Interesting piece on Livestrong

[miloman]

Right.

These people, who have just been handed a horrible scenario and then have solicited their closest friends for contributions, won't mind at all having their misfortune being used to pad someone else's lifestyle.

Oh, sorry, of course you don't understand. You are trying to defend the jet-setting deception.

Dave.

Actually, I for one don't understand the scenario you just presented. Please explain. Do you think that after someone is diagnosed with cancer they are somehow coerced into soliciting their closest friends for contributions to give to LAF?

 

[red_flanders]

I have no interest in defending Armstrong or his actions. In many ways I think he is an incredible cad.

..blah...blah...blah...

Sorry, that's not credible. The fact is that you HAVE BEEN defending him over 50+ pages with nary a shred of anything to back it up and incessantly ignoring verified facts to the contrary of your position.

Your statement above is demonstrably, patently, false.

The only question is why defend and why misrepresent that defense?

 

[D-Queued]

Actually, I for one don't understand the scenario you just presented. Please explain. Do you think that after someone is diagnosed with cancer they are somehow coerced into soliciting their closest friends for contributions to give to LAF?

I'll just go with what he said and stop biting at the trolls. Is there ignore on this forum?

Actually, I for one don't understand the scenario you just presented. Please explain. Do you think that after someone is diagnosed with cancer they are somehow coerced into soliciting their closest friends for contributions to give to LAF?

Dave.

 

[miloman]

Sorry, that's not credible. The fact is that you HAVE BEEN defending him over 50+ pages with nary a shred of anything to back it up and incessantly ignoring verified facts to the contrary of your position.

Your statement above is demonstrably, patently, false.

The only question is why defend and why misrepresent that defense?

I'm not defending "him", I'm simply not allowing unsubstantiated gossip go unchallenged. There are some who I suspect believe if they repeat the same unverified information enough in this forum, it will then be accepted as fact. I am just trying to keep things fair and balanced. If you say Armstrong owns a jet and flies everywhere on the charity’s dime then prove it. Otherwise, state it as conjecture. It may be true, but without corroboration you can’t hold it up as anything more than a possibility; and I will offer other, alternative possibilities as well. Use facts to prove Armstrong is all that you say he is and I will remain silent and perhaps convinced. He doesn’t deserve a pass, but by the same token, neither does Landis or any of the other antagonists in this drama.

 

[TubularBills]

Use facts to prove Armstrong is all that you say he is and I will remain silent and perhaps convinced. He doesn’t deserve a pass, but by the same token, neither does Landis or any of the other antagonists in this drama.

If you were to expand on the bold with some substantiated evidence, you might gain some credibility.

 

[D-Queued]

If you were to expand on the bold with some substantiated evidence, you might gain some credibility.

He's not worried about credibility.

When this is all over, and Lance is covered in his own dirt, Milo has a tell-all book deal planned. He will unveil how he was a paid dirty-ops hack who helped spearhed the BS campaign and will walk away a rich man.

He's got it all covered.

Dave.

 

[Ferminal]

Use facts to prove Armstrong is all that you say he is and I will remain silent and perhaps convinced. He doesn’t deserve a pass, but by the same token, neither does Landis or any of the other antagonists in this drama.

This has been repeated to a great extent, in many different topics. Go back through some of the bigger topics in this forum (and the OFFICIAL LANCE ARMSTRONG 2010 in the main forum) to see these discussions.

Just off the top of my head I know of "Armstrong's Lies" and "Why do you all dislike Lance?" etc.

I think you are misguided in thinking that LIVESTRONG is the basis of most people's dislike for LA, it's merely a side issue and just another +1 reason to not defend the fellow. It seems to me that you are trying to make a general point, yet are only focusing on a very small issue, relatively speaking. Likewise, the idea that Lance should not be criticised because the 2006 TdF "winner" was also deceitful (until 6 months ago) is a diversion and completely irrelevant to one's treatment of LA.

 

[red_flanders]

I'm not defending "him", I'm simply not allowing unsubstantiated gossip go unchallenged.

So you run around the internet disputing "unsubstantiated gossip" in all forms, wherever you think it's happening? No, you just do it with Armstrong. That means, just in case you can't grock it, that you're defending him.

Most of what you dispute in this thread has in fact been substantiated (contrary to your claims) and that fact easily verifiable by looking at the bulk of this thread. It is in fact YOUR claims which are almost without exception unsubstantiated, and that you have absolutely failed to answer the vast bulk of substantive, confirmed facts presented to you in direct opposition to your position. Doublespeak. Misdirection. Blatant falsehoods.

Your statements are again, demonstrably, patently, false.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm not defending "him", I'm simply not allowing unsubstantiated gossip go unchallenged. There are some who I suspect believe if they repeat the same unverified information enough in this forum, it will then be accepted as fact. I am just trying to keep things fair and balanced. If you say Armstrong owns a jet and flies everywhere on the charity’s dime then prove it. Otherwise, state it as conjecture. It may be true, but without corroboration you can’t hold it up as anything more than a possibility; and I will offer other, alternative possibilities as well. Use facts to prove Armstrong is all that you say he is and I will remain silent and perhaps convinced. He doesn’t deserve a pass, but by the same token, neither does Landis or any of the other antagonists in this drama.

You know, if you took out the highlighted I probably would have been crying all over my keyboard at your nobility, objectivity and your ability to maintain such stringent standards.

Instead the tears were from laughter - as the only person you have (attempted to) give these high standards to is Armstrong.

 

[Anonymous]

Why you guys are engaging this troll is beyond me. The way to answer a troll is to troll them back. When you answer with substance, the troll wins. This is the same old BPC we have always had, and somehow you guys think you will bring him around?

Troll the troll, and nothing else.

 

[BroDeal]

Why you guys are engaging this troll is beyond me. The way to answer a troll is to troll them back. When you answer with substance, the troll wins. This is the same old BPC we have always had, and somehow you guys think you will bring him around?

Yeah, it is frustrating. It is why threads like this turn to crap. It is allowed to go on and on and on until he finally wigs out and goes full ***. After bannishment, it begins again. How freaking hard is it to figure out what he is doing and stop responding to him?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Why you guys are engaging this troll is beyond me. The way to answer a troll is to troll them back. When you answer with substance, the troll wins. This is the same old BPC we have always had, and somehow you guys think you will bring him around?

Troll the troll, and nothing else.

Yeah, it is frustrating. It is why threads like this turn to crap. It is allowed to go on and on and on until he finally wigs out and goes full ***. After bannishment, it begins again. How freaking hard is it to figure out what he is doing and stop responding to him?

Why?

I enjoy engaging these guys - its easy to prove their claims are wrong and more importantly every time I go digging in to LAs history I find a few nuggets of gold.

This is the opposite of what they want, so they should be thanked for their contribution in continuing to expose and highlight the fraud.

(Also Miloman is not BPC)

 

[miloman]

Why?

I enjoy engaging these guys - its easy to prove their claims are wrong and more importantly every time I go digging in to LAs history I find a few nuggets of gold.

This is the opposite of what they want, so they should be thanked for their contribution in continuing to expose and highlight the fraud.

(Also Miloman is not BPC)

Nope, not BPC just a person who thinks that the rules should be applied fairly to all concerned. Based on what has been posted on the “whisper” thread, it appears we may finally have some “real” facts to discuss/debate. It will be refreshing to have something more than opinion and conjecture to go on. I for one am anxiously awaiting it. Just to set the record straight, I think most of your arguments make plausible sense, but without corroboration, I can only say “yes”, it could have happened that way but it wouldn’t be information I would be comfortable citing as fact; especially when there is the potential for so much collateral damage to innocent people. Until next time, have a Happy Holiday Doc!

 

[D-Queued]

... it appears we may finally have some “real” facts to discuss/debate. ...

There are already so many facts that Novitzky is going to need a front-end loader to manage them.

There are so many facts that if you are being paid good cash to try and smother them, you will end up richer than Lance.

The facts go all the way (minimally) back to (the alleged) paying off of competitors in the $1m Triple Crown Core States Challenge in 1993. In fact, it probably goes further back than that since that was rather a big jump-start.

Dave.

 

[miloman]

Really, why would you care? I thought you weren't a "fan"?

Much of what will be presented will be information we have been discussing here over the past number of months. - but it will be nice to have it corroborated by an independent publisher.

EXACTLY, corroboration is the key! No more conjecture and opinion!!!!!

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Coming your way, I'm wearing my hip waders in anticipation of what you might add! It may get messy, but it won’t be dull. Who knows, we may end up on the same side on this one; you never know. Have a good Holiday!

Let the backpeddling commence (continue)....

 

[Dr. Maserati]

EXACTLY, corroboration is the key! No more conjecture and opinion!!!!!

What have you ever corroborated?

It appears your exacting standards (that you don't uphold) are not suited for a public forum - why keep upsetting yourself by coming here?

 

[miloman]

There are already so many facts that Novitzky is going to need a front-end loader to manage them.

There are so many facts that if you are being paid good cash to try and smother them, you will end up richer than Lance.

The facts go all the way (minimally) back to (the alleged) paying off of competitors in the $1m Triple Crown Core States Challenge in 1993. In fact, it probably goes further back than that since that was rather a big jump-start.

Dave.

The peloton has been doing that kind of stuff, well forever! Letting riders win races or stages with promises of help later is as old as the sport I'm afraid. That really doesn’t shock me. Remember the Mont Ventoux stage that Lance claims he gave to Pantani? (I will admit to being biased; I am a big Pantani fan so I find that hard to swallow). A detailed account will still be interesting!

 

[miloman]

What have you ever corroborated?

It appears your exacting standards (that you don't uphold) are not suited for a public forum - why keep upsetting yourself by coming here?

I cite, you cite, we all cite. Difference being, I state up front that something is an opinion or conjecture. You may want to consider starting a sentence off with “In my opinion” once in a while. You have valid opinions, but when you cross the line and offer them up as the “only” explanation is when I take issue.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I cite, you cite, we all cite. Difference being, I state up front that something is an opinion or conjecture. You may want to consider starting a sentence off with “In my opinion” once in a while. You have valid opinions, but when you cross the line and offer them up as the “only” explanation is when I take issue.

I asked where you had corroborated something? So where?

I often use the term (IMO) when I am expressing an opinion, and back up what I say with links for much of what I write.
When was the last time you offered a link to something?

 

[miloman]

I asked where you had corroborated something? So where?

I often use the term (IMO) when I am expressing an opinion, and back up what I say with links for much of what I write.
When was the last time you offered a link to something?

Post 481. Between offering my opinion, and clearly stating that it was my opinion, and asking others for proof of their so called facts, I haven't had the need to cite much.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Post 481. Between offering my opinion, and clearly stating that it was my opinion, and asking others for proof of their so called facts, I haven't had the need to cite much.

Post 481? Which was a link that proved what exactly....?

But since you are in the mood for answering questions - you can start with some of the ones that you ignored before.

If you feel Floyd should pay back all who gave to the FFF and he should give the rest to charity - can you confirm that the same applies to Armstrong shoud he be shown to be a fraud?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Post 481? Which was a link that proved what exactly....?

But since you are in the mood for answering questions - you can start with some of the ones that you ignored before.

If you feel Floyd should pay back all who gave to the FFF and he should give the rest to charity - can you confirm that the same applies to Armstrong shoud he be shown to be a fraud?

Oh yeah post 481, that was where he was able to prove with a link that the Global Cancer Summit actually did take place in Dublin.

 

[BroDeal]

I enjoy engaging these guys - its easy to prove their claims are wrong and more importantly every time I go digging in to LAs history I find a few nuggets of gold.

This is the opposite of what they want, so they should be thanked for their contribution in continuing to expose and highlight the fraud.

Th end result is that when anyone opens the end of a thread, they are presented with page after page after page after page after page of this idiot's clearly baiting posts and people's responses to him. No one can ignore him because you insist on reponding to every one of his god damned posts. It is just not worth wading through buckets of crap to find the few worthwhile kernels of corn in the thread, which is exactly his goal.

This is all made worse by the mods new "let all play nice" policies, which amount to, "You are free to troll, but we will step in if anyone tells you what they think of you."

What the forum software should have is a way for moderators to mark certain threads so that no on can posts more than twice a day to marked threads.

 

[D-Queued]

The peloton has been doing that kind of stuff, well forever! ...

Thank you for confirming and corroborating.

You might want to consider, however, that the Triple Crown was like the SCA case. In a typical race, there is a prize list and it is a given that someone in the race will win the prize. If they are disqualified, cheat, or otherwise pursue a fraudulent act, there will still be a winner.

A fraud is committed, but someone still wins the race and the payout is the same.

This is Sport fraud.

In the case of the Triple Crown, this is not the situation. Like SCA and the manipulatable hole-in-one-contract, a fraud is perpetrated that is more akin to a bank heist. If not for the fraud, the money would still be in the bank.

This is fraud.

What have you ever corroborated?

...

He just confirmed Lance is a recidivist fraud perpetrator - indirectly with the Triple Crown, directly with the Pantani stage.

Post 481. ....

And now Post 559.

I asked where you had corroborated something? So where?

I often use the term (IMO) when I am expressing an opinion, and back up what I say with links for much of what I write.
When was the last time you offered a link to something?

Nope, he didn't use IMO or anything else to qualify his confirmation of Lance perpetrating fraud. Thus, his confirmation is unequivocal.

Thanks Milo.

Dave.