• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Mens Journal article

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 25, 2009
332
0
0
Visit site
This guy really did a superb job. Some of the details he included are impressive:

Carmichael's doping members of the Junior National Team and his settlement - I can't recall ever seeing that covered before outside a message board.

Actual relevant lines from SCA trial testimony - rare for a US article to point out how bold his lies are.

Including Hincapie and Ferrari in the grid of "dirty" associates.

Can't wait until the electronic version comes out so it can be sent around the net.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
the article is pretty much a compilation of the previously known facts but rearranged so that a layman can’t escape an undeniable conclusion - armstrong doped, lied about it and perpetrated doping on his team. as clear as b & w.

i liked the denouncing of the charade with catlin upon texas un-retirement. liked them quoting catlin that testing negative proves 'exactly nothing' and an explanation why.

if there was anything new, it was the first public reference i read about the 8 positive tests.

i also thought they could have done a better job at refuting vrijman’s nonsense. there is a wealth of proof that it was the uci's coverup


good job overall even if slightly belated !
 
Jul 29, 2010
431
0
0
Visit site
flicker said:
Super. The people on the forum get their info from mens journal. What next, info on cycling from GQ?


Journalism is journalism. It is up to the reader to determine whether it is objective, or whether it is BIASED.

Some "news" outlets have a vested interest in the health and public image of cycling. Particularly, outlets which are FREE to read online, but generate their revenue via PAID ADVERTISEMENTS.

You don't need to be a genius to figure this out, but for example you might ask yourself whether Velonews or CYCLINGNEWS do any real critical reporting or investigative journalism in the area of cycling and its doping problem.

For example, the Floyd allegations rocked the cycling world and are the biggest story in decades. You'd think these online publications would be fighting over each other to get an "exclusive" interview with him, right? Or perhaps an exclusive in-depth interview w/ Bruyneel? :rolleyes:

You could ask yourself whether these publications are worried about "access" to the sports' stars and key players. If so, does this explain their puff-ball reporting style when it comes to matters of doping??

Or....you could just poo-poo the fact that journalists OUTSIDE the world of cycling do the real reporting on the sport. My guess is you'll stick w/ that approach.
 
Jul 17, 2009
4,316
2
0
Visit site
NashbarShorts said:
Journalism is journalism. It is up to the reader to determine whether it is objective, or whether it is BIASED.

Some "news" outlets have a vested interest in the health and public image of cycling. Particularly, outlets which are FREE to read online, but generate their revenue via PAID ADVERTISEMENTS.

You don't need to be a genius to figure this out, but for example you might ask yourself whether Velonews or CYCLINGNEWS do any real critical reporting or investigative journalism in the area of cycling and its doping problem.

For example, the Floyd allegations rocked the cycling world and are the biggest story in decades. You'd think these online publications would be fighting over each other to get an "exclusive" interview with him, right? Or perhaps an exclusive in-depth interview w/ Bruyneel? :rolleyes:

You could ask yourself whether these publications are worried about "access" to the sports' stars and key players. If so, does this explain their puff-ball reporting style when it comes to matters of doping??

Or....you could just poo-poo the fact that journalists OUTSIDE the world of cycling do the real reporting on the sport. My guess is you'll stick w/ that approach.

NashbarShorts are better than Performance shorts for sure

Dude you hit it out of the park, again

word to your shammy
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Visit site
I will have to buy the magazine and read the article. I encourage people who support the idea of anti-doping or are interested in the article to buy it. Even though I imagine everyone here knows what has been written in Mj it is good to support the advertisers. I buy Velo-news and Pro-cycling, to support the sponsors. Also for the fotos. Some of the old stories are good too.
I imagine the main stream cycling mags would rather not carry stories that paint the dark side of cycling. Let me add that whatever they say about Lance and crew goes across the board in cycling and other pro and olympic sports.
As a sports fan I watched the Giants because I grew up in SF. I followed the Giants through Barry Bonds. Loved the guy, I also subliminally knew he doped. I did not like that but I figured all the big sluggers and awesome pitchers doped. It is part of the game. When the Eastern block killed it every 4 years in the Olympics (they were pros) I saw what sports were about. When the USA women track olympians were busted for doping and fought the tests in court I was not surprised. I had been jaded on the honesty of sports long before. Lance is no different. Lance is carrying on the pro-cycling tradition.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
SSDD SSDD SSDD SSDD
Yawn. Nothing new here for the cycling fan. Same old stuff.

Not that the stuff is not true. It is true.
But the general non-cycling public does not care terribly.

That public will NOT grab torches and join the haters in the Witch Hunt.

Mens Journal, WSJ, NYTimes, USA Today.
Lots and lots of articles. Every week a new one.
But never any traction.
The truth is out there - but who cares?
Where is the outrage?

And if there is an indictment - watch out for the Back Lash.
"Who cares if he doped" will be the rallying call.
Will knock the anti-doping gang off their feet.
Will disappoint and anger the haters to no end.

Why?
Because "The Fight for Clean Sports" is nowhere near as important as the Fight Against Cancer.

No Telethons or Fundraisers or Foundations for "Clean Sports"

Really, some of you guys need to spend some quiet time in the Total Perspective Vortex. Have some sense of proportion.
 
flicker said:
I will buy the magazine. I imagine they are painting an ugly picture of Armstrong. I will read the article. I do not take glee in hating, to much of that in the world. I will make a sober evaluation of the article.
give up the hate guys. If Lance is half as bad as you folks say he will get his just deserts in spades. Just don't hate. To much of that in the world.

Don't you presume to TELL me what I'm doing,
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Visit site
flicker said:
As a sports fan I watched the Giants because I grew up in SF. I followed the Giants through Barry Bonds. Loved the guy, I also subliminally knew he doped. I did not like that but I figured all the big sluggers and awesome pitchers doped. It is part of the game. When the Eastern block killed it every 4 years in the Olympics (they were pros) I saw what sports were about. When the USA women track olympians were busted for doping and fought the tests in court I was not surprised. I had been jaded on the honesty of sports long before. Lance is no different. Lance is carrying on the pro-cycling tradition.

What a difference three months of press coverage rehashing "old news" can make. Now even the long term supporters are no longer trying deny the fact that Lance is a doper. The new defense is that he's just another doper. But ask yourself how many other pro athletes (any sport) have accomplished the following:

1. Used a sponsor's money to forcefully deny in a TV commercial that he did not dope. "What am I on?"

2. Used images of sick cancer patients in another TV commercial, paid for by a commercial sponsor, to shame those who dare to think he's a doper.

3. Took a private $5M insurance policy to increase his winning pot from TdF - knowing the policy issuers work off probabilities and knew nothing about the secret sauces to make it happen. Doped his team as well to help ensure the money was his.

4. Lied under oath when challenged about the legitimacy of his victory.

5. Signed a contract with a US government entity for a $10M / year sponsorship, with anti-doping clauses - with synthetic testosterone in his body while holding the signature pen (methaphorically speaking).

6. Bribed domestic and international sports governing bodies to hide positive tests, to give him advance warnings about "surprise" doping tests and to get public support for any negative insinuations about him.

7. Sued anyone and everyone at the first sign of someone daring to speak against him. Intimidated, threatened others.

8. Founded a cancer charity to give his illicit activities moral and political cover, yet contributed nothing except his own image and name to the good cause. The principal function of the charity is about "awareness" - or shall we say "Lance Armstrong does good for cancer" awareness, making him more marketable to his commercial sponsors.

9. Kept making money on the side, requiring charity event organizers to enrich both his own pocketbook with speaker and appearance fees in addition to donating to the foundation. Livestrong.org, Livestrong.com - which one's which?

10. Quite likely caused his own cancer by taking PEDs, yet restocked the first moment he was cured. Responsible athlete: "PEDs may cause cancer". Lance's version: "It's not about the bike - I ride to help cure the world of cancer".

Can you think of anyone else with the same level of deceit, fraud and public manipulation? Barry Bonds - no. Marion Jones - no. Tyler Hamilton - no. This case is unique, and will make a terrific story for a bestseller book one day. You plan to buy that one too? To support the cause so to speak?
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Visit site
Tubeless said:
What a difference three months of press coverage rehashing "old news" can make. Now even the long term supporters are no longer trying deny the fact that Lance is a doper. The new defense is that he's just another doper. But ask yourself how many other pro athletes (any sport) have accomplished the following:

1. Used a sponsor's money to forcefully deny in a TV commercial that he did not dope. "What am I on?"

2. Used images of sick cancer patients in another TV commercial, paid for by a commercial sponsor, to shame those who dare to think he's a doper.

3. Took a private $5M insurance policy to increase his winning pot from TdF - knowing the policy issuers work off probabilities and knew nothing about the secret sauces to make it happen. Doped his team as well to help ensure the money was his.

4. Lied under oath when challenged about the legitimacy of his victory.

5. Signed a contract with a US government entity for a $10M / year sponsorship, with anti-doping clauses - with synthetic testosterone in his body while holding the signature pen (methaphorically speaking).

6. Bribed domestic and international sports governing bodies to hide positive tests, to give him advance warnings about "surprise" doping tests and to get public support for any negative insinuations about him.

7. Sued anyone and everyone at the first sign of someone daring to speak against him. Intimidated, threatened others.

8. Founded a cancer charity to give his illicit activities moral and political cover, yet contributed nothing except his own image and name to the good cause. The principal function of the charity is about "awareness" - or shall we say "Lance Armstrong does good for cancer" awareness, making him more marketable to his commercial sponsors.

9. Kept making money on the side, requiring charity event organizers to enrich both his own pocketbook with speaker and appearance fees in addition to donating to the foundation. Livestrong.org, Livestrong.com - which one's which?

10. Quite likely caused his own cancer by taking PEDs, yet restocked the first moment he was cured. Responsible athlete: "PEDs may cause cancer". Lance's version: "It's not about the bike - I ride to help cure the world of cancer".

Can you think of anyone else with the same level of deceit, fraud and public manipulation? Barry Bonds - no. Marion Jones - no. Tyler Hamilton - no. This case is unique, and will make a terrific story for a bestseller book one day. You plan to buy that one too? To support the cause so to speak?

I imagine your point being that money is the root of all evils?
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Visit site
flicker said:
I imagine your point being that money is the root of all evils?

I doubt it started with money. Wanting to win, to get respect, to beat the rivals. The root has to be traced to whenever and however Lance decided to try his first dope. It could have been to cover up for a flu, an injury or a bad training period to perform at his usual level. Or simply a way to win big earlier, before all the years of hard riding normally required. He was a pro athlete at a very young age.

But once you dabble into the dope, it's totally addictive, like other drugs. You can't perform the same without it. Winning meant bigger money. More money permitted more / better dope - and the ability to start influencing your own protection network. Lawyers, team managers, doctors, officials. The first slip (positive doping test) gets covered with a lie or a mild form of fraud. Now there's no coming back.

The comparison is not far off from Bernie Madoff. His fraud started probably to cover a bad investment bet - to keep his winning record clean. Once you do something wrong, illegal, and you see that you can keep covering for it - that becomes the mode of operanda. The lie grows and grows - until it becomes just too large to completely cover up. Too many people know. Too many signs that something's not right.

That's when things blow up. Madoff got unlucky with the 2008 financial crisis - too many people wanted to withdraw and he was not able to cover that with new investors. Lance's undoing will be Landis' revelations, it was the final spark, but there was already lots of smoke there - the lies extend well past 15 years.
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
Visit site
Tubeless said:
What a difference three months of press coverage rehashing "old news" can make. Now even the long term supporters are no longer trying deny the fact that Lance is a doper. The new defense is that he's just another doper. But ask yourself how many other pro athletes (any sport) have accomplished the following:

1. Used a sponsor's money to forcefully deny in a TV commercial that he did not dope. "What am I on?"

2. Used images of sick cancer patients in another TV commercial, paid for by a commercial sponsor, to shame those who dare to think he's a doper.


Good post, but I might take issue with #1 and 2. That was Nike all the way, and for the sole purpose of putting more money in Nike's pockets. Along with the ad firm, they conceived of and produced some very slick, well produced commercials. Yes, they were complete lies, but Lance was just "the talent."
 
Tubeless said:
What a difference three months of press coverage rehashing "old news" can make. Now even the long term supporters are no longer trying deny the fact that Lance is a doper. The new defense is that he's just another doper. But ask yourself how many other pro athletes (any sport) have accomplished the following:

(Long list of Lance's dickish behaviour.)

flicker said:
Yes all that is true, but Lance is an American and a winner and he makes me feel good about myself, so I luv him unconditionally.

:rolleyes:OK maybe he didn't say it in so many words.
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Visit site
Kennf1 said:
Good post, but I might take issue with #1 and 2. That was Nike all the way, and for the sole purpose of putting more money in Nike's pockets. Along with the ad firm, they conceived of and produced some very slick, well produced commercials. Yes, they were complete lies, but Lance was just "the talent."

My point is that this was an unprecedented way to manipulate the public opinion. Lance was paid to do those commercials and surely was not asked, influenced or directed by Nike to lie - Nike likely covered their butte by getting Lance to sign something to that effect. The fact that Nike provided the money to do the ads for their own selfish reasons does not lessen the public fraud perpertrated by Mr Armstrong.

From Lance's perspective how convenient, even fortuitous that he had a shameless sponsor to help pay for his own anti-doping defense. Not far from the cancer foundation doing the same for him in a slightly different dimension. In the latter case Lance simply had to start his own foundation as his search for someone like Nike in the charity circles came up empty.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Visit site
I think the reason that many here are POed are because they/we bought into a lie. Mistakes happen: like life, we make mistakes and learn from them and move on. I am curious how the corporations, Livestrong, and Lance Armstrong move on at the end of the day.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Visit site
flicker said:
I think the reason that many here are POed are because they/we bought into a lie. Mistakes happen: like life, we make mistakes and learn from them and move on. I am curious how the corporations, Livestrong, and Lance Armstrong move on at the end of the day.


Yeh, I can see that line of defense . Lance " I made a mistake tranfusing blood and taking EPO"...

DEA " How long before you realised your "mistake"

Lance ...."Oh..several years and 7tdf wins ..and many doses later":rolleyes:
 
For people who ask, "Who Cares?" Well, CSA care. They lost $5 million dollars and had to pay almost 50% of the original agreed-upon fee towards legal expenses, for a total of $7.5 million.

All because of people like McIlvain, who apparently lied under oath. She may have lied to protect her job, but her lack of scruples is probably going to come back and bite her, as well it should.

Think these guys aren't going to attempt to recoup that money? I very much think so.
 
Jun 16, 2010
182
0
0
Visit site
Berzin said:
For people who ask, "Who Cares?" Well, CSA care. They lost $5 million dollars and had to pay almost 50% of the original agreed-upon fee towards legal expenses, for a total of $7.5 million.

I don't think that's the way it went down. My understanding was that there was nothing in the contract with regards to doping or cheating. The only thing that mattered was if he was awarded the win by ASO, which he was.

Will they revoke the win now, if it is proven that he doped? Doubtful. Although not as bad as the late '90s when the entire peloton was doping, I think at least the top twenty were doping. So who in the heck would they give the win to? I don't think they have any choice but to give it to Lance, but just put an asterisk by his name.

What do you think they should do? Who do you think was riding clean when Lance won?

Actually now that I think about it, if ASO had any balls, they would nullify the results for every single year when a doper won. But they already had a precedent when Riis admitted doping. First they retracted his win, and then they gave it back. Not a good precedent.
 
Oct 29, 2009
433
0
0
Visit site
flicker said:
I think the reason that many here are POed are because they/we bought into a lie. Mistakes happen: like life, we make mistakes and learn from them and move on. I am curious how the corporations, Livestrong, and Lance Armstrong move on at the end of the day.

Fred's new job title: Mitigation and revisionism consultant. Area of speciality: Apologisms.

Move on? Real Hallmark sentiment, that. Lance will get his groove back after he does some time and loses massive face.
 

TRENDING THREADS