Interesting piece on Livestrong

[Stingray34]

How many bribed sporting bodies? You tell us. No way for us to know. How many got tip offs? Only one we know of for sure is the Cricket, however one can assume in any organized sports there are tip offs.Ferrari, hmm, give him a call, he might return it.

It's great witnessing the evolution of justifications and mitigations of LA's antics. Bargaining in action.

The latest: Everyone bribes sporting bodies and everyone else got tip offs. Result: level playing field.

Remember the days of 'he never doped! He's clean!'?

 

[MarkvW]

How many of those bribed the UCI? How many were getting tip-offs about OCC testing? How many of those were getting doping advice from Dr. Ferrari?

I guess it was not much of a level playing field after all.

It was never a level playing field. It's a dirty sport. Fun to watch, but a dirty sport.

 

[Velodude]

How many bribed sporting bodies? You tell us. No way for us to know. How many got tip offs? Only one we know of for sure is the Cricket, however one can assume in any organized sports there are tip offs.
Ferrari, hmm, give him a call, he might return it.

There are reasons for players and referees/umpires receiving bribes (to fix matches). You cite the flawed example of cricket - bribe is flowing the wrong way.

Sporting bodies like FIFA and IOC are known to have received bribes but only from or on behalf of bid cities not athletes and players.

The only sporting body that I know of who is under heavy suspicion to have received a bribe from a singular athlete is the UCI.

The UCI claim they have only received... sorry ... to precisely quote McQuaid "We've now found out exactly what was donated by looking at our records in detail" which means their books record only two checks/cheques received from Armstrong and on behalf of Armstrong totalling $125,000.

But Verbruggen says Armstrong only paid large amounts of cash and a former UCI Board Member nominates the total to be $500,000. Appears to be a discrepancy of nearly $375,000.

Would not there be concerns that the discrepancy would amount to cash payments to officials of the UCI, an international organization, as a bribe and in breach of US Federal laws?

 

[HL2037]

It's great witnessing the evolution of justifications and mitigations of LA's antics. Bargaining in action.

The latest: Everyone bribes sporting bodies and everyone else got tip offs. Result: level playing field.

Remember the days of 'he never doped! He's clean!'?

Even if everybody doped, nobody lied about it more shamelessly than Armstrong.

I mean are you kidding me: Years and years going on and on about being the most tested athlete in the world, never testing positive. (For the record: No he wasn't and yes he did.) And then, when the truth can't be denied anymore "Oh yeah, i doped, but so did everybody else, and even though most of them were punished I expect to go free".

 

[Ferminal]

This thread is for discussions regarding Livestrong, if you want to talk about LA doping or otherwise, please use the other thread:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=12137&page=245

 

[Anonymous]

The peloton is and was filthy. Armstrong was one doper among many.

But Armstrong said that there were few to no dopers, and that the only ones who did it were the "donkeys" who wanted to be racehorses like him and couldn't without dope. HE and HIS SUPPORTERS were the ones trying to convince everyone that the peloton was mostly clean, which is completely contrary to the fiction you were trying to create. I see that you have moved on from that assertion, good choice. Those of us here who want to see Armstrong suffer the consequences of his actions knew all along that everyone else was doing it too. It was one of the reasons his self-righteous proclamations regarding himself and those dopers who were caught (maybe he didn't like them because they were too stupid to buy off the UCI like he did) were so onerous to those who knew he was completely full of it (I see why you defend him now).

 

[ChrisE]

It's great witnessing the evolution of justifications and mitigations of LA's antics. Bargaining in action.

The latest: Everyone bribes sporting bodies and everyone else got tip offs. Result: level playing field.

Remember the days of 'he never doped! He's clean!'?

Edit, sorry ferminal. I replied to a post before reading all the way to the end of the thread.

 

[Oldman]

It was never a level playing field. It's a dirty sport. Fun to watch, but a dirty sport.

You don't know what you're talking about. There have been many clean riders that did win. Not 7, fraudulent times and not while building the false image of Cancer Diety #1 but there are guys that have won clean. I've seen 'em.
Livestrong and it's subsidiaries was knowingly build on a basis of a self-serving marketing program and has almost nothing to do with the sport other than it afforded the Perpetrator a vehicle (no pun intended) to facilitate his ambition. He had fellow profiteers and travelers but in the end full responsibility will rest with him.
Nothing fun about watching that.

 

[Benotti69]

You don't know what you're talking about. There have been many clean riders that did win. Not 7, fraudulent times and not while building the false image of Cancer Diety #1 but there are guys that have won clean. I've seen 'em.
Livestrong and it's subsidiaries was knowingly build on a basis of a self-serving marketing program and has almost nothing to do with the sport other than it afforded the Perpetrator a vehicle (no pun intended) to facilitate his ambition. He had fellow profiteers and travelers but in the end full responsibility will rest with him.
Nothing fun about watching that.

No there is nothing fun about watching a human deceive others on any scale due to playing on their weaknesses and Armstrong has started on the long decline to finding out what it will be like to repulsed for his actions.

It has not been fun watching Armstrong's career since '99 and it will not be fun watching it unravel, it will be pityful.

 

[MarkvW]

No there is nothing fun about watching a human deceive others on any scale due to playing on their weaknesses and Armstrong has started on the long decline to finding out what it will be like to repulsed for his actions.

It has not been fun watching Armstrong's career since '99 and it will not be fun watching it unravel, it will be pityful.

But it's a lot of fun watching the other deceivers in the peloton, isn't it?

 

[thehog]

Gifford has confirmed that he received a 5-page letter from Livestrong legal counsel in relation to the article. Outside will print a reply.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Gifford has confirmed that he received a 5-page letter from Livestrong legal counsel in relation to the article. Outside will print a reply.

Not unexpected. SOP
Should be a doozy...

 

[pmcg76]

But it's a lot of fun watching the other deceivers in the peloton, isn't it?

You lose complete credibility when you constantly try to claim that Armstrong was just another rider doping for win. Really, you serioulsy believe that!!!

This is really simple, Armstrong missed the whole Festina affair, he had been out of the sport for over a year. He placed himself at the head of a cancer charity in his own name. He claimed to represent people who had suffered with or because of cancer, a disease that affects the lives of the vast majority of people around the world in one way or other.

When he returned to cycling he knew exactly what was required to win the Tour. He knew that in order to do what he aimed for, he knew that he would have to cheat and as a result, lie(maybe not to fellow cyclists) to the very people he claimed to represent and for whom he claimed he was riding for.

He knew there would be questions from the start if he achieved what he set out to do. Instead of turning away from all this, he embraced it wholly gambling that the whole cancer thing would in fact prove to be his perfect alibi in refuting the inevitable doping questions and it worked a treat.

I tell you what, spin it whatever way you want but you find me another athlete who set themselves up as the face or representative of a major disease affecting millions all over the world and used it as their raison d'etre to cheat and lie and I will admit that Armstrong is just like Ullrich, Contador or whoever. After all, Lance was doing it for 'them'.

 

[MarkvW]

You lose complete credibility when you constantly try to claim that Armstrong was just another rider doping for win. Really, you serioulsy believe that!!!

This is really simple, Armstrong missed the whole Festina affair, he had been out of the sport for over a year. He placed himself at the head of a cancer charity in his own name. He claimed to represent people who had suffered with or because of cancer, a disease that affects the lives of the vast majority of people around the world in one way or other.

When he returned to cycling he knew exactly what was required to win the Tour. He knew that in order to do what he aimed for, he knew that he would have to cheat and as a result, lie(maybe not to fellow cyclists) to the very people he claimed to represent and for whom he claimed he was riding for.

He knew there would be questions from the start if he achieved what he set out to do. Instead of turning away from all this, he embraced it wholly gambling that the whole cancer thing would in fact prove to be his perfect alibi in refuting the inevitable doping questions and it worked a treat.

I tell you what, spin it whatever way you want but you find me another athlete who set themselves up as the face or representative of a major disease affecting millions all over the world and used it as their raison d'etre to cheat and lie and I will admit that Armstrong is just like Ullrich, Contador or whoever. After all, Lance was doing it for 'them'.

I fully acknowledge that Armstrong was the most effective cheater in the peloton and that he is a loathsome human being. So what?

Armstrong is a product of professional cycling. He is its representative. He is its apotheosis. He is its ideal. And he is a filthy lying cheat. If Armstrong didn't exist. Hein, Pat, and the others would have had to invent him.

Many posters start from the premise that cycling is a fine, noble sport and that Armstrong has sullied the sport. While cycling can be such a noble sport, professional cycling has never been noble. It has always been a dirty contest between cheaters. If Lance changed anything in pro cycling , he changed it by taking cheating to a more organized and scientific level.

If Armstrong hadn't cheated on such a gross, grasping scale, somebody else would have, for sure. And that somebody else would likely have been a Ferrari client (part of the dirty Conconi lineage in dirty pro cycling).

What it probably boils down to is that I'll agree with you on just about all of the Armstrong facts, and I'd probably like to see all the same legal and professional outcomes that you'd like to see. But I'm not going to pretend that Armstrong had any big negative effect on pro cycling. That's nonsense. Procycling was a cesspool before Armstrong and it is a cesspool after him. We can debate forever over how much stink Armstrong added to the sewer, but I don't think it matters at all (except for the fun talking about it).

But the races are fun to watch. I just don't pretend they are anything more than a circus. And it's good to know that Vino never finishes second in a two man breakaway!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I fully acknowledge that Armstrong was the most effective cheater in the peloton and that he is a loathsome human being. So what?

Armstrong is a product of professional cycling. He is its representative. He is its apotheosis. He is its ideal. And he is a filthy lying cheat. If Armstrong didn't exist. Hein, Pat, and the others would have had to invent him.

Many posters start from the premise that cycling is a fine, noble sport and that Armstrong has sullied the sport. While cycling can be such a noble sport, professional cycling has never been noble. It has always been a dirty contest between cheaters. If Lance changed anything in pro cycling , he changed it by taking cheating to a more organized and scientific level.

If Armstrong hadn't cheated on such a gross, grasping scale, somebody else would have, for sure. And that somebody else would likely have been a Ferrari client (part of the dirty Conconi lineage in dirty pro cycling).

What it probably boils down to is that I'll agree with you on just about all of the Armstrong facts, and I'd probably like to see all the same legal and professional outcomes that you'd like to see. But I'm not going to pretend that Armstrong had any big negative effect on pro cycling. That's nonsense. Procycling was a cesspool before Armstrong and it is a cesspool after him. We can debate forever over how much stink Armstrong added to the sewer, but I don't think it matters at all (except for the fun talking about it).

But the races are fun to watch. I just don't pretend they are anything more than a circus. And it's good to know that Vino never finishes second in a two man breakaway!

Mark - can you explain why you didn't have the "So what?" attiude with Joe Papp and the other obvious differences. Thanks
(From this thread)

Sorry! I'm not up for duel (neither swords nor pistols). Insult me until it makes you feel better. Nevertheless, Mr. Papp is not on the up and up. His self-promotion is an attempt to profit from dishonorable behavior.

It is EASY to understand the needle. A rider invests his whole body and soul into the sport, only to discover that success demands chemical assistance. The rider then has a choice to make--a choice that will define him for the remainder of his sporting life--Am I a MAN, or am I a WEASEL.

A man without much in his life (Pantani or Vandenbroucke, for example) can be forgiven for staking everything on a corrupt cycling career. Papp, even with a much lamer career, is much harder to forgive because he was a smart boy with potential. He had (and maybe still has) potential for honest accomplishment.

But Papp still projects himself as an accomplished (self-important) cyclist. He should get past that and work toward a future that acknowledges he was a big lying cheat. THEN he can work toward a future that complements his obvious potential.

As for me, Maserati, I'm just a spectator. I wish I could be a fan, but cheaters preclude that.

 

[thehog]

Mark - can you explain why you didn't have the "So what?" attiude with Joe Papp and the other obvious differences. Thanks
(From this thread)

Well played Sir.

 

[pmcg76]

I fully acknowledge that Armstrong was the most effective cheater in the peloton and that he is a loathsome human being. So what?

Armstrong is a product of professional cycling. He is its representative. He is its apotheosis. He is its ideal. And he is a filthy lying cheat. If Armstrong didn't exist. Hein, Pat, and the others would have had to invent him.

Many posters start from the premise that cycling is a fine, noble sport and that Armstrong has sullied the sport. While cycling can be such a noble sport, professional cycling has never been noble. It has always been a dirty contest between cheaters. If Lance changed anything in pro cycling , he changed it by taking cheating to a more organized and scientific level.

If Armstrong hadn't cheated on such a gross, grasping scale, somebody else would have, for sure. And that somebody else would likely have been a Ferrari client (part of the dirty Conconi lineage in dirty pro cycling).

What it probably boils down to is that I'll agree with you on just about all of the Armstrong facts, and I'd probably like to see all the same legal and professional outcomes that you'd like to see. But I'm not going to pretend that Armstrong had any big negative effect on pro cycling. That's nonsense. Procycling was a cesspool before Armstrong and it is a cesspool after him. We can debate forever over how much stink Armstrong added to the sewer, but I don't think it matters at all (except for the fun talking about it).

But the races are fun to watch. I just don't pretend they are anything more than a circus. And it's good to know that Vino never finishes second in a two man breakaway!

None of what you posted has any relation to what I referring to or are you just deliberately ignoring my point.

It is not the fact that Armstrong doped that I find offensive, it is how he set himself up as a representative of people affected by cancer but then used this position as his cover. No other athlete I am aware of has ever pulled such a morally questionable swindle.

If cancer hadnt happened to Armstrong and he was returning say from a broken leg or something, do you think he would have got such an easy ride in 99(by the media I mean). Do you think he would have been as famous? as rich? Would he have won 7 Tours? I serioulsy doubt. Everything in Armstrongs success is inextricably linked to cancer and how he stage managed that fact to get the media, cycling fans, the general public, the governing bodies and of course the money seekers all on his side.

By highlighting the cancer angle, he put himself into a position that he became more or less untouchable. Armstrong always claimed his main inspiration for returning to the sport was to show those affected by cancer what could be done. After 12 years, do you truly believe this?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

None of what you posted has any relation to what I referring to or are you just deliberately ignoring my point.

It is not the fact that Armstrong doped that I find offensive, it is how he set himself up as a representative of people affected by cancer but then used this position as his cover. No other athlete I am aware of has ever pulled such a morally questionable swindle.

If cancer hadnt happened to Armstrong and he was returning say from a broken leg or something, do you think he would have got such an easy ride in 99(by the media I mean). Do you think he would have been as famous? as rich? Would he have won 7 Tours? I serioulsy doubt. Everything in Armstrongs success is inextricably linked to cancer and how he stage managed that fact to get the media, cycling fans, the general public, the governing bodies and of course the money seekers all on his side.

By highlighting the cancer angle, he put himself into a position that he became more or less untouchable. Armstrong always claimed his main inspiration for returning to the sport was to show those affected by cancer what could be done. After 12 years, do you truly believe this?

Remember this quote from Bill Stapleton of CSE to Texas Monthly in 2001?

"In the beginning we had this brand of brash Texan, interesting European sport, a phenomenon. Then you layered in cancer survivor, which broadened and deepened the brand. But even in 1998 there was very little corporate interest in Lance. And then he won the Tour de France in 1999 and the brand was complete. You layered in family man, hero, comeback of the century, all these things. And then everybody wanted him."

 

[MarkvW]

None of what you posted has any relation to what I referring to or are you just deliberately ignoring my point.

It is not the fact that Armstrong doped that I find offensive, it is how he set himself up as a representative of people affected by cancer but then used this position as his cover. No other athlete I am aware of has ever pulled such a morally questionable swindle.

If cancer hadnt happened to Armstrong and he was returning say from a broken leg or something, do you think he would have got such an easy ride in 99(by the media I mean). Do you think he would have been as famous? as rich? Would he have won 7 Tours? I serioulsy doubt. Everything in Armstrongs success is inextricably linked to cancer and how he stage managed that fact to get the media, cycling fans, the general public, the governing bodies and of course the money seekers all on his side.

By highlighting the cancer angle, he put himself into a position that he became more or less untouchable. Armstrong always claimed his main inspiration for returning to the sport was to show those affected by cancer what could be done. After 12 years, do you truly believe this?

I said that I think I agree with you about what Armstrong did and what should happen to him.

You want to argue that Lance is "worse" than all the other cheaters. Fine. I'll agree that he's worse. But it doesn't matter. Cycling's a cesspool, and why does it matter which sewer smells worse?

 

[pmcg76]

I said that I think I agree with you about what Armstrong did and what should happen to him.

You want to argue that Lance is "worse" than all the other cheaters. Fine. I'll agree that he's worse. But it doesn't matter. Cycling's a cesspool, and why does it matter which sewer smells worse?

Because the Lance charade is so much more that just about cycling, its about the morality of cynically using a horrible disease for self-grandoising for the aim of ego-fulfilment and financial gain.

As I said in my first point, my disdain for Armstrong is not because of his doping, it is more for the morally bankrupt approach to how he done 'business'. I think if you took a poll as to why people want to see Lance exposed, this would be the number one reason, not because he doped in a sport where doping was widespread. You seem to have a problem distinguishing this fact from the everyone dopes mantra.

 

[doolols]

As I said in my first point, my disdain for Armstrong is not because of his doping, it is more for the morally bankrupt approach to how he done 'business'. I think if you took a poll as to why people want to see Lance exposed, this would be the number one reason, not because he doped in a sport where doping was widespread.

Yup. That gets my vote.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Because the Lance charade is so much more that just about cycling, its about the morality of cynically using a horrible disease for self-grandoising for the aim of ego-fulfilment and financial gain.

As I said in my first point, my disdain for Armstrong is not because of his doping, it is more for the morally bankrupt approach to how he done 'business'. I think if you took a poll as to why people want to see Lance exposed, this would be the number one reason, not because he doped in a sport where doping was widespread. You seem to have a problem distinguishing this fact from the everyone dopes mantra.

Exactly.

Seems this needs repeating ad nauseum.

 

[pmcg76]

Yup. That gets my vote.

The problem is that Lance and his people did such a great PR job, it has taken a lot of people a long time to see the reality and indeed most still dont see it, especially the general public who dont follow closely enough to recognise what happened.

I admit to being hoodwinked for a few years myself, I followed Lance's career since before he even turned pro and I was saying WTF when he stormed up Sestriere in 99. Despite Festina happening the year before, the whole feel good vibe drew me in but once the evidence started to build I saw the reality, especially after the Ferrari link. At first I was also of the "well everyone was doping so who cares" but the more that happened(Simeoni-99 EPO samples) the more I saw the whole sordid picture.

I dont care if Lance goes to prison and I find the obsessive lengths people go to on here a little strange at times. I would just like Lance to have a reputation akin to Marion Jones, a great record but someone who people automatically link to doping except with Lance it will hopefully be association with BSing the cancer community also.

 

[MarkvW]

Because the Lance charade is so much more that just about cycling, its about the morality of cynically using a horrible disease for self-grandoising for the aim of ego-fulfilment and financial gain.

As I said in my first point, my disdain for Armstrong is not because of his doping, it is more for the morally bankrupt approach to how he done 'business'. I think if you took a poll as to why people want to see Lance exposed, this would be the number one reason, not because he doped in a sport where doping was widespread. You seem to have a problem distinguishing this fact from the everyone dopes mantra.

I don't think that I have a problem. I'm just focusing on cycling issues on a cycling forum. Lance's cancer career only relates to Lance's moral qualities, and that doesn't have anything to do with his cycling career (unless we're going to start factoring morality points into bike races).

 

[pmcg76]

I don't think that I have a problem. I'm just focusing on cycling issues on a cycling forum. Lance's cancer career only relates to Lance's moral qualities, and that doesn't have anything to do with his cycling career (unless we're going to start factoring morality points into bike races).

LOL X 1,000,000,000,000

You are sinking big-time now. Your whole premise(and a few others) is that Lance is no worse than anyone else who doped in cycling and because of that nobody should really care.

I have simply laid out the facts why a lot of people do care, not because of the doping but because of his whole charade and your response is....

.....Lances cycling career and his cancer are seperate non-related issues.

PATHETIC.....a new low has been reached in scraping the bottom of the barrel methinks.


No seriously, what a joke....the mind truly boggles, Lance's cycling career and his cancer issues are not-related, I think I will still be laughing next year at this one.