR stunt to mislead a "babe in the woods" non financial journalist to soften his stance against Livestrong.

Why? Further speculation. Armstrong & Ulman must have been aware months ago of the possible fate of Livestrong. If a plea deal is entered into part of the deal would be that Livestrong maintain its tax exempt status to continue its charitable work and employment. A highly critical report by Gifford to the public would not be of assistance.

 

[Polish]

An important part of Livestrong is the Armstrong myth. For a myth to succeed it is important to have a well crafted story so people who are normally intelligent feel comfortable suspending rational thought and repeat the talking points.
]

Sorry RR, Lance's Quiver of Awesomeness is filled with Arrows of FACT not fiction.

But if entertaining myths are what you seek - visit the non-fanboys. They have plenty lol:

Myth of the Flushing Toilet
Myth of the Magical EPO Transformation
Myth of the Better Responder
Myth of the All Encompassing Blanket of Protection
Myth of the Exclusive Relationships.
Myth of the Most Doped Athlete of All Time
Myth of the Jetfuel and Hookers

Plenty more. Myths all.

 

[MarkvW]

Nobody argues that most GC riders doped. Many of them were punished. Floyd and Tyler have been punished for doping. Why shouldn't Lance armstrong be punished?

Floyd and Tyler have not been punished for their USPS doping.

 

[HL2037]

Floyd and Tyler have not been punished for their USPS doping.

I don't get your point?

I asked this: If you believe armstrong doped, then you must agree that he should be punished for it like many others have been. Well do you?

If Armstrong doped like everybody else, then he should have his wins removed like everybody else, and preferably his career shortened, but that is too late now.

 

[Siriuscat]

Wow, extremely knowledgeable posters, like me, changed your mind.
I always thought it were Floyd and Tyler. They must feel depressed now.
What mind, btw ? That Lance was clean, lol ?
Always sad for the true fanboys. They are so gullible, pure and simple structured, to then be reformed by clinicians.

Even feel more sad for them, than for Lance.
Reminds me of those of the true church of strong Ullists.

btw, "the look" was not the look. Lance made it clear. Sorry I have to change your mind again. Don't be fooled by blue eyes.
This is the look:

 

[Siriuscat]

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Here is "the look."

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

 

[Anonymous]

Reading this screed won't help anyone get facts as the stuff posted here is seldom fact, mostly just opinion. What it is, is constitutionally protected hate speech, on both sides. There is no give and take, no reasoned discourse. Just a lot of people with preformed opinions talking past each other.

I am reminded of the definition of a zealot: Someone who can't change their mind and won't change the subject.

Additionally, the reason new people don't post here often is because when they do something curses at them in their first 6 posts and they leave.

Would you like some cheese with your whine?

 

[Anonymous]

Two things wrong here. Well, actually, both things. I came here a fanboy. I've got his books, I've watched his races. My favourite clip of the TdF was the "Ullrich look".

That was until I was ill over Christmas, and did what you haven't done - spent hours reading the LA threads whilst I was laid up in bed. My mind has been changed by the overwhelming weight of evidence posted here by extremely knowledgeable people. And by the fact that no one offering an opposing viewpoint does it in a logical and reasoned way. Because they can't.


Oh, and the second thing? I haven't left yet. This is a great place to be.

Many of us tell the same story. I was an Armstrong fan back in 2005 when I first found forums on cycling, and within a year, I had read enough even then to know that the myth that is Armstrong deserves to be outed.

 

[Anonymous]

While I wouldn't agree with the statement that Lance doped more than other riders (you can't support that statement). I would agree with the statement that Lance doped better than other riders.

Still: All his rivals doped. You can argue around that all you want, but it remains a fact. Now that Floyd and Tyler have confessed, the irrational haters want to minimize that fact. But before Floyd and Tyler, one of the main talking points of the haters was the fact that Lance couldn't win without doping because all his competitors doped.

That is an absolute lie. <edited by mod> EVERYONE knew that most of the riders were doping. The ones who defended and said that doping was isolated, and that it couldn't possibly be as pervasive as many suggest were ARMSTRONG SUPPORTERS. Go search the links from 2005 on from various cycling forums and what I say will bear out.

You screw the law up and berate people, and then you screw what actually happened regarding the discussion on doping up and berate people. You have a pretty <edited by mod> poor batting average<edited by mod>. I'd stay in the minor leagues. I hear the Google forms on cycling welcome people like you.

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry RR, Lance's Quiver of Awesomeness is filled with Arrows of FACT not fiction.

But if entertaining myths are what you seek - visit the non-fanboys. They have plenty lol:

Myth of the Flushing Toilet
Myth of the Magical EPO Transformation
Myth of the Better Responder
Myth of the All Encompassing Blanket of Protection
Myth of the Exclusive Relationships.
Myth of the Most Doped Athlete of All Time
Myth of the Jetfuel and Hookers

Plenty more. Myths all.

It's sad. You used to hold a certain status among the members here. Now, you are just...what is the word I am looking for...."irrelevant," yea, that's it...dang...

 

[LarryBudMelman]

I hope

Sorry RR, Lance's Quiver of Awesomeness is filled with Arrows of FACT not fiction.

But if entertaining myths are what you seek - visit the non-fanboys. They have plenty lol:

Myth of the Flushing Toilet
Myth of the Magical EPO Transformation
Myth of the Better Responder
Myth of the All Encompassing Blanket of Protection
Myth of the Exclusive Relationships.
Myth of the Most Doped Athlete of All Time
Myth of the Jetfuel and Hookers

Plenty more. Myths all.

you're being paid a lot of money for your loyalty. How often does your boy Pharmstrong pop his head in here? Does he give you room to freelance or his this garbage scripted?

How miuch $$$ to keep shoveling this bad comedy?

 

[LarryBudMelman]

That is an absolute lie. You are so full of ****, I am going to start calling you "Outhouse." EVERYONE knew that most of the riders were doping. The ones who defended and said that doping was isolated, and that it couldn't possibly be as pervasive as many suggest were ARMSTRONG SUPPORTERS. Go search the links from 2005 on from various cycling forums and what I say will bear out.

You screw the law up and berate people, and then you screw what actually happened regarding the discussion on doping up and berate people. You have a pretty **** poor batting average Outhouse. I'd stay in the minor leagues. I hear the Google forms on cycling welcome people like you.

I appreciate where you're coming from but it became known that people like Moreau and Ullrich were in fact doping less after Festina, and this was brought out by JV and Livingston who were in the best position to know. In 99 and the early 2000's the team where doping was pervasive was USPS.