Interesting piece on Livestrong

[D-Queued]

Isn't that the standard of proof the grand jury will use on Armstrong, too?

Let's see how Milo twists that around.

Dave.

 

[Ferminal]

The thread was supposedly about Armstrong’s charity. Thanks for the encouragement by the way. Regardless, I will state it again as I said in the previous post: ". . . Yes, you do the crime, you do the time"; that holds for Armstrong, LAF anyone! That is my opinion!

Really?

I thought this thread was about Floyd too, or about the supposed lack of detail regarding LA's misdemeanours. Of course you just change it depending on what comments you are trying to avoid.

 

[miloman]

Let's see how Milo twists that around.

Dave.

I have no idea, I am not privy to how the grand jury is approaching their case, and does anyone here purport to know? If so, I would like know where they got their information. There is an old saying and it goes like this “ . . . the likelihood of someone being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity that others are trying to prove him wrong!” We will see what comes down, when it comes down. Everyone, have a Happy Holiday and Happy New Year, I’m out!!!!

 

[D-Queued]

Really?

I thought this thread was about Floyd too, or about the supposed lack of detail regarding LA's misdemeanours. Of course you just change it depending on what comments you are trying to avoid.

The tactic is called 'smother'. It was a primary strategy during the Floyd affair.

Inside Spin is the first behind the scenes investigation of the billion dollar a year Australian PR industry. Bob Burton illuminates the hardball and soft tactics used by PR companies to smother dissenting viewpoints

Example: Toyota - claim it didn't happen

a great example of how a powerful public relations teams, with the weight of advertising dollars behind them, are able to smother news that the public really needs to know

Remind you of anyone on this thread?

Dave.

 

[poupou]

Let’s bring this back to cycling. Tyler Hamilton has an Olympic medal. That is a fact. As best as I can recall the story, his sample came back showing a non-negative analytical finding. As I understand it, the rules called for testing of the “B” sample to confirm the non-negative finding. Unfortunately, the “B” sample was stored improperly so no testing could be done. Tyler was allowed to keep his medal. You may have a strong opinion about his guilt or innocence, but the fact remains he still has his medal and name is in the Olympic records. To say anything different would be inaccurate. You can say he got away with cheating and perhaps he did, but it is only your opinion and without the “B” sample and due process you can’t say it is a fact.

So goes the debate with LAF. Without facts, it's just an educated guess or someone's personal opinion.

Fact is that Hamilton's A sample was positive.
Fact is that B sample could not be tested.

Conclusion is that there is a high probability that Hamilton doped.

 

[D-Queued]

Fact is that Hamilton's A sample was positive.
Fact is that B sample could not be tested.

Conclusion is that there is a high probability that Hamilton doped.
...

Conclusion: Another off-topic wild goose chase.

The example of Tyler is why we don't need and shouldn't have the A/B test.

The best application will be the 1999 samples, which will put Livestrong in context as a fraud. It's not about the bike and it's not about charity either. It's about me me me.

Dave.

 

[Ferminal]

Fact is that Hamilton's A sample was positive.
Fact is that B sample could not be tested.

Yeh

Fact is if someone actually believes Tyler (or Floyd for that matter) were not doping then they are in no position to discuss the trials and tribulations of LA as clearly their judgement is way wide of the mark even when faced with a level of information which can only bring about one conclusion (in the rational mind).

To me, this whole thread is just a roundabout way of the old "Innocent until proven guilty in a COURT OF LAW, therefore we must reserve judgement until then"... the classic diversion to avoid all details provided, unfortunately if you hold such a view there's no point in discussion, as such a view is immovable. If one holds that view its best to make their point and then leave the discussion of the details to those who are interested in it.

 

[patricknd]

OJ was found guilty:

Simpson guilty

OJ was also had a judgment of wrongful death, lost an appeal, and failed a lie detector test.

On February 5, 1997, a jury unanimously found there was a preponderance of evidence to hold Simpson liable for damages in the wrongful death of Goldman and battery of Brown.[10] On February 21, 2008, a Los Angeles court upheld a renewal of the civil judgment against him

Go ahead, Milo, keep obfuscating reality and creating new facts.

Dave.

who's obfuscating reality? the reality is that o.j. simpson was aquitted on the murder charges.

 

[patricknd]

Conclusion: Another off-topic wild goose chase.

The example of Tyler is why we don't need and shouldn't have the A/B test.

The best application will be the 1999 samples, which will put Livestrong in context as a fraud. It's not about the bike and it's not about charity either. It's about me me me.

Dave.

we should probably get rid of those pesky rules regarding testing standards, handling of samples and all that nonsense. that'll show those dopers we're serious.

 

[Hugh Januss]

who's obfuscating reality? the reality is that o.j. simpson was aquitted on the murder charges.

And the other reality is he murdered two people. So it is all in how you word it.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

Exactly.

I had hoped that when I came back tonight, and logged on to check, everyone would have just stopped addressing this idiot. Alas, my hopes were dashed yet again.

Take it from someone who has trolled the living hell out of Armstrong friendly sites, you are all just feeding him what he wants. He has you guys on a string, and you won't stop to see it.

Well, keep up the madness and the troll will keep winning. Its his game, and you guys are his mark. Have fun...

 

[guilder]

Maybe troll should be better defined because it sure doesn't make sense as 'anyone with a minority opinion'.

 

[kurtinsc]

Which links are these and why not just post them?

I don't read cycling magazines anymore but this post (153) about the Tour of Ireland said:


This ties in with my earlier link showing how the TOI went from a 5 day to a 3day to accommodate LAs appearance fee.

I know I'm way late and this thread continues moving in a wide array of directions, but here's what I get from google when I type in "Armstrong appearance fee ireland"

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/2010-tour-of-ireland-cancelled

"Seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong competed in the race, but the organizers denied that he had been paid a fee to do so."

All the other hits seem to be related to the Tour of Australia, blog posts... and this thread.

I'm not saying he didn't get fees from Ireland or mexico... I'm just wondering what evidence is out there showing he did. Just because livestrong events are scheduled around races, doesn't necessarily prove he's getting paid by the races and he's using the LAF to fund his travel.

It could mean (in the case of Ireland) the LAF wants his participation so rather then pay his way to a different location they scheduled their event in a location he'd be at anyway. Note that Hog's information seemed to indicate that Lance's travel was NOT paid by the LAF to the Dublin conference (not that I trust Hog's info that much... but some here do.) Other than blogs/message boards, I can't find anything indicating he did take a fee from Ireland. I'm not sure a message board poster referencing a hard copy cycling article that apparently has little or no trace on the internet is more reliable then a public statement by the officials running the event reported by a cycling website. Considering how much is available about the Australia fee... you'd think we'd see something confirming it for Ireland... when it may have contributed to the death of the race.

It could also mean (in the case of Mexico) that if he WASN'T paid to do a meet and greet at the race, his showing up was just drawing attention to the LAF meeting while he was in town.

And again... note that I'm NOT claiming either of these was the case. I have no way of knowing. I just question if others posting things as a given have any way of knowing either. It seems that any correlation is assumed to be the cause for many here... in whatever way that implicates Lance or the LAF the most. That MAY be true. But it also may not. I don't think there's nearly enough evidence for the majority of the conclusions most on this thread have seemed to have reached regarding how much the LAF funnels money to Lance.

 

[BotanyBay]

I'm not saying he didn't get fees from Ireland or mexico... I'm just wondering what evidence is out there showing he did. Just because livestrong events are scheduled around races, doesn't necessarily prove he's getting paid by the races and he's using the LAF to fund his travel.

Sorry.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Sorry.

I hate it when the company filter blocks image’s.

 

[pmcg76]

I know I'm way late and this thread continues moving in a wide array of directions, but here's what I get from google when I type in "Armstrong appearance fee ireland"

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/2010-tour-of-ireland-cancelled

"Seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong competed in the race, but the organizers denied that he had been paid a fee to do so."

All the other hits seem to be related to the Tour of Australia, blog posts... and this thread.

I'm not saying he didn't get fees from Ireland or mexico... I'm just wondering what evidence is out there showing he did. Just because livestrong events are scheduled around races, doesn't necessarily prove he's getting paid by the races and he's using the LAF to fund his travel.

It could mean (in the case of Ireland) the LAF wants his participation so rather then pay his way to a different location they scheduled their event in a location he'd be at anyway. Note that Hog's information seemed to indicate that Lance's travel was NOT paid by the LAF to the Dublin conference (not that I trust Hog's info that much... but some here do.) Other than blogs/message boards, I can't find anything indicating he did take a fee from Ireland. I'm not sure a message board poster referencing a hard copy cycling article that apparently has little or no trace on the internet is more reliable then a public statement by the officials running the event reported by a cycling website. Considering how much is available about the Australia fee... you'd think we'd see something confirming it for Ireland... when it may have contributed to the death of the race.

It could also mean (in the case of Mexico) that if he WASN'T paid to do a meet and greet at the race, his showing up was just drawing attention to the LAF meeting while he was in town.

And again... note that I'm NOT claiming either of these was the case. I have no way of knowing. I just question if others posting things as a given have any way of knowing either. It seems that any correlation is assumed to be the cause for many here... in whatever way that implicates Lance or the LAF the most. That MAY be true. But it also may not. I don't think there's nearly enough evidence for the majority of the conclusions most on this thread have seemed to have reached regarding how much the LAF funnels money to Lance.

You are right, there was little to no info on the appearence in the public domain, but race organiser McQuaid(cant remember which one)admitted to Cycle Sport that they paid out the "equivilant of many 100s pints of Guinness to secure Armstrong". Oct or Nov edition of Cycle Sport, not sure which.

I read somehwere budget of TOI was 1.2-1.5million euros, so each day costs about 250,000 approx. How much do people reckon Lance charged for appearing and dropping out of a 3 day race?

If you want to go the whole hog on conspiracy and speculate that he was looking for what he was rumoured to get for Oz, then it would explain why the race got cancelled this year. Maybe the organisers gambled his appearence would attract more sponsors for this year.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I know I'm way late and this thread continues moving in a wide array of directions, but here's what I get from google when I type in "Armstrong appearance fee ireland"

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/2010-tour-of-ireland-cancelled

"Seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong competed in the race, but the organizers denied that he had been paid a fee to do so."

All the other hits seem to be related to the Tour of Australia, blog posts... and this thread.

I'm not saying he didn't get fees from Ireland or mexico... I'm just wondering what evidence is out there showing he did. Just because livestrong events are scheduled around races, doesn't necessarily prove he's getting paid by the races and he's using the LAF to fund his travel.

It could mean (in the case of Ireland) the LAF wants his participation so rather then pay his way to a different location they scheduled their event in a location he'd be at anyway. Note that Hog's information seemed to indicate that Lance's travel was NOT paid by the LAF to the Dublin conference (not that I trust Hog's info that much... but some here do.) Other than blogs/message boards, I can't find anything indicating he did take a fee from Ireland. I'm not sure a message board poster referencing a hard copy cycling article that apparently has little or no trace on the internet is more reliable then a public statement by the officials running the event reported by a cycling website. Considering how much is available about the Australia fee... you'd think we'd see something confirming it for Ireland... when it may have contributed to the death of the race.

It could also mean (in the case of Mexico) that if he WASN'T paid to do a meet and greet at the race, his showing up was just drawing attention to the LAF meeting while he was in town.

And again... note that I'm NOT claiming either of these was the case. I have no way of knowing. I just question if others posting things as a given have any way of knowing either. It seems that any correlation is assumed to be the cause for many here... in whatever way that implicates Lance or the LAF the most. That MAY be true. But it also may not. I don't think there's nearly enough evidence for the majority of the conclusions most on this thread have seemed to have reached regarding how much the LAF funnels money to Lance.

The Cyclesport piece quoted McQuaid - while Shanes Stokes CN piece does not even mention the name of the organizer, but I will check in to it.

As for Mexico - no I have not seen anything mentioned about LA getting a payment, however as he gets paid between $120k & $150k for speaking engagements I cannot see LA going to an event in Mexico for the good of his health.

The only reason we know about the Australia payment is because it was public money and the Italian payment because LA upset Zomergan and the Italian media after the neutalized stage in Milan.

Has anyone got that copy of CycleSport to show the piece quoted? A scan or a photo taken by digital camera or phone will do.

 

[pmcg76]

"McQuaid admitted it had cost him the equivilant of many thousands of pints of Guinness to get Armstrong"
Cycle Sport November 2009

So I was wrong when I said 100s of pints of Guinness, it was 1000s which in Irelands means big, big bucks.

Rescanning that article, it seems that McQuaid convinced Armstrong to have his Cancer summit in Dublin(by shelling out the big bucks) and that the organisers where happy with the outcome as the race featured on Eurosport. In summary, they sacrificed the race for a bit more exposure so it was a gamble.

 

[Digger]

"McQuaid admitted it had cost him the equivilant of many thousands of pints of Guinness to get Armstrong"
Cycle Sport November 2009

So I was wrong when I said 100s of pints of Guinness, it was 1000s which in Irelands means big, big bucks.

Rescanning that article, it seems that McQuaid convinced Armstrong to have his Cancer summit in Dublin(by shelling out the big bucks) and that the organisers where happy with the outcome as the race featured on Eurosport. In summary, they sacrificed the race for a bit more exposure so it was a gamble.

Yes it went from a five day race to a three day race - amazingly, for economic reasons, especially considering it cost the equivalent of many thousands of pints of Guinness to secure Lance's appearance. He also b****ed and moaned the whole three days and got off his bike at the start of the criterium part of the final stage. Spreading cancer awareness my f***ing a**.

 

[BotanyBay]

You are right, there was little to no info on the appearence in the public domain, but race organiser McQuaid(cant remember which one)admitted to Cycle Sport that they paid out the "equivilant of many 100s pints of Guinness to secure Armstrong". Oct or Nov edition of Cycle Sport, not sure which.

This is where I get so ****ed-off at guys like McQuaid. I'm no genius, but I read articles. And I remember what I read. Apparently I remember these details for decades. And so do many others.

I get ****ed because McQuaid can't remember his own lies as well as I can remember his quotes from what seemed like totally random articles, years ago. I hate it when he assumes everyone is crazy or an idiot.

 

[kurtinsc]

I hate it when the company filter blocks image’s.

Mine too. But I'm assuming it was something insulting.

 

[kurtinsc]

"McQuaid admitted it had cost him the equivilant of many thousands of pints of Guinness to get Armstrong"
Cycle Sport November 2009

So I was wrong when I said 100s of pints of Guinness, it was 1000s which in Irelands means big, big bucks.

Rescanning that article, it seems that McQuaid convinced Armstrong to have his Cancer summit in Dublin(by shelling out the big bucks) and that the organisers where happy with the outcome as the race featured on Eurosport. In summary, they sacrificed the race for a bit more exposure so it was a gamble.

I'll take your word that it's there... but I'm amazed that at this point any piece of legitimate print journalism doesn't leave some sort of electronic footprint.

Can we seriously not find a link for this?

 

[pmcg76]

This is where I get so ****ed-off at guys like McQuaid. I'm no genius, but I read articles. And I remember what I read. Apparently I remember these details for decades. And so do many others.

I get ****ed because McQuaid can't remember his own lies as well as I can remember his quotes from what seemed like totally random articles, years ago. I hate it when he assumes everyone is crazy or an idiot.

Just to clarify, the source of the quote was Darach McQuaid, not Pat. All the McQuaids know the score but play the game. See no evil, hear no evil. Definitely on the side of Armstrong.

Remember Andrew McQuaids twitter comment on those who were criticising Graham Watson's comments on LeMond. Lo and behold, whose company was promotings Watson's exhibition at the Worlds in Melbourne, thats right Andrew McQuaid.

 

[kurtinsc]

I'll take your word that it's there... but I'm amazed that at this point any piece of legitimate print journalism doesn't leave some sort of electronic footprint.

Can we seriously not find a link for this?

Here's what I've found:

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/398880/new-cycle-sport-on-sale-this-week.html

The only reference as to what's in the magazine that would refer to the tour of ireland was:

"Tour of Ireland pictoral special"


Was the quote a caption of a picture? Was there any frame of reference or just the quote?

 

[pmcg76]

I'll take your word that it's there... but I'm amazed that at this point any piece of legitimate print journalism doesn't leave some sort of electronic footprint.

Can we seriously not find a link for this?

Sorry, I cannot scan and not going to the hassle of taking a photo etc. Page 86, November 09, article by Stephen Farrand called 'Armstrong in Ireland, the changing face of a champion'.

Pat McQuaid is quoted in the article eugolising over Armstrong as usual.

"He's got a huge amount out of cycling, but now hes prepared to put it back in and help the sport"

Only if the price is right of course.